JOSE ARIVE SR., Y TORRE, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. THE HONORABLE VICENTE S. TUASON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF NAGA CITY, BR. I, RESPONDENT…

On September 29, 1958, the Chief of Police of Naga City sent a
letter to the City Attorney charging Jose Arive, Sr. with frustrated
murder. Thereupon the City Attorney questioned the witnesses named in
the letter aforesaid, and, having found that there was a prima facie
case against Arive, filed the corresponding information with the
Municipal Court of Naga, for preliminary investigation purposes
(Criminal Case No. 8463). After conducting the first stage of the
preliminary investigation and upon finding that the accused was
probably guilty of the offense charged said Court issued the necessary
warrant for Arive’s arrest. The latter was thereafter arrested but
immediately filed a bond for his provisional release.

On the date set for the second stage of the preliminary
investigation, Arive appeared and entered a plea of not guilty but,
instead of presenting exculpatory evidence or waiving the preliminary
investigation, he filed a motion to have the case remanded to the
Office of the City Attorney, claiming that it was the City Attorney of
Naga and not the Municipal Court of said City who had jurisdiction to
hold the preliminary investigation. The said Municipal Court denied the
motion. As a result, Arive filed the present petition for certiorari,
with a petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction,
with the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, to annul the
aforementioned order and to have the case remanded to the Office of the
City Attorney of Naga for preliminary investigation. On July 25, 1959,
the court rendered the appealed decision dismissing the petition. Hence
the present appeal.

The legal issue posed by appellant is whether it is the City
Attorney of Naga or the Municipal Court of said city who has
jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation of criminal offenses
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of said city and
cognizable by the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. It is his
contention that it is the former official, while appellee maintains
that it is the second.

Section 24, paragraph F of the Charter of the City of Naga (Republic
Act No. 305) provides the following in relation to the powers and
duties of the City Attorney:

(f) He shall investigate all charges of crimes,
misdemeanors, and violations of laws and city ordinances and prepare
the necessary informations or make the necessary complaints against the
person accused. He may conduct such investigations by taking oral
evidence of reputed witnesses and for this purpose may, by subpoena,
summon witnesses to appear and testify under oath before him, and the
attendance or evidence of an absent or recalcitrant witness may be
enforced by application to the Municipal Court or the Court of First
Instance.”

On the other hand, Section 77 of the same Act, after providing that
the Municipal Court of said City shall have the same jurisdiction in
civil and criminal cases and the same incidental powers as at present
conferred upon it by law, expressly provides that said Municipal Court
“may also conduct preliminary investigation for any offense, without
regard to the limits of punishment, and may release, or commit and bind
over any person charged with such offense to secure his appearance
before the proper court.”

Viewing the issue from the angle most favorable to appellant, it
appears clear that whatever jurisdiction to conduct preliminary
investigation in accordance with the Rules of Court has been granted to
the City Attorney of Naga by the charter of said city—which we do not
here decide because it is not necessary—such jurisdiction is merely concurrent with that granted expressly by the charter aforesaid to the Municipal Court.

Upon the other hand, it is undeniable that, in accordance with law,
the City Attorney may investigate all charges of crimes, misdemeanors
and violations of city ordinances committed within the territorial
limits of the City of Naga, to determine whether or not a crime has
actually been committed and whether or not the person or persons
charged are probably guilty thereof, with a view to filing the
corresponding information.

The undisputed facts of the present case show that the City Attorney
exercised, not his alleged jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary
investigation under the Rules of Court, but the authority mentioned in
the preceding paragraph, for it is not denied that, after questioning
the witnesses cited in the letter-complaint sent to him by the Chief of
Police of Naga City, he filed the corresponding information with the
Municipal Court for purposes of preliminary investigation. In point of
fact, said court started the proceedings and, after the first stage of
the preliminary investigation provided by law, issued the corresponding
warrant for the arrest of appellant Arive. We find, therefore, no error
of jurisdiction in the proceedings.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from being in accordance with law, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes J.B.L., Paredes, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.