Title
Ancheta vs. Daquigan
Case
G.R. No. L-47305
Decision Date
Mar 16, 1987
A theft case involving stolen properties worth P9,880.00 led to jurisdictional disputes between Municipal and Court of First Instance, with the Supreme Court affirming Municipal Court's retained jurisdiction and remand for trial.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47305)

Facts:

Background of the Case

  • A criminal complaint for theft was filed with the Municipal Court of San Fernando, La Union, against Hank Schwartz, Gertrudes Schwartz, and six (6) John Does. The complainant was Virginia B. Ancheta, the owner of stolen personal properties worth P9,880.00. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 11244.

Preliminary Investigation and Arrest Warrant

  • The Municipal Court conducted a preliminary investigation and issued a warrant of arrest against Hank Schwartz and Gertrudes Schwartz. The six John Does were not identified by the prosecution witnesses.

Waiver of Second Stage of Preliminary Investigation

  • Counsel for the two identified accused (Hank Schwartz and Gertrudes Schwartz) filed a written waiver of the second stage of preliminary investigation. Consequently, the Municipal Court forwarded the case to the Court of First Instance of La Union for trial on the merits, where it was docketed as Criminal Case No. 534.

Petitioner’s Request for Amendment of Information

  • On October 18, 1976, Virginia B. Ancheta wrote to the Provincial Fiscal, providing the names of the John Does and requesting an investigation of her witnesses to amend the information. The Provincial Fiscal issued an order for the preliminary investigation of the seven accused (previously John Does).

Surrender of the Accused and Municipal Court’s Orders

  • While the Fiscal’s Office was conducting its preliminary investigation, the seven accused voluntarily surrendered to the Municipal Judge. The Municipal Judge issued an order setting the case for the second stage of preliminary investigation for the surrendered accused. Petitioner questioned this order.

Amendment of the Complaint

  • The Municipal Judge directed the Station Commander to amend the original complaint to include the names of the seven accused. The amended complaint was filed accordingly.

Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus

  • Virginia B. Ancheta filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with the Court of First Instance of La Union, seeking to nullify the Municipal Court’s orders and the amended complaint. The Court of First Instance granted a writ of preliminary injunction, halting the preliminary investigation.

Court of First Instance’s Decision

  • The Court of First Instance dismissed the petition, dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction, and ordered the remand of Criminal Case No. 534 to the Municipal Court for trial on the merits. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Jurisdiction of the Municipal Court: Under Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, and Article 309(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the Municipal Court and the Court of First Instance have concurrent jurisdiction over the case. However, the Municipal Court, having first acquired jurisdiction, retains it to the exclusion of the Court of First Instance.
  2. Preliminary Investigation: The accused in an offense falling within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Municipal Court and the Court of First Instance is not entitled to a preliminary investigation. The trial on the merits takes the place of the preliminary investigation, avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort.
  3. Remand to Municipal Court: The Court of First Instance correctly remanded the case to the Municipal Court for trial on the merits, as the Municipal Court had already acquired jurisdiction over the case upon the filing of the complaint. The mere transmittal of records to the Court of First Instance without filing an information does not vest jurisdiction in the latter court.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.