Alimajen v. Valera
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Quirico Alimajen was charged with qualified theft in the Justice of the Peace Court of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, for an alleged amount of P183.30. The Chief of Police filed the complaint, and Alimajen was arrested and subsequently released on bail. 2. Procedural History: After his arrest and release on bail, Alimajen filed a motion in the Justice of the Peace Court to waive his right to a preliminary investigation and to have the case certified to the Court of First Instance. The Justice of the Peace denied this motion, asserting original jurisdiction. Alimajen's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. He then filed a petition for a writ of preliminary injunction and prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, which was dismissed for lack of merit. This dismissal is the subject of the current appeal. 3. The Petition: The appellant, Quirico Alimajen, is appealing the dismissal of his petition for injunctive and prohibitory relief. He contends that the Justice of the Peace Court erred in refusing to forward the criminal case to the Court of First Instance, arguing that the lower court had already acquired original jurisdiction. The core of the appeal revolves around whether the Justice of the Peace Court, having acquired jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, could be compelled to transfer the case, despite the appellant's attempt to waive preliminary investigation and seek trial in a higher court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Justice of the Peace Court erred in refusing to forward the criminal case to the Court of First Instance on the basis that it had already acquired original jurisdiction. Whether the choice of court, where concurrent jurisdiction exists, is a matter of procedure or jurisdiction.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed, and the case is remanded to the Justice of the Peace Court for trial on the merits. Costs are against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Justice of the Peace Court erred in refusing to forward the criminal case: The answer is in the negative. The rule is that when two or more courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the first to validly acquire it takes it to the exclusion of the other or the rest. The Justice of the Peace Court acquired jurisdiction when the complaint was filed by the Chief of Police and the accused was placed under its authority and control through arrest and subsequent release on bail. The court had already set the case for hearing, indicating it intended to try the case on the merits, not merely for preliminary investigation. The waiver of the right to preliminary investigation by the appellant does not alter the fact that the complaint was filed with the intention of trying the case on the merits in that court. On the issue of whether the choice of court is a matter of procedure or jurisdiction: While the choice of the court where to bring an action, where there are two or more courts having concurrent jurisdiction, is a matter of procedure, the moment such choice has been exercised, the matter becomes jurisdictional. This choice is deemed made when the proper complaint or information is filed with the court having jurisdiction over the crime, and said court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. From that time, the right and power of the court to try the accused attaches. It is not for the defendant to exercise this choice, but for those who may validly file or subscribe to the complaint or information.
Main Doctrine
When two or more courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the first to validly acquire it takes it to the exclusion of the others. The acquisition of jurisdiction is established when the proper complaint or information is filed and the court gains control over the person of the defendant.