Castandielo v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An information for estafa involving P46,300.00 was filed with the Municipal Court of Marikina, Rizal, by an Assistant Provincial Fiscal. The fiscal certified that a preliminary investigation had been conducted, but the certification did not state that the accused was given a chance to appear. Procedural History: The municipal judge took cognizance of the case, issued a warrant for the arrest of the accused (appellant), and subsequently issued a writ of preliminary attachment against the appellant's properties upon motion of the complainant. The appellant objected to the writ, questioning the municipal court's jurisdiction to issue it during a preliminary investigation of a case beyond its original jurisdiction. The appellant waived his right to the second stage of the preliminary investigation, and the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Rizal. In the Court of First Instance, the appellant filed a motion to lift the writ of attachment, which was granted upon the filing of a counter-bond. Subsequently, the Court of First Instance dismissed the appellant's petition for certiorari, sustaining the municipal judge's jurisdiction to issue the writ and holding that certiorari was not the proper remedy. The Petition: The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance, assigning errors concerning the municipal judge's power to issue a writ of preliminary attachment during a preliminary investigation, the availability of an adequate remedy from the Court of First Instance, and the denial of his petition for certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the Municipal Court of Marikina has the power to entertain and grant a petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment as an incident of its power to conduct a preliminary investigation. Whether the petitioner had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy from the Court of First Instance of Rizal from December 8, 1965, when the records of the criminal case were received by said court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, holding that the petition for certiorari was correctly denied. The Court ruled that the petitioner had another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by raising the issue of the writ of attachment's legality before the Court of First Instance upon the elevation of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found it unnecessary to definitively rule on the municipal judge's power to issue a writ of preliminary attachment during a preliminary investigation, as the case could be resolved on procedural grounds. However, the Court suggested that if such a writ could be issued by an inferior court, the power to pass upon its legality would necessarily be lodged with the Court of First Instance upon the elevation of the case. The Court noted that the proceedings in the Court of First Instance after a preliminary investigation constitute a continuation of the criminal action started in the inferior court, implying that the higher court would have jurisdiction over incidents related to the case, including writs issued by the lower court. The Court's focus was on the availability of a remedy rather than the municipal judge's inherent power to issue the writ in the first place. On Issue 2: The Court held that the trial court did not err in finding that the petitioner had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy from the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The Court reasoned that upon the elevation of the records of the criminal case to the Court of First Instance, the municipal court's authority over the case ended, and the Court of First Instance acquired jurisdiction. Therefore, any question regarding the propriety or legality of the writ of preliminary attachment issued by the municipal court could and should have been raised before the Court of First Instance. The fact that the Court of First Instance eventually lifted the writ upon the petitioner's motion, albeit upon filing a counter-bond, demonstrated that such a remedy was indeed available and partially successful.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a petition for certiorari, holding that it was not the proper remedy because the petitioner had another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available. The Court reasoned that the Court of First Instance, upon the elevation of the case after a preliminary investigation, could properly pass upon the legality of a writ of preliminary attachment issued by the municipal court, as the proceedings in the higher court are a continuation of the action initiated in the inferior court. Therefore, the petitioner should have raised the issue of the attachment's validity before the Court of First Instance.