Yap v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Yap purchased three parcels of land from Dumaguete Rural Bank, Inc. based on a Deed of Sale with Agreement to Mortgage. Yap obtained a Writ of Possession from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and subsequently took physical possession and harvested coconuts from the land. Private respondent Zosimo Dy, Sr. claimed ownership of the parcels and filed a qualified theft case against Yap and co-petitioner Vailoces before the Municipal Circuit Court (MCC) presided by respondent Judge Aurelio Lomeda. Procedural History: During the preliminary investigation before Judge Lomeda, Yap and Vailoces filed a Motion to Quash based on the Writ of Possession. Judge Lomeda denied the motion, found probable cause against Yap and Vailoces, and ordered their arrest. Yap and Vailoces were arrested and subsequently filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus and/or Certiorari and Prohibition before the RTC, which annulled Judge Lomeda's order and dismissed the case. Private respondent Dy appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which reversed the RTC, ordering the records to be forwarded to the Provincial Fiscal for the filing of an information if warranted. This Court initially dismissed petitioners' petition for review but later gave due course to their motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners sought review of the IAC's decision, questioning whether a warrant of arrest for qualified theft issued by a municipal judge could be annulled through certiorari granted by a regional trial court judge, especially when petitioners acted based on a writ of possession.
Issue(s)
Whether certiorari lies to annul a municipal judge's order finding probable cause and ordering arrest during a preliminary investigation. Whether a writ of possession issued by a regional trial court can be considered a valid title of ownership that would preclude a preliminary investigation for qualified theft. Whether petitioners had plain, speedy, and adequate remedies other than certiorari from the order of arrest.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that certiorari does not lie to annul the municipal judge's order finding probable cause and ordering the arrest of the petitioners. The Court ruled that the municipal judge had the jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation and that the petitioners had other adequate remedies available.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari: The Court held that certiorari does not lie to annul the municipal judge's order finding probable cause and ordering the arrest of the accused. It was well within the jurisdiction of the municipal judge to conduct the preliminary investigation to determine if probable cause exists. The issuance of the warrant of arrest was a consequence of the judge's finding of probable cause after conducting the preliminary investigation in accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and Presidential Decree No. 911. The Court emphasized that the judge cannot be faulted for abiding by the procedure dictated by law and jurisprudence at the time the complaint was brought before him. On the effect of the writ of possession: The Court disagreed with the petitioners' position that the writ of possession issued by another trial court served as a valid title of ownership that should have precluded the preliminary investigation. The Court reiterated that a certificate of sale of real property is merely a memorial of the sale and does not confer a right to possession or ownership. The effective conveyance is the deed of sale executed by the Sheriff after the expiration of the redemption period. Therefore, questions regarding petitioners' right to gather coconuts from the land remained unsettled and could only be resolved through a trial on the merits. The respondent judge was correct in not immediately dismissing the complaint. On the availability of other remedies: The Court found that the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioners before the RTC should not have been granted because they were not without plain, speedy, and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law. These remedies included posting bail for provisional release, asking the Provincial Fiscal for a reinvestigation, seeking a review by the Minister of Justice if unsatisfied with the fiscal's resolution, filing a motion to quash the information if the petition for review did not prosper, and appealing the judgment after trial on the merits if the motion to quash was denied. The Court cited Acharon vs. Purisima, holding that when a motion to quash is denied, the remedy is to go to trial, not certiorari.
Main Doctrine
Certiorari does not lie to annul a municipal judge's order finding probable cause and ordering arrest during a preliminary investigation, as the judge has jurisdiction to conduct such investigation, and the proper remedies are to post bail, seek reinvestigation, file a motion to quash, or appeal after trial on the merits.