G.R. No. L-23614 and L-23615 February 27, 1970.
PEDRO M. BERMEJO, petitioner-appellant, vs. ISIDRO BARRIOS, ET AL., respondents-appellees. JOVITA CARMORIN, petitioner-appellant, vs. ISIDRO BARRIOS, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

These are consolidated appeals from the joint decision of the Court of First Instance of Capiz dismissing two petitions for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction. In G.R. No. L-23614, petitioner Pedro M. Bermejo was charged in the Roxas City Court with falsification of a public document for allegedly conspiring to prepare and execute an amended petition for habeas corpus where a “Julia Doe” placed her thumbmark over the name “Jovita Carmorin,” making it appear Carmorin signed it. The City Fiscal certified a preliminary investigation was conducted. The City Judge issued a warrant for Bermejo’s arrest. Bermejo filed a motion to quash, arguing the habeas corpus petition was not a document under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code and that the warrant was illegally issued as the judge did not personally examine witnesses under oath as required by Republic Act 3828. The motion was denied. Bermejo then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the CFI.
In G.R. No. L-23615, petitioner Jovita Carmorin was charged in the same city court with perjury for allegedly swearing in an affidavit that she was the one who thumbmarked the amended habeas corpus petition when she knew she had not. The City Fiscal gave a similar certification. A warrant was issued. Carmorin, through counsel Bermejo, filed a motion to quash on similar grounds: lack of jurisdiction due to an improvidently issued warrant for failure to examine witnesses as required by R.A. 3828, and that no offense was committed as the CFI in the habeas corpus case had declared the thumbmark was Carmorin’s. The motion was denied. Carmorin also filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the CFI.
The respondents raised the affirmative defense that the CFI had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions for certiorari and prohibition because the city court issued its orders in the exercise of its concurrent jurisdiction with the CFI, citing Section 87 of the Judiciary Act as amended by R.A. 3828. The CFI initially declared it had jurisdiction but later rendered a decision dismissing both petitions. Petitioners appealed.

ISSUE

The primary issue resolved by the Supreme Court was whether the Court of First Instance of Capiz had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petitions for certiorari and prohibition filed against the orders of the Roxas City Court in criminal cases falling within their concurrent jurisdiction.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the CFI for having been rendered without jurisdiction and dismissed the appeals. The Court held that the CFI erred in taking cognizance of the two petitions. Under Section 6 of R.A. 3828, amending the Judiciary Act, city court judges have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance to try offenses where the penalty does not exceed prision correccional or six years imprisonment or a fine of P6,000. The crimes of falsification (charged against Bermejo) and perjury (charged against Carmorin) fall within this concurrent jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, interpreting this provision, ruled that where a city court has taken cognizance of a criminal case within its concurrent jurisdiction, its proceedings and decisions are appealable directly to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, and the Court of First Instance cannot interfere by certiorari or prohibition. The proper remedy for any irregularity in the issuance of the warrant was to move for quashal in the city court and, if denied, to appeal after trial. The Court further declared that the warrants of arrest and the informations filed were in accordance with law, as the City Fiscal’s certification that he conducted a preliminary investigation was sufficient for the City Judge to issue the warrant. The cases were remanded to the City Court of Roxas City for trial on the merits.