This is an original petition for mandamus instituted by the petitioner J. S. Rustia against C. M. Villareal and Sotero Rodas, Judges of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Seventh Judicial  District, praying that said respondent judges be ordered to  immediately forward to this court the record of the proceedings and the evidence in criminal case No. 6717  of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, entitled "The People of the Philippine  Islands vs. Buenaventura Ocampo", by virtue of the appeal taken by  said petitioner J. S. Rustia; that upon receipt thereof, the orders denying the appeal and the motions for reconsideration of October 23, and December 28, 1935, respectively, be reviewed and annulled; and that said appeal be allowed in accordance with law until the final determination thereof, with costs to the respondent Buenaventura Ocampo.

The pertinent facts necessary for the  determination of the question raised in this petition are as follows:

On September 30, 1935, the herein petitioner, as offended party, filed a  sworn criminal  complaint for dereliction of duty (prevaricacion) against the respondent Buenaventura Ocampo, docketed as criminal case  No. 6717 in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, copy of which is made an integral part of the petition and marked Exhibit A,

On October 7, 1935, the respondent Judge C.  M. Villareal, having been designated to receive the preliminary evidence in support of the petitioner's complaint, prior to the issuance of the  warrant for the arrest of the accused in conformity with section 13 of  General Orders, No. 58,  proceeded in open court to receive said evidence, oral and documentary, and an affidavit of the clerk of this court, Vicente Albert.

On October 15, 1935, said respondent judge, as investigator, entered a resolution to  the effect that "the warrant of arrest is denied and the complaint dismissed", of which the herein petitioner was notified on the 17th of said month and  year, and copy of  which is attached to this petition and marked Exhibit B.

On said date, October 17, 1935, the petitioner excepted to the resolution in question  and filed  an application for an appeal.  Said respondent Judge C. M. Villareal, in his order of October 23, 1935, denied the appeal interposed by the offended-petitioner and refused to  forward the  record of the proceedings to this  court.

For the purposes of this petition, the petitioner,  on October 26, 1935,  filed  a motion for reconsideration  of the order  denying the appeal, which  motion was denied by the other respondent Judge Sotero Rodas to which denial the petitioner excepted on the  30th of the said month and year.

The only question to be decided in this petition is whether or not appeal lies  from the resolution of the respondent Judge C.  M. Villareal refusing to issue the warrant of arrest and  dismissing the complaint filed by  the petitioner against Buenaventura Ocampo.

The English text of section 13 of General  Orders, No. 58 is as follows:

"SEC. 13. When  a complaint  or  information  alleging the commission  of  a crime is laid before a magistrate, he must examine, on  oath, the informant or prosecutor and the witnesses produced, and take their depositions in writing, causing them to  be subscribed by the parties making them.  If the magistrate be satisfied from the investigation that the crime complained of has been committed, and that there is reasonable ground to believe that the party charged has committed it, he must issue an order for his arrest.  If the offense be bailable, and the defendant offers a sufficient security, he shall be admitted to bail; otherwise he shall be committed to prison."

It will  be seen that the above quoted section  requires the justice of the peace, before  issuing a warrant  of arrest, to examine, on  oath, the complainant and  his  witnesses, taking  their  depositions in  writing and causing them to subscribe the same.  Said section  provides  no appeal from an order of the justice of the peace court denying the issuance of  a warrant of  arrest.  Appeal is provided for by section 14 of said  General Orders, No. 58 in  case the justice of the peace, after hearing the evidence presented at the preliminary investigation conducted  by him after the arrest of the accused, should declare that the  crime has not  been committed and should order the release of the accused.

In the case at bar, the  complaint was  not  filed in the justice of the peace  court but  in the Court of First Instance, under the provisions of section 37 of Act No.  1627, from whose decision, in preliminary investigations of crimes denounced  to it, no appeal to this court is provided.   The appeal provided for in said section 14 is from resolutions of justices  of the peace ordering the release of an accused after conducting the corresponding preliminary investigation, but not from resolutions of Courts of First Instance ordering said release.  Inasmuch as the  right to appeal is not inherent in every accused, but granted  by the constitution or by law, appeal does not lie  from a resolution of a Court of First Instance refusing to issue a warrant of arrest and  dismissing a complaint.

For the foregoing considerations, we are of  the opinion and so hold that appeal does not lie from a resolution of a judge of  a  Court of First Instance denying the issuance of a warrant of arrest and dismissing the complaint,  after having heard the  statements of the complainant and his witnesses, as  provided by section 13 of General  Orders, No. 58.

Wherefore, the petition for mandamus is denied and the same dismissed, with costs to the petitioner.   So ordered.

Avanceña,  C. J., Abad  Santos, Diaz, and  Laurel, JJ., concur.
Recto, J.: I concur  in the result.