Preliminary Investigation Cases

7/27/2019 Preliminary Investigation Cases

1/25

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-53373 June 30, 1987

MARIO FL. CRESPO, petitioner,vs.HON. LEODEGARIO L. MOGUL, Presiding Judge, CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT OF LUCENA CITY, 9th Judicial Dist., THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, represented by the SOLICITOR GENERAL, RICARDO BAUTISTA, ET AL., respondents.

GANCAYCO, J.:

The issue raised in this ease is whether the trial court acting on a motion to dismiss a criminal case filed by the Provincial Fiscal upon instructions of the Secretaryof Justice to whom the case was elevated for review, may refuse to grant the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial on the merits.

On April 18, 1977 Assistant Fiscal Proceso K. de Gala with the approval of the Provincial Fiscal filed an information for estafa against Mario Fl. Crespo in the CircuitCriminal Court of Lucena City which was docketed as Criminal Case No. CCCIX-52 (Quezon) '77.1 When the case was set for arraigment the accused filed amotion to defer arraignment on the ground that there was a pending petition for review filed with the Secretary of Justice of the resolution of the Office of theProvincial Fiscal for the filing of the information. In an order of August 1, 1977, the presiding judge, His Honor, Leodegario L. Mogul, denied the motion. 2Amotion for reconsideration of the order was denied in the order of August 5, 1977 but the arraignment was deferred to August 18, 1977 to afford nine for

petitioner to elevate the matter to the appellate court.

3

A petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a preliminary writ of injunction was filed by the accused in the Court of Appeals that was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 06978. 4 In an order of August 17, 1977 the Court of Appeals restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with the arraignment of the accused untilfurther orders of the Court. 5 In a comment that was filed by the Solicitor General he recommended that the petition be given due course. 6 On May 15, 1978 adecision was rendered by the Court of Appeals granting the writ and perpetually restraining the judge from enforcing his threat to compel the arraignment of theaccused in the case until the Department of Justice shall have finally resolved the petition for review. 7

On March 22, 1978 then Undersecretary of Justice, Hon.Catalino Macaraig, Jr., resolving the petition for review reversed the resolution of the Office of theProvincial Fiscal and directed the fiscal to move for immediate dismissal of the information filed against the accused. 8A motion to dismiss for insufficiency ofevidence was filed by the Provincial Fiscal dated April 10, 1978 with the trial court, 9 attaching thereto a copy of the letter of Undersecretary Macaraig, Jr. In anorder of August 2, 1978 the private prosecutor was given time to file an opposition thereto. 10 On November 24, 1978 the Judge denied the motion and set thearraigniment stating:

ORDER

For resolution is a motion to dismiss this rase filed by the procuting fiscal premised on insufficiency of evidence, as suggested by theUndersecretary of Justice, evident from Annex "A" of the motion wherein, among other things, the Fiscal is urged to move for dismissal forthe reason that the check involved having been issued for the payment of a pre-existing obligation the Hability of the drawer can only becivil and not criminal.

The motion's thrust being to induce this Court to resolve the innocence of the accused on evidence not before it but on that adduced beforethe Undersecretary of Justice, a matter that not only disregards the requirements of due process but also erodes the Court's independenceand integrity, the motion is considered as without merit and therefore hereby DENIED.

WHEREFORE, let the arraignment be, as it is hereby set for December 18, 1978 at 9:00 o'clock in the moming.

SO ORDERED. 11

The accused then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with petition for the issuance of preliminary writ of prohibition and/or temporary

restraining order in the Court of Appeals that was docketed as CA-G.R. No. SP-08777. 12 On January 23, 1979 a restraining order was issued by the Court ofAppeals against the threatened act of arraignment of the accused until further orders from the Court. 13 In a decision of October 25, 1979 the Court of Appealsdismissed the petition and lifted the restraining order of January 23, 1979. 14 A motion for reconsideration of said decision filed by the accused was denied in aresolution of February 19, 1980.15

Hence this petition for review of said decision was filed by accused whereby petitioner prays that said decision be reversed and set aside, respondent judge beperpetually enjoined from enforcing his threat to proceed with the arraignment and trial of petitioner in said criminal case, declaring the information filed not validand of no legal force and effect, ordering respondent Judge to dismiss the said case, and declaring the obligation of petitioner as purely civil. 16

In a resolution of May 19, 1980, the Second Division of this Court without giving due course to the petition required the respondents to comment to the petition,not to file a motiod to dismiss, within ten (10) days from notice. In the comment filed by the Solicitor General he recommends that the petition be given duecourse, it being meritorious. Private respondent through counsel filed his reply to the comment and a separate conunent to the petition asking that the petition bedismissed. In the resolution of February 5, 1981, the Second Division of this Court resolved to transfer this case to the Court En Banc. In the resolution ofFebruary 26, 1981, the CourtEn Bancresolved to give due course to the petition.


2/25

Petitioner and private respondent filed their respective briefs while the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation in lieu of br ief reiterating that the decision of therespondent Court of Appeals be reversed and that respondent Judge be ordered to dismiss the information.

It is a cardinal principle that an criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of thefiscal. 17 The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. He may or may not file the complaint or information, follow or notfonow that presented by the offended party, according to whether the evidence in his opinion, is sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused beyondreasonable doubt. 18 The reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecutionby private persons. 19 It cannot be controlled by the complainant. 20 Prosecuting officers under the power vested in them by law, not only have the authority butalso the duty of prosecuting persons who, according to the evidence received from the complainant, are shown to be guilty of a crime committed within the

jurisdiction of their office. 21They have equally the legal duty not to prosecute when after an investigation they become convinced that the evidence adduced isnot sufficient to establish a prima faciecase. 22

It is through the conduct of a preliminary investigation 23that the fiscal determines the existence of a puma facie case that would warrant the prosecution of acase. The Courts cannot interfere with the fiscal's discretion and control of the criminal prosecution. It is not prudent or even permissible for a Court to compel thefiscal to prosecute a proceeding originally initiated by him on an information, if he finds that the evidence relied upon by him is insufficient forconviction. 24 Neither has the Court any power to order the fiscal to prosecute or file an information within a certain period of time, since this would interfere withthe fiscal's discretion and control of criminal prosecutions. 25 Thus, a fiscal who asks for the dismissal of the case for insufficiency of evidence has authority to doso, and Courts that grant the same commit no error. 26The fiscal may re-investigate a case and subsequently move for the dismissal should the re-investigationshow either that the defendant is innocent or that his guilt may not be established beyond reasonable doubt. 27 In a clash of views between the judge who did noinvestigate and the fiscal who did, or between the fiscal and the offended party or the defendant, those of the Fiscal's should normally prevail. 28On the otherhand, neither an injunction, preliminary or final nor a writ of prohibition may be issued by the courts to restrain a criminal prosecution 29except in the extremecase where it is necessary for the Courts to do so for the orderly administration of justice or to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an op pressive andvindictive manner. 30

However, the action of the fiscal or prosecutor is not without any limitation or control. The same is subject to the approval of the provincial or city fiscal or thechief state prosecutor as the case maybe and it maybe elevated for review to the Secretary of Justice who has the power to affirm, modify or reverse the action oopinion of the fiscal. Consequently the Secretary of Justice may direct that a motion to dismiss the rase be filed in Court or otherwise, that an information be filedin Court. 31

The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case, which is the authority to hear anddetermine the case. 32 When after the filing of the complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the accusedeither voluntarily submited himself to the Court or was duly arrested, the Court thereby acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused. 33

The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of determining whether a prima faciecase exists warranting the prosecution of the accusedis terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. In turn, as above stated, the filing of said information sets in motion the criminal actionagainst the accused in Court. Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the case, at such stage, the permission of the Court must be secured.

After such reinvestigation the finding and recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted to the Court for appropriate action. 34While it is true that the fiscalhas the quasi judicialdiscretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court or not, once the case had already been brought to Courtwhatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in the rase thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the Court, 35 The only qualification isthat the action of the Court must not impair the substantial rights of the accused. 36or the right of the People to due process of law. 36a

Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation by the fiscal or a review by the Secretary of Justice whereby a motionto dismiss was submitted to the Court, the Court in the exercise of its discretion may grant the motion or deny it and require that the trial on the merits proceed

for the proper determination of the case.

However, one may ask, if the trial court refuses to grant the motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal upon the directive of the Secretary of Justice will there not be avacuum in the prosecution? A state prosecutor to handle the case cannot possibly be designated by the Secretary of Justice who does not believe that there is abasis for prosecution nor can the fiscal be expected to handle the prosecution of the case thereby defying the superior order of the Secretary of Justice.

The answer is simple. The role of the fiscal or prosecutor as We all know is to see that justice is done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of the personaccused before the Courts. Thus, in spite of his opinion to the contrary, it is the duty of the fiscal to proceed with the presentation of evidence of the prosecutionto the Court to enable the Court to arrive at its own independent judgment as to whether the accused should be convicted or acquitted. The fiscal should not shirkfrom the responsibility of appearing for the People of the Philippines even under such circumstances much less should he abandon the prosecution of the caseleaving it to the hands of a private prosecutor for then the entire proceedings will be null and void. 37 The least that the fiscal should do is to continue to appearfor the prosecution although he may turn over the presentation of the evidence to the private prosecutor but still under his direction and control. 38

The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction oracquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even

while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. Thedetermination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court whohas the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after areinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation.

In order therefor to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal may be disregarded by the trialcourt, the Secretary of Justice should, as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when thecomplaint or information has already been filed in Court. The matter should be left entirely for the determination of the Court.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ., concur. Teehankee, C.J., took no part.


3/25

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 158211. August 31, 2004]

ERNESTO J. SAN AGUSTIN,petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorarifiled by Ernesto J. San Agustin of the Decision[1]of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 71925 dismissing hispetition for certiorari.

The Antecedents

Luz Tan executed a notarized criminal complaint and filed the same with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) charging the petitioner, the BarangayChairman of Barangay La Huerta, Paraaque City, with serious illegal detention alleging that the petitioner detained her husband Vicente Tan, on June 19, 2002without lawful ground therefor.[2]

On June 25, 2002, the petitioner received a subpoenafrom Ferdinand M. Lavin, the Chief of the Anti-Organized Crime Division of the NBI, requiring him toappear before said office the next day, on June 26, 2002, in order to give his evidence in connection with said complaint and to bring with him the barangaylogbook for June 19, 2002. The petitioner complied with the subpoenaand presented himself at the NBI with the barangay logbook. However, the petitioner waplaced under arrest and prevented from going back home.

On June 27, 2002, the NBI Director transmitted to the Department of Justice the findings of the NBI on its investigation of the case:

On June 19, 2002 at around 9:00 oclock in the morning while Victim RICARDO TAN and Witness ANTONIO GERONIMO were selling their wares of kitchen utensilsalong the highway of La Huerta, Paraaque City, Victim TAN was mistaken as a snatcher by two tricycle drivers, namely, ROMEO C. ALCANTARA and JOSEFINOFERRER, JR. Victim was turned-over to Subject SAN AGUSTIN and other Subjects at the Barangay Hall of La Huerta, Paraaque City; witness GERONIMO followedthem. GERONIMO witnessed that Victim was beaten by Subjects and locked-up at the Barangay jail so he decided to inform the wife of the Victim (Complainant)who was residing in San Pedro, Laguna. When Complainant went to the Barangay Hall on the same day and inquired on the whereabouts of his husband, twofemale clerks thereat denied having seen the Victim. Complainant was able to talk to Subject SAN AGUSTIN the following day but he also denied having seen

Victim, worst Subject SAN AGUSTIN was furious and even shouted at them and brought out his knife. Up to date, Victim, never resurfaced nor his whereaboutslocated. Record at the NBI central file of Subject SAN AGUSTIN revealed that he has several cases of homicide, murder and multiple murder.[3]

The NBI Director stated that the basis for the arrest of the petitioner was:

BASIS OF ARREST:

Subject SAN AGUSTIN was subpoenaed to appear before the NBI-AOCD to controvert allegations filed against him for kidnapping by Ms. Luz Tan. He wasenjoined to come with his Counsel and bring the logbook of the Barangay. When Subject appeared at the NBI, he presented at once the logbook of theBarangay. It was noted at the said logbook that there was no entry on June 19, 2002 that Victim RICARDO TAN was arrested or transmitted to any lawenforcement agency or proper authority.[4]

State Prosecutor Elizabeth L. Berdal conducted an inquest investigation on June 27, 2002 and came out with a Resolution, on the same day, affirmed by theAssistant Chief State Prosecutor, finding probable cause against the petitioner for serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.[5]

On June 28, 2002, an Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City, charging the petitioner with kidnapping/serious illegadetention with no bail recommended. The case was raffled to Branch 258 of the court and docketed as Criminal Case No. 02-0759.

On July 1, 2002, the petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that he was illegally arrested and subjected to an inquesinvestigation; hence, he was deprived of his right to a preliminary investigation. He also prayed that he be released from detention and that, in the meantime, theNBI be ordered to refile the complaint against him with
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn1


4/25

the Office of the Paraaque City Prosecutor and for the latter to conduct a preliminary investigation. On July 4, 2002, the petitioner filed a Motion to Quash theInformation, this time, on the ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute the felony of kidnapping/serious illegal detention. He claimed that he waa barangaychairman when the private complainant was allegedly detained; hence, he should be charged only with arbitrary detention, the most severe penaltyfor which isreclusion temporal.

The prosecution opposed the petitioners motion to quash the Information on the ground that when he detained the private comp lainant, he acted in hisprivate capacity and not as a barangaychairman.[6]

On July 24, 2002, the RTC issued an Order directing the City Prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation within a non-extendible period of forty-five (45)days.[7]Assistant City Prosecutor Antonietta Pablo Medina was assigned to conduct the reinvestigation. The petitioner opposed the reinvestigation contendingthat the prosecutor should conduct a regular preliminary investigation since the inquest investigation was void. He refused to submit a counter-affidavit.

On July 31, 2002, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the July 24, 2002 Order of the RTC. He raised in his petition

the following issues:

1. Whether or not respondent Judge De Leon acted arbitrarily and in grave abuse of discretion in not granting petitioners Urgent Motion to Quash Informationdated 01 July 2002.

2. Whether or not respondent Judge De Leon acted arbitrarily and in grave abuse of discretion in not granting petitioners Urgent Motion to Quash On TheGround That The Facts Charged Do Not Constitute An Offense dated 04 July 2002.

3. Whether or not respondent Judge De Leon acted arbitrarily and in grave abuse of discretion in not granting bail as a matter of right in favor of the petitioner.

4. Whether or not respondent Judge Jose S. Jacinto, Jr. of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Paraaque, Branch 77, can validly and legally proceed with the hearingof Criminal Case No. 02-2486.[8]

In the meantime, on August 27, 2002, the Assistant City Prosecutor came out with a Resolution finding probable cause of arbitrary detention against the

petitioner and recommending that the Information for arbitrary detention and the Motion to Withdraw Information appended thereto be approved .[9]

The CityProsecutor opposed the said Resolution.

On August 28, 2002, the Assistant City Prosecutor filed with the trial court a Motion to Withdraw Information. [10]On August 30, 2002, the RTC issued anOrder granting the motion and considered the Information withdrawn.

On the same day, an Information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) docketed as Criminal Case No. 02-2486, charging the petitioner witharbitrary detention, viz:

That on or about the 19th day of June 2002 and subsequent thereto, in the City of Paraaque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, theabove-named accused, being a Barangay Chairman of Brgy. La Huerta, Paraaque City, a public officer, committing the offense in relation to office, did then andthere willfully, unlawfully and feloniously detain one RICARDO TAN, an act done as he well knew, arbitrary and without legal ground (sic).

CONTRARY TO LAW.[11]

The case was raffled to Branch 77 of the court. The petitioner posted a cash bond of P3,000.00 for his provisional release without prejudice to

the outcome of his petition in the Court of Appeals.[12]

On April 15, 2003, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision denying due course and dismissing the petition for certiorari of the petitioner.

The petitioner filed the petition at bar contending that:

4.1 THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WAS COMMITTED BY JUDGE RAUL E. DELEON WHEN HE DENIED PETITIONERS URGENT MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION DATED JULY 01, 2002.

4.2. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WAS COMMITTED BY JUDGE RAUL E. DELEON WHEN HE DENIED PETITIONERS URGENT MOTION TO QUASH ON THE GROUND THAT THE FACTS CHARGED DO NOT CONSTITUTEAN OFFENSE DATED 04 JULY 2002.

4.3. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WAS COMMITED BY JUDGE RAUL E. DELEON WHEN HE DENIED PETITIONER OF HIS CONSTITUTIONALLY-GUARANTEED RIGHT TO BAIL.

4.4. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OFPARAAQUE, BRANCH, (sic) CAN VALIDLY AND LEGALLY PROCEED WITH THE HEARINGS IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 02-2486.[13]

The petitioner asserts that he was illegally arrested by the NBI; hence, he was entitled to a regular preliminary investigation, not merely to an inquestinvestigation. He contends that since the Information charging him with kidnapping/serious illegal detention was filed before the Regional Trial Court withouaffording him a preliminary investigation, the Information is void. The RTC, the petitioner avers, should have granted his motion to quash the Information andordered the NBI to refile its complaint against him with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Paraaque for the appropriate preliminary investigation and that, in themeantime, the RTC should have ordered his release from detention. The petitioner posits that the RTC committed a grave abuse of its discretion amounting toexcess or lack of jurisdiction in denying his motion to quash the Information and directing the City Prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation. On the other handsince the Assistant City Prosecutor did not conduct a regular preliminary investigation before filing the Information for arbitrary detention against him with theMeTC, the Information is void. Hence, the MeTC should be ordered to quash the Information filed therein.

In its Comment to the petition, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that the petition for certiorari of the petitioner in the Court of Appeals andin this Court had become moot and academic by the withdrawal of the Information from the Regional Trial Court and filing of the Information for arbitrarydetention against the petitioner in the MTC. The inquest investigation conducted by the State Prosecutor was valid because the petitioner refused to execute awaiver under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. The OSG asserts that the investigation conducted by the Assistant City Prosecutor, as directed by the RTCwas valid. The petitioner is estopped from assailing the Resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor finding probable cause for arbitrary detention because of hifailure to submit his counter-affidavit.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn6


5/25

The Court of Appeals ruled that the petitioner was unlawfully arrested; hence, he was entitled to preliminary investigation and release from detentionsubject to his appearance during the preliminary investigation. However, the Court of Appeals declared that the lack of preliminary investigation did not impaithe validity of the Information filed with the RTC. Moreover, the Court of Appeals declared that the petitioner had already been granted a reinvestigation aftewhich the Information filed with the RTC was withdrawn. Consequently, the appellate court further declared that the petition had been mooted by the withdrawaof the Information from the RTC and the filing of another Information in the MeTC for arbitrary detention. The appellate court also held that the RTC did nocommit grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Order. It ruled that even if the reinvestigation conducted bythe City Prosecutor is defective, the Information filed with the MeTC is valid because under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, there is no need for apreliminary investigation for crimes cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Court.

The petition is partially granted.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that the petitioner was unlawfully arrested without a warrant of arrest against him for kidnapping/serious illegadetention. As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals:

Furthermore, warrantless arrest or the detention of petitioner in the instant case does not fall within the provision of Section 5, Rule 113, Revised Rules onCriminal Procedure, as amended, which provides:

Sec. 5.Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has been committed and he has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to bearrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail andshall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112.

considering that petitioner only went to the Office of the NBI to answer the subpoenait issued which was seven (7) days after the supposed turning over of thecustody of Ricardo Tan to petitioner who was then the Barangay Chairman of La Huerta, Paraaque City, and his locking up in the barangay jail and, thereafter,he was already arrested and detained. Certainly, the arresting officers were not present within the meaning of Section 5(a) at the time when the supposedvictim, Ricardo Tan, was turned over to petitioner. Neither could the arrest which was effected seven (7) days after the incident be seasonably regarded aswhen the turning over and locking up in the Barangay jail had in fact just been committed within the meaning of Section 5(b). Moreover, none of the arrestingofficers had any personal knowledge of facts indicating that petitioner was the person to whom the custody of the victim Ricardo Tan was turned over and wholocked up the latter in the Barangay jail. The information upon which the arresting officers acted upon had been derived from the statements made by thealleged eyewitnesses to the incident which information did not, however, constitute personal knowledge.[14]

Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to a preliminary investigation before an Information may be filed against him for said crime. The inquestinvestigation conducted by the State Prosecutor is void because under Rule 112, Section 7 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, an inquest investigation isproper only when the suspect is lawfully arrested without a warrant:

SEC. 7. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminaryinvestigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest investigation has been conductedin accordance with existing rules. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a peace officerdirectly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.[15]

We also agree with the Court of Appeals that the absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the jurisdiction of the trial court but merely theregularity of the proceedings. It does not impair the validity of the Information or otherwise render it defective.[16] Neither is it a ground to quash the Informationor nullify the order of arrest issued against him or justify the release of the accused from detention.[17] However, the trial court should suspend proceedings andorder a preliminary investigation[18]considering that the inquest investigation conducted by the State Prosecutor is null and void.[19]In sum, then, the RTCcommitted grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in ordering the City Prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation which is merely areview by the Prosecutor of his records and evidence instead of a preliminary investigation as provided for in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules onCriminal Procedure.

However, we do not agree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that there was no need for the City Prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigationsince the crime charged under the Information filed with the MeTC was arbitrary detention under Article 124, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code punishableby arresto mayorin its maximum period to prision correccionalin its minimum period, which has a range of four months and one day to two years and four

months. Whether or not there is a need for a preliminary investigation under Section 1 in relation to Section 9 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on CriminaProcedure depends upon the imposable penalty for the crime charged in the complaint filed with the City or Provincial Prosecutors Office and not upon theimposable penalty for the crime found to have been committed by the respondent after a preliminary investigation. In this case, the crime charged in thecomplaint of the NBI filed in the Department of Justice was kidnapping/serious illegal detention, the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetuato death.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Order of the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City, dated July 24, 2004ordering the City Prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation is SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court is directed to ORDER the City Prosecutor of Paraaque City toconduct a preliminary investigation as provided for in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. In the meantime, the Metropolitan TriaCourt of Paraaque City, Branch 77, is ordered to suspend the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 02-2486 pending the outcome of said preliminary investigation.

SO ORDERED.

Austria-Martinez, (Acting Chairman), Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.Puno, (Chairman), J., on official leave.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/aug2004/158211.htm#_ftn14


6/25

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 105965-70. March 20, 2001]

GEORGE UY, petitioner, vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, THE HON. OMBUDSMAN AND THE HON. ROGER C. BERBANO, SR., SPECIALPROSECUTION OFFICER III, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR,respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

PUNO, J.:

Before the Court is the Motion for Further Clarification filed by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto of the Court's ruling in its decision dated August 91999 and resolution dated February 22, 2000 that the prosecutory power of the Ombudsman extends only to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayanand that the Ombudsman has no authority to prosecute cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts.

The Court stated in its decision dated August 9, 1999:

In this connection, it is the prosecutor, not the Ombudsman, who has the authority to file the corresponding information/s against petitioner in theregional trial court. The Ombudsman exercises prosecutorial powers only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.

It explained in the resolution of February 22, 2000 that:

(t)he clear import of such pronouncement is to recognize the authority of the State and regular provincial and city prosecutors under the Department oJustice to have control over prosecution of cases falling within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. The investigation and prosecutorial powers of theOmbudsman relate to cases rightfully falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under Section 15 (1) of R.A. 6770 ("An Act Providing for theFunctional and Structural Organization of the Office of the Ombudsman, and for other purposes") which vests upon the Ombudsman"primaryjurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan" And this is further buttressed by Section 11 (4a) of R.A. 6770 which emphasizesthat the Office of the Special Prosecutor shall have the power to "conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdictionof the Sandiganbayan." Thus, repeated references to the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction clearly serve to limit the Ombudsman's and Special Prosecutor'sauthority to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.

Seeking clarification of the foregoing ruling, respondent Ombudsman raises the following points:

(1) The jurisdiction of the Honorable Sandiganbayan is not parallel to or equated with the broader jurisdiction of the Office of theOmbudsman;

(2) The phrase "primary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan" is not a delimitation ofits jurisdiction solely to Sandiganbayan cases; and

(3) The authority of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to prosecute cases before the Sandiganbayan cannot be confused with the broaderinvestigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Office of the Ombudsman.

Thus, the matter that needs to be discussed herein is the scope of the power of the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigation and thesubsequent prosecution of criminal offenses in the light of the provisions of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act [RA] 6770).

We held that the Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases involving publicofficers and employees, not only those within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but those within the jurisdiction of the regular courts as well.

The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute offenses committed by public officers and employees is founded in Section 15 andSection 11 of RA 6770. Section 15 vests the Ombudsman with the power to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of any public officer oemployee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient, thus:

Sec. 15.

Powers, Functions and Duties.--The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:

(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office oragency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable bythe Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, theinvestigation of such cases;

x x x

Section 11 grants the Office of the Special Prosecutor, an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman under the latters supervision and controlthe power to conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It states:

Sec. 11. Structural Organization.x x x


7/25

x x x

(3) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall be composed of the Special Prosecutor and his prosecution staff. The Office of the Special Prosecutor shabe an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman and shall be under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman.

(4) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall, under the supervision and control and upon authority of the Ombudsman, have the following powers:

(a) To conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan;

(b) To enter into plea bargaining agreements; and

(c) To perform such other duties assigned to it by the Ombudsman.

The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It pertains to any act or omission oany public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The law does not make adistinction between cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts. It has been held that the clause any illegal act oomission of any public official is broad enough to embrace any crime committed by a public officer or employee.[1]

The reference made by RA 6770 to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, particularly in Section 15 (1) giving the Ombudsman primaryjurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and Section 11 (4) granting the Special Prosecutor the power to conduct preliminaryinvestigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, should not be construed as confining the scope of theinvestigatory and prosecutory power of the Ombudsman to such cases.

Section 15 of RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The law defines such primaryjurisdiction as authorizing the Ombudsman "to take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the government, the investigation of such

cases." The grant of this authority does not necessarily imply the exclusion from its jurisdiction of cases involving public officers and employeescognizable by other courts. The exercise by the Ombudsman of his primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is not incompatiblewith the discharge of his duty to investigate and prosecute other offenses committed by public officers and employees. Indeed, it must be stressed thathe powers granted by the legislature to the Ombudsman are very broad and encompass all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasancecommitted by public officers and employees during their tenure of office.[2]

Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman should not be equated with the limited authority of the Special Prosecutor undeSection 11 of RA 6770. The Office of the Special Prosecutor is merely a component of the Office of the Ombudsman and may only act under thesupervision and control and upon authority of the Ombudsman.[3]Its power to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute is limited to criminacases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan . Certainly, the lawmakers did not intend to confine the investigatory and prosecutory poweof the Ombudsman to these types of cases. The Ombudsman is mandated by law to act on all complaints against officers and employees of thegovernment and to enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants .[4]To carry out this duty, the lawallows him to utilize the personnel of his office and/or designate any fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to act as specialinvestigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of certain cases. Those designated or deputized to assist him work under hissupervision and control.[5]The law likewise allows him to direct the Special Prosecutor to prosecute cases outside the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction inaccordance with Section 11 (4c) of RA 6770.

The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers and employees is one of the most important functions of the Ombudsman. In passingRA 6770, the Congress deliberately endowed the Ombudsman with such power to make him a more active and effective agent of the people in ensuringaccountability in public office.[6]A review of the development of our Ombudsman laws reveals this intent.

The concept of Ombudsman originated in Sweden in the early 19 th century, referring to an officer appointed by the legislature to handle thepeoples grievances against administrative and judicial actions. He was primarily tasked with receiving complaints from persons aggrieved byadministrative action or inaction, conducting investigation thereon, and making recommendations to the appropriate administrative agency based on hisfindings. He relied mainly on the power of persuasion and the high prestige of the office to effect his recommendations.[7]

In this jurisdiction, several Ombudsman-like agencies were established by past Presidents to serve as the peoples medium for airing grievancesand seeking redress against abuses and misconduct in the government. These offices were conceived with the view of raising the standard in publicservice and ensuring integrity and efficiency in the government. In May 1950, President Elpidio Quirino created the Integrity Board charged withreceiving complaints against public officials for acts of corruption, dereliction of duty and irregularity in office, and conducting a thorough investigationof these complaints. The Integrity Board was succeeded by several other agencies which performed basically the same functions of complaints-handlingand investigation. These were the Presidential Complaints and Action Commission under President Ramon Magsaysay, the Presidential Committee on

Administration Performance Efficiency under President Carlos Garcia, the Presidential Anti-Graft Committee under President Diosdado Macapagal, and

the Presidential Agency on Reform and Government Operations and the Office of the Citizens Counselor, both under President Ferdinand Marcos. It waobserved, however, that these agencies failed to realize their objective for they did not enjoy the political independence necessary for the effectiveperformance of their function as government critic. Furthermore, their powers extended to no more than fact-finding and recommending.[8]

Thus, in the advent of the 1973 Constitution, the members of the Constitutional Convention saw the need to constitutionalize the office of anOmbudsman, to give it political independence and adequate powers to enforce its recommendations .[9]The 1973 Constitution mandated the legislatureto create an office of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan. Its powers shall not be limited to receiving complaints and makingrecommendations, but shall also include the filing and prosecution of criminal, civil or administrative case before the appropriate body in case of failureof justice. Section 6, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution read:

Sec. 6. The Batasang Pambansa shall create an office of the Ombudsman, to be known as Tanodbayan, which shall receive and investigate complaintsrelative to public office, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, make appropriate recommendations, and in case of failureof justice as defined by law, file and prosecute the corresponding criminal, civil or administrative case before the proper court orbody.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn1


8/25

Implementing this constitutional provision, President Marcos, on June 11, 1978, exercising his power under Proclamation 1081, enactedPresidential Decree (PD) 1487 creating the Office of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan. Its principal task was to investigate, on complaintany administrative act[10]of any administrative agency[11]including any government-owned or controlled corporation.[12]The Tanodbayan also had theduty to file and prosecute the corresponding criminal, civil, or administrative case before the Sandiganbayan or the proper court or body if he hasreason to believe that any public official, employee, or other person has acted in a manner resulting in a failure of justice .[13]It should be notedhowever, that the prosecution of cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was to be done by the Tanodbayan through the SpecialProsecutor who, according to PD 1486,[14]had the exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigation, file information for and prosecute caseswithin the jurisdiction of said court. The Special Prosecutor was then under the control and supervision of the Secretary of Justice.[15]

Shortly after its enactment, PD 1487 was amended by PD 1607 which took effect on December 10, 1978. The amendatory law broadened theauthority of the Tanodbayan to investigate administrative acts of administrative agencies by authorizing it to conduct an investigation on its own motionor initiative, even without a complaint from any person.[16]The new law also expanded the prosecutory function of the Tanodbayan by creating the

Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor in the Office of the Tanodbayan and placing under his direction and control the Special Prosecutor who had theexclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan; to file informations therefor and to direct andcontrol the prosecution of said cases therein.[17]Thus, the law provided that if the Tanodbayan has reason to believe that any public official, employeeor other person has acted in a manner warranting criminal or disciplinary action or proceedings, he shall cause him to be investigated by the Office ofthe Chief Special Prosecutor who shall file and prosecute the corresponding criminal or administrative case before the Sandiganbayan or the propercourt or before the proper administrative agency.[18]

On July 18, 1979, PD 1630 was enacted further amending PD 1487 and PD 1607. PD 1630 reorganized the Office of the Tanodbayan andtransferred the powers previously vested in the Special Prosecutor to the Tanodbayan himself. Thus, the Tanodbayan was empowered to directlyconduct preliminary investigation, file information and prosecute cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and other courts. The amendmengave the Tanodbayan the exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan; to file informationtherefor and to direct and control the prosecution of said cases.[19]Section 10 of PD 1630 provided:

Sec. 10. Powers.--The Tanodbayan shall have the following powers:

(a) He may investigate, on complaint by any person or on his own motion or initiative, any administrative act whether amounting to anycriminal offense or not of any administrative agency including any government-owned or controlled corporation;

x x x

(e) If after preliminary investigation he finds a prima facie case, he may file the necessary information or complaint with the Sandiganbayanor any proper court or administrative agency and prosecute the same.

Section 18 further stated:

Sec. 18. Prosecution of Public Personnel or Other Person.--If the Tanodbayan has reason to believe that any public official, employee or otherperson has acted in a manner warranting criminal or disciplinary action or proceedings, he shall conduct the necessary investigation and shall file andprosecute the corresponding criminal or administrative case before the Sandiganbayan or the proper court or before the proper administrative agency.

With the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, a new Office of the Ombudsman was created. The present Ombudsman, as protector of the peopleis mandated to act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the government or any subdivision,agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and to notify the complainants of the action taken and theresult thereof.[20]He possesses the following powers, functions and duties:

1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency , when suchact or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient;

2. Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the Government, or any subdivision, agency orinstrumentality thereof, as well as of any government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and expediteany act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.

3. Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal,suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.

4. Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law, to furnish it with copiesof documents relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the disbursement or use of public funds orproperties, and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action.

5. Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, ifnecessary, pertinent records and documents.

6. Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence.

7. Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the Government and make recommendationsfor their elimination and the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency.

8. Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law.[21]

As a new Office of the Ombudsman was established, the then existing Tanodbayan became the Office of the Special Prosecutor which continued tofunction and exercise its powers as provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under the 1987 Constitution.[22]

The frameworks for the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor were laid down by President Corazon Aquino inExecutive Order (EO) 243 and EO 244, both passed on July 24, 1987.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn10


9/25

In September 1989, Congress passed RA 6770 providing for the functional and structural organization of the Office of the Ombudsman. As in theprevious laws on the Ombudsman, RA 6770 gave the present Ombudsman not only the duty to receive and relay the people's grievances, but also theduty to investigate and prosecute for and in their behalf, civil, criminal and administrative offenses committed by government officers and employees asembodied in Sections 15 and 11 of the law.

Clearly, the Philippine Ombudsman departs from the classical Ombudsman model whose function is merely to receive and process the people'scomplaints against corrupt and abusive government personnel. The Philippine Ombudsman, as protector of the people, is armed with the power toprosecute erring public officers and employees, giving him an active role in the enforcement of laws on anti-graft and corrupt practices and such otheoffenses that may be committed by such officers and employees. The legislature has vested him with broad powers to enable him to implement hiown actions. Recognizing the importance of this power, the Court cannot derogate the same by limiting it only to cases cognizable by theSandiganbayan. It is apparent from the history and the language of the present law that the legislature intended such power to apply not only to caseswithin the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but also those within the jurisdiction of regular courts. The Court observed in the case ofRepublic vsSandiganbayan:[23]

A perusal of the law originally creating the Office of the Ombudsman then (to be known as the Tanodbayan), and the amendatory laws issuedsubsequent thereto will show that, at its inception, the Office of the Ombudsman was already vested with the power to investigate and prosecute civiland criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan and even the regular courts.

x x x

Presidential Decree No. 1630 was the existing law governing the then Tanodbayan when Republic Act No. 6770 was enacted providing for the functionaand structural organization of the present Office of the Ombudsman. This later law retained in the Ombudsman the power of the former Tanodbayan toinvestigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when suchact or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. x x x.

Finally, it must be clarified that the authority of the Ombudsman to prosecute cases involving public officers and employees before the regular

courts does not conflict with the power of the regular prosecutors under the Department of Justice to control and direct the prosecution of all criminalactions under Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Rules of Court must be read in conjunction with RA 6770 which charged theOmbudsman with the duty to investigate and prosecute all illegal acts and omissions of public officers and employees. The Court held in the caseofSanchez vs. Demetriou[24]that the power of the Ombudsman under Section 15 (1) of RA 6770 is not an exclusive authority but rather a shared orconcurrent authority in respect of the offense charged. Thus, Administrative Order No. 8 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman provides:

The prosecution of case cognizable by the Sandiganbayan shall be under the direct exclusive control and supervision of the Office of theOmbudsman. In cases cognizable by regular Courts, the control and supervision by the Office of the Ombudsman is only in Ombudsman cases in thesense defined (therein).[25]The law recognizes a concurrence of jurisdiction between the Office of the Ombudsman and other investigative agencies ofgovernment in the prosecution of cases cognizable by regular courts.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court's ruling in its decision dated August 9, 1999 and its resolution dated February 20, 2000 that the Ombudsmanexercises prosecutorial powers only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.Kapunan, J., I concur in the result.Quisumbing, J., on leave.Pardo, J., I dissent. See attached.De Leon, Jr., J., I join the dissenting opinion of Justice B. P. Pardo.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70_pardo.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70_pardo.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/105965_70.htm#_edn23


10/25

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 101837 February 11, 1992

ROLITO GO y TAMBUNTING, petitioner,vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. BENJAMIN V. PELAYO, Presiding Judge, Branch 168, Regional Trial Court, NCJR Pasig, M.M., andPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FELICIANO, J.:

According to the findings of the San Juan Police in their Investigation Report, 1 on 2 July 1991, Eldon Maguan was driving his car along Wilson St., SanJuan, Metro Manila, heading towards P. Guevarra St. Petitioner entered Wilson St., where it is a one-way street and started travelling in the opposite or"wrong" direction. At the corner of Wilson and J. Abad Santos Sts., petitioner's and Maguan's cars nearly bumped each other. Petitioner alighted fromhis car, walked over and shot Maguan inside his car. Petitioner then boarded his car and left the scene. A security guard at a nearby restaurant was ableto take down petitioner's car plate number. The police arrived shortly thereafter at the scene of the shooting and there retr ieved an empty shell and one

round of live ammunition for a 9 mm caliber pistol. Verification at the Land Transportation Office showed that the car was registered to one Elsa AngGo.

The following day, the police returned to the scene of the shooting to find out where the suspect had come from; they were informed that petitionerhad dined at Cravings Bake Shop shortly before the shooting. The police obtained a facsimile or impression of the credit card used by petitioner fromthe cashier of the bake shop. The security guard of the bake shop was shown a picture of petitioner and he positively identified him as the same personwho had shot Maguan. Having established that the assailant was probably the petitioner, the police launched a manhunt for petitioner.

On 8 July 1991, petitioner presented himself before the San Juan Police Station to verify news reports that he was being hunted by the police; he wasaccompanied by two (2) lawyers. The police forthwith detained him. An eyewitness to the shooting, who was at the police station at that time, positivelyidentified petitioner as the gunman. That same day, the police promptly filed a complaint for frustrated homicide 2against petitioner with the Office ofthe Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio ("Prosecutor") informed petitioner, in the presence of hislawyers, that he could avail himself of his right to preliminary investigation but that he must first sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of theRevised Penal Code. Petitioner refused to execute any such waiver.

On 9 July 1991, while the complaint was still with the Prosecutor, and before an information could be filed in court, the victim, Eldon Maguan, died ofhis gunshot wound(s).

Accordingly, on 11 July 1991, the Prosecutor, instead of filing an information for frustrated homicide, filed an information for murder 3 before theRegional Trial Court. No bail was recommended. At the bottom of the information, the Prosecutor certified that no preliminary investigation had beenconducted because the accused did not execute and sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

In the afternoon of the same day, 11 July 1991, counsel for petitioner filed with the Prosecutor an omnibus motion for immediate release and properpreliminary investigation, 4alleging that the warrantless arrest of petitioner was unlawful and that no preliminary investigation had been conductedbefore the information was filed. Petitioner also prayed that he be released on recognizance or on bail. Provincial Prosecutor Mauro Castro, acting on theomnibus motion, wrote on the last page of the motion itself that he interposed no objection to petitioner being granted provisional liberty on a cashbond of P100,000.00.

On 12 July 1991, petitioner filed an urgent ex-partemotion for special raffle 5 in order to expedite action on the Prosecutor's bail recommendation. The

case was raffled to the sala of respondent Judge, who, on the same date, approved the cash bond6

posted by petitioner and ordered hisrelease. 7 Petitioner was in fact released that same day.

On 16 July 1991, the Prosecutor filed with the Regional Trial Court a motion for leave to conduct preliminary investigation 8 and prayed that in themeantime all proceedings in the court be suspended. He stated that petitioner had filed before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal anomnibus motion for immediate release and preliminary investigation, which motion had been granted by Provincial Prosecutor Mauro Castro, who alsoagreed to recommend cash bail of P100,000.00. The Prosecutor attached to the motion for leave a copy of petitioner's omnibus motion of 11 July 1991.

Also on 16 July 1991, the trial court issued an Order 9 granting leave to conduct preliminary investigation and cancelling the arraignment set for 15August 1991 until after the prosecution shall have concluded its preliminary investigation.

On 17 July 1991, however, respondent Judge motu proprioissued an Order, 10embodying the following: (1) the 12 July 1991 Order which granted bailwas recalled; petitioner was given 48 hours from receipt of the Order to surrender himself; (2) the 16 July 1991 Order which granted leave to the


11/25

prosecutor to conduct preliminary investigation was recalled and cancelled; (3) petitioner's omnibus motion for immediate release and preliminaryinvestigation dated 11 July 1991 was treated as a petition for bail and set for hearing on 23 July 1991.

On 19 July 1991, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamusbefore the Supreme Court assailing the 17 July 1991 Order,contending that the information was null and void because no preliminary investigation had been previously conducted, in violation of his right to dueprocess. Petitioner also moved for suspension of all proceedings in the case pending resolution by the Supreme Court of his petition; this motion was,however, denied by respondent Judge.

On 23 July 1991, petitioner surrendered to the police.

By a Resolution dated 24 July 1991, this Court remanded the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamusto the Court of Appeals.

On 16 August 1991, respondent Judge issued an order in open court setting the arraignment of petitioner on 23 August 1991.

On 19 August 1991, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion to restrain his arraignment.

On 23 August 1991, respondent judge issued a Commitment Order directing the Provincial Warden of Rizal to admit petitioner into his custody at theRizal Provincial Jail. On the same date, petitioner was arraigned. In view, however, of his refusal to enter a plea, the trial court entered for him a plea ofnot guilty. The Trial court then set the criminal case for continuous hearings on 19, 24 and 26 September; on 2, 3, 11 and 17 October; and on 7, 8, 14,15, 21 and 22 November 1991. 11

On 27 August 1991, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus12 in the Court of Appeals. He alleged that in view of public respondent's failure to joinissues in the petition for certiorariearlier filed by him, after the lapse of more than a month, thus prolonging his detention, he was entitled to bereleased on habeas corpus.

On 30 August 1991, the Court of Appeals issued the writ ofhabeas corpus.13 The petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, on the one hand,and the petition for habeas corpus, upon the other, were subsequently consolidated in the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals, on 2 September 1991, issued a resolution denying petitioner's motion to restrain his arraignment on the ground that that motionhad become moot and academic.

On 19 September 1991, trial of the criminal case commenced and the prosecution presented its first witness.

On 23 September 1991, the Court of Appeals rendered a consolidated decision 14 dismissing the two (2) petitions, on the following grounds:

a. Petitioner's warrantless arrest was valid because the offense for which he was arrested and charged had been "freshlycommitted." His identity had been established through investigation. At the time he showed up at the police station, there had beenan existing manhunt for him. During the confrontation at the San Juan Police Station, one witness positively identified petitioner as

the culprit.

b. Petitioner's act of posting bail constituted waiver of any irregularity attending his arrest. He waived his right to preliminaryinvestigation by not invoking it properly and seasonably under the Rules.

c. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it issued the 17 July 1991 Order because the trial court had the inherent powerto amend and control its processes so as to make them conformable to law and justice.

d. Since there was a valid information for murder against petitioner and a valid commitment order (issued by the trial judge afterpetitioner surrendered to the authorities whereby petitioner was given to the custody of the Provincial Warden), the petitionfor habeascorpuscould not be granted.

On 3 October 1991, the prosecution presented three (3) more witnesses at the trial. Counsel for petitioner also filed a "Withdrawal ofAppearance" 15 with the trial court, with petitioner's conformity.

On 4 October 1991, the present Petition for Review on Certiorariwas filed. On 14 October 1991, the Court issued a Resolution directing respondentJudge to hold in abeyance the hearing of the criminal case below until further orders from this Court.

In this Petition for Review, two (2) principal issues need to be addressed: first, whether or not a lawful warrantless arrest had been effected by the SanJuan Police in respect of petitioner Go; and second, whether petitioner had effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation. We consider theseissues seriatim.

In respect of the first issue, the Solicitor General argues that under the facts of the case, petitioner had been validly arrested without warrant. Sincepetitioner's identity as the gunman who had shot Eldon Maguan on 2 July 1991 had been sufficiently established by police work, petitioner was validlyarrested six (6) days later at the San Juan Police Station. The Solicitor General invokes Nazareno v. Station Commander, etc., et al., 16 one of the seven(7) cases consolidated with In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Roberto Umil, etc., v.Ramos, et al. 17 where a majority of the Courtupheld a warrantees arrest as valid although effected fourteen (14) days after the killing in connection with which Nazareno had been arrested.

Accordingly, in the view of the Solicitor General, the provisions of Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court were applicable and because petitioner had


12/25

declined to waive the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, the Prosecutor was legally justified in filing the information for murder evenwithout preliminary investigation.

On the other hand, petitioner argues that he was not lawfully arrested without warrant because he went to the police station six (6) days after theshooting which he had allegedly perpetrated. Thus, petitioner argues, the crime had not been "just committed" at the time that he was arrested.Moreover, none of the police officers who arrested him had been an eyewitness to the shooting of Maguan and accordingly none had the "personalknowledge" required for the lawfulness of a warrantees arrest. Since there had been no lawful warrantless arrest. Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules ofCourt which establishes the only exception to the right to preliminary investigation, could not apply in respect of petitioner.

The reliance of both petitioner and the Solicitor General upon Umil v. Ramosis, in the circumstances of this case, misplaced. In Umil v. Ramos, by aneight-to-six vote, the Court sustained the legality of the warrantless arrests of petitioners made from one (1) to fourteen days after the actualcommission of the offenses, upon the ground that such offenses constituted "continuing crimes." Those offenses were subversion, membership in anoutlawed organization like the New People's Army, etc. In the instant case, the offense for which petitioner was arrested was murder, an offense whichwas obviously commenced and completed at one definite location in time and space. No one had pretended that the fatal shooting of Maguan was a"continuing crime."

Secondly, we do not believe that the warrantees "arrest" or detention of petitioner in the instant case falls within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 ofthe 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides as follows:

Sec. 5Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to bearrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving finaljudgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement toanother.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to thenearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceed against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.

Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan. The "arresting" officers obviously were not present, within the meaning ofSection 5(a), at the time petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the "arrest" effected six (6) days after the shooting be reasonablyregarded as effected "when [the shooting had] in fact just been committed" within the meaning of Section 5(b). Moreover, none of the "arresting"officers had any "personal knowledge" of facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman who had shot Maguan. The information upon which the policeacted had been derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting one stated that petitioner was the gunman; another was ableto take down the alleged gunman's car's plate number which turned out to be registered in petitioner's wife's name. That information did not, however,

constitute "personal knowledge."18

It is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner within the meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113. It is clear too thatSection 7 of Rule 112, which provides:

Sec. 7 When accused lawfully arrested without warrant.When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant for an offensecognizable by the Regional Trial Courtthe complaint or information may be filed by the offended party, peace officer or fiscalwithout a preliminary investigation having been first conducted, on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officeor person

However, before the filing of such complaint or information, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation by a properofficerin accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, asamended, with the assistance of a lawyer and in case of non-availability of a lawyer, a responsible person of hischoice.Notwithstanding such waiver, he may apply for bailas provided in the corresponding rule and the investigation must beterminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.

If the case has been filed in court without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted, the accused maywithin five (5)days from the time he learns of the filing of the information, ask for a preliminary investigationwith the same right to adduceevidence in his favor in the manner prescribed in this Rule. (Emphasis supplied)

is also not applicable. Indeed, petitioner was not arrested at all. When he walked into San Juan Police Station, accompanied by two (2) lawyers, he infact placed himself at the disposal of the police authorities. He did not state that he was "surrendering" himself, in all probability to avoid the implicationhe was admitting that he had slain Eldon Maguan or that he was otherwise guilty of a crime. When the police filed a complaint for frustrated homicidewith the Prosecutor, the latter should have immediately scheduled a preliminary investigation to determine whether there was probable cause forcharging petitioner in court for the killing of Eldon Maguan. Instead, as noted earlier, the Prosecutor proceed under the erroneous supposition thatSection 7 of Rule 112 was applicable and required petitioner to waive the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code as a condition for carryingout a preliminary investigation. This was substantive error, for petitioner was entitled to a preliminary investigation and that right should have beenaccorded him without any conditions. Moreover, since petitioner had not been arrested, with or without a warrant, he was also entitled to be releasedforthwith subject only to his appearing at the preliminary investigation.


13/25

Turning to the second issue of whether or not petitioner had waived his right to preliminary investigation, we note that petitioner had from the verybeginning demanded that a preliminary investigation be conducted. As earlier pointed out, on the same day that the information for murder was filedwith the Regional Trial Court, petitioner filed with the Prosecutor an omnibus motion for immediate release and preliminary investigation. The SolicitorGeneral contends that that omnibus motion should have been filed with the trial court and not with the Prosecutor, and that the petitioner shouldaccordingly be held to have waived his right to preliminary investigation. We do not believe that waiver of petitioner's statutory right to preliminaryinvestigation may be predicated on such a slim basis. The preliminary investigation was to be conducted by the Prosecutor, not by the Regional TrialCourt. It is true that at the time of filing of petitioner's omnibus motion, the information for murder had already been filed with the Regional Trial Court:it is not clear from the record whether petitioner was aware of this fact at the time his omnibus motion was actually filed with the Prosecutor. In Crespov. Mogul, 19this Court held:

The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of determining whether a prima faciecase exists to warranting

the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. In turn, as above stated, thefiling of said information sets in motion the criminal action against the accused in Court. Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct areinvestigation of the case, at such stage, the permission of the Court must be secured. After such reinvestigation the finding andrecommendations of the fiscal should be submitted to the Court for appropriate action.While it is true that the fiscal has the quasi-

judicialdiscretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court or not, once the case had already beenbrought to Court whatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for theconsideration of the Court. The only qualification is that the action of the Court must not impair the substant

Preliminary Investigation Cases

Documents

Transcript of Preliminary Investigation Cases