G.R. Nos. 120681-83.

  October 1, 1999 petitioner’s incumbency as Mayor of II.         In GR No. 128136, whether the
Makati, then a municipality of Metro filing of information with the RTC
JEJOMAR C. BINAY, petitioner, vs. HON. Manila. Petitioner argued that the effectively  ousted  the Sandiganbayan of
SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the its jurisdiction over the case and estopped
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL cases filed against him. the respondents from filing an information
GOVERNMENT,respondents. before the latter; and whether the filing of
G.R. No. 128136 the information before the Sandiganbayan
Petitioner Mario Magsaysay is the Mayor constitutes double jeopardy.
G.R. No. 128136.  October 1, 1999 of the Municipality of San Pascual,
Batangas.  Save for petitioner Vicente dela RULING:
MARIO C. MAGSAYSAY, FRANCISCO B. Rosa, all of Mayor Magsaysay’s co- I.                   
CASTILLO, CRISTINA D. MABIOG, REGINO petitioners are officials of the same The court ruled that it is the
E. MALAPIT, ERLINDA I. MASANGCAY and municipality. Two complaints were raised Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction
VICENTE DE LA ROSA, petitioners, vs. HON. against petitioners for violation of Section over the subject cases. R.A. No. 7975
SANDIGANBAYAN, HON. OMBUDSMAN 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019 for (took effect on May 16, 1995) as amended
and its PROSECUTOR WENDELL BARERRAS- overpaying Vicente de la Rosa of TDR by RA. 8249 (took effect on February 8,
SULIT and STATE PROSECUTORS ERIC Construction for the landscaping project of 1997) specified that the exclusive original
the San Pascual Central School which jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over
HENRY JOSEPH F. MALLONGA and GIDEON
informations were filed before the RTC of cases involving violations of Republic Act
C. MENDOZA, respondents.
Batangas City. While another complaint on No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known
the same matter was eventually filed as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
FACTS: before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II,
moved to quash the Criminal Case filed Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal
G.R. Nos. 120681-83 before the Sandiganbayan on the grounds Code when the principal accused includes
The Office of the Ombudsman filed before that the same complaints has already been officials of the executive branch occupying
the Sandiganbayan three separate filed with the RTC. The proceedings of the positions of regional director and
informations against petitioner, Mayor both cases were suspended by the higher, otherwise classified as grade “27”
Jejomar Binay, one for violation of Article Sandiganbayan and the RTC pending and higher, of the Compensation and
220 of the Revised Penal Code (Illegal Use resolution of the Binay case as to the Position Classification Act of 1989
of Public Funds), and two for violation of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. (Republic Act No. 6758) with enumeration
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (giving undue as to officials specifically included. Even if
favor to private parties). The informations ISSUE/S:  the municipal mayor is not specifically
alleged that the acts constituting these I.            Whether the Sandiganbayan has included in the list and despite the fact
crimes were committed in 1987 during jurisdiction over the subject cases.     that the actual salary received is not
equivalent to grade 27, the court ruled and not by the consent or agreement of
that the classification of salary grades the parties. The court has previously ruled
should not be based on the actual amount that a filing of a complaint with one court The jurisdiction of a court to try a
of salary received but on the nature of the does not prevent the plaintiff from filing criminal case is determined by the law in
functions performed by the official the same with the competent court. This force at the time of the institution of the
concerned - the level of difficulty, does not amount to forum shopping since action. Once the court acquires
responsibilities, and qualification the only authority of the first court was to jurisdiction, it may not be ousted from the
requirements thereof -- relative to that of dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. By case by any subsequent events.
another position.  It is the official’s Grade estoppel, it means that the party estopped
that determines his or her salary, not the consistently invoked the jurisdiction of the
other way around. court and actively participated in the Facts:
proceedings, impugning such jurisdiction
In the Index of Occupational Services, only when faced with an adverse decision. An administrative case was filed by
Position Titles and Salary Grades prepared Also, the filing of another complaint with Nelson Ilisan before the National Police
by the DBM lists the municipal Mayor the Sandiganbayan does not also amount Commission in which Policemen
under Salary Grade 27. Petitioners, to double jeopardy because there can be Tumbagahan, De Los Santos, and Cajilo
therefore, fall within the jurisdiction of the no double jeopardy where the accused were charged with the killing of Ronie
Sandiganbayan. Section 444(d) of the Local entered a plea in a court that had no
Ilisan. A decision was made which found
Government Code also settles the matter jurisdiction. The remedy should have been
the police officers guilty of grave
as it provides that municipal mayor shall for the petitioner to move the quashal of
receive a minimum monthly compensation information for lack of jurisdiction. misconduct and ordered their dismissal
corresponding to Salary Grade twenty- from the service with prejudice.
seven (27) as prescribed under R.A. No. The consolidated petitions
6758. were DISMISSED.
Subsequently, the Assistant
Provincial Fiscal filed before the Regional
II.                 2. People v Cawaling
Trial Court of Odiongan, Romblon an
The court ruled that the Sandiganbayan Plaintiff: People of the Philippines
Accused: Ulysses M. Cawaling, Ernesto information for murder against the police
was not ousted of its jurisdiction even if officers and Mayor Cawaling. After due
the information was first filed in the RTC Tumbagahan, Ricardo De los Santos, and
Hilario Cajilo trial, the court rendered its decision
since the latter did not have jurisdiction in
Ponente: Panganiban finding the accused guilty beyond
the first place as provided in R.A. 7975.
Estoppel could not also be invoked reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
because jurisdiction is determined by law The killing was qualified to murder
Doctrine: because of the aggravating circumstances
of abuse of superior strength and is clearly intended to apply to actions jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which
treachery. The trial court ruled that there pending before its enactment. shall thereafter be exclusively taken
was a notorious inequality of forces cognisance of by the latter.
between the victim and his assailant, as
the latter were greater in number and The statutes pertinent to the issue
armed with guns. are PD1606, PD 1850 and BP 129, as In Sanchez vs. Demetriou the court
amended. Section 4 of PD 1606 provides held that public office is not the essence of
that the Sandiganbayan shall exercise murder. The taking of human life is either
Issue: exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases murder or homicide whether done by a
involving offenses or felonies committed private citizen or public servant, and the
WON the Sandiganbayan had
by public officers and employees in penalty is the same except when the
jurisdiction to try and hear the case
relation to their office, including those perpetrator, being a public functionary,
against the the accused, as they were
employed in government-owned or took advantage of his office in which event
public officers at the time of the killing
controlled corporations whether simple or the penalty is increased.
which was allegedly committed by reason
complexed with other crimes, where the
of or in relation to their office.
penalty prescribed by law is higher than
prison correccional or imprisonment for The use or abuse of office does not
six years or a fine of P6,000. However, adhere to the crime as an element, and
Held: Pres. Marcos issued presidential decrees even as an aggravating circumstance, its
The jurisdiction of a court to try a placing the members of the Integrated materiality arises, not from the allegations
criminal case is determined by the law in National Police under the jurisdiction of but on the proof, not from the fact that
force at the time of the institution of the courts-martial. the criminals are public officials but from
action. Once the court acquires the manner of the commission of the
jurisdiction, it may not be ousted from the crime. Furthermore, the information filed
case by any subsequent events, such as a The jurisdiction of regular courts against the accused contains no allegation
new legislation placing such proceedings over civil and criminal cases was laid down that they were public officers who
under the jurisdiction of another tribunal. in BP 129. Section 20 of which provides committed the crime in relation to the
The only recognised exceptions to the rule, that trial courts shall exercise exclusive office. In the absence of such essential
which find no application in the case at original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not allegation, and since the present case does
bar, arise when: (1) there is an express within the exclusive jurisdiction of any not involve charges of violation of the
provision in the statute, or (2) the statute court, tribunal or body, except those now Anti-Graft Act, the Sandiganbayan does
falling under the exclusive and concurrent
not have jurisdiction over the present a discovery that five cars had been Court. The Petitioner filed a motion for
case. sold and released by the Petitioner determination of probable cause before
without the dealer’s or the finance the said Court.
manager’s permission. The said audit
The RTC then issued an order
Jurisdiction is determined by the showed that the buyers of the cars
dismissing the complaint stating that
allegations in the complaint of made payments but Petitioner
the evidence adduced does not support
information. In the absence of any Mendoza failed to remit the payments.
a finding of probable cause for the
allegation that the offense was committed Respondent Juno Cars filed a complaint
offenses. Respondent Juno Cars then
in relation to the office of the accused or for qualified theft and estafa against
filed a petition for Certiorari with the
was necessarily connected with the Mendoza, alleging that the latter
Court of Appeals, arguing that the
discharge of their functions, the Regional pilfered an amount to its prejudice and
determination of probable cause and
Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan, has damage. Petitioner Mendoza in his
the decision whether or not to file a
jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. counter-affidavit argued Juno Cars’
criminal case in court right fully
supposed failure to prove ownership
belongs to the Public Prosecutor. The
over the five cars or its right to possess
appellate court reversed the RTC’s
3. ALFREDO MENDOZA V. PEOPLE them with the purported unremitted
ruling and reinstated the case. Its
OF THE PHILIPPINES and JUNO payments. Hence, it could not have
decision stated that the trial court
CARS, INC. suffered damage.
“acted without or in excess of its
Citation: G.R. No. 197293, April Provincial Prosecutor Rey F. jurisdiction in supplanting the public
21, 2014 Delgado issued a resolution finding prosecutor’s findings of probable cause
probable cause and recommending the with her own findings of insufficiency
Ponente: J. Marvic Mario Victor F. filing of information against Petitioner of evidence and lack of probable
Leonen Mendoza for qualified theft and estafa. cause.”
Upon denial of the motion for
Topic: Executive and Judicial Issue:
reconsideration, Mendoza filed a
Determination of Probable Cause
petition for review with the Whether or not the trial court
Facts: Department of Justice. erred in dismissing the
information filed by the
Juno Cars Inc. hired Petitioner While the MR was still pending
prosecutor on basis of its own
Alfredo C. Mendoza as a Trade-In/Used at the Office of the City Prosecutor,
independent finding of lack of
Car Supervisor. A partial audit two informations were filed against the
probable cause?
conducted by its dealer/operator led to Petitioner before the Regional Trial
Held: Petitioner and proceed with the trial. Dragon Corporation, and the
The Constitution prohibits the issuance Sandiganbayan People of the
No, the RTC may dismiss the
of search warrants or warrants of Philippines, respondents
information filed by a prosecutor upon
arrest where the judge has not
its own independent finding of lack of
personally determined the existence of G.R. No. 166038, December 4, 2007
probable cause.
probable cause. The phrase "upon
probable cause to be determined Facts:
personally by the judge after The case was a petition for certitiorari
In People v. Castillo, the examination under oath or affirmation
Supreme Court stated that there are under rule 65 of the rules of court and
of the complainant and the witnesses prohibition for the Resolution of the
two kinds of determination of probable he may produce" allows a
cause: executive and judicial. The Ombudsman in OMB L-C-03-0786-F
determination of probable cause by the
executive determination of probable which the office found probable cause
judge ex parte. For this reason, Section
cause is one made during preliminary on the petitioner violating the Anti-
6, paragraph (a) of Rule 112 of the
investigation. It is a function that Graft and Corruption Practices Act in
Rules on Criminal Procedure mandates
properly pertains to the public connection with the Ninoy Aquino
the judge to "immediately dismiss the
prosecutor who is given a broad case if the evidence on record fails to
International Airport International
discretion to determine whether establish probable cause." Passenger Terminal III Project (NAIA
probable cause exists and to charge IPT III Project) of the Department of
those whom he believes to have With the present laws and Transportation and Communication
committed the crime as defined by law jurisprudence on the matter, the RTC (DOTC).
and thus should be held for trial. The correctly dismissed the case against
judicial determination of probable the Petitioner. Thus, the appellate The petitioner was the Assistant
cause, on the other hand, is one made court’s decision was reversed and set Secretary of DOTC and member of the
by the judge to ascertain whether a aside. DOTC Pre-qualification, Bids and
warrant of arrest should be issued Awards Committee (PBAC) and DOTC
against the accused. Secretary in an officer-in-charge
4. Wilfredo M. Trinidad, petitioner vs capacity, in the criminal case no. 28089
While the information filed by
Office of the Ombudsman Thru the and criminal case no. 28093,
the prosecutor was valid, the RTC
Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo respectively.
Judge still had the discretion to make
her own findings of whether probable
and Deputy Ombudsman Victor
cause existed to order the arrest of the C. Fernandez, Asias Emerging
The petition was charged in violation of such issue determines whether or not G.R. No. 191618 • November 23, 2010
Section (3)j of the Anti-Graft and criminal action may proceed. • En Banc Decision • Justice Nachura
Corruption practices act on which the Accordingly a prejudicial question
petitioner act of knowing approving or arises in a case the resolution of which FACTS:
granting any license, permit, privilege is a logical antecedent to the issue
or benefit in favor of any person not involved in said case and the Atty. Macalintal filed an undesignated
qualified for or not legally entitled to cognizance of which pertains to another petition questions challenging the
such license, permit, privilege or tribunal. In other words, the jurisdiction constitution of the Presidential
advantage. to try and resolve the prejudicial Electoral Tribunal (PET) as an illegal
question is lodged in another court or and unauthorized progeny of Section
Thus, the petitioner contemplate their tribunal, hence in this case Office of the 4,2 Article VII of the Constitution.
argument Res Judicata and Double Ombudsman.
Jeopardy which reinvestigation of the Arguments of Macalintal: (1) The
same set of facts and circumstances are The Office of the Ombudsman is to creation of a “separate tribunal”
investigated by the Office of the correct to reinvestigate, since Anti- complemented by its own budget
Ombudsman. Graft and Corrupt practices act is not allocation, a seal, a set of personnel
mere civil nor criminal in nature, such and confidential employees, violates
Issue: action was based on the courts Section 4, Article VII of the
Whether or not there is a prejudicial discretionary power to stay Constitution; (2) The constitution of
question? proceedings. Therefor the suspension of the PET, with the designation of the
the action is on the discretion of the Members of the Court as Chairman
Whether or not court on this case the office of the and Members thereof, contravenes
Ombudsman without jeopardizing Res Section 12, Article VIII of the
Held: Judicia and Double Jeopardy. Constitution, which prohibits the
The Supreme Court emphasized that designation of Members of the
the essential elements of a prejudicial 5. ATTY. ROMULO B. Supreme Court and of other courts
question are as follows: a) the MACALINTAL, Petitioner, vs. established by law to any agency
previously instituted civil action PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL performing quasi-judicial or
involves an issue similar or intimately TRIBUNAL, Respondent administrative functions.
to the issue raise in the subsequent
criminal action, and b) the resolution of ISSUES:
(1) affirmed on numerous occasions. x x x Constitution draws a thin, but,
x nevertheless, distinct line between the
Whether or not the creation of PET, PET and the Supreme Court. x x x x
with its own budget allocation, a seal, a The PET, as a constitutional body, is
set of personnel and confidential independent of the three The Constitution which, in Section 17,
employees, violates Section 4, Article departments of government – Article VI, explicitly provides that three
VII of the Constitution; Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary – Supreme Court Justices shall sit in the
but not separate therefrom. Senate and House Electoral Tribunals,
(2) respectively, effectively exempts the
(2) Justices-Members thereof from the
prohibition in Section 12, Article VIII. In
Whether or not the PET performs
PET performs judicial functions. the same vein, it is the Constitution
judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
itself, in Section 4, Article VII, which
exempts the Members of the Court,
RULING: The set up embodied in the
constituting the PET, from the same
Constitution and statutes characterizes
prohibition.
(1) the resolution of electoral contests as
essentially an exercise of judicial
No. The PET is not a separate and power. x x x x
distinct entity from the Supreme
Court, albeit it has functions peculiar With the explicit provision, the present 6. GR no. 127107 October 12, 1998
only to the Tribunal. x x x x Constitution has allocated to the Peter Paul Dimatulac and Veronica
Dimatulac, petitioners vs. Hon.
Supreme Court, in conjunction with
Sensinando Villon, et. al.,
The conferment of full authority to the latter’s exercise of judicial power
respondents.
Supreme Court, as a PET, is equivalent inherent in all courts, the task of
to the full authority conferred upon deciding presidential and vice- (Facts: Picture)
the electoral tribunals of the Senate presidential election contests, with full
and the House of Representatives, i.e., authority in the exercise thereof. The Issues:
the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) and power wielded by PET is a derivative of Whether the Office of the Provincial
the House of Representatives Electoral the plenary judicial power allocated to Prosecutor committed grave abuse of
Tribunal (HRET), which we have courts of law, expressly provided in the discretion in reinvestigating
Constitution. On the whole, the
the case without having the once an information is filed. Judge Roura complaint of murder against Villanueva
respondents within the custody of acted with grave abuse of discretion for During the preliminary investigation both
the law and for filing the deferring the resolution to the motion for parties submitted their respective
information pending the appeal of the a hold departure order. Since the accused affidavits including the affidavits of their
resolution with the DOJ. were out on bail, the Motion should have witnesses Edna also includes the autopsy
Whether Hon. Villon acted with grave been granted since they could have easily reports of the Philippine National Police-
abuse of discretion in proceeding with the fled. Though he is not bound to the
Central Police District Crime Laboratory.
arraignment and for resolution of the DOJ, he should have
Villanueva also submitted the opinion of
denying the Motions to set aside the perused the documents submitted. The
arraignment. DOJ was also in grave abuse of its Dr. Valentin T. Bernales of the National
Whether the Secretary of Justice discretion for setting aside its order. In Bureau of Investigation Medico-Legal
committed grave abuse of discretion in doing so, it has relinquished its power of Division (NBI opinion) as to the cause of
reconsidering his order. control and supervision of the Public Renatos head injuries. Finding probable
Prosecutor. The state has been deprived of cause, the prosecutor filed criminal
Held: due process. Hence, the dismissal of the information for homicide against
case is null and void and double jeopardy Villanueva on October 3, 2006. Villanueva
Petition is GRANTED. cannot be invoked by the accused. file for a reconsideration. The prosecutor
Alfonso-Reyes was guilty of having acted
with grave abuse of discretion for denied the motion on March 22, 2007 and
conducting a reinvestigation despite the before arraignment, Villanueva filed a
7. Picture
fact that the Yabuts were still at large. petition for review before the Department
Though Sec. 5, Rule 112 states that the of Justice. The DOJ Secretary found the
8. Baron A. Villanueva and the Secretary
prosecutor is not bound by the findings of evidence against Villanueva insufficient to
v. Edna Caparas G.R. No. 190969 January
the judge who conducted the support a prima facie case and set aside
investigation, the resolution should be 30, 2013
the prosecutors resolution and direct the
based on the review of the record and FACTS: same for the withdrawal of the
evidence transmitted. Hence, she should information. Edna filed for certiorari. The
have sustained the recommendation since As the CA summarized in its decision, an CA reversed the decision of the DOJ
all the accused, except Yambao, failed to altercation occurred between Renato secretary for the reason that the Secretary
file their counter-affidavits. It is impossible Caparas, husband of respondent Edna R. exceeded the functional requirements of a
for Alfonso-Reyes to not have known the Caparas, and Villanueva in the morning of preliminary investigation in passing upon
appeal filed with the DOJ. The filing of an August 24, 2005, which altercation led to
appeal is provided in Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the validity of matters essentially
the death of Renato. On September 7, evidentiary in nature and there is a grave
the Rules of Court. There is nothing in the
2005 Edna Caparas filed a criminal abuse of discretion intervened when he
law which prohibits the filing of an appeal
passed upon the merits of Villanuevas In order to arrive at probable cause, the
defences. Villanueva filed a motion to elements of the crime charged, homicide Facts:
dismiss but was denied by the CA. in this case, should be present.
Police Senior Inspector Arnold M. Palomo
Jurisprudence laid out the elements of
ISSUE: Deputy Provincial Chief of the Nueva Ecija
homicide as: (1) a person was killed; (2)
Criminal Investigation and Detection
Whether or not the CA correctly ruled the accused killed him without any
Team, referred to the Provincial
that the Secretary exceeded the bounds of justifying circumstance; (3) the accused
Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City, Nueva
his jurisdiction when he reversed the had the intention to kill, which is
Ecija, three (3) cases of murder against
prosecutor‘s resolution finding probable presumed; and (4) the killing was not
petitioners and 15 other persons.
cause to indict Villanueva for homicide and attended by any of the qualifying
Inspector Palomo named 19 individuals,
ordered the withdrawal of it circumstances of murder, or by that of
including Petitioners, who were allegedly
parricide or infanticide which all of this is
HELD: responsible for the death of Carlito
present in Edna‘s autopsy report. When
Bayudang, Jimmy Peralta, and Danilo
We find the CA decision and resolution in the Secretary made a determination based
Felipe. That the named individuals
accord with law and jurisprudence in on his own appreciation of the pieces of
conspired, planned, and implemented the
finding that the Secretary acted with grave evidence for and against Villanueva, he
killing of the supporters of AKBAYAN Party
abuse of discretion when he reversed the effectively assumed the function of a trial
List. Carlito Bayudang and Danilo Felipe
prosecutor‘s resolution finding probable judge in the evaluation of the pieces of
were AKBAYAN community organizers,
cause to charge Villanueva with homicide. evidence and, thereby, acted outside his
whereas Jimmy Peralta was mistaken for a
jurisdiction. In sum, the CA did not commit
Probable cause, for purposes of filing certain Ricardo Peralta, an AKBAYAN
any reversible error when it nullified and
criminal information, pertains to facts and supporter. On July 18, 2008, Presiding
set aside the resolution rendered by the
circumstances sufficient to incite a well- Judge Evelyn A. Atienza-Turla issued an
Secretary with grave abuse of discretion.
founded belief that a crime has been Order37 on the Palayan cases. Judge Turla
Accordingly, the C A also did not err in
committed and the accused is probably held that the proper procedure in the
ordering the reinstatement of the
guilty thereof. Only such facts sufficient to conduct of the preliminary investigation
prosecutor's resolution of probable cause
support a prima facie case against the was not followed in the Palayan cases and
and its accompanying information
respondent are required, not absolute remanded the case back to the
certainty. Probable cause implies mere 9. MAZA v. HON. TURLA prosecutor’s office for another preliminary
probability of guilt, i.e., a finding based on Liza L. Maza, et al. Vs. Hon. Evelyn A. investigation. 
more than bare suspicion but less than Turla, et al.
G.R. No. 187094 Issue: 
evidence that would justify a conviction.
February 15, 2017
Whether or not the trial court judge erred court judge erred in remanding the case from detention pending the
in returning the case to the prosecutor in back to the prosecutor’s office for another investigation.
order to conduct a complete preliminary preliminary investigation.
investigation.  On October 27, 1997, the Court
issued a resolution holding that
Held:  petitioner was deprived of his right
10. LARRANAGA VS. CA
to preliminary investigation when
Yes, the trial court judge erred in returning
G.R. No. 130644 March 13, 1998 the City Prosecutor of Cebu insisted
the case to the prosecutor.  that he was only entitled to an
A plain reading of the provision shows that inquest investigation and to order
upon filing of the information, the trial FACTS: the immediate release of petitioner
pending his preliminary
court judge has the following options: (1)
Petitioner Francisco Juan Larranaga is investigation.
dismiss the case if the evidence on record
clearly fails to establish probable cause; (2) charged with two counts of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention ending The counsel for the prosecution filed a
issue a warrant of arrest or a commitment Motion for Reconsideration.
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
order if findings show probable cause; or
Branch 7, Cebu City. He is presently
(3) order the prosecutor to present
detained at the Bagong Buhay
additional evidence if there is doubt on Rehabilitation Center.
the existence of probable cause. Upon ISSUE:
filing of an information in court, trial court Petitioner, represented by his mother,
judges must determine the existence or Margarita G. Larranaga, filed with this
non-existence of probable cause based on 1. WON petitioner is entitled to a
Court a petition for certiorari,
regular preliminary investigation;
their personal evaluation of the prohibition and mandamus with writs of
prosecutor's report and its supporting preliminary prohibitory and mandatory
documents. They may dismiss the case, injunction. Petitioner alleged that he
was denied the right to preliminary 2. WON petitioner should be
issue an arrest warrant, or require the
investigation and sought to annul the released from detention pending
submission of additional evidence.
informations as well as the warrant of the investigation.
However, they cannot remand the case for
another conduct of preliminary arrest issued in consequence thereof.
investigation on the ground that the In the alternative, petitioner prayed that
a preliminary investigation be RULING:
earlier preliminary investigation was
conducted and that he be released
improperly conducted. Hence, the trial
1. YES, petitioner is entitled to a phone, dissuaded the police
regular preliminary officers from carrying out the
investigation. The Court disagreed. The
warrantless arrest and
facts show that the alleged
proposed to meet with them at
kidnapping was committed on
the CIG headquarters in Camp
July 16, 1997. One of the
a. The prosecutors argue that Crame, Quezon City. The
victims, Marijoy Chiong, was
petitioner is entitled only to an police officers, yielded and
found dead in Sitio Tanawan,
inquest investigation under returned to the CIG
Barangay Guadalupe, Carcar,
Section 7 of Rule 112 since he headquarters. Petitioner,
Cebu on July 18, 1997, while
was lawfully arrested without a together with his sister and
the other victim, Jacqueline
warrant under Section 5, Rule brother-in-law also went to the
Chiong, remains missing to
113 of the Revised Rules of CIG headquarters aboard their
date. There is no showing that
Court. own vehicle. Atty. Armovit
at the time of the arrest on
questioned the legality of the
September 15, 1997,
warrantless arrest before CIG
Jacqueline Chiong was being
The petitioner was not lawfully Legal Officer Ruben Zacarias.
detained by petitioner who was
arrested. He was, in fact, not After consulting with his
then residing in Quezon City.
arrested. superiors, Legal Officer
Hence, the petitioner may not
Zacarias ordered to stop the
be considered as continually
arrest and allowed petitioner to
committing the crime of
The facts show that on go home. Atty. Armovit made
kidnapping with serious illegal
September 15, 1997, some an undertaking in writing that
detention at the time of the
members of the Philippine he and petitioner would appear
arrest.
National Police Criminal before the Cebu City
Investigation Group (PNP CIG) Prosecutor on September 17,
went to the Center for Culinary 1997 for preliminary
investigation. c. The Prosecution argued that
Arts in Quezon City to arrest
the petitioner has already
petitioner, albeit without waived his right to preliminary
warrant. Petitioner resisted the investigation.
arrest and immediately phoned b. As to the argument that the
his sister and brother-in-law. petitioner is actually committing
Petitioner's sister sought the the crime at the time of the
arrest. A waiver, whether express or
aid of Atty. Raymundo A.
implied, must be made in clear
Armovit. Atty. Armovit, over the
 and unequivocal manner. Mere The records show that on in such a meaningless
failure of petitioner and his September 17, 1997, two charade.”
counsel to appear before the informations were filed
City Prosecutor in the against petitioner for
afternoon of September 17, kidnapping and serious illegal The Court held, therefore, that
1997 cannot be construed as a detention. Executive Judge petitioner's detention at the
waiver of his right to Priscila Agana issued a Bagong Buhay Rehabilitation
preliminary investigation, warrant of arrest on Center is legal in view of the
considering that petitioner has September 19, 1997. information and the warrant of
been vigorously invoking his Petitioner was arrested on arrest against him. The
right to a regular preliminary September 22, 1997 by virtue absence of a preliminary
investigation since the start of of said warrant. investigation will not justify
the proceedings before the petitioner's release because
City Prosecutor. such defect did not nullify the
The Court held in Sanchez v. information and the warrant of
Demetriou that the filing of arrest against him.
The Court’s ruling is not charges and the issuance of
altered by the fact that the warrant of arrest against a
petitioner has been arraigned person invalidly detained will
on October 14, 1997. The rule cure the defect of that
is that the right to preliminary detention or at least deny him
investigation is waived when the right to be released
the accused fails to invoke it because of such defect. The
before or at the time of reason for this, as the Court
entering a plea at arraignment ruled in a different case, “ xxx
release of the petitioner for
that reason will be a futile act
2. The petitioner should not be as it will be followed by her
released from detention pending immediate re-arrest pursuant
the investigation. to the new and valid warrant,
returning her to the same
prison she will just have left.
This Court will not participate