[G.R.
No. 141704. June 7, 2000]
HON.
ORLANDO S. MERCADO, et al. vs. EDCEL LAGMAN, et al.
THIRD
DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated JUN 7 2000.
G.R. No. 141704 (Hon. Orlando S. Mercado, Hon
Reuben P. Dela Cruz, Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Apolinario Bruselas, Jr. and
State Prosecutor Archimedez Manabat, et al. vs. Edcel C. Lagman and Filemon
Lagman.)
Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of
Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court which disposed
thusly:
WHEREFORE, premises considered and pursuant
to the mandate granted by the Honorable Supreme Court in its Resolution dated
November 18, 1996, it is the decision of this court based on evidence, the law
and jurisprudence:
1. To issue a writ of certiorari annulling
and setting aside the criminal Information filed in Criminal Case No. 96-1369
MK and the warrant of arrest issued by the respondent court pursuant to said
criminal information;
2. To issue a writ of injunction enjoining
the respondent court from further proceeding with Criminal Case No. 96-1369 MK;
3. To declare the detention of petitioner
Filemon Lagman illegal; to direct the immediate release from detention of petitioner
Filemon Lagman in connection with Criminal Case No. 96-1369 MK unless the
petitioner is being held pursuant to some other lawful cause or authority;
All the respondents shall be collectively
responsible in enforcing the immediate release from detention of petitioner
Filemon Lagman
In compliance with the directive of the
Honorable Supreme Court, furnish a copy of this decision immediately to the
Honorable Supreme Court.
The instant controversy sprung from a letter
complaint which was referred by the Presidential Task Force on Intelligence and
Counter Intelligence (PTFIC) to the Department of Justice (DOJ), for
appropriate action, involving a case for violation of Article 248 (murder) of
the Revised Penal Code against Filemon Lagman alias Ka Popoy and seven others,
in connection with the ambush slaying of a traffic policemen in Marikina on
March 30, 1992.
Attached to the subject letter-complaint are the
sworn statements (karagdagang sinumpaang salaysay) of Jose Alvarez dated April
9, 1996 and Rodrigo Porsona also of the same date; the sworn statement of
Arthur Oquendo dated March 13, 1992 and his supplemental sworn statement dated
June 27, 1996; the Affidavit of PO1 Bonifacio Simbulan PN dated June 27, 1996;
the medico-legal report (No. M-052992) dated April 3, 1992; and, the
investigation report of SPO1 Ronito L. Villareal dated March 30, 1992,
The DOJ then assigned a three-man investigating
panel which in turn issued a subpoena to Filemon Lagman, informing him that a
complaint has been filed against him by the PTFIC; commanding him to appear at
the DOJ on July 22, 1996 at 2 p.m. for preliminary investigation; and ordering
him to submit his counter-affidavit and other supporting documents in his
defense, with a warning that failure on his part to submit his
counter-affidavit shall be considered as waiver to present his defense in the
preliminary investigation resulting in the case being considered submitted for
resolution.
On July 22, 1996 setting for preliminary
investigation, only counsel of private respondent Filemon Lagman appeared and
requested that the defense be given ten days within which to submit its
counter-affidavit. That same day, the preliminary investigation was reset to
August 2, 1996.
On August 2, 1996, Filemon Lagman, through his
lawyer, submitted a verified Motion to Dismiss, explicitly stating that such
motion is not intended to be in lieu of his counter-affidavit, and should also
not be considered as a waiver of all other legal remedies available to him. The
motion to dismiss assailed the jurisdiction of the investigating panel to take
cognizance of the referral letter-complaint of the PTFIC dated June 28, 1996.
Likewise, it was argued that the letter-complaint of General Libarnes of the
PTFIC was not sworn to before an officer authorized to administer oaths as
required by Section 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The absence of the
verification, it was claimed is fatal, such requirement being mandatory and
jurisdictional.
The state prosecutors, did not resolve the motion
to dismiss. On the other hand, Filemon Lagman, while waiting for action on his
motion to dismiss, did not submit his counter-affidavit. On November 6, 1996,
the state prosecutors promulgated their resolution recommending the filing of a
criminal information against Filemon Lagman, et al. Said resolution did not
bear the signature of 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Apolinario D.
Bruselas, Jr. Nevertheless, it was approved by Assistant Chief State Prosecutor
Nilo C. Mariano who signed for the Chief State Prosecutor.
The Information was raffled to Branch 272 of the
regional Trial Court of Marikina. On November 8, 1996, a warrant of arrest was
issued for Criminal Case No. 96-1369 MK against Filemon Lagman.
Pursuant to said warrant of arrest, Filemon Lagman
was arrested and detained by the combined teams of the PTFIC and agents of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on November 12, 1996. On November 14,
1996, Filemon Lagman, et al., filed with this Court a petition for Habeas
Corpus and Certiorari with a prayer for a restraining order and/or preliminary
injunction. Acting on said petition, the Court issued a resolution on November
18, 1996, stating:
Acting on the petition for Habeas Corpus
dated November 14, 1996, the Court resolved:
a) to ISSUE the Writ of Habeas Corpus;
b) to RETURN the writ to the Executive
Judge of the RTC not later than November 20, 1996;
c) to ORDER the executive Judge of the
RTC-Quezon City to conduct an immediate raffle to SET the case for HEARING not
later than Thursday November 21, 1996 at 8:30; try and decide the same on the
merits and therefore FURNISH this Court with a copy of the decision thereon;
d) the respondents to make a RETURN of the
writ on or before the close of office hours on Wednesday, November 20, 1996 and
APPEAR PERSONALLY and produce THE PERSON OF Filemon Lagman on the aforesaid
date and time of hearing;
The executive judge of the RTC of Quezon City
accordingly raffled off the case on November 20, 1996 to Branch 221 of the same
court which proceeded to hear the case on the merits and thereafter rendered
the decision, the dispositive portion of which we earlier quoted.
Recourse to the Court of Appeals proved to be
unavailing. Thus, the instant petition.
Initially, the Court notes that the petition was
filed 2 days beyond the 30-day extension granted by us which fell on March 13,
2000, even as petitioners asked for an extension of only 15 days. On this score
alone, the petition may be outrightly denied.
Petitioners insist that the ruling of the Court of
Appeals that a murder complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation with
the prosecutor must be verified or sworn to is contrary to law and
jurisprudence. Likewise, petitioners claim that the Court of Appeals erred in
holding that the preliminary investigation on the case against respondent was
flawed on the ground that the investigating panel did not act on private
respondent's motion to dismiss but instead promulgated the resolution
recommending the filing of a criminal information; and in finding that the
constitutional and fundamental right of respondent Filemon Lagman to due
process was violated in the preliminary investigation of the complaint against
him.
In regard to the first assigned error, the Court
agrees with the Court of Appeals that it can not give credence to the
petitioners' contention that the letter-complaint filed by the PTFIC need not
be verified or sworn to before a person authorized to administer oaths.
Section 3 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court clearly
supports the stand of the Court of Appeals:
Sec. 3. Complaint defined. - Complaint is a
sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the
offended party, any peace officer or other public officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated.
Anent the second issue, the Court notes that when
private respondent Filemon Lagman filed the motion to dismiss, a manifestation
was made where he expressly reserved his right to file a counter-affidavit in
the event that his motion to dismiss is denied. But, despite such
manifestation, petitioners did not act on the motion to dismiss. Instead, they
promulgated the November 6, 1996 resolution recommending the filing of a criminal
information against Filemon Lagman, et al., violating private respondents'
right to a preliminary investigation.
A preliminary investigation is required for
offenses cognizable by the regional trial court under the procedure provided in
Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. This procedure is to be observed in order to
assure that a person is accorded due process.
It is a basis tenet that when the law provides for
preliminary investigation and such right is claimed by the accused, a denial
thereof is a denial of due process.
Consequently, the warrant of arrest which was
issued pursuant to a flawed information is likewise fatally flawed. True it is,
Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court provides that upon the filing of an
information, the RTC may issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.
However, in the case at bar, where the information is defective for lack of a
valid complaint and preliminary investigation, no warrant of arrest may validly
spring therefrom. Further, any arrest made pursuant to such invalid warrant is,
perforce, unlawful; any detention, illegal. It bears stressing that a flawed
proceeding cannot ripen into a valid warrant of arrest nor detention.
The Court has ruled that it is axiomatic that where
a deprivation of a constitutional right is established, the Court that rendered
the judgment is deemed ousted of jurisdiction and habeas corpus is the remedy
to assail the legality of the detention (Gumabon vs. Director of Bureau of
Prisons, 37 SCRA 420).
WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
