Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 130644 October 27, 1997
THE MINOR FRNCISCO !UN "RRNG, re#re$e%te& '% t('$ $)'t b* ('$
+ot(er MRGRIT G. "RRNG, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF PPE"S ,%& PEOP"E OF THE PHI"IPPINES, respondents.
R E S O ! " I O N

PUNO, J.:
On October #, #$$%, petitioner Mar&arita '. arrana&a filed a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus (ith (rits of preli)inar* prohibitor* and )andator*
in+unction see,in& to annul the infor)ation for ,idnappin& and serious ille&al
detention a&ainst her )inor son, -rancisco .uan arrana&a alias Paco, filed in the
R"C
1
of Cebu Cit* as (ell as the (arrant of arrest issued as a conse/uence thereof.
Petitioner as an alternative re)ed* pra*s for the annul)ent of the order
2
of the
Office of the Cit* Prosecutor of Cebu den*in& arrana&a0s )otion for a re&ular
preli)inar* investi&ation and that it be conducted b* a panel of prosecutors fro) the
Office of the State Prosecutor, Depart)ent of .ustice. On October 1, #$$%, petitioner
filed a Supple)ental Petition pra*in& for the issuance of the (rit of habeas corpus to
relieve her son fro) his alle&ed ille&al confine)ent or to &rant hi) bail.
It appears that on Septe)ber #2, #$$%, so)e PNP CI' authorities (ent to the
Center for Culinar* 3rts located at 45% 6atipunan 3venue, o*ola 7ei&hts, 8ue9on
Cit* to arrest -rancisco .uan arrana&a. arrana&a, thru his la(*er, 3tt*. Ra*)undo
3r)ovit re)onstrated a&ainst the (arrantless arrest. "he police did not carr* out the
arrest on the assurance that arrana&a (ould be brou&ht to Cebu Cit* b* his la(*er
on Septe)ber #%, #$$% for preli)inar* investi&ation.
On Septe)ber #%, #$$%, 3tt*. 3r)ovit attended the preli)inar* investi&ation
conducted b* the Office of the Cit* State Prosecutor of Cebu. -orth(ith, he )oved
that his client be &iven a re&ular preli)inar* investi&ation. 7e also re/uested for
copies of all affidavits and docu)ents in support of the co)plaint a&ainst his client
and that he be &ranted a non:e;tendible period of t(ent* <4=> da*s fro) their receipt
to file the defense affidavit. "he )otion (as denied b* the cit* prosecutor on the
&round that arrana&a should be treated as a detention prisoner, hence entitled onl*
to an in/uest investi&ation. 3tt*. 3r)ovit (as ordered to present arrana&a in person.
7e (as (arned that his failure (ould be treated as (aiver of his client0s ri&ht to a
preli)inar* investi&ation and he (ould be proceeded a&ainst pursuant to section %,
Rule ##4 of the Rules of Court. 3tt*. 3r)ovit0s verbal )otion for reconsideration (as
denied b* the cit* prosecutor.
On Septe)ber #$, #$$%, arrana&a, thru counsel, rushed to the Court of 3ppeals
assailin& the actuations of the Cebu prosecutors thru a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus.
3
7o(ever, arrana&a0s effort to stop the filin& of a
cri)inal infor)ation a&ainst hi) failed. It turned out that on Septe)ber #%, #$$% the
said prosecutors had filed an infor)ation (ith the R"C of Cebu char&in& arrana&a
(ith ,idnappin& and serious ille&al detention. "he prosecutors reco))ended no bail.
On Septe)ber 44, #$$%, counsel filed a Supple)ental Petition (ith the Court of
3ppeals i)pleadin& the R"C of Cebu Cit* to prevent petitioner0s arrest. "he )ove
a&ain proved fruitless as arrana&a (as arrested on the ni&ht of Septe)ber 44, #$$%
b* virtue of a (arrant of arrest issued b* the E;ecutive .ud&e of the R"C of Cebu
Cit*, the 7onorable Priscila 3&ana. 3 second Supple)ental Petition (as filed b*
arrana&a0s counsel in the Court of 3ppeals brin&in& to its attention the arrest of
arrana&a. On Septe)ber 42, #$$% the Court of 3ppeals0 dis)issed arrana&a0s
petitions, hence, the case at bar.
On October 5, #$$%, (e ordered the Solicitor 'eneral to file a consolidated co))ent
on the petition (ithin a non:e;tendible period of ten <#=> da*s. On October #1, #$$%,
(e te)poraril* restrained the presidin& +ud&e of ?ranch % of the R"C of Cebu fro)
proceedin& (ith the case to prevent the issues fro) beco)in& )oot.
On October 4=, #$$%, the Office of the Solicitor 'eneral filed a Manifestation and
Motion in lieu of Consolidated Co))ent. "he Solicitor 'eneral sub)itted that @. . . it
is (ithin petitioner0s constitutional and le&al ri&hts to de)and that a re&ular
preli)inar* investi&ation rather than a )ere in/uest be conducted before resolvin&
the issue of (hether or not to file infor)ations a&ainst hi).@ 7e as,ed that @. . . the
petition be &iven due course and petitioner be accorded his ri&ht to preli)inar*
investi&ation.@ 7e further reco))ended that @. . . durin& the pendenc* thereof,
petitioner be released fro) detention.@
Ae a&ree.
Petitioner is entitled not to a )ere in/uest investi&ation but to a re&ular preli)inar*
investi&ation. Section % of Rule ##4 cannot be invo,ed to +ustif* petitioner0s in/uest
investi&ation. Said section clearl* provides that @(hen a person is la(full* arrested
(ithout a (arrant for an offense co&ni9able b* the Re&ional "rial Court, the co)plaint
or infor)ation )a* be filed b* the offended part*, peace officer or fiscal (ithout a
preli)inar* investi&ation havin& been first conducted, on the basis of the affidavit of
the offended part* or arrestin& officer or person.@
1
"he records do not sho( that petitioner (as @la(full* arrested.@ -or one the petitioner
(as not arrested on Septe)ber #2, #$$%, as his counsel persuaded the arrestin&
officers that he (ould instead be presented in the preli)inar* investi&ation to be
conducted in Cebu Cit* on Septe)ber #%, #$$%. -or another, the arrestin& officers
had no le&al authorit* to )a,e a (arrantless arrest of the petitioner for a cri)e
co))itted so)e t(o <4> )onths before. So (e held in Go vs. Court of Appeals, vizB
4
Secondl*, (e do not belie that the (arrantless @arrest@ or detention
of petitioner in the instant case falls (ithin the ter)s of Section 2 of
Rule ##C of the #$52 Rules on Cri)inal Procedure (hich providesB
Sec. 2. Arrest without warrantD when lawful. 3
peace officer or a private person )a*, (ithout a
(arrant, arrest a personB
<a> Ahen in his presence, the person to be
arrested has co))itted, is actuall* co))ittin&,
or is atte)ptin& to co))it an offenseD
<b> Ahen an offense has in fact +ust been
co))itted, and he has personal ,no(led&e of
facts indicatin& that the person to be arrested
has co))itted itD and
<c> Ahen the person to be arrested is a prisoner
(ho has escaped fro) a penal establish)ent or
place (here he is servin& final +ud&)ent or
te)poraril* confined (hile his case is pendin&,
or has escaped (hile bein& transferred fro) one
confine)ent to another.
In cases fallin& under para&raphs <a> and <b>
hereof, the person arrested (ithout a (arrant
shall be forth(ith delivered to the nearest police
station or +ail, and he shall be proceeded a&ainst
in accordance (ith Rule ##4, Section %.
Petitioner0s @arrest@ too, place si; <1> da*s after the shootin& of
Ma&uan. "he @arrestin&@ officers obviousl* (ere not present, (ithin
the )eanin& of Section 2<a>, at the ti)e petitioner had alle&edl*
shot Ma&uan. Neither could the @arrest@ effected si; <1> da*s after
the shootin& be reasonabl* re&arded as effected @(hen <the
shootin& had> in fact +ust been co))itted@ (ithin the )eanin& of
Section 2<b>. Moreover, none of the @arrestin&@ officers had an*
@personal ,no(led&e@ of facts indicatin& that petitioner (as the
&un)an (ho had shot Ma&uan. "he infor)ation upon (hich the
police acted had been derived fro) state)ents )ade b* alle&ed
e*e(itnesses to the shootin& E one stated that petitioner (as the
&un)anD another (as able to ta,e do(n the alle&ed &un)an0s
car0s plate nu)ber (hich turned out to be re&istered in petitioner0s
(ife0s na)e. "hat infor)ation did not, ho(ever, constitute
@personal ,no(led&e.@
It is thus clear to the Court that there (as no la(ful (arrantless
arrest of petitioner (ithin the )eanin& of Section 2 of Rule ##C. It is
clear too that Section % of Rule ##4 is not applicable. . . . Ahen the
police filed a co)plaint for frustrated ho)icide (ith the Prosecutor,
the latter should have i))ediatel* scheduled a preli)inar*
investi&ation to deter)ine (hether there (as probable cause for
char&in& petitioner in court for the ,illin& of Eldon Ma&una. Instead,
as noted earlier, the Prosecutor proceeded under the erroneous
supposition that Section % of Rule ##4 (as applicable and re/uired
petitioner to (aive the provisions of 3rticle #42 of the Revised
Penal Code as a condition for carr*in& out a preli)inar*
investi&ation. "his (as substantive error, for petitioner (as entitled
to a preli)inar* investi&ation and that ri&ht should have been
accorded hi) (ithout an* conditions. Moreover, since petitioner
had not been arrested, (ith or (ithout a (arrant, he (as also
entitled to be released forth(ith sub+ect onl* to his appearin& at the
preli)inar* investi&ation.
It then follo(s that the ri&ht of petitioner to a re&ular preli)inar* investi&ation
pursuant to section C of Rule ##4 cannot stand an* di)inution. Petitioner, a )inor, is
char&ed (ith a capital offense E ,idnappin& and serious ille&al detention. Its filin& in
court )eans his arrest and incarceration as in all probabilit* he (ould not be allo(ed
bail. 7is conviction (ill brin& hi) face to face (ith the death penalt*. "hus,
petitioner0s counsel (as far fro) bein& unreasonable (hen he de)anded fro) the
cit* prosecutors that he be furnished copies of the affidavits supportin& the co)plaint
and that he be &iven a non:e;tendible period of t(ent* <4=> da*s to sub)it defense
affidavit. 3s (ell pointed out b* petitioner0s counsel, the precipitate denial of his
)otion @. . . prevented petitioner fro) preparin& and sub)ittin& the affidavits of so)e
fort* <F=> class)ates, teachers, proctors and securit* &uards (ho had previousl*
)ade ,no(n their (illin&ness to testif* thatB
E durin& the (hole da* of .ul* #1 and a&ain on .ul* #% petitioner
and his class)ates (ere all in their school at 8ue9on Cit*D in fact
in the afternoon of .ul* #1 and #%, #$$%, petitioner and his
class)ates too, their )id:ter) e;a)sD
E follo(in& their e;a)s on .ul* #1 the* had partied to&ether first
at petitioner0s 8ue9on Cit* apart)ent until about $ o0cloc, in the
evenin&, and then repaired to a 8ue9on Cit* restaurant at
2
6atipunan 3venue (here the* sta*ed on until C o0cloc, in the
)ornin& of .ul* #%D the* even had pictures ta,en of their part*D
E indeed petitioner0s .ul* #1 e;a)ination papers and that of a
class)ate are read* for sub)ission as evidence, alon& (ith
petitioner0s &rades for the ter)0s end in Septe)ber #$$%D
E t(o of their teachers, also a proctor, and a securit* &uard
actuall* re)e)ber seein& petitioner at their 8ue9on Cit* school on
.ul* #1 and #%D
E petitioner (as dul* re&istered and attended classes startin&
.une #$$% until ter)0s end in Septe)ber #$$%D
E petitioner had also been lo&&ed to have been in his 8ue9on Cit*
apart)ent since .une #$$%, particularl* includin& .ul* #1 and #%D
E petitioner onl* (ent to Cebu late afternoon of .ul* #% on board
P3 fli&ht No. PR5CC, as sho(n b* his plane tic,et and boardin&
pass.
-airness dictates that the re/uest of petitioner for a chance to be heard in a capital
offense case should have been &ranted b* the Cebu Cit* prosecutor. In Webb vs. de
Leon,
-
(e e)phasi9ed that @attuned to the ti)es, our Rules have discarded the pure
in/uisitorial s*ste) of preli)inar* investi&ation. Instead, Rule ##4 installed a /uasi:
+udicial t*pe of preli)inar* investi&ation conducted b* one (hose hi&h dut* is to be
fair and i)partial. 3s this Court e)phasi9ed in Rolito Go vs. Court of Appeals, 0the
ri&ht to have a preli)inar* investi&ation conducted before bein& bound over for trial
for a cri)inal offense and hence for)all* at ris, of incarceration or so)e other
penalt*, is not a )ere for)al or technical ri&htD it is a substantive ri&ht.0 3 preli)inar*
investi&ation should therefore be scrupulousl* conducted so that the constitutional
ri&ht to libert* of a potential accused can be protected fro) an* )aterial da)a&e.@
IN VIEA A7EREO-, the Court resolvesB <#> to set aside the in/uest investi&ation of
petitioner and to order the Office of the Cit* Prosecutor of Cebu to conduct a re&ular
preli)inar* investi&ation of the petitioner in accord (ith section C, Rule ##4D <4> to
annul the Order for Detention Durin& "he Pendenc* of the Case issued b* E;ecutive
.ud&e Priscila 3&ana a&ainst the petitioner in Cri). Case No. C?!:F2C=C and
F2C=FD <C> to order the i))ediate release of petitioner pendin& his preli)inar*
investi&ation and <F> to order the Presidin& .ud&e of ?r. VII, R"C of Cebu Cit* to
cease and desist fro) proceedin& (ith the arrai&n)ent and trial of petitioner in Cri).
Case No. C?!:F2C=C and F2C=F, pendin& the result of petitioner0s preli)inar*
investi&ation.
3