Ernesto San Agustin v People of the Philippines (Callejo, Sr.
, 2004)
Topic: Remedies of accused if there was no preliminary investigation
FACTS
 Petitioner San Agustin, the Barangay Chairman of Barangay La Huerta,
Parañaque was charged with serious illegal detention for detaining
Vicente (called Ricardo later on in the case) Tan. Wife Luz Tan filed the
notarized criminal complaint with NBI. This was groundless. He received
a subpoena from Lavin, the Chief of the Anti-Organized Crime Division
of the NBI which required pet to appear before said office the next day.
He was asked to give his evidence and bring the barangay logbook. He
complied but was placed under arrest and prevented from going back
home.
 NBI transmitted to the DoJ the findings of the NBI. The basis of arrest
was that when pet presented the logbook, it was noted that there was no
entry that Ricardo Tan was arrested or transmitted to any law
enforcement agency or proper authority. Ricardo Tan was in the
Barangay jail. State Prosecutor Berdal conducted an inquest
investigation and came out with a Resolution affirmed by the Assistant
Chief State Prosecutor finding probable cause against pet for serious
illegal detention under Art 267 of RPC.
 An Information was filed before the RTC charging the pet with
kidnapping/serious illegal detention with no bail recommended. Pet filed
a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that he was illegally
arrested and subjected to an inquest investigation hence he was
deprived of his right to preliminary investigation. He also prayed for
release from detention and that the NBI be ordered to refile the complaint
against him with the Office of the Prosecutor. He filed another Motion to
Quash the Information on the ground that the facts do not constitute
kidnapping or serious illegal detention. He was a barangay chairman and
should only be charged with arbitrary detention. The most severe penalty
of which is reclusion temporal.
 RTC issued an Order directing the City Prosecutor to conduct a
reinvestigation. Petitioner opposed and said that the prosecutor should
conduct a regular preliminary investigation since the inquest investigation
was void. Petitioner filed a 45 (pet for review on certiorari) with CA.
 Assistant City Prosecutor filed with RTC a Motion to Withdraw
Information and it was granted. The Information was then field with the
MeTC charging petitioner with arbitrary detention. CA denied due course
to pet’s 45 and dismissed it. A 45 was thus filed before the SC.
ISSUES
WON petitioner was unlawfully arrested without a warrant of arrest – YES.
Did not fall under any of the lawful warrantless arrests under Sec 5 Rule 113
of RoC
Pet only went to Office of the NBI to answer a subpoena which was 7 days
after the turnover of Ricardo Tan’s custody. The “arresting officers” under
Sec 5 Rule 113 were not present. None of the arresting officers had personal
knowledge of facts indicating that it was pet the person to whom Ricardo Tan
was turned over and who locked up the latter in the Barangay jail.
WON petitioner is entitled to preliminary investigation before an
Information may be filed against him – YES. An inquest investigation is
proper only when the suspect is lawfully arrested without a warrant. The
warrantless arrest was invalid thus the inquest investigation by State
Prosecutor was void. Furthermore, a preliminary investigation is required
when the imposable penalty of a crime charged in the complaint is at least 4
years 2 months and 1 day (Sec 1, Rule 112). The crime charged with DoJ is
kidnapping/serious illegal detention.
 CA said that the City Prosecutor need not conduct a
preliminary investigation because the Information filed with
MeTC was arbitrary detention punishable by arresto mayor
in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period (4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months)
 Court said that the need for a prelim investigation depends
upon the imposable penalty for the crime charged in the
complaint filed with the City or Provincial Prosecutor’s Office
and not upon the imposable penalty for the crime found to
have been committed by the respondent after a preliminary
investigation.
 In this case, crime charged in the complaint of NBI filed with
DoJ was kidnapping/serious illegal detention punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death. Thus, petitioner is entitled to a
preliminary investigation.
Effect of the absence of a preliminary investigation: It does not affect the
jurisdiction of the trail court but merely the regularity of the proceedings. It
does not impair the validity of the Information or otherwise render it defective.
It is not a ground to quash the Information or nullify the order of arrest issued
against the accused or justify his release from detention. Trial court should
suspend proceedings and order a preliminary investigation.
 PARTIALLY GRANTED. RTC Order SET ASIDE. RTC is directed to
ORDER the City Prosecutor of Parañaque City to conduct a
preliminary investigation.