Posted by: Diana Calipes Islo on July 19, 2018
FACTS:
Bermejo and Julia "Doe" were charged in the city court of Roxas City of the crime of falsification of public or official document filed by the city fiscal for mutually prepared an Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus which petition Bermejo signed while Julia placed her thumbmark over the name "Jovita Carmorin".
Bermejo filed a Motion to Quash the information. City judge denied his motion. He filed MR but the same was denied. Thereupon he filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction before the CFI Capiz naming as respondents City Judge Barrios and City Fiscal Abela contending that fiscal Abela committed a grave abuse of discretion in filing an information against him without conducting the proper preliminary investigation and on the part of respondent Judge Barrios in denying his motion to quash for in the habeas corpus proceedings, the thumbmark appearing in the petition was the true thumbmark of Carmorin.
City Judge setting up affirmative defense that the cases of the CFI of Capiz has no jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Bermejo and Julia "Doe".
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the CFI of Capiz has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition for certirari and prohibition with preliminary injunction.
2) Whether or not Fiscal Abela committed grave abuse of discretion in conducting the preliminary investigation.
HELD:
1) No. Sec. 6, RA 3828, amending Sec. 87, paragraph (c) of the Judiciary Act of 1948 provides in part as follows:
Justices of the peace in the capitals of provinces and subprovinces and judges of municipal courts shall have like jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance to try parties charged with an offense committed within their respective jurisdictions, in which penalty provided by law does not exceed pricion correctional or imprisonment for more than six years or fine not exceeding six thousand pesos or both, and in the absence of the district judge, shall have like jurisdiction within the province as the Court of First Instance to hear applications for bail.
All cases filed under the next preceding paragraph with justices of the peace of capitals and municipal court judges shall be tried and decided on the merits by the respective justices of the peace or municipal judges. Proceedings had shall be recorded and decisions therein shall be appealable direct to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as the case may be.
2) While the City Fiscal failed to notify Bermejo, that his request for postponement was granted, which should have been done, it can also be said that Bermejo was not entirely blameless if the preliminary investigation was conducted in his absence. It was he himself who set the date of the investigation in his request for postponement, but he did not bother to come on the date he fixed.
Even assuming that the City Fiscal did not notify petitioners, but had conducted the preliminary investigation ex parte, their rights to due process could not have been violated for they are not entitled as of right to preliminary investigation. The numerous authorities supporting this view are not rendered obsolete, as claimed by petitioners, because Sec. 14, Rule 112 of the new Rules of Court invoked by them has no application in their cases, it appearing that the new Rules of Court took effect on January 1, 1964 while the preliminary investigation conducted by the city fiscal were conducted in 1963. The Rules of Court are not penal statutes, and they cannot be given retroactive effect.
FACTS:
Bermejo and Julia "Doe" were charged in the city court of Roxas City of the crime of falsification of public or official document filed by the city fiscal for mutually prepared an Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus which petition Bermejo signed while Julia placed her thumbmark over the name "Jovita Carmorin".
Bermejo filed a Motion to Quash the information. City judge denied his motion. He filed MR but the same was denied. Thereupon he filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction before the CFI Capiz naming as respondents City Judge Barrios and City Fiscal Abela contending that fiscal Abela committed a grave abuse of discretion in filing an information against him without conducting the proper preliminary investigation and on the part of respondent Judge Barrios in denying his motion to quash for in the habeas corpus proceedings, the thumbmark appearing in the petition was the true thumbmark of Carmorin.
City Judge setting up affirmative defense that the cases of the CFI of Capiz has no jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Bermejo and Julia "Doe".
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the CFI of Capiz has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition for certirari and prohibition with preliminary injunction.
2) Whether or not Fiscal Abela committed grave abuse of discretion in conducting the preliminary investigation.
HELD:
1) No. Sec. 6, RA 3828, amending Sec. 87, paragraph (c) of the Judiciary Act of 1948 provides in part as follows:
Justices of the peace in the capitals of provinces and subprovinces and judges of municipal courts shall have like jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance to try parties charged with an offense committed within their respective jurisdictions, in which penalty provided by law does not exceed pricion correctional or imprisonment for more than six years or fine not exceeding six thousand pesos or both, and in the absence of the district judge, shall have like jurisdiction within the province as the Court of First Instance to hear applications for bail.
All cases filed under the next preceding paragraph with justices of the peace of capitals and municipal court judges shall be tried and decided on the merits by the respective justices of the peace or municipal judges. Proceedings had shall be recorded and decisions therein shall be appealable direct to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as the case may be.
2) While the City Fiscal failed to notify Bermejo, that his request for postponement was granted, which should have been done, it can also be said that Bermejo was not entirely blameless if the preliminary investigation was conducted in his absence. It was he himself who set the date of the investigation in his request for postponement, but he did not bother to come on the date he fixed.
Even assuming that the City Fiscal did not notify petitioners, but had conducted the preliminary investigation ex parte, their rights to due process could not have been violated for they are not entitled as of right to preliminary investigation. The numerous authorities supporting this view are not rendered obsolete, as claimed by petitioners, because Sec. 14, Rule 112 of the new Rules of Court invoked by them has no application in their cases, it appearing that the new Rules of Court took effect on January 1, 1964 while the preliminary investigation conducted by the city fiscal were conducted in 1963. The Rules of Court are not penal statutes, and they cannot be given retroactive effect.
