LUNA - v - PLAZA
Facts:
3.
The case was
remanded to CFI Surigao del Sur where he was charged and detained to the provincial
jail. Accused filed for Writ of Habeas Copus which was consequently denied.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
1.
Criminal action
for murder was filed with respondent Municipal Judge Plaza of Tandag, Surigao
del Sur. Supporting the complaint were sworn statements of the witnesses for
prosecution in form of questions and answers taken by T-sgt. Patosa (PC
investigator) and subscribed and sworn to before the respondent Judge at the
time of the filing of the complaint.
2.
Respondent Judge
opined that there was reasonable ground to believe that the crime of murder had
been committed and the accused was probably guilty thereof, issued the order
and warrant of arrest, specified tat no bail should be accepted for the
provisional release of the accused.
claim: he was deprived of liberty
w/o due process of law, on the ground that the
imprisonment and
detention was the result of a warrant of arrest issued by respondent Judge in violation of RA 3828
4. Hence, this appeal.
Issue:
W/N trial court erred in giving absolute credence to the oral testimony of the
respondent Judge when he adopted and made own questions and answers taken by
T-sgt. Patosa, because records show contrary
Held:
Trial Court decision AFFIRMED.
Ratio:
RA 3828
imposes a municipal judge may issue a warrant of arrest, the ff conditions must
first be fulfilled:
1.
he must examine
the witnesses personally
2.
the examination
must be under oath
3.
the examination
must be reduced to writing n the form of searching questions and answers
First
condition: Respondent judge adopted as his own personal examination the
questions asked by T-Sgt. Patosa as appearing in the written statements. RA
3828 does not prohibit the municipal judge from adopting the questions asked by
a previous investigator.
Second
condition: Record shows following documents to have been subscribed ad sworn to
before respondent judge.
Third
condition: The term “searching questions and answers” means only, taking into consideration the purpose of
the preliminary examination which is to determine “whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that
an offense has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof so
that a warrant of arrest may be issued and the accused held for trial”, such questions as have tendency to show the
commission of a crime and the perpetrator thereof. Respondent judge adopted
them.
-
Respondent judge
found that there was probable cause.
-
Preliminary
examination is not essential part of due process of law. Petitioner waived the
preliminary investigation before respondent judge and instead he filed a
petition for bail.
-
Trial judge
committed no error when he held that based upon facts shown during the hearing
of this case, respondent Municipal Judge had substantially complied with the
requirement of the law - specifically RA 3828 - before issuing the warrant of
arrest in this case.
Other
issue:
-
Writ for habeas
corpus not tenable. Remedy available to the petitioner is a petition to quash
the warrant of arrest or a petition for a reinvestigation of the case by the
respondent Municipal Judge or by the Provincial Fiscal.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
