HASHIM v. BONCAN 13 JANUARY 1941
G.R. No. L-47777 LAUREL, J.
TOPIC IN S YLLABUS : Preliminary Investigation and Inquest (Definition; When Required) SUMMARY: Hashim was arrested without a warrant for possession of counterfeit treasury certificates. The Asst. City Fiscal of Manila conducted the PI (more like an inquest) and filed the information. Hashim's counsel invoked provisions of the Rules requiring officers conducting PI to inform the accused of substance of the testimony and evidence against him. SC held that said provisions apply only when the PI is conducted by justices and judges, not by fiscals.
HOW THE CASE REACHED THE SC: Hashim SC: Hashim filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus praying for the court to cancel the warrant of arrest; to require Judge Boncan to conduct a PI; to require the City Fiscal of Manila to furnish the documents requested; to suspend arraignment; to grant such other remedy as may be just and equitable. FACTS: On FACTS: On August 6, 1940, Hashim was arrested without a warrant for possession of counterfeit treasury certificates certificates of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. He was released upon filing a bo nd. The next day, a complaint was filed against him with the Office of the City Fiscal. The Assistant City Fiscal of Manila conducted an investigation pursuant to section 2465 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended, and lodged an information against him. A warrant of arrest was issued, and he was later admitted to bail. Before arraignment, his counsel filed motions asking the Fiscal to furnish the clerk of court with the testimony of the witnesses who testified at the PI. The Fiscal opposed the motion on the ground that the provisions of the Rules of Court on "Preliminary Investigation" do not apply to PIs conducted by the Fiscal for the City of Manila. CFI Manila Judge Boncan dismissed the motion. By another motion, petitioner asked the warrant be cancelled and insisted that the court conduct the PI referred to in Sec 1, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The respondent Fiscal filed an objection on the ground, among others, that there was no necessity for the court to conduct a PI in this case because the substitute therefor had already been performed by the Fiscal. Judge Boncan again dismissed. PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT: Judge ARGUMENT: Judge Boncan should conduct a PI. If not, the Fiscal should be ordered to furnish the clerk of court with abstract of the testimony of the witnesses and such other evidence based on Sec. 13 of Rule 108 which says: SEC. 13. Transmission of abstract . — Upon the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, investigation, the judge or o r corresponding officer shall shall transmit without delay to the clerk of the Court of First Instance having jurisdiction of the offense (a (a) the warrant, if the arrest was by virtue of a warrant; (b (b) an abstract of the testimony of the witnesses; (c (c ) the undertaking or bail of the defendant, and (d (d ) the person of the defendant if not on bail. RESPONDENT (FISCAL)’S ARGUMENT: No ARGUMENT: No need for the court to conduct PI because the substitute therefor had already been performed in accordance with law (Revised Administrative Code) by the office of the Fiscal of the City of Manila. Moreover, the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court on "Preliminary "Preliminary Investigation" do not apply to a PI conducted by the Fiscal for the City of Manila or any of his assistants. ISSUES: W/N in a PI conducted by the City Fiscal of Manila, the accused is entitled to be informed of the substance of the testimony and of the evidence presented against him (Broader question: W/N existing law under which the City Fiscal conducts PI has been supplanted by the New Rules of Court).
Bianca Danica Santiago Villarama
[CASE # 03]
HELD: NO. Rule 108 pertains to a PI conducted by a justice of the peace or by a municipal judge, not by a Fiscal. Petition for certiorari and mandamus DISMISSED. The phrase "corresponding officer" in Sec. 13 does not pertain to the Fiscal. It refers to other officers also authorized to conduct PI, e.g. the justice of the peace. 1. The purpose of transmission of abstract was explained in US v. Rafael : The purpose of requiring the justice of the peace to forward to the provincial Fiscal a brief statement of the substance of the testimony is to enable the provincial Fiscal to decide 1) W/N he shall file a complaint against the defendant, and 2) to enable him, in case he decides to prosecute, to properly formulate said complaint. It is practically impossible, in the thickly populated p rovinces of the Philippine Islands, for the provincial Fiscal to personally attend all of the trials and PI held before the justices of the peace. If the abstract in Sec. 13 is intended for the Fiscal, the duty to transmit is plainly not cast o upon him (if it's for him, it can't be from him). Further, if the said abstract is for the use and guidance of the Fiscal , the failure to transmit it cannot be prejudicial to the accused. 2. Sec. 13 also requires the "corresponding officer" to transmit the warrant of arrest. Hence, the officer must be one who is authorized to issue such a warrant. The Fiscal is not so authorized. 3. Sec. 13 also assumes the 2-stage PI provided for justices of the peace and judges, not for the Fiscal. Under existing laws, the City Fiscal conducts a single investigation, and this is a summary one. To say that the respondent Fiscal is bound by the procedure provided in the cited section is to duplicate proceedings, where at present there is but one, in contradiction with the spirit of simplicity underlying the new Rules. 4. Sec. 13 requires the "corresponding officer" to transmit the person of the defendant if not on bail. This is impossible for the Fiscal to comply with because he has no direct control over the person of the accused, not being empowered to order his arrest or release. To subject the respondent Fiscal to the provisions of Rule 108 Sec. 11 (Rights of defendant after arrest) is to prolong an otherwise brief investigation which said officer is authorized to conduct. The New Rules of Court have not repealed the existing laws governing the Fiscal's power to conduct PI. If neither Sec. 11 nor Sec. 13 of Rule 108 is applicable to the PI conducted by the City Fiscal, as above shown, and if existing legislation thereon is to be deemed repealed, then the matter would be left uncovered by rule or law. The right to PI is statutory, not constitutional. Its oft-repeated purpose is to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecutions, and to protect him from open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the State from useless and expensive prosecutions. The new Rules were drafted in the light of the Court's experience with cases where preliminary investigations had dragged on for weeks and even months. The occasion is not for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence; it is for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender well- grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. When all this is fulfilled, the accused will not be permitted to cast about for fancied reasons to delay the proceedings; the time to ask for more is at the trial.
•
•
•
•
PI conducted by justice of the peace/ municipal judge 2 stages: The investigation 1) before and for the purpose of the issuance of the warrant of arrest, and 2) that thereafter made for the purpose of their releasing the offender or filing the information
Bianca Danica Santiago Villarama
PI conducted by a fiscal Single, summary investigation prior to filing the information in court
[CASE # 03]