Malizon, Crystal Joy M. Criminal Procedure - Atty. Salvador S.

Panelo
JD 2-1 2016-80085

G.R. No. 143802.

REYNOLAN T. SALES, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE P
HILIPPINES and THELMA BENEMERITO, respondents

Facts:
Petitioner, the incumbent town mayor of Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte, fatally shot the former mayor and his
political rival, Atty. Rafael Benemerito, after a heated altercation between them. After the shooting incident,
petitioner surrendered and placed himself under the custody of the municipal police then asked that he be
brought to the Provincial PNP Headquarters in Laoag City.
The next day, Police Chief Inspector Crispin and private respondent Thelma Benemerito, wife of the victim,
filed a criminal complaint for Murder against petitioner.
Judge Calvan conducted a preliminary examination of the witnesses, in accordance with Section 6 (b), Rule
112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, found the existence of probable cause, and thereafter issued an
order for the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of petitioner with no bail recommended.
Judge Calvan, after conducting a preliminary investigation issued a resolution forwarding the records of
the case to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Ilocos Norte for appropriate action.
The petitioner contested that his constitutional right of due process was violated when the information was
hastily filed and the warrant for his arrest was improper because of an incomplete preliminary investigation.
The appellate court granted the petition for habeas corpus and ordered the release of petitioner from
detention subject to the outcome of the proper preliminary investigation.
Meanwhile, after receipt of the records of the case from Judge Calvan as well as petitioner-accused counter-
affidavits, the Ilocos Norte Provincial Prosecutor, instead of conducting a preliminary investigation of his
own, merely forwarded the said records to the Ombudsman for the latter to conduct the same.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners constitutional rights were violated when information was hastily filed and the
warrant for his arrest was improper because of an incomplete preliminary investigation.

Held:
Yes, Respondent Judge did not conduct the requisite investigation prior to issuance of the arrest warrant.
The Rules require an examination in writing under oath in the form of searching questions and answers.
The statements of witnesses were not sworn before him but before the Provincial Prosecutor.
Moreover, he did not complete the preliminary investigation. He claimed to have examined only the
witnesses of the complainant. He issued a Resolution and forwarded the records to the Provincial Prosecutor
without giving the accused (petitioner) an opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and supporting
documents.
Meanwhile, after receipt of the records of the case from Judge Calvan as well as petitioner-accuseds
counter-affidavits, the Ilocos Norte Provincial Prosecutor, instead of conducting a preliminary investigation
of his own, merely forwarded the said records to the Ombudsman for the latter to conduct the same.
There is no dispute that the Information was filed without first affording petitioner-accused his right to file
a motion for reconsideration. The denial thereof is tantamount to a denial of the right itself to a preliminary
investigation. This fact alone already renders preliminary investigation conducted in this case incomplete.
The inevitable conclusion is that the petitioner was not only effectively denied the opportunity to file a
motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsmans final resolution but also deprived of his right to a full
preliminary investigation preparatory to the filing of the information against him.
The Court ordered the Sandiganbayan to QUASH the warrant of arrest it issued against the petitioner and
remanded the case to the Ombudsman for completion of the preliminary investigation.
G.R. No. 45815
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
LIBERTAD LAGON and HON. JUDGE ISIDRO O. BARRIOS, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE
CIT COURT OF ROXAS CITY, respondents.

Facts:
On July 7 1976 a criminal action was filed with the City Court of Roxas charging Lagon with estafa
forallegedly issuing a P4,232 check as payment for goods knowing she had insufficient funds. However on
Dec. 2, as the trial commenced, the City Court dismissed the information on the ground that the penalty
prescribed by law for estafa was beyond thecourts authority to impose. Hence this petition for review.

Issue:
Whether or not the City Court had jurisdiction over the case.

Held:
No, It is settled doctrine that jurisdiction of a court in criminal law matters is determined by the law in
effect at the time of the commencement of the criminal action and not the law in effect at the time of the
commission of the offense charged.
Under Sec 87 of the Judiciary Act, municipal judges in the capitals of provinces and sub-provinces and
judges of city courts shall have like jurisdiction as the CFI to try parties charged with an offense within
their respective jurisdictions, in which penalties provided do not exceed prision correccional or fines no
exceeding P6,000 or both.
At the time of the commission of the crime, the imposable penalty under Art 315 of the RPC was arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional it is minimum period, falling well within the
jurisdiction of the City Court. But when the information was filed, PD 818 had increased the imposable
penalty to prision mayor in its medium period.
The real question raised by petitioner is whether the said doctrine disregards the rule against retroactivity
of penal laws. It has been repeatedly held that in criminal prosecutions, jurisdiction is not determined by
what may be meted out to the offender in after trial but by the extent of the penalty which the law imposes.
Once jurisdiction is acquired by the Court in which the information is filed, it is retained regardless of
whether the evidence proves a lesser offense which carries a penalty that would otherwise fall within
the jurisdiction of an inferior court.
In the instant case, should the information be refiled with the RTC, the court may not impose a more onerous
penalty upon Lagon.
Although the RTC retains subject-matter jurisdiction to try and decide the refiled case under PD 818, given
the date of the commission of the crime (before effectivity of PD 818), the lower penalty provided in Art
315 (otherwise within the jurisdiction of the City Court) should be imposed.