86 LUNA V.

PLAZA It may be conducted by the municipal judge, prior to the

G.R No. L-27511| November 29, 1968 | Zaldivar, J. issuance of the warrant of arrest, either in the presence, or in the
absence, of the accused.
SUMMARY: FACTS:
T-Sgt. Candido Patosa, PC investigator of Tandag, Surigao del Sur, filed  T-Sgt. Candido Patosa, PC investigator of Tandag, Surigao del
a criminal case with respondent Municipal Judge Lorenzo M. Plaza, of Sur, filed a criminal case with respondent Municipal Judge
the Municipal Court of Tandag, charging the accused, herein Lorenzo M. Plaza, of the Municipal Court of Tandag, charging
petitioner, with the crime of murder. The respondent Judge examined the accused, herein petitioner, with the crime of murder.
the prosecution witnesses by reading to them “all over again the  Supporting the complaint were sworn statements of the
questions and answers” in their statements in writing, and the witnesses- witnesses for the prosecution, in the form of questions and
affiants declared before said Judge that the questions were answers taken by T-Sgt. Patosa and subscribed and sworn to
propounded by T-Sgt. Patosa, and that the answers were made by before the respondent Judge at the time of the filing of the
them. Respondent Judge issued the order and warrant of arrest, complaint.
specifying therein that no bail should be accepted for the provisional  The respondent Judge examined the prosecution witnesses by
release of the accused. Upon motion of petitioner that he be admitted reading to them “all over again the questions and answers” in
to bail upon the ground that the evidence of guilt was not strong, their statements in writing, and the witnesses-affiants declared
respondent Judge issued an order granting bail, fixing it at P30,000.00; before said Judge that the questions were propounded by T-
which order, however, respondent Judge later revoked, and petitioner Sgt. Patosa, and that the answers were made by them.
was denied bail. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
o The affiants declared that their answers were true and
The CFI denied the application for the writ of habeas corpus and
were freely and voluntarily made; that they fully
dismissed the case. The SC affirms that decision of the trial court.
understood the questions and answers, and that they
were willing to sign their respective affidavits.
o The affiants signed their respective affidavits in the
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE: presence of the respondent Judge, who also signed
 Sec. 1(2), Art. III, 1935 Constitution: after the usual procedure of administering the oath.
No warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be
 Considering the answers of the affiants to the questions
determined by the judge after examination under oath or
contained in their sworn statements, together with the post-
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
mortem and autopsy report on the dead body of the victim
produce.
Jaime Diaz Ng, the certificate of death, the sketch showing the
 Republic Act No. 3828, approved June 22, 1963, inserted in
position of the victim and the accused, and exhibits of
section 87 (e) of the Judiciary Act of 1948 the following
respondents, the respondent Judge opined that there was
paragraph:
reasonable ground to believe that the crime of murder had
No warrant of arrest shall be issued by any justice of the peace
been committed, and the accused was probably guilty thereof.
in any criminal case filed with him unless he first examines the
o Respondent Judge issued the order and warrant of
witness or witnesses personally, and the examination shall be
arrest, specifying therein that no bail should be
under oath and reduced to writing in the form of searching
accepted for the provisional release of the accused.
questions and answers.
 February 20, 1967: Upon motion of petitioner that he be
admitted to bail upon the ground that the evidence of guilt was
not strong, respondent Judge issued an order granting bail,
DOCTRINE:
fixing it at P30,000.00; which order, however, respondent Judge
Preliminary examination is not an essential part of due process of law.
later revoked, and petitioner was denied bail.
  The case was subsequently remanded to the CFI-Surigao del  Republic Act No. 3828 does not prohibit the municipal Judge
Sur, after petitioner filed a waiver of his right to preliminary from adopting the questions asked by a previous investigator.
investigation.  The witnesses’ sworn statements state at the beginning that the
 March 9, 1967: Provincial Fiscal filed an information charging sworn statement was “taken by T-Sgt. Candido L. Patosa,” and
herein petitioner with the crime of murder. does not state that it was taken by the respondent municipal
 April 5, 1967: Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus Judge himself.
with the CFI-Surigao del Sur, claiming that he was being  Said written statements already taken by T-Sgt. Patosa were
deprived of liberty without the due process of law, on the delivered to respondent Municipal Judge, who adopted the
ground that the imprisonment and detention was the result of a questions therein in his examination, because he considered
warrant of arrest issued by respondent Judge in violation of them searching questions.
Republic Act No. 3828, and praying for the annulment of the  Respondent Judge presumably did not consider it necessary to
order for his arrest and his discharge from confinement. change the introductory remarks in each of the written
statements. But that he made the examination personally
 Herein respondents filed their answer, alleging that Republic Act
cannot be doubted.
No. 3828 had been substantially complied with; that a motion to
 The ruling in Doce vs. Branch II wherein this Court held that the
quash, and not a petition for habeas corpus was the proper
warrant of arrest issued therein was irregularly issued is NOT
remedy; and that petitioner's application for bail constituted a
applicable to the case at bar (facts are different). The Court in
waiver of the right to question the validity of the arrest.
that case said:
 After trial, CFI-Surigao del Sur rendered its decision, dated April
There is merit in the assertion that the warrant of arrest
20, 1967, holding that respondent Municipal Judge had
was irregularly issued. Section 87 of the Judiciary Act as
substantially complied with Republic Act No. 3828, and
amended by Republic Act 3828 requires that the
consequently denied the application for the writ of habeas
Municipal Judge issuing the same, personally examine
corpus, and dismissed the case.
under oath the witnesses, and by searching questions
 Hence, this appeal. and answers which are to be reduced to writing. Here,
instead of searching questions and answers, we have
ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO: only the affidavits of respondent and her one witness.
1. Whether or not the oral testimony of the respondent Judge (to the Moreover, said affidavits were sworn to before Judge
effect that he adopted and made the questions and answers taken Cabungcal, not before Judge Juntereal who issued the
by T-Sgt. Patosa his own) should be given absolute credence - YES. warrant of arrest.
 Before a municipal judge may issue a warrant of arrest, the  In the instant case, Municipal Judge Plaza personally examined
following conditions must first be fulfilled: under oath the witnesses by asking questions that were adopted
(1) He must examine the witnesses personally; from a previous investigation, and considered by him as
(2) The examination must be under oath; sufficiently searching, and which questions and the answers
(3) The examination must be reduced to writing in the form thereto were in writing and sworn to before him prior to his
of searching questions and answers. issuance of the order of arrest.
 The first condition was fulfilled.  The second condition required by Republic Act No. 3828 for the
 The trial court found as a fact that “the respondent judge issuance of a warrant of arrest was also fulfilled.
personally examined the witnesses for the prosecution ...;” that  The trial court found that the complaint was “supported by
respondent judge adopted as his own personal examination the statements of the witnesses under oath.”
questions asked by T-Sgt. Patosa as appearing in the written  The third condition required by Republic Act No. 3828 was
statements, which he read over again to the witnesses together likewise fulfilled.
with the answers given therein, asking the witnesses whether o The examination of the witnesses was written down, in
said answers were theirs, and whether the same answers were the form of searching questions and answers.
true, to which the witness answered in the affirmative.
 o “searching questions and answers” means only, taking  The trial Judge committed no error when he held that, based
into consideration the purpose of the preliminary upon the facts shown during the hearing of this case,
examination which is to determine “whether there is a respondent Municipal Judge had substantially complied with
reasonable ground to believe that an offense has been the requirements of the law — specifically Republic Act 3828 —
committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof before issuing the warrant of arrest in this case.
so that a warrant of arrest may be issued and the
accused held for trial,” 2. Whether or not Judge Plaza erred in denying the writ of habeas
 What would be searching questions would depend on what is corpus, and in dismissing the petition – NO.
sought to be inquired into.  Section 4 of Rule 102, Rules of Court:
o The questions, therefore, must to a great degree When writ not allowed or discharge authorized. — If it appears
depend upon the Judge making the investigation. that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the
 Petitioner's contention that the issuance of the warrant of arrest custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge
was a violation of the constitution, and of procedural due ... and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the
process, is untenable. process ... or make the order the writ, shall not be allowed.
o Sec. 1(2), Art. III, 1935 Constitution  All the conditions in the provision to deny the writ are present in
 The constitutional requirement of examination of witnesses the instant case.
under oath was, as shown above, fulfilled.  Respondent Judge had jurisdiction to issue the warrant of arrest,
o The existence of probable cause depended to a large and the order of commitment under the provisions of Sec. 47,
degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge RA 409, as amended by RA 1201.
conducting the examination.  Consequently, the trial Judge did not commit an error in
o Respondent judge found that there was probable denying the writ of habeas corpus prayed for.
cause, as stated in his order of arrest, that “after
 The Supreme Court believes that the remedy available to the
examining the witnesses personally and under oath
petitioner herein is not a petition for a writ of habeas corpus but
there is a reasonable ground to believe that an offense
a petition to quash the warrant of arrest or a petition for a
of murder has been committed and that the accused,
reinvestigation of the case by the respondent Municipal Judge
Simon Luna, is probably guilty thereof.”
or by the Provincial Fiscal.
 Petitioner's last contention that the warrant of arrest issued was
 However, this is certainly NOT intended to sanction the return to
a violation of procedural due process because of the alleged
the former practice of municipal judges of simply relying upon
defective preliminary examination has no leg to stand on.
affidavits or sworn statements that are made to accompany the
 The Supreme Court has held that preliminary examination is not complaints that are filed before them, in determining whether
an essential part of due process of law. there is a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
o Preliminary examination may be conducted by the  This practice is precisely what is sought to be voided by the
municipal judge, prior to the issuance of the warrant of amendment of Section 87 (c) of Republic Act 296 (Judiciary Act
arrest, either in the presence, or in the absence, of the of 1948), which requires that before a municipal judge issues a
accused. warrant of arrest, he should first satisfy himself that there is a
o Petitioner waived the preliminary investigation before probable cause by examining the witnesses personally, and that
respondent Municipal Judge, and instead, he filed a the examination must be under oath, and reduced to writing in
petition for bail. the form of searching questions and answers.
o This conduct of petitioner indicates that he had waived o purpose of this amendment: prevent the issuance of a
his objection to whatever defect, if any, in the warrant of arrest against a person based simply upon
preliminary examination conducted by respondent affidavits of witnesses who made, and swore to, their
Judge prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest. statements before a person or persons other than the
judge before whom the criminal complaint is filed.
  While it is true that the respondent Municipal Judge did not
himself personally cause to be reduced to writing in the form of
questions and answers the examination of witnesses presented
before him, the SC was satisfied that respondent Judge had
personally examined the witnesses under oath, and that the
questions asked by the Judge, and the answers of the witnesses,
were reflected in writings that were actually subscribed and
sworn to before him.
 Moreover, no substantial right of Luna had been violated
because he waived his right to preliminary investigation after he
was arrested, and he took the step of applying for bail before
respondent Municipal Judge.
 These acts of the petitioner subsequent to his arrest, constitute
an implied admission on his part that here was a probable cause
for the issuance of the warrant of arrest against him.

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court dated April 20, 1967,
appealed from, is affirmed. Costs against petitioner-appellant. It is so
ordered.