Bermejo v. Barrios
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: These cases stem from criminal charges filed in the City Court of Roxas City. In one instance, Pedro M. Bermejo and an unknown individual identified as Julia "Doe" were charged with falsification of a public or official document for allegedly conspiring to prepare and file an amended petition for habeas corpus, making it appear that Jovita Carmorin had signed and sworn to it when she had not. In the second instance, Jovita Carmorin was charged with perjury for allegedly swearing to an affidavit that she had signed the amended habeas corpus petition with her thumbmark, when in fact another person had done so. 2. Procedural History: Following the filing of informations by the City Fiscal, arrest warrants were issued by the City Judge. Petitioners Bermejo and Carmorin filed motions to quash the informations, arguing that no offense was committed and that the court lacked jurisdiction due to alleged irregularities in the issuance of arrest warrants and the conduct of preliminary investigations. These motions were denied by the City Judge. Subsequently, Bermejo and Carmorin filed separate petitions for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Capiz, challenging the City Fiscal's actions and the City Judge's denials. The Court of First Instance initially asserted jurisdiction, but ultimately dismissed the petitions. The present appeals arise from this dismissal. 3. The Petition: The appeals to this Court challenge the dismissal of the petitions for certiorari and prohibition by the Court of First Instance of Capiz. Petitioners contend that the City Fiscal abused his discretion in filing the informations without proper preliminary investigations and that the City Judge abused his discretion in denying their motions to quash. They argue that the amended habeas corpus petition is not a falsifiable document and that a prior court declaration regarding the thumbmark was conclusive. The Supreme Court, however, found that the Court of First Instance erred in taking cognizance of the certiorari and prohibition cases, as these should have been filed with the Court of Appeals. Despite this jurisdictional error by the lower court, the Supreme Court proceeded to rule on the merits, finding the informations and warrants of arrest to be in accordance with law and remanding the cases for trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for certiorari against a City Court exercising concurrent jurisdiction. Whether a petition for habeas corpus filed in court is a public or official document under the Revised Penal Code. Whether the warrants of arrest were illegal due to the Judge's failure to personally examine witnesses via searching questions and answers as required by Republic Act No. 3828. Whether the petitioners were denied due process because the preliminary investigation was conducted in their absence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of Capiz for having been rendered without jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the appeals, declared the warrants of arrest and informations filed in the city court as lawful, and remanded the cases to the City Court of Roxas City for trial on the merits. No pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Capiz lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petitions for certiorari and prohibition. Pursuant to Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended by Republic Act No. 3828, City Courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the CFI when the penalty for the offense does not exceed prision correccional or six years. In such instances, the City Court acts with 'like jurisdiction' as the CFI, and the CFI exercises no supervisory power over it. As held in Andico v. Roan and Esperat v. Avila, appeals or special civil actions arising from cases where the City Court has concurrent jurisdiction must be taken directly to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Therefore, the CFI should not have ruled on the merits but dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction. On Issue 2: A petition for habeas corpus is indeed a public or official document. Citing U.S. v. Orera, a document is defined as a deed or instrument by which something is proved or set forth; U.S. v. Asensi further notes that instruments authorized by public officials with legal solemnities are public documents. Since the habeas corpus petition was subscribed and sworn to before the Clerk of Court and filed in the Court of First Instance, it became part of the judicial record. Consequently, any falsification of such a document by private individuals falls under the penal provisions of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. On Issue 3: Although the warrants of arrest were irregularly issued, the defect was waived by the petitioners. Republic Act No. 3828 requires that a judge personally examine witnesses under oath using searching questions and answers before issuing a warrant. In this case, the judge merely relied on affidavits sworn before a different judge. However, the Supreme Court, applying the doctrine in Doce v. Branch II, Court of First Instance of Quezon, held that the posting of a bail bond by an accused constitutes a waiver of any irregularity in the arrest. By posting bail and voluntarily appearing before the court, the petitioners submitted themselves to the court's jurisdiction, rendering the absence of a proper preliminary examination moot. On Issue 4: There was no denial of due process in the conduct of the preliminary investigation. The City Fiscal has the authority to commence investigations de oficio for crimes that can be prosecuted publically. Petitioner Bermejo was subpoenaed and even requested a postponement to a specific date, but he failed to appear on that date or inquire about the status of his case. The Court found that his absence was due to his own gross negligence, and the standard of due process is satisfied if the party is afforded the opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the 1964 Rules of Court regarding preliminary investigations cannot be applied retroactively to investigations conducted in 1963.
Main Doctrine
The Court of First Instance erred in taking cognizance of petitions for certiorari and prohibition against orders of a city court acting within its concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance, as such petitions should be filed with the Court of Appeals in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Posting of bail bonds constitutes a waiver of irregularities in the issuance of arrest warrants and submission to the court's jurisdiction.