De Asis v. Romero
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioner, Roman de Asis, was charged with kidnapping with serious illegal detention. The charge stemmed from a complaint filed by Eduardo Sumang. A preliminary investigation was conducted by the fiscal, during which a subpoena was allegedly served on De Asis, who reportedly refused to sign for it. 2. Procedural History: Following the preliminary investigation and the filing of an information, the respondent judge issued an arrest order for De Asis. Subsequently, De Asis filed a petition for bail, and was arraigned, entering a plea of not guilty. The fiscal then moved to amend the information to charge kidnapping with murder, a motion granted for co-accused but deferred for De Asis due to the instant petition. De Asis also filed a petition for provisional release with the Supreme Court, which was denied. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking the release of Roman de Asis. The petitioner argues that the arrest warrant was issued without the judge personally examining the complainant and witnesses under oath, violating constitutional rights. Additionally, the petitioner contends that the proposed amended information for kidnapping with murder charges a different offense for which no new arrest warrant has been issued, and that the original warrant is therefore invalid.
Issue(s)
Whether the writ of habeas corpus should be granted on the ground that the warrant of arrest was issued without a proper preliminary investigation and personal examination of witnesses by the judge. Whether the filing of an amended information for kidnapping with murder, in lieu of kidnapping with serious illegal detention, constitutes an illegal restraint of liberty.
Ruling
The prayer of the petitioner Roman de Asis that he be released and discharged from custody is hereby denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the warrant of arrest and preliminary investigation: The Court held that any objection to the procedure followed in acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be opportunely raised before entering a plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Petitioner De Asis waived any defect in the warrant of arrest or preliminary investigation by filing a petition for bail and pleading not guilty to the information. These actions constituted an acceptance of the court's jurisdiction over his person. The Court reiterated that while the law guarantees security against unlawful restraint, individuals must assert their rights in conformity with established rules. The failure to object at the opportune time, specifically before arraignment, bars the petitioner from raising such issues in a subsequent habeas corpus proceeding. Therefore, even if the warrant was initially defective, the petitioner's subsequent actions cured such infirmities. On the issue of the amended information: The Court found that the argument regarding the amended information for kidnapping with murder could not be countenanced. The fiscal filed a motion to amend the information, and a hearing would be conducted where De Asis could present evidence. This hearing would serve the purpose of a preliminary investigation for the added charge of murder. If the court found prima facie evidence of murder connected with the kidnapping, it would grant the motion, making it illogical to release the petitioner only to arrest him again. If the court found the original information sufficient, the petitioner would not be released anyway. Thus, the filing of the amended information did not constitute an unlawful restraint.
Main Doctrine
A defect in the issuance of a warrant of arrest, or in the preliminary investigation, is deemed waived if the accused, after arrest, files a petition for bail and pleads to the information, thereby submitting to the jurisdiction of the court.