Paderanga v. Drilon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An information for multiple murder was filed against several individuals, including Felipe Galarion, for the deaths of Renato Bucag, his wife Melchora Bucag, and their son Renato Bucag II. Only Felipe Galarion was tried and found guilty, but he escaped. Subsequently, Felizardo Roxas was included as a co-accused. Roxas, represented by petitioner Atty. Miguel P. Paderanga, filed an Omnibus Motion. The trial court denied the motion but directed the City Prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation. During this reinvestigation, Roxas implicated petitioner Paderanga in the commission of the crime through a signed affidavit. Procedural History: The City Prosecutor inhibited himself, and the Department of Justice designated State Prosecutor Henrick F. Gingoyon to continue the preliminary investigation against petitioner. Gingoyon directed the amendment of the information to include petitioner. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. He filed a Petition for Review with the Department of Justice, which was dismissed. His motion for reconsideration was also denied. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for mandamus and prohibition. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to enjoin the public respondents from including him as an accused in the criminal case and from prosecuting him, arguing that the preliminary investigation was incomplete and that there was no prima facie evidence or probable cause to justify his inclusion.
Issue(s)
Whether the preliminary investigation as to the petitioner was complete. Whether there exists prima facie evidence or probable cause to justify the petitioner's inclusion in the second amended information.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the completeness of the preliminary investigation: The Court held that the petitioner's contentions regarding the incompleteness of the preliminary investigation were without merit. The petitioner had already filed a counter-affidavit, which was deemed sufficient compliance with procedural requirements. The Court emphasized that the veracity and credibility of witnesses are matters for the trial court. Furthermore, the right to ask clarificatory questions is not absolute, and the fiscal has discretion in propounding them. The Court reiterated that the proper forum to ventilate the absence of a preliminary investigation is the trial court, as it pertains to the regularity of proceedings and not jurisdiction, and can even be waived. The Court cited Medina vs. Orozco, Jr., Ilagan et al. vs. Enrile, et al., and People vs. Escober, et al. to support this point. On the existence of prima facie evidence or probable cause: The Court found that there was prima facie evidence of the petitioner's involvement, sufficiently supported by the evidence presented. The Court clarified that a preliminary investigation requires evidence sufficient to engender a well-founded belief of the commission of a crime and the respondent's probable guilt, not a full display of evidence. The Court rejected the argument that the testimonies of Galarion and Hanopol were inadmissible due to lack of cross-examination, stating that an accused has no right to cross-examine witnesses during a preliminary investigation, as per Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The Court noted that the admissibility of such testimonies should be ventilated before the trial court. The Court also pointed out that technical rules of evidence are not binding on the fiscal during a preliminary investigation and that the record of the preliminary investigation does not form part of the trial court record unless presented as evidence.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus and prohibition to enjoin a criminal prosecution will not prosper if the case does not fall under any of the recognized exceptions, particularly when there is no clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction, and when the issues raised pertain to the regularity of preliminary investigation and the existence of probable cause, which are matters best ventilated before the trial court.