Sanchez v. Demetriou
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the filing of charges against petitioner Antonio L. Sanchez and others in connection with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez. A preliminary investigation was conducted by the Department of Justice. Petitioner was invited to Camp Vicente Lim, where he was identified by witnesses and subsequently placed on "arrest status." A warrant of arrest was issued by a Manila RTC for violation of R.A. No. 6713, and petitioner was detained. Seven informations were filed charging Sanchez and six others with rape and killing of Sarmenta. The venue was later transferred to Pasig, Metro Manila, due to a perceived tense atmosphere in Laguna. The informations were amended to include the killing of Allan Gomez as an aggravating circumstance. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a motion to quash the informations, raising several grounds, including denial of the right to present evidence at the preliminary investigation, lack of jurisdiction of the DOJ, illegal warrantless arrest, duplicity of offenses, discrimination in charging, and jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The respondent judge denied the motion to quash. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to quash the informations, arguing that he was denied due process during the preliminary investigation, that the DOJ lacked jurisdiction, that his warrantless arrest was illegal and the court had not acquired jurisdiction, that he was charged with multiple homicides for two deaths, that the informations were discriminatory, and that the Sandiganbayan, not the regular courts, had jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner was denied his right to present evidence during the preliminary investigation. Whether the Department of Justice had the jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation. Whether the petitioner's warrantless arrest was illegal and if it affected the court's jurisdiction. Whether the petitioner was correctly charged with seven homicides arising from the death of two victims. Whether the informations were discriminatory for not including other individuals. Whether the Sandiganbayan, not the regular courts, has jurisdiction over the case.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The respondent judge is DIRECTED to continue with the trial of the criminal cases and to decide them with deliberate dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the right to present evidence: The petitioner's counsel explicitly waived the submission of counter-affidavits during the preliminary investigation on two occasions. The records show that the petitioner was given opportunities to present evidence and counter-affidavits, but his counsel chose to waive these rights. The Rules of Court allow for such waivers, and the absence of a preliminary investigation or a flawed one does not impair the validity of the information or the court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner was not denied his right to present evidence. On the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice: While the Ombudsman has the authority to investigate public officials, this authority is not exclusive but shared or concurrent with other investigatory agencies like the Department of Justice. The Supreme Court has previously held that the non-involvement of the Ombudsman does not adversely affect the authority of the panel of prosecutors to file informations. Thus, the DOJ had the competence to conduct the preliminary investigation. On the illegal warrantless arrest and court jurisdiction: The Court agreed that the initial warrantless arrest of the petitioner was illegal as it did not fall under the exceptions provided by law. However, the illegality of the arrest was cured by the subsequent issuance of a warrant of arrest by the Regional Trial Court on August 26, 1993. Furthermore, by filing a motion to quash that included grounds other than lack of jurisdiction over his person, the petitioner waived any objection to the court's jurisdiction over him. The filing of charges and the issuance of a warrant of arrest, even if belated, cure the defect of an invalid detention. On the duplicity of offenses (seven homicides for two deaths): The Solicitor General correctly explained that in cases of rape with homicide, each rape committed is considered a separate offense, and the homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of each rape constitutes a special complex crime. The informations alleged that each of the seven accused committed rape successively, with each rape being complexed by the subsequent slaying of Sarmenta and aggravated by the killing of Allan Gomez. Therefore, the petitioner was not charged with seven homicides but with seven counts of the special complex crime of rape with homicide, which is permissible under the law. On the alleged discrimination: The prosecuting officer has the discretion to charge only those against whom sufficient evidence of guilt exists. The petitioner failed to show a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion in the non-inclusion of Teofilo Alqueza and Edgardo Lavadia. The Court cannot compel the prosecution of individuals against whom no prima facie case exists. The contention that charges against the petitioner should be dropped because others were not charged is preposterous. On the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan: The crime of rape with homicide is not an offense committed in relation to the office of a public officer. For the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction, the offense must be directly related to the office, meaning the office is a constituent element of the crime or there is an intimate connection between the offense and the performance of official functions. In this case, public office is not an essential element of rape with homicide, and the informations did not allege an intimate connection between the crime and the petitioner's office as municipal mayor. Therefore, the regular courts have jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
A warrantless arrest, though initially illegal, is cured by the subsequent issuance of a warrant of arrest by the court, which then lawfully acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Furthermore, the filing of a motion to quash on grounds other than lack of jurisdiction over the person constitutes a waiver of any objection to the legality of the arrest.