Mercado v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Bartolome F. Mercado was accused in Criminal Case No. Q-91-20150 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 98, Quezon City. Petitioner moved to defer his arraignment, alleging he was not notified of the preliminary investigation because the private complainant deliberately provided a wrong address in the subpoena, thus preventing him from submitting a counter-affidavit. Procedural History: The RTC initially granted the motion to defer arraignment and ordered remand for reinvestigation, but the issued order only directed the prosecution to comment on the motion. On July 30, 1991, the RTC denied the motion to defer arraignment. Upon refusal to enter a plea, a plea of "not guilty" was entered for the petitioner. Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA) to prevent the RTC from proceeding with the trial. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that prohibition was improper, a preliminary investigation was sufficiently conducted establishing probable cause despite lack of notice, and the accused's presence was not requisite for its validity. The CA held that petitioner's defenses could be ventilated in the trial court. The CA denied reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the CA's decision, raising two questions of law: (1) the validity of an ex-parte preliminary investigation due to lack of notice caused by complainant's misinformation, and (2) the propriety of prohibition in case of denial of a motion to suspend arraignment.
Issue(s)
Whether a preliminary investigation conducted ex-parte due to lack of notice, allegedly caused by the complainant's misinformation regarding the respondent's address, is valid. Whether the remedy of prohibition is proper to prevent a trial court from proceeding with a criminal case after denying a motion to suspend arraignment.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated January 13, 1993, and its Resolution dated February 16, 1993, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the ex-parte preliminary investigation: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim that he was denied his right to a preliminary investigation. It was uncontroverted that a subpoena was sent to his given address but was returned unserved. The petitioner did not dispute that the address on his cash bond receipt was his address. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to determine if a crime has been committed and to establish probable cause. The evidence presented by the complainant, showing that the petitioner issued a dishonored check because the account was closed, satisfied the finding of probable cause. The Court reiterated that a preliminary investigation is not the forum for an exhaustive production of evidence. Furthermore, the Court found no irregularity in the ex-parte conduct of the proceedings, citing that preliminary investigations can be conducted ex-parte if the respondent cannot be subpoenaed or does not appear after due notice, as provided in the New Rules on Criminal Procedure. The Court emphasized that the rules do not require the presence of the accused as a sine qua non to the validity of the proceedings, as long as efforts to reach the respondent were made and an opportunity to controvert the evidence was given, to prevent respondents from thwarting prosecution through hiding or dilatory tactics. On the propriety of the remedy of prohibition: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that prohibition was not a proper remedy to restrain a criminal action. Citing established jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that an injunction will generally not lie to restrain a criminal action. The exceptions to this rule, as laid down in Brocka v. Enrile, were reviewed, and the Court found that the petitioner's case did not fall within any of these exceptions. The Court concluded that the defenses invoked by the petitioner could be best ventilated in the trial court, making the denial of the petition for prohibition and mandamus appropriate.
Main Doctrine
A preliminary investigation may be conducted ex-parte if the respondent cannot be subpoenaed or does not appear after due notice, provided efforts were made to notify the respondent and an opportunity to controvert the evidence was accorded. Prohibition and mandamus are generally not proper remedies to restrain criminal actions, absent specific exceptions.