Pen v. De Castro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An Information was filed charging Ernesto Java y Palmares and "John Doe" with illegal recruitment under Article 38 (a) and (b) in relation to Article 39 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended. The Information alleged that the accused, without the necessary license or authority, recruited several individuals for employment in Zambales under the business name "Good Wisdom for All Nations, Inc.". Subsequently, an Amended Information was filed, identifying "John Doe" as Alelio Bernaldez Pen and alleging that the offense was committed against more than three persons, thus qualifying it as illegal recruitment in large scale, punishable by life imprisonment and a fine under Article 39 (A) of the Labor Code, as it involves economic sabotage. A Second Amended Information was filed, naming Alelio Bernaldez Pen as the co-accused and recommending no bail due to the capital offense charged. A Resolution accompanying this second amended Information stated that a preliminary investigation was conducted on respondent Pen, who was at large, and that the case would be decided based on the complainant's evidence since Pen could no longer be subpoenaed. The resolution found sufficient and unrebutted evidence to hold Pen for trial. An order was issued admitting the second amended Information and a warrant of arrest was issued against petitioner Pen. Procedural History: Petitioner Pen filed a Motion to Declare the Resolution Dated August 27, 1991, a Total Nullity or Null and Void, contending that the resolution violated his right to preliminary investigation. While this motion was pending, the Presiding Judge of Branch 46 was transferred, and the respondent judge assumed the position. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Preliminary Investigation with the respondent judge, arguing that the non-observance of the rule requiring a preliminary investigation before filing a complaint or information in offenses cognizable by the RTC violated his right to due process. The respondent judge granted this motion, ordering the City Prosecutor to conduct the preliminary investigation. However, on the following day, the respondent judge directed the issuance of an alias warrant for the arrest of petitioner Pen. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari, arguing that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the alias warrant of arrest before the preliminary investigation was completed. The respondent judge, in her Comment, justified the issuance of the alias warrant, stating that the filing and admission of an amended information and the issuance of a warrant of arrest for a capital offense constituted compelling reasons for immediate custody in the interest of justice and speedy administration thereof.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing an alias warrant of arrest without first terminating the preliminary investigation. Whether the respondent judge complied with the constitutional provision that no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for want of merit. The challenged Order and alias warrant of arrest issued in Criminal Case No. 10126, for the arrest of petitioner Alelio Bernaldez Pen, are upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of issuing an alias warrant of arrest without first terminating the preliminary investigation: The Court held that Section 3, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure does not require the completion of a preliminary investigation before a warrant of arrest may be issued. The rule mandates that no complaint or information for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court shall be filed without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted. However, this does not mean that the preliminary investigation must be fully terminated before a warrant of arrest can be issued. The Court cited that Section 6(b) of the same Rule explicitly authorizes a municipal trial court to order the respondent's arrest even before the opening of the second phase of the investigation if it is satisfied that probable cause exists and there is a necessity for immediate custody to avoid frustrating the ends of justice. Furthermore, the Court stated that there is nothing in Rule 112 that suggests that an existing alias warrant of arrest is automatically lifted or recalled once a motion for preliminary investigation is granted. Therefore, the respondent judge did not err in issuing the questioned alias warrant of arrest against the petitioner without waiting for the result of the preliminary investigation. On whether the respondent judge complied with the constitutional provision on probable cause: The Court reiterated that a warrant can be issued if the judge is satisfied, after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and witnesses, in the form of searching questions and answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. Probable cause is defined as such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances, as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action and the means taken are legally just and proper. It requires less than evidence that would justify conviction but more than bare suspicion. The Court found sufficient grounds to engender a well-grounded belief that the crime charged was committed and that the petitioner was probably guilty thereof. These grounds included the existence of an unexecuted warrant of arrest, the petitioner being a fugitive from justice at the time of the alias warrant's issuance, the filing and admission of an amended information, and the charge of a capital offense. Consequently, the respondent judge did not gravely abuse her discretion in finding probable cause to warrant the arrest of the petitioner and in deeming it necessary to place him under immediate custody to prevent frustrating the ends of justice.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a warrant of arrest, even an alias warrant, is not contingent upon the completion of the preliminary investigation. The rule requires that no complaint or information be filed without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted, but it does not mandate that the preliminary investigation must be completed before a warrant of arrest may issue. A judge may issue a warrant of arrest if satisfied, after examination, that probable cause exists and there is a necessity for immediate custody to prevent frustrating the ends of justice.