Gozos v. Tac-an
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On February 9, 1995, during a school party, Gilbert Dyogi was allegedly involved in an altercation with several men who appeared drunk and attempted to force their way into the premises. Police officers, including SPO2 Jaime Blanco, SPO3 Pedro Castillo, SPO3 Ciriaco Sulit, SPO2 Aniano Atienza, and SPO1 Ildefonso Castillo, arrived and demanded Dyogi surrender his handgun and accompany them to the station. Dyogi complied, but when he asked for his gun and license back, SPO2 Blanco refused. A struggle ensued, and Blanco allegedly shot Dyogi twice, causing his death. Procedural History: An information for murder was filed by an investigator from the Office of the Ombudsman for the Military against SPO2 Blanco and the other police officers. The private respondents filed a motion to hold issuance of warrant and to quash the information, arguing lack of probable cause. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 84, Batangas City, through respondent Judge Paterno C. Tac-an, issued an order dated October 18, 1995, directing the amendment of the information to reduce the charge against SPO2 Blanco from murder to homicide and to drop the other respondents. A subsequent order dated November 22, 1995, partially reconsidered this, including Pedro Castillo as an accomplice but maintaining the dismissal of the others. A final order dated January 3, 1996, denied a second motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General, and the complainant Edna Dyogi filed separate petitions for certiorari, which were consolidated, seeking to annul the RTC orders, arguing that the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in conducting another preliminary investigation in a proceeding to determine probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. Whether the Respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering the amendment of the crime charged in the information from "murder" to "homicide" and the number and nature of the participation of the accused charged in the information filed by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military.
Ruling
The petitions are granted. The orders dated October 18, 1995, November 22, 1995, and January 3, 1996, of respondent Judge Paterno Tac-an are annulled and set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Respondent Judge conducting another preliminary investigation: The Supreme Court held that Regional Trial Court judges do not have the authority to conduct preliminary investigations. This function is vested in provincial or city fiscals, their assistants, national and regional state prosecutors, and other officers authorized by law, such as investigators of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court reiterated that preliminary investigations are executive in nature and part of the prosecution's job, distinct from the judicial function of determining probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The judge's role in determining probable cause for a warrant of arrest is personal and based on the examination of the complainant and witnesses, but it does not extend to conducting a full preliminary investigation or dictating the charges or the participants in the information. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause for the warrant of arrest is lodged with the judge, while the preliminary investigation proper, which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial, is the function of the prosecutor. On the issue of the Respondent Judge's authority to amend the information: By ordering the amendment of the information and reducing the charge, the respondent judge exceeded his authority and encroached upon the prosecutorial powers vested in the Office of the Ombudsman and the Provincial Prosecutor. The Court unequivocally stated that judges of Regional Trial Courts no longer possess the authority to conduct preliminary investigations, a power that was removed by the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. The preliminary investigation is not a judicial function but a part of the executive's job. Therefore, the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction when he ordered the amendment of the information filed by the Ombudsman investigator, changing the charge from murder to homicide and altering the participation of the accused. The Court clarified that while a judge determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, this determination is based on the information presented and does not empower the judge to conduct a new preliminary investigation or modify the charges. The judge's duty is to issue a warrant of arrest for the crime charged in the information if probable cause is found, not to re-evaluate the evidence to change the nature of the offense or the number of accused. The Court cited Castillo v. Villaluz and Salta v. Court of Appeals to support the principle that RTC judges are divested of the power to conduct preliminary investigations.
Main Doctrine
Regional Trial Court judges cannot conduct preliminary investigations or order amendments to informations filed by the Ombudsman's office, as these functions are vested in the prosecution. The judge's role is limited to determining probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest based on the information presented.