Yee v. Bernabe
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An Information for violation of Republic Act No. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972) was filed against petitioner Catherine A. Yee. Petitioner filed a motion for reduction of bail bond and voluntary surrender, which was granted upon posting of P100,000. Subsequently, petitioner filed a motion for preliminary reinvestigation, claiming she was not notified of the preliminary investigation. The trial court denied this motion, treating it as a motion for preliminary investigation, and set the arraignment. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62, of La Trinidad, Benguet, denied petitioner's motion for preliminary reinvestigation in an order dated December 10, 1999, and denied her motion for reconsideration in an order dated December 28, 1999. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Petition: Petitioner argued that the denial of her motion for preliminary reinvestigation was improper because Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court was not applicable and that her actions of filing a motion to reduce bail, surrendering, and posting bail did not constitute a waiver of her right to preliminary investigation. The respondent prosecutor contended that a preliminary investigation was conducted and that petitioner waived her right by posting bail. The RTC Presiding Judge questioned the propriety of the remedy, stating the orders were interlocutory. The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the denial was authorized by law and that posting bail constituted a waiver.
Issue(s)
Whether the denial of the motion for preliminary reinvestigation is a proper subject of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. Whether the petition can be treated as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Whether petitioner waived her right to a preliminary investigation by filing a motion for reduction of bail and posting bail.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that the orders denying the motion for preliminary reinvestigation are interlocutory and not subject to an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. Such orders can only be questioned as part of an appeal from the final judgment. Furthermore, the petition cannot be treated as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 because it failed to allege grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and it violated the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts by directly filing with the Supreme Court instead of the Court of Appeals. The Court also noted that posting bail could be considered a waiver of the right to preliminary investigation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45: The Supreme Court reiterated that an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to the review of judgments, awards, or final orders on the merits, where only questions of law are raised. Interlocutory orders, which are provisional and do not finally dispose of the case or a particular matter, are not subject to this mode of review. The denial of a motion for preliminary reinvestigation is an interlocutory order. The rationale behind this rule is to avoid multiplicity of appeals, which would necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the case. The aggrieved party must wait for the final judgment to be rendered before filing an appeal, where the interlocutory orders may be questioned as part of the overall review. In this case, the challenged orders did not finally dispose of the proceeding, nor was there any adjudication on the merits regarding petitioner's guilt or innocence. On treating the petition as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65: The Court held that the petition could not be treated as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. This remedy is available only when a tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petition failed to allege such grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that an act is considered a grave abuse of discretion only when it is performed in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner, equivalent to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should generally be filed with the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court, in adherence to the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts. Direct resort to the Supreme Court is permissible only under exceptional circumstances, such as when the redress desired cannot be obtained in the lower courts and there are compelling reasons justifying such direct invocation. On waiver of the right to preliminary investigation: While not definitively ruling on the waiver, the Court noted the contention of the respondents that the petitioner's act of filing a motion to reduce bail and posting bail constituted a waiver of her right to question any irregularity in, or the absence of, a preliminary investigation. The OSG also maintained that posting bail constituted a waiver. The Court's denial of the petition on procedural grounds rendered a substantive ruling on this issue unnecessary, but the implication is that such actions could be construed as a waiver.
Main Doctrine
An appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is not the proper remedy to assail interlocutory orders denying a motion for preliminary reinvestigation, as such orders do not finally dispose of the case and can be questioned as part of an appeal from the final judgment. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is also improper if it fails to allege grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and must adhere to the hierarchy of courts.