Hashim v. Boncan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioner, N.T. Hashim, was arrested on August 6, 1940, for being in possession of 560 counterfeit 50-peso treasury certificates of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. He was released on bail the same day. The following day, a complaint was filed, and an information was lodged against him for violating article 168 of the Revised Penal Code, alleging he willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly possessed these counterfeit certificates with intent to use them contrary to law. 2. Procedural History: Following the filing of the information in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Criminal Case No. 61464), the petitioner's counsel filed several motions. These motions sought to compel the respondent fiscal to provide the testimony of witnesses from the preliminary investigation and the alleged counterfeit certificates, or alternatively, for the court to conduct its own preliminary investigation. The respondent fiscal opposed these motions, arguing that the Rules of Court regarding preliminary investigations did not apply to investigations conducted by the City Fiscal's office. The respondent judge denied all of the petitioner's motions, including a motion for reconsideration. The petitioner excepted to these orders and announced his intention to seek relief from the Supreme Court via certiorari and mandamus. 3. The Petition: The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the arrest warrant, compel the respondent judge to conduct a preliminary investigation under Rule 108, or alternatively, to order the respondent fiscal to furnish an abstract of the testimony and evidence presented during his investigation. The petition also requested a suspension of the arraignment. The core of the petitioner's argument was that the City Fiscal's preliminary investigation should be subject to the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, specifically sections 11 and 13, which he contended entitled him to be informed of the substance of the testimony and evidence against him and to have an abstract of such testimony transmitted. The Solicitor-General and the City Fiscal opposed the petition, asserting that existing legislation and established practice allowed the City Fiscal to conduct preliminary investigations without adhering to the specific procedures outlined in Rule 108.
Issue(s)
Whether the preliminary investigation conducted by the City Fiscal of Manila is governed by Sections 11 and 13 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Whether existing legislation authorizing the City Fiscal to conduct preliminary investigations has been repealed and supplanted by the New Rules of Court.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari and mandamus is dismissed. The order of arrest issued against the accused in criminal case No. 61464 of the Court of First Instance of Manila is upheld. The respondent Judge is not required to conduct a preliminary investigation under Section 1 of Rule 108, nor is the respondent Fiscal obligated to furnish an abstract of testimony and evidence under Section 13 of Rule 108.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the preliminary investigation conducted by the City Fiscal of Manila is governed by Sections 11 and 13 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court: The Court held that Sections 11 and 13 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court do not apply to preliminary investigations conducted by the City Fiscal of Manila. Section 2474 of the Revised Administrative Code explicitly states that in cases triable only in the Court of First Instance, the defendant is not entitled as of right to a preliminary examination if the City Fiscal, after due investigation, has presented an information in proper form. The Court reasoned that Section 13 of Rule 108 assumes that the "judge or corresponding officer" is authorized to issue a warrant of arrest and transmit the warrant, abstract of testimony, undertaking or bail, and the person of the defendant. The City Fiscal is not authorized to issue warrants of arrest. Furthermore, Section 13 contemplates a two-stage investigation, which is not the nature of the summary investigation conducted by the City Fiscal under existing laws. Section 11, which grants the defendant the right to be informed of the substance of the testimony and evidence against him, also refers to the preliminary investigation conducted by justices of the peace and municipal judges, not the City Fiscal. To subject the Fiscal to these provisions would prolong an otherwise brief investigation authorized by law. On whether existing legislation authorizing the City Fiscal to conduct preliminary investigations has been repealed and supplanted by the New Rules of Court: The Court ruled that existing legislation was not repealed. The power of the City Fiscal to conduct preliminary investigations was previously upheld in cases like U.S. v. Wilson, U.S. v. Grant and Kennedy, and U.S. v. Carlos. The Court found no intention by the framers of the Rules of Court to abolish this established practice and machinery for criminal justice. To hold otherwise would create a void in the law and procedure. The Court emphasized that the right to a preliminary investigation is statutory, not constitutional, and its purpose is to protect the innocent from hasty prosecutions. The new Rules aimed to simplify and expedite preliminary investigations, and applying Sections 11 and 13 to the City Fiscal's investigation would contradict this objective. The Court reiterated that the preliminary investigation is for the purpose of establishing probable cause, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and further scrutiny of evidence is for the trial proper.
Main Doctrine
The preliminary investigation conducted by the City Fiscal of Manila, as authorized by existing legislation, is not subject to the procedural requirements of Sections 11 and 13 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which pertain to preliminary investigations conducted by justices of the peace and municipal judges.