Case Digest: In re: Ilagan et al., vs. Ponce Enrile, et. al., G.R. No. Oct. 21, 1985

    Rule 112, Preliminary Investigation, Arrest without warrant | Criminal Procedure

Facts:

On May 10, 1985, Attorney Laurente C. Ilagan was arrested in Davao City by elements of the PC-INP and detained at Camp Catitipan on the basis of a Mission Order allegedly issued by the Ministry of National Defense. 

On that same day, fifteen lawyers from the IBP Davao Chapter visited Atty. Ilagan. One of the visiting lawyers, Atty. Antonio Arellano, was also arrested and detained on the basis of an unsigned Mission Order. 

On May 13, 1985, the military sent word to the IBP Davao Chapter that Attorney Marcos Risonar would likewise be arrested. The latter went to Camp Catitipan to verify his arrest papers and was detained on the basis of a Mission Order signed by General Echavarria, Regional Unified Commander.

This petition for habeas corpus was then filed by and on behalf of the three arrested lawyers hereinafter referred to as the detained attorneys on the ground that their arrests were illegal and violative of the Constitution, since arrests cannot be made on the basis of Mission Orders and that there appears to be a military campaign to harass lawyers involved in national security cases.

Respondents contended that the detained attorneys were arrested on the basis of a PDA issued by the President on January 25, 1985; that the Writ of habeas corpus is suspended as to them by virtue of Proclamation No. 2045-A; and that pursuant to the ruling in Garcia-Padilla vs. Ponce Enrile, et al, Courts lack the authority to inquire into the cause and validity of detention of persons held pursuant to the suspension. Respondents further expounded on the state of rebellion in Davao City on the basis of seized subversive documents, implying that the detained attorneys played active roles in organizing mass actions of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front. 

Petitioners submit that because of the absence of a preliminary investigation, the Information for Rebellion filed against the detained attorneys is void and the Court below could not have acquired jurisdiction over them, and consequently, they are entitled to release.

 

Respondents contend that a preliminary investigation was unnecessary since the detained attorneys were lawfully arrested without a warrant.

Issue:

WoN the absence of a preliminary investigation held the Information for Rebellion filed against the detained attorneys void.

Held: 

Pursuant to the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, no Information for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court shall be filed without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted, except as provided for in Section 7 of Rule 112. The Information filed by the City Fiscal before the Regional Trial Court of the City of Davao fell within the exception.

Section 7, Rule 112, of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure above referred to provides lawful arrest without warrant. Section 5, Rule 113 Paragraphs (a) and (b) refer to cases when a suspect is caught in flagrante delicto or immediately thereafter, while paragraph (c) refers to escaping prisoners. As to whether the detained attorneys fall under either of the first two instances enumerated is a question of fact, which will need the presentation of evidence and is more properly within the province of the trial Court.

The question of absence of a proper preliminary investigation is also better inquired into by the Court below. When so raised, this Court, has held that the trial Court is called upon "not to dismiss the information but hold the case in abeyance and conduct its own investigation or require the fiscal to hold a reinvestigation." 

This is the proper procedure since the "absence of such investigation did not impair the validity of the Information or otherwise render it defective. Much less did it affect the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance".  The right to a preliminary investigation, being waivable, does not argue against the validity of the proceedings, the most that could have been done being to remand the case in order that such investigation could be conducted. 

The proper forum before which absence of preliminary investigation should be ventilated is the Court of First Instance, not this Court. Reason is not wanting for this view. Absence of preliminary investigation does not go to the jurisdiction of the court but merely to the regularity of the proceedings. It could even be waived. Indeed, it is frequently waived. These are matters to be inquired into by the trial court, not an appellate Court. 

The Nolasco case, which petitioners invoke, wherein this Court ordered the release of two of the accused, is not on all fours with the case at bar as, in that case, the accused were charged only with Illegal Possession of Subversive documents under Presidential Decree No. 33, which is punishable by prision correccional in its minimum period, and the trial Court had granted bail; whereas in this case, petitioners are charged with the capital offense of Rebellion, and the trial Court has not allowed bail.

Petition for Habeas Corpus is hereby dismissed for having become moot and academic. Petitioners are now detained by virtue of a Warrant of Arrest issued by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City in relation to the criminal case for Rebellion filed against them before said Court.

Principle:

RULE 112, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.

SEC. 7. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant.- When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court the complaint or information may be filed by the offended party, peace officer or fiscal without preliminary investigation having been first conducted on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arrested officer or person.

However, before the filing of such complaint or information, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation by a proper officer in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with the assistance of a lawyer and in case of non-availability of a lawyer, a responsible person of his choice. Notwithstanding such waiver, he may apply for bail as provided in the corresponding rule and the investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.

If the case has been filed in court without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted, the accused may within five (5) days from the time he learns of the filing of the information, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his favor in the manner prescribed in this Rule.

——

Section 5, Rule 113 of the same Rules enumerates the instances when an arrest without warrant is lawful.

SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs [al and [b] hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7. (Rule 113)

Recit Version

Facts:

In 1985, three lawyers, Attorney Laurente C. Ilagan, Attorney Antonio Arellano, and Attorney Marcos Risonar, were arrested and detained in Davao City by the military on the basis of Mission Orders allegedly issued by the Ministry of National Defense and signed by General Echavarria. 

A petition for habeas corpus was filed on behalf of the detained lawyers, arguing that their arrests were illegal and violated the Constitution. Respondents claimed that the lawyers were arrested on the basis of a PDA issued by the President and that the writ of habeas corpus was suspended by Proclamation No. 2045-A. 

The detained lawyers argued that they were entitled to release due to the absence of a preliminary investigation. The respondents contended that a preliminary investigation was unnecessary since the lawyers were lawfully arrested without a warrant.

Issue:

WoN the absence of a preliminary investigation held the Information for Rebellion filed against the detained attorneys void.

Held: 

The Information filed by the City Fiscal before the Regional Trial Court of the City of Davao fell within the exception of Section 7, Rule 112, of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure on lawful arrest without a warrant as verified. 

The question of absence of a proper preliminary investigation is better inquired into by the Court below. The absence of preliminary investigation does not go to the jurisdiction of the court but merely to the regularity of the proceedings, which could even be waived. 

The Nolasco case cited by petitioners is not applicable since the accused in that case were charged with Illegal Possession of Subversive documents, which is bailable. Whereas in this case, petitioners are charged with the capital offense of Rebellion, and the trial Court has not allowed bail.

The Petition for Habeas Corpus is dismissed for having become moot and academic by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by the RTC-Davao in relation to the criminal case for Rebellion.

Note: 

If the absence of a proper preliminary investigation is raised as an issue, the trial court is not supposed to dismiss the case, but instead hold it in abeyance (temporarily suspended) and conduct its own investigation or require the prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation. 

In other words, the court should investigate the issue of the lack of a preliminary investigation before making a decision on the case, rather than dismissing it outright. This is the proper procedure since the absence of a preliminary investigation does not necessarily impair the validity of the information or the court's jurisdiction, but rather goes to the regularity of the proceedings, which can be remedied by conducting an investigation.