529 Phil. 664; 103 OG No. 23, 3432 (June 4, 2007)
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Accused-movant Anthony John Apura alleged in his Motion to Dismiss that his arrest was illegal because he [went] to the police station upon invitation but immediately thereafter he was placed under custody of the police. His arrest does not fall under a warrantless arrest nor it is within the purview of "hot pursuit" concept, considering that the subject incident happened on July 19, 2003 and he was placed under arrest on August 2, 2003.Hence, arose the present administrative complaint filed on September 7, 2004 by petitioner Imelda S. Enriquez, the mother of the deceased Mark James Enriquez, against respondent for knowingly rendering an unjust order and gross ignorance of the law and procedure for ordering the release of Apura on bail without first conducting a hearing for the purpose.
The Court believes that there is lack of preliminary investigation on the part of accused Anthony John Apura. The warrant of arrest issued on July 24, 2003 on the basis of the original information filed on July 24, 2003 cannot be made as valid basis for the arrest of the accused Anthony John Apura on August 2, 2003. The court notes that accused Anthony John Apura is not the certain "Junjun" mentioned in the original Information.
What appalled the Court is the manner by which the accused was placed under custody. The actuation wherein a person is invited to the police station for investigation and to place said person under detention when his appearance therein was only to explain his side thereof, is foreboding.
WHEREFORE, short of declaring the arrest of movant illegal, and acting on the Motion to Dismiss, remand this case to the Cebu City Prosecution Office for Prosecutor Jesus Feliciano to conduct preliminary investigation on Anthony John Apura and said accused is ordered released from custody, being admitted to bail in the amount of PhP 20,000.000 in cash, pending preliminary investigation, pursuant to Section 7 of Rule 112.
Furnish parties and counsels copy of this Order and Prosecutor Feliciano, who is directed to submit his preliminary investigation report sixty (60) days from today.[5] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Respondent judge was trying to check the abuse committed by the State through its law enforcement agency upon the rights of an accused person guaranteed to him by no less than the Constitution. The inquest proceedings which followed . . . the "invitation" was [sic] highly irregular. The prosecutors knew this fact, which is why, during the hearing on the "Motion to Dismiss", they agreed for [sic] the remand of the record for preliminary investigation.By Report dated October 4, 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), finding that respondent violated Section 7, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure reading:
Had he granted the Motion to Dismiss, on the ground that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Apura because of the illegal arrest, accused would be released just the same. Yet, to strike a balance of the possible abuse on the rights of accused and the effort of the police at prosecution of crimes, respondent did not categorically declare the arrest illegal but allowed the accused to post cash bail bond with an accompanying "hold-departure" order. At least, to get hold of the accused while preliminary investigation is conducted.[6] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
SEC. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. – No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution,recommended that respondent be fined in the amount of P21,000 for gross ignorance of the law.[7]
SEC. 8. Burden of proof in bail application. – At the hearing of an application for bail filed by a person who is in custody of the commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bail hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial but, upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional examination unless the latter is dead, outside the Philippines, or otherwise unable to testify. (Italics in the original),in order to determine whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong.[12]
SEC. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. – (a) By the Regional Trial Court. – Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or information.At all events, the absence of a preliminary investigation did not justify Apura's release, the defect not having nullified the information and the warrant of arrest against him. Thus this Court held in Larranaga v. CA:[18]
x x x x (Underscoring supplied)
We hold, therefore, that petitioner's detention at the Bagong Buhay Rehabilitation Center is legal in view of the information and the warrant of arrest against him. The absence of a preliminary investigation will not justify petitioner's release because such defect did not nullify the information and the warrant of arrest against him. We ruled in Sanciangco, Jr. v. People:[19]
In fine, respondent's release on bail of Apura, without priorly conducting a hearing for the purpose, betrays his gross ignorance of the law, it being settled that where the law involved is simple and elementary, lack of observance thereof constitutes gross ignorance of the law.[20]The absence of preliminary investigations does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case. Nor do they impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective; but, if there were no preliminary investigations and the defendants, before entering their plea, invite the attention of the court to their absence, the court, instead of dismissing the information, should conduct it or remand the case to the inferior court so that the preliminary investigation may be conducted. (Citation omitted)
[2] Id. at 49.
[3] Id. at 2, 55.
[4] Id. at 236.
[5] Id. at 32.
[6] Id. at 154.
[7] Id. at 248-251.
[8] Id. at 252.
[9] Id. at 253-265.
[10] Id. at 266.
[11] Vide REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 248.
[12] Basco v. Rapatalo, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1335, March 5, 1997, 269 SCRA 220, 226.
[13] Rules of Court, Rule 112, Section 1.
[14] Bautista, Basic Criminal Procedure, Rex Bookstore, Inc.: Manila, Philippines, 2003, at 39.
[15] Supra note 13.
[16] Vide RULES OF COURT, Rule 112, Section 7; Larranaga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130644, October 27, 1997, 281 SCRA 254, at 258.
[17] Vide Larannaga v. Court of Appeals, supra.
[18] 351 Phil. 75, 90 (1998).
[19] G.R. No. L-72830, March 24, 1987, 149 SCRA 1, 3-4.
[20] Jamora v. Bersales, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1529, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 20, 32.
[21] A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, Sections 8 (9) and 11.
[22] Supra note 1 at 33-34.