IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, SIMON LUNA, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. HON. LORENZO M. PLAZA, AS JUDGE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF TANDAG, SURIGAO DEL…

Luna versus Plaza

The Case

This is the case of Luna versus Plaza, an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Simon Luna, the petitioner, was charged with murder before the Municipal Court of Tandag, Surigao del Sur, presided over by Municipal Judge Lorenzo M. Plaza. Luna claimed that the warrant of arrest against him was void because the municipal judge did not comply with Republic Act Number 3828, the law requiring a personal examination of the complainant and witnesses before a warrant of arrest may issue. The case matters because it fixes the meaning of the three conditions of that law — personal examination, examination under oath, and reduction to writing in the form of searching questions and answers — and because it tells us when the writ of habeas corpus will not lie against a detention under a warrant issued by a court with jurisdiction.

Procedural History

The criminal action began in the Municipal Court of Tandag, where the respondent judge, after examining the prosecution witnesses, issued an order and a warrant of arrest for murder, specifying that no bail should be accepted. On motion of the petitioner, the judge later granted bail fixed at 30,000 pesos, but he subsequently revoked that order and denied bail. After the petitioner waived his right to preliminary investigation, the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur, where the provincial fiscal filed an information for murder, and the petitioner was detained in the provincial jail under the custody of the provincial warden.

The petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur, claiming deprivation of liberty without due process because the warrant of arrest violated Republic Act Number 3828. The respondents answered that the law had been substantially complied with, that the proper remedy was a motion to quash and not habeas corpus, and that the application for bail was a waiver of the right to question the validity of the arrest. After trial, the Court of First Instance held that the municipal judge had substantially complied with the law, denied the writ, and dismissed the case. The petitioner appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising only questions of law, so the findings of fact of the trial court became final and binding.

Facts

The criminal action was commenced by a Philippine Constabulary investigator, Sergeant Candido Patosa, who filed a complaint for murder against Simon Luna with the Municipal Court of Tandag. The complaint was supported by sworn statements of the prosecution witnesses, in the form of questions and answers taken by Sergeant Patosa and subscribed and sworn to before the respondent judge at the time of the filing of the complaint.

Before issuing the warrant, the respondent judge read the questions and answers all over again to each affiant. The affiants declared before him that the questions were propounded by Sergeant Patosa and that the answers were their own, that their answers were true and freely and voluntarily made, that they fully understood the questions and answers, and that they were willing to sign their affidavits. They signed in the presence of the judge, who also signed after administering the oath. Considering these answers, together with the post-mortem and autopsy report, the certificate of death, the sketch showing the position of the victim and the accused, and several exhibits, the judge opined that there was reasonable ground to believe that murder had been committed and that the accused was probably guilty, and he issued the order and warrant of arrest.

After his arrest, the petitioner waived his right to preliminary investigation and applied for bail before the respondent judge. The application was at first granted, then the order was revoked. The petitioner was thereafter detained in the provincial jail under the custody of the provincial warden, and he sought his release through habeas corpus.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent municipal judge complied with Republic Act Number 3828 when he adopted as his own the questions and answers taken by the investigator, read them over to the witnesses, and had them sworn to before him.
• Whether or not the failure of the municipal judge to reduce to writing his act of adopting the investigator's questions violated the requirement that the examination be reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers.
• Whether or not the warrant of arrest violated the constitutional requirement of probable cause determined by the judge after examination under oath of the complainant and the witnesses.
• Whether or not the petitioner's waiver of preliminary investigation and his application for bail barred him from questioning the validity of his arrest.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in denying the writ of habeas corpus.

Applicable Provisions

Section 87 (c) of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended by Republic Act Number 3828, provides:

No warrant of arrest shall be issued by any justice of the peace in any criminal case filed with him unless he first examines the witness or witnesses personally, and the examination shall be under oath and reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers.

This is the provision the Court construes, and it yields the three conditions that must be fulfilled before a warrant of arrest may issue.

Section 1 (3) of Article III of the Constitution, as discussed in the decision, provides:

No warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.

This is the constitutional standard against which the petitioner measured the warrant, and the Court held that the examination under oath required by it was fulfilled.

Section 4 of Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides in part:

When writ not allowed or discharge authorized. If it appears that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process or make the order, the writ shall not be allowed.

This governs the denial of the writ, because the petitioner was detained under process issued by a court that had jurisdiction to issue it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the first condition was fulfilled. The trial court found as a fact that the respondent judge personally examined the prosecution witnesses, reading the questions and answers to them and asking whether the answers were theirs and whether they were true. Republic Act Number 3828 does not prohibit the municipal judge from adopting the questions asked by a previous investigator. The Court distinguished the earlier case of Doce, where the warrant was irregular because there were only affidavits sworn to before a judge other than the one who issued the warrant; here the statements were sworn to before the respondent judge himself.

On the second issue, the Court held that the second and third conditions were also fulfilled. The examination was under oath, as the sworn statements were subscribed and sworn to before the respondent judge. It was reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers. The Court defined the term, saying that it means such questions as have a tendency to show the commission of a crime and the perpetrator thereof, and that what is searching depends on what is sought to be inquired into — the nature of the offense, the date, time, and place of its commission, the possible motives, the circumstances of the subject and of the victim, and similar matters. The Court stressed, however, that this is not a license to return to the former practice of simply relying on affidavits accompanying the complaint, and it emphasized strict compliance by municipal and city judges.

On the third issue, the Court held that there was no constitutional violation. The examination under oath was fulfilled, and the existence of probable cause depended to a large degree upon the finding of the judge conducting the examination, who found probable cause in his order of arrest.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the petitioner's conduct amounted to a waiver. Preliminary examination is not an essential part of due process, and the petitioner waived his right to preliminary investigation and applied for bail. These acts were an implied admission that there was probable cause and a waiver of whatever irregularity attended his arrest.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the writ of habeas corpus was properly denied, because the petitioner was in the custody of the provincial warden under process issued by a court that had jurisdiction to issue it. The remedy available to the petitioner was not habeas corpus but a motion to quash the warrant of arrest or a petition for reinvestigation.

Doctrine

Before a municipal judge may issue a warrant of arrest under Section 87 (c) of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended by Republic Act Number 3828, three conditions must be fulfilled: he must examine the witnesses personally; the examination must be under oath; and the examination must be reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers. The law does not prohibit the judge from adopting the questions asked by a previous investigator, provided he personally examines the witnesses under oath and the questions and answers are in writing and sworn to before him. Searching questions and answers means such questions as have a tendency to show the commission of a crime and the perpetrator thereof. The writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed where the person restrained is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge that had jurisdiction to issue the process. And the accused's waiver of preliminary investigation and application for bail constitute a waiver of any irregularity in his arrest.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that Republic Act Number 3828 demands personal examination under oath, reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers, but it does not forbid the judge from adopting the investigator's questions as his own. Examiners use this case to test the three conditions for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the rule that habeas corpus does not lie against a detention under process of a court with jurisdiction.