THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. AGAPITO OLANDAG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal by the Government from an order of the Court
of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, dismissing the case filed against the
defendant appellee, Agapito Olandag, for theft of large cattle, on the ground
that the Justice of the Peace of Baliangao failed (1) to conduct any preliminary
examination to determine the existence of the crime charged and whether the
appellee has committed the same and (2) to issue the necessary warrant of
arrest.

The complaint against the appellee was filed by the chief of
police of Baliangao on October 5, 1948. The record of the justice of the peace
contains the affidavit of Paulino Agias, subscribed and sworn to on September
29, 1948 before the municipal mayor (Exh. A); the affidavit of Maximo Malanog,
subscribed and sworn to on October 1, 1948 before the Justice of the Peace,
Isabelo J. Villanueva (Exh. B); the affidavit of Crispino Tagayon, subscribed
and sworn to on September 29, 1948 before the municipal mayor (Exh. C); the
affidavit of Esteban Bulahag, subscribed and sworn to on October 1, 1948 before
the justice of the peace, Isabelo J. Villanueva (Exh. D); and the affidavit of
Ceferino Jalampangon, subscribed and sworn to on September 29, 1948 before the
municipal mayor (Exh. E); all of which incriminate the appellee.

It appears from the docket of the justice of the peace court of
Baliangao that on October 5, 1948 the complaint was filed and the appellee was
already under custody before any warrant of arrest could be issued; that on the
same date the bail bond was fixed at P2,500, later increased to P3,000; that on
November 18, 1948, the complaint was read to the appellee who entered a plea of
not guilty, and the court conducted a preliminary investigation; and that on
December 15, 1948, the justice of the peace issued an order finding that there
was a prima facie case against the appellee and remanding the case to the Court
of First Instance for trial on the merits. The record also shows that the
appellee filed the necessary bail bond for P3,000, and that on November 24,
1948, a warrant of arrest was issued by the justice of the peace, A. L. Penaco,
and served on the appellee on the same date by the chief of police of
Baliangao.

It is the opinion of the Court of First Instance of Misamis
Occidental that, although the justice of the peace (A. L. Penaco) conducted the
preliminary investigation proper, his failure to conduct a preliminary
examination and to issue a warrant of arrest, was fatal to the jurisdiction of
the court. The lower court argued that the justice of the peace merely read the
several affidavits presented with the complaint, without actually making any
statement or order to the effect that there was a probable ground for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest, and this amounted to a deprivation of due
process of law.

In U. S. vs. Ocampo, 18 Phil., 1, this Court has already held
that a justice of the peace court is not prohibited by any law “from reaching
the conclusion that ‘probable cause’ exists from the statement of the
prosecuting attorney alone, or any other person whose statement or affidavit is
entitled to credit in the opinion of the judge or magistrate.” Indeed, in
Arteche vs. Rosales, 67 Phil., 48, 52, it was observed that the “justice of the
peace could not be compelled to receive the sworn statements of the complainant
and his witness by questions and answers, simply because it is of judicial
notice that he was not provided with a stenographer.” On the other hand, in
Bustos vs. Lucero, March 8, 1949, 46 Off. Gaz., Supp. No. 1, p. 445, it was
ruled that preliminary investigation is not an essential part of due process of
law.

Moreover, it appearing that the appellee had chosen to file a
bond for his temporary release, and had raised the objection for the first time
after his arraignment before the Court of First Instance on August 14,
1950,—almost; two years after the filing of the complaint in the justice of the
peace court,—he must be deemed to have waived his right to the preliminary
examination which, at any rate, could be conducted by the justice of the peace
either in the presence or in the absence of the appellee. The issuance on
November 24, 1948 of a warrant of arrest which was duly served on the same date
upon the appellee, has furthermore cured the previous failure to issue said
warrant. As a matter of tact, the justice of the peace did not issue a warrant
of arrest upon the filing of the complaint on October 5, 1948 obviously because
the appellee was then under custody.

As the justice of the peace court is not a court of record, it
is not required, after conducting a preliminary examination, to expressly make
it of record that he has conducted said preliminary examination and that there
is reasonable ground to believe that the defendant has committed the crime
charged, because “the issuance of the warrant of arrest is prima facie evidence
that, in his judgment at least, there existed ‘probable cause’ for believing
that the person against whom the warrant is issued is guilty of the crime
charged.”

Wherefore, the appealed order is reversed and the case remanded
to the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental for further proceedings. So
ordered.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and
Labrador, JJ., concur.