ANTONIO Y. MAYUGA, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. CESAR R. MARAVILLA, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF ODIONGAN AND AQUILINO GALLOMOSA, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

On March 22, 1960, Aquilino Galloraosa, through then acting Provincial Fiscal
Edmundo Ruado, filed before the Justice of the Peace of Odiongan, Romblon an
information (Criminal Case No. 4720) against Antonio Mayuga, charging him of
Homicide Through Reckless Imprudence, alleging that he failed to remove an
intestinal pack (rolled gauze) from the surgical opening which he, as a medical
practitioner, made in a cesarean operation on Gallomosa’s wife, Avelina
Gallomosa, causing infection and leading to her death on December 8, 1956.

After conducting a preliminary examination, the Justice of the Peace,
Cesar Maravilla, found that a prima facie case existed and ordered Mayuga’s
arrest.

Before the preliminary investigation, Mayuga, on August 30, 1960 moved
to quash the information on the ground that the accompanying annexes and oral
testimonies made in the preliminary examination conducted by the Justice of the
Peace were all hearsay and insufficient to establish a prima facie case.

When the Justice of the Peace after due hearing denied the motion to quash as
well as subsequent motions for reconsideration as being without merit, the
accused on November 20, 1960 petitioned for certiorari before the Court of First
Instance of Romblon alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Justice of the Peace and seeking the annulment of his orders and the dismissal
of the information.

On January 21, 1961 the Court of First Instance issued an order dismissing
the petition for lack of merit and directed the Justice of the Peace to continue
with the preliminary investigation of Criminal Case No. 4720.

After denial on February 8, 1961 of motion for reconsideration the accused
appealed the order of dismissal to the Court of Appeals. The latter however
certified the case to Us on questions of law: (1) Was the Court of First
Instance in error in upholding the actuations of the Justice of the Peace? (2)
Was the outright dismissal of the petition for certiorari also an error?

Appellant objects to the following, as insufficient basis for the existence
of a prima facie case:

1) Exhibit A—an allegedly unsigned, unauthenticated and unidentified true
copy of a purported autopsy report issued by Dr. Perpetua Penales on March 4,
1957. She was not presented for cross examination.

2) Exhibit B—a certificate stating that Avelina Gallomosa died on December 8,
1956 signed by the Municipal Treasurer, whose signature was not identified.

3) Exhibit C—a partly accomplished, unsigned and unattested form of
certificate of death of the Bureau of Health later substituted by a photostatic
copy marked as Exhibit C-1.

4) The testimonies of the deceased’s husband Aquilino Gallomosa, Sancho
Pargao, rural health nurse who attended during the autopsy, and Dr. Godofredo
Fatalla, incumbent Municipal Health Officer.

Appellant should bear in mind that a preliminary examination such as
was conducted by the Justice of the Peace has for its purpose only the
determination of whether a crime has been committed and whether there is
probable cause to believe the accused guilty thereof,^[1] and if so, the issuance of a warrant of
arrest. And it should not be forgotten that a preliminary investigation
has two stages:^[2] First, a preliminary
examination of the complainant and his witnesses prior to the arrest of the
accused;_^[3] and, second, the reading to the accused after his arrest of the
complaint or information filed against him, and his being informed of the
substance of the evidence against him, after which he is allowed to present
evidence in his favor, if he desires.^[4]
Probable cause, in regard to the first stage of preliminary investigation,
depends on the discretion of the Judge or magistrate empowered to issue the
warrant of arrest. It suffices that facts are presented to him to convince him,
not that a person has committed the crime, but that there is probable cause to
believe that such person committed the crime charged.^[5] The proceeding is generally ex parte^[6] unless the defendant desires to be present
and while under the old Rules the Justice of the Peace or investigating officer
must take the testimony of the complainant and the latter’s witnesses under
oath, only the testimony of the complainant shall be in writing and only an
abstract or brief .statement of the substance of the testimony of the other is
required.^[7] Regarding preliminary
investigation, it has thus been ruled that “the occasion is not for the full and
exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence; it is for the presentation of such
evidence only as may engender well-grounded belief that an offense has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.^[8] Accordingly, it has been ruled 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.'”^[9]

We note that aside from the above-enumerated documentary evidence alleged to
be hearsay, there are testimonies of witnesses and also the affidavits of the
complaining witness Aquilino Gallomosa and of Dr. Perpetua Penales, attached to
the petition for certiorari as annexes A and B, respectively. These testimonies
alone even excluding said documents alleged to be hearsay evidence, under the
rules then applicable and the jurisprudence, are sufficient to uphold the
conclusion of the Justice of the Peace in his finding that a prima facie case
existed. In fact We find that in looking into the matters objected to as
inadmissible and insufficient, the Justice of the Peace did more than that
required to form his conclusion, an act commendable of him in his efforts to
clear his mind of doubts in forming his opinion which the Court of First
Instance correctly upheld.

Appellant further argues that under Section 6 of Rule 67, now Section 6 of
Rule 65, Rules of Court, a petition for certiorari, once sufficient in form and
substance, should be answered and the Court of First Instance should have
required the Justice of the Peace to do so before dismissing the petition.
Suffice it to observe that precisely in this case the petition is deficient in
substance. And as held in Arvisu v. Vergara, 90 Phil. 621, 623-623: “On
principle, dismissal (of a petition for certiorari) would also be proper if
before answer is filed, the attention of the court is called to the fact that
from its own allegations the petition appears to be without merit.”^[10]

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is hereby affirmed and
respondent Justice of the Peace is directed to proceed with the preliminary
investigation of Criminal Case No. 4720, with costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon,
Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, JJ.,
concur.

^[2] Biron v. Cea, 73 Phil.
673; Rodriguez v. Arellano, L-8332, April 30, 1955.

^[3] Rule 108, Sec. 1 of old Rules of Court,
Now Rule 112, Sec. 1, with modifications.

^[4] Rule 108, Sec. 11 of old Rules of Court,
now Rule 112, Sec. 10.

^[5] U.S. v.
Ocampo, 18 Phil. 1.

^[6] People v.
Moreno, 77 Phil. 548.

^[7] Rule
108, Sec. 6 of old Rules of Court, now Rule 112, Sec. 5, with
modifications.

^[8] Hashim v.
Boncan, 71 Phil. 216, 225.

^[9]
People v. Olandag, 92 Phil. 286, 288, citing U.S. v. Ocampo, 18 Phil.
1.

^[10] Reiterated in Santos Chan
v. Galang, L-21732, Oct. 17, 1966.