ANTONIO CALLANTA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, ANTONIO GONZALES AND THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY OF AGUSAN, RESPONDENTS.

Callanta versus Enage

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for preliminary injunction, brought by Antonio Callanta against Judge Manuel Lopez Enage, against the private complainant Antonio Gonzales, and against the Philippine Constabulary of Agusan. Callanta asks the Supreme Court to annul and set aside an order of the respondent judge directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest in a criminal case for assault upon a person in authority with slight physical injuries, and to restrain the respondents from enforcing that warrant. The case matters because it fixes, in plain terms, what a judge of the Court of First Instance must actually do before he may issue a warrant of arrest upon a complaint filed directly with his court — a point every student of criminal procedure must be able to state as a rule.

Procedural History

The controversy began in the Court of First Instance of Agusan, where the private respondent filed a complaint directly with the respondent judge. On the very same day, the respondent judge issued the questioned order for the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner, in a criminal case that was not docketed. The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction. As prayed for, the Supreme Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the respondents from enforcing or executing the warrant of arrest, from detaining the petitioner under that warrant, from proceeding with the trial, and from deciding the case. The Supreme Court thus acted on the petition as an original action, and it resolved the matter in this decision.

Facts

In the morning of June 23, 1967, there was an altercation between the petitioner Antonio Callanta and the private respondent Antonio Gonzales in the office of the City Treasurer of Butuan, Agusan, where both were employed. After the incident, each man claimed that he had been assaulted by the other.

The petitioner lodged his complaint with the City Fiscal of Butuan City. The private respondent, on the other hand, did not go to the fiscal. He went directly to the respondent judge of first instance and filed there a complaint for assault upon a person in authority with slight physical injuries.

On that same day, the respondent judge issued the order for the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner was given no notice of any proceeding before the respondent judge. The respondents nevertheless claimed that the proceeding conducted without notice to the accused was the preliminary examination and preliminary investigation required by the rules.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing a warrant of arrest against the petitioner without notice to him of the proceedings conducted by the judge.
• Whether or not a judge of the Court of First Instance, upon a complaint filed directly with his court without previous preliminary examination and investigation by the fiscal, may conduct a preliminary examination ex parte, or in the absence of the accused, before issuing a warrant of arrest.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

Section 13. Preliminary examination and investigation by the judge of the Court of First Instance. Upon complaint filed directly with the Court of First Instance, without previous preliminary examination and investigation conducted by the fiscal, the judge thereof shall either refer the complaint to the municipal judge referred to in the second paragraph of section 2 hereof for preliminary examination and investigation, or himself conduct both preliminary examination and investigation simultaneously in the manner provided in the preceding sections, and should he find reasonable ground to believe that the defendant has committed the offense charged, he shall issue a warrant for his arrest, and thereafter refer the case to the fiscal for the filing of the corresponding information.

This is the very provision the respondent judge was bound to follow, and its requirement that the judge conduct both examination and investigation simultaneously is the measure against which his order is tested.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found merit in the petition. The petitioner had received no notice of the proceedings supposedly held by the respondent judge, and the order for his arrest was issued in disregard of the applicable law.

On the second issue, the Court held that the rule does not contemplate only one proceeding, or the holding of a preliminary examination that may be conducted ex parte, or in the absence of the accused. What the rule requires is that both examination and investigation be conducted by the judge simultaneously — that is, on the same occasion — by receiving the evidence of the complainant in the presence of the accused, as well as the evidence of the latter if he so desires. Only when the judge finds reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offense charged may he issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.

The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Albano versus Arranz for this reading of the provision. Accordingly, the questioned order, issued after a proceeding conducted by the respondent judge without prior notice to the accused, and which the respondents claimed to be the preliminary examination and preliminary investigation required by the rule, had no legal basis and was therefore null and void.

Doctrine

When a complaint is filed directly with the Court of First Instance without previous preliminary examination and investigation by the fiscal, the judge has two choices under Section 13 of Rule 112: he may refer the complaint to the municipal judge for preliminary examination and investigation, or he may himself conduct both preliminary examination and investigation simultaneously. He may not hold a preliminary examination alone, ex parte, or in the absence of the accused.

The examination and the investigation must be held on the same occasion, with the complainant's evidence received in the presence of the accused and with the accused given the opportunity to present his own evidence if he so desires. Only after that proceeding, and only upon a finding of reasonable ground to believe that the accused committed the offense charged, may the judge issue a warrant of arrest, and he must thereafter refer the case to the fiscal for the filing of the corresponding information. An order of arrest issued after a proceeding held without notice to the accused is without legal basis and is null and void.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the order of the respondent judge directing the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner was annulled and set aside, and the writ of preliminary injunction previously issued was made permanent, without costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the judge must conduct both preliminary examination and investigation simultaneously, in the presence of the accused, before he may issue a warrant of arrest. Examiners use this case to test the requirements for a valid preliminary examination and investigation when a complaint is filed directly with the Court of First Instance, and to test when an order of arrest is void for having been issued ex parte.