CITY PROSECUTOR ARMANDO P.

ABANADO, complainant, HELD:

vs
JUDGE ABRAHAM A. BAYONA, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, Branch 7, Bacolod City, respondent.
FACTS:
 In connection with the issuance of a warrant of arrest against
accused, respondent issued an order directing complainant to
present among others a Memorandum of the transfer of case
assignment from designated Investigating Prosecutor to the City
Prosecutor to enable his court to evaluate and determine the
existence of probable cause.
 The conduct of a preliminary investigation is primarily an
executive function. Thus, the courts must consider the rules of
procedure of the Department of Justice in conducting preliminary
investigations whenever the actions of a public prosecutor is put
in question.
 The Department of Justice-National Prosecution Service (DOJ-
NPS) Manual states that the resolution of the investigating
prosecutor should be attached to the information only as far as
practicable. Such attachment is not mandatory or required under
the rules.

 The complainant explained in a letter that there was no

memorandum of transfer of the case from Investigating
Prosecutor to him.

 Respondent was dissatisfied with the explanation of the Office of

the City Prosecutor. In an Order, respondent stated that the
Resolution dismissing the complaint was part and parcel of the
official records of the case and, for this reason, must form part of
the records of the preliminary investigation.

 He further stated that because there was a conflict between the

investigating prosecutor and complainant’s resolutions, those
documents were necessary in the evaluation and appreciation of
the evidence to establish probable cause for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest against the accused.

 He, thus, ordered complainant to complete the records of the

case by producing the investigating prosecutor’s Resolution. The
Office of the City Prosecutor again sent a letter explaining the
impossibility of submitting it to the court. The letter stated that the
Resolution was no longer part of the records of the case as it was
disapproved by complainant.

 Complainant executed an administrative complaint against the

respondent, alleging that the respondent was guilty of gross
ignorance of the law or procedure and gross misconduct. He
essentially asserted that respondent unduly burdened himself by
obsessing over the production of the records of the preliminary
investigation.

 Respondent, in his Comment with Counter-Complaint for

Disbarment of Prosecutor Abanado, reiterated the importance of
the said Resolution in deciding whether to issue a warrant of
arrest.

 The OCA submitted its report and recommendation. It noted

Judge Gellada’s Order which held that the resolution of the city or
provincial prosecutor finding probable cause replaces the
recommendation of the investigating prosecutor. In such case,
the resolution recommending the dismissal is superseded, and no
longer forms an integral part of the records of the case and it need
not be annexed to the information filed in court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the conduct of a preliminary investigation is an
executive function.
 G.R. No. 175887
November 24, 2010
HEIRS OF THE LATE NESTOR TRIA, Petitioners,
vs.
ATTY. EPIFANIA OBIAS, Respondent.
FACTS:
 On May 22, 1998, at around 10:00 o’clock in the morning at Engr.
Nestor Tria, Regional Director of the Department of Public Works
and Highways (DPWH), Region V and concurrently Officer-In-
Charge of the 2nd Engineering District of Camarines Sur, was
shot by a gunman while waiting to board his flight to Manila.
an appeal or petition for review with the OP and not before the
DOJ.
 Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and also a
Supplemental Pleading and Submission of Newly Discovered
Evidence.
 Presidential Assistant granted respondent’s motion for
reconsideration and reversed the DOJ resolutions. Accordingly,
the case against respondent was dismissed for insufficiency of
evidence. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was
denied by the OP.

 He was brought to a hospital but died the following day from the  The petitioner filed a petition before the CA but was denied.
lone gunshot wound on his nape. Hence this petition.

 Subsequently, the incident was investigated by the National ISSUE:

Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
 NBI Regional Director recommended to the Provincial Prosecutor
of Camarines Sur the indictment of Roberto "Obet" Aclan y Gulpo,
Juanito "Totoy" Ona y Masalonga and Atty. Epifania "Fanny"
Gonzales-Obias, for the murder of Engr. Tria based on the
statements given by twenty-six (26) individuals, autopsy and
ballistic examination reports, and relevant documents gathered.
Whether the Office of the President erred in taking cognizance of the
appeal of the respondent.
HELD:
 Preliminary investigation is executive in character. It does not
contemplate a judicial function. It is essentially an inquisitorial
proceeding, and often, the only means of ascertaining who may
be reasonably charged with a crime.

 During the preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor, respondent filed her Counter-Affidavit
denying that she was in anyway involved with the killing of Engr.
Tria.
 The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur issued
a resolution directing the filing of an information for murder
against Aclan and Ona but dismissing the case for insufficiency
of evidence as against herein respondent, Atty. Epifania Obias.
 Prosecutors control and direct the prosecution of criminal
offenses, including the conduct of preliminary investigation,
subject to review by the Secretary of Justice.
 The duty of the Court in appropriate cases is merely to determine
whether the executive determination was done without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review
unless made with grave abuse.


Petitioners appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ) assailing
the Provincial Prosecutor’s order to dismiss the charge against
respondent.

 The Secretary of Justice issued a Resolution modifying the

resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor and directing the latter to
include respondent in the information for murder filed against
Aclan and Ona.

 Respondent along with Aclan and Ona filed a motion for

reconsideration but was denied.

 Meanwhile, the information charging Aclan and Ona has already

been filed with the RTC. Thereafter, prosecution filed with the
RTC a Motion to Admit Amended Information to include
respondent as one of the accused for the murder of Tria.
Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal with the DOJ.

 The DOJ denied respondent’s notice of appeal on the ground that

appeals to the OP where the penalty prescribed for the offense
charged is “reclusion perpetua to death,” shall be taken by petition
for review.

 Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of her

notice of appeal. The DOJ denied respondent’s motion for
reconsideration stating that the proper procedure is the filing of
 A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666
September 5, 2012
(Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-1761-MTJ)
GERLIE M. UY and MA. CONSOLACION T.
BASCUG, Complainants,
vs.
JUDGE ERWIN B. JAVELLANA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, LA
CASTELLANA, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL,Respondent.
FACTS:
 This administrative case arose from a verified complaint1 for
"gross ignorance of the law and procedures, gross incompetence,
neglect of duty, conduct improper and unbecoming of a judge,
grave misconduct and others," filed by Public Attorneys Gerlie2 M.
Uy (Uy) and Ma. Consolacion T. Bascug (Bascug) of the Public
Attorney’s Office (PAO), La Carlotta District, against Presiding
Judge Erwin B. Javellana (Javellana) of the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC), La Castellana, Negros Occidental.
and one (1) day without regard to the fine. As has been previously
established herein, the maximum penalty imposable for malicious
mischief in People v. Lopez, et al. is just six (6) months.
 Judge Javellana did not provide any reason as to why he needed
to conduct a preliminary investigation in People v. Lopez, et al.
We stress that the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure was
precisely adopted to promote a more expeditious and
inexpensive determination of cases, and to enforce the
constitutional rights of litigants to the speedy disposition of cases.
 Judge Javellana cannot be allowed to arbitrarily conduct
proceedings beyond those specifically laid down by the Revised
Rule on Summary Procedure, thereby lengthening or delaying the
resolution of the case, and defeating the express purpose of said
Rule.

 One of the allegations was Judge Javellana violated Section 6(b),

Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and issued
warrants of arrest without propounding searching questions to the
complainants and their witnesses to determine the necessity of
placing the accused under immediate custody. As a result, Judge
Javellana issued warrants of arrest even when the accused had
already voluntarily surrendered or when a warrantless arrest had
been effected.

 Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug prayed that Judge Javellana be

removed from the MTC of La Castellana.

 In his Comment on the complaint against him, Judge Javellana

discounted the allegations of Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug as
"baseless, untruthful, intrigues, malicious and a harassment
tending to intimidate him."

 Judge Javellana claimed to have conducted preliminary

examination, asking the complainants and their witnesses
searching questions, before issuing warrants of arrest.

 According to Judge Javellana, he would sign the official form of

the warrant of arrest right after the preliminary examination. In
some cases, Judge Javellana was not aware that the accused
had already voluntarily surrendered or was already taken into
custody by virtue of a warrantless arrest because police officers
did not timely inform the court of such fact.

 Judge Javellana sought the dismissal of the instant complaint

against him.

ISSUE:
WON Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the procedure.

HELD:
 If the accused is in custody for the crime charged, he shall be
immediately arraigned and if he enters a plea of guilty, he shall
forthwith be sentenced.

 Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

only requires that a preliminary investigation be conducted before
the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the
penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months
 People vs. Valencia  Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested
214 SCRA 88 may ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance with this
September 18, 1992 Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his
FACTS: counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and
 Arlyn Barredo-Jimenez together with her two children was about the investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from
to eat supper. its inception.

 She noticed appellant standing five steps away from the open
door of her house and holding a sumpak, a homemade shotgun.
 Seized with fear, she closed the door. After a few moments, she
heard a burst of gunfire. This was followed by cries of pain from
her children inside the house. Seeing her children bloodied, she
immediately went outside and shouted for help. As she did so,
she saw appellant running away, carrying the sumpak.
 Since the records do not show whether the accused-appellant
asked for preliminary investigation after the case had been filed
in court, as in fact, the accused-appellant signified his readiness
to be arraigned, the Court can only conclude that he waived his
right to have a preliminary investigation, when he did in fact
pleaded “Not Guilty” upon his arraignment.

 Acting on the report of a barangay tanod, Patrolmen assigned at

the Ong Detachment, Police Station No. 5, conducted an
investigation of the shooting incident in the house of Jimenez.

 Early next morning, the three policemen apprehended the

appellant and took him to the Ong Detachment for initial
investigation and was later indorsed to the police headquarters
for further investigation in the evening.

 Arlyn Jimenez executed a sworn statement wherein she identified

appellant as the culprit.

 Two informations for Homicide and Frustrated Homicide, were

filed against the accused-appellant.

 When arraigned, the accused-appellant pleaded “Not Guilty”.

Trial then proceeded resulting in accused-appellant’s conviction.

ISSUE:
WON the trial court committed an error in finding that the prosecution
was able to prove guilt of the defendant-appellant beyond reasonable
doubt in spite of the fact that there was allegedly no preliminary
investigation, and no sufficient evidence exists proving his guilt.

HELD:
 This is not true.

 A person who is lawfully arrested, without a warrant should be

delivered to the nearest police station and proceeded against in
accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.

 Under said Section 7, Rule 112, the prosecuting officer can file
the information in Court without a preliminary investigation, which
was done in the accused-appellant’s case.

 When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an

offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint
or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such
investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in
accordance with existing rules. In the absence or unavailability of
an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended
party or a peace office directly with the proper court on the basis
of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.