Facts:

The case centers around Benjamin R. Abubakar and Habib Sabre, the petitioners, against respondents Hon. Francisco Arca, Hon. Geronimo R. Marave, and the Acting Provincial Fiscal of Jolo, Sulu. The events unfolded in 1958 and 1959. On April 24, 1958, a criminal complaint for double murder and multiple frustrated murder was lodged by PC Lt. Atilano C. Mercado with the Justice of the Peace Court of Indanan, Sulu, against Abubakar, Sabre, and several co-accused. The complaint included a verification by Acting Justice of the Peace Peregrino S. Garcia, confirming that a preliminary investigation had been executed.

On the same day, Abubakar’s attorney, Atty. A. V. Valbuena, sought to be present during the preliminary investigation. The Justice of the Peace allowed for hearings and, upon finding no prima facie case against Abubakar and Sabre, dismissed the case on April 26, 1958. Following this, the records were transferred to the Court of First Instance, reaffirming the prior dismissal

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The petitioners, Benjamin R. Abubakar and Habib Sabre, were charged in connection with a double murder and multiple frustrated murder.
• The case originated with an amended criminal complaint filed on April 24, 1958, by PC Lt. Atilano C. Mercado before the Justice of the Peace Court of Indanan, Sulu.
• The complaint was verified by Acting Justice of the Peace Peregrino S. Garcia, who attested that a preliminary investigation had been conducted with witnesses examined under oath.

Preliminary Investigation in the Justice of the Peace Court

• On the same day as the filing, defense counsel for Abubakar, through a letter addressed by Atty. A. V. Valbuena, requested to be present during the early stage of the preliminary investigation.
• Although the letter was submitted after three prosecution witnesses had been examined, the justice of the peace accommodated the request by setting a later hearing on April 30, 1958.
• During the preliminary investigation, no prima facie case was found against Abubakar and Sabre, resulting in their dismissal on April 26, 1958.
• Despite the dismissal with respect to these two, other accused either waived further investigation or remained at large, prompting the remittance of records to the Court of First Instance with a reiteration of the dismissal.

Subsequent Fiscal Investigation and Filing of Informations

• On May 5, 1958, under the authority of Section 1679 of the Revised Administrative Code, the Secretary of Justice appointed Himerio B. Garcia as Acting Provincial Fiscal for Sulu.
• The Acting Provincial Fiscal conducted an independent preliminary investigation in relation to the death of Board Member Akuk Sangkula and others.
• Subsequent to his investigation, two informations were filed in the Court of First Instance:
• The first, dated August 14, 1958, charged Salip Anual and Marajuki Kissai with double murder and multiple frustrated murder.
• The second, dated August 15, 1958, was filed against petitioners Abubakar and Sabre as principals under the induction theory, and it contained a verified certification by the fiscal asserting that he had duly conducted his investigation and found reasonable grounds for the charge.

Developments Leading to the Petition

• Following the filing of the informations, Judge Geronimo R. Marave ordered the arrest of the petitioners; however, Abubakar secured his release upon posting a bond.
• On May 24, 1958, defense counsel (Attys. Rasul and Amin) communicated to the fiscal requesting the opportunity to be present and submit evidence during the subsequent fiscal investigation, a request which was confirmed by their appearance on June 2, 1958.
• On August 18, 1958, Abubakar and Sabre filed a motion to quash the fiscal’s authority to file the information, arguing that the earlier dismissal by the justice of the peace should preclude a subsequent independent fiscal investigation, thus asserting a lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
• The trial court, in its orders dated November 25, 1958, and January 2, 1959, denied the motion to quash and the related motion for reconsideration.
• Dissatisfied with these orders, the petitioners elevated the issue to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari coupled with a preliminary injunction to annul the challenged orders.

Legal Reliance and Arguments

• The petitioners based their challenge on the interpretation of Republic Act No. 732 and relied on the doctrine formulated in People vs. Magbanua, et al.
• They contended that the fiscal lacked authority to file the information in the Court of First Instance after a dismissal had occurred in the preliminary investigation conducted by the justice of the peace.
• The petitioners further argued that because they had been deprived of a preliminary investigation by the fiscal, their right to due process was violated.

Issue:

Jurisdictional Authority of the Fiscal

• Whether the dismissal of the case in the preliminary investigation conducted by the justice of the peace precludes the Acting Provincial Fiscal from conducting a subsequent, independent preliminary investigation and filing information in the Court of First Instance under Republic Act No. 732.

Applicability of Precedents and Doctrines

• Whether the doctrine established in People vs. Magbanua, which interprets Republic Act No. 732, is applicable in a situation where the accused was afforded a preliminary investigation by the justice of the peace.
• Whether the usage and interpretation of the Villanueva vs. Gonzales doctrine, as well as its subsequent elucidation in People vs. Reginaldo/People vs. Pervez, properly support the fiscal’s conduct in the present case.

Due Process and Right to Preliminary Investigation

• Whether the accused's procedural rights were violated when the fiscal conducted his own investigation after the dismissal by the justice of the peace, despite the accused being offered the opportunity to be present during the fiscal’s investigation.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)