Title
Albano vs. Arranz
Case
G.R. No. L-24403
Decision Date
Dec 22, 1965
A 1965 shooting during an election protest led to murder charges. The Supreme Court nullified arrest warrants due to procedural violations in preliminary investigations under Rule 112.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24403)

Facts:

  1. Incident Overview:
    On March 18, 1965, at around 2:30 PM, a shooting incident occurred in front of the Court of First Instance of Isabela. The incident took place as the court was about to hear an election protest for mayor in Civil Case No. 1641, titled Albano vs. Aggabao. The shooting involved bodyguards or followers of Congressman Delfin Albano and his brother, resulting in the deaths of Marcial Aggabao and Damaso Decena. The perpetrators fled the scene.

  2. Legal Proceedings Initiated:
    After gathering evidence, the provincial fiscal filed an information directly with the Court of First Instance of Isabela, charging Delfin Albano, his brother Florencio, and their bodyguards or followers with multiple murder. The court conducted an investigation under Section 13, Rule 112 of the new Rules of Court, taking declarations from witnesses and reviewing medical certificates. Based on this, the court issued a warrant of arrest for the accused, except for Delfin and Florencio Albano, who were allowed to post bail.

  3. Petition for Certiorari:
    Delfin Albano and his co-accused filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging that the information and warrant of arrest were nullities because they violated pertinent rules. They sought a preliminary injunction to restrain enforcement of the arrest warrant.

  4. Respondents' Defense:
    The respondents argued that the judge conducted the required preliminary examination and investigation under Section 13, Rule 112, by examining four witnesses and finding probable cause for the issuance of the arrest warrant.

Issue:

  1. Proper Filing of the Case:
    Was the case properly filed before the Court of First Instance of Isabela under Section 13, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court?

  2. Validity of the Preliminary Investigation:
    Did the respondent judge comply with the requirements of Section 13, Rule 112 in conducting the preliminary examination and investigation?

  3. Effect of Non-Compliance:
    What is the legal effect of the respondent judge's failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 13, Rule 112?


Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that the proceedings conducted by the respondent judge were null and void due to non-compliance with Section 13, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The arrest warrant was set aside, and the petition was granted without costs.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.