Facts:

The case in question is between Jose S. Bagcal, the petitioner, and Hon. Rolando R. Villaraza, the Presiding Judge of the City Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch II, as the respondent. The events began with Bagcal's arrest on February 28, 1982, by the Philippine Constabulary, which occurred without a warrant. Following this, on August 6, 1982, the City Fiscal of Cagayan de Oro filed an information for murder against Bagcal with the Municipal Trial Court, presided over by Judge Villaraza. This information was accompanied by affidavits from several individuals; however, these affidavits had not been subscribed before Judge Villaraza, who neither required ratification of oaths from the affiants nor conducted thorough questioning. Notably, there was no certification from the City Fiscal indicating that a preliminary investigation had been conducted. If a preliminary investigation had indeed been carried out, the information should have been filed in the Court of First Instance

...

Facts:

Arrest and Initial Detention

• Petitioner Jose S. Bagcal was arrested on February 28, 1982, by the Philippine Constabulary without a warrant.
• Following his arrest, he was detained at Camp Alagar, Cagayan de Oro City, and remained in custody from his arrest until the time of the proceedings.

Filing of Criminal Information and Procedural Irregularities

• On August 6, 1982, the City Fiscal of Cagayan de Oro filed an information for murder against petitioner before the Municipal Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, which was presided over by Judge Rolando R. Villaraza.
• The information was supported by affidavits from several persons; however, these affidavits were not executed with due formalities – they were not subscribed before Judge Villaraza, nor were the affiants properly sworn in or examined (i.e., no searching questions were posed).
• There was no certification from the City Fiscal indicating that a preliminary investigation had been conducted. The absence of such investigation indicated that the case should have been elevated to the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) rather than being handled in the lower municipal court.

Issuance of the Arrest Warrant and Subsequent Legal Proceedings

• Judge Villaraza, in light of the procedural lapses—specifically the failure to conduct a proper preliminary examination and to ensure the affidavits’ formalities—issued a warrant of arrest for the petitioner.
• Petitioner contested his detention on the ground that the warrant itself was irregularly issued due to the absence of the customary preliminary examination of the prosecution’s witnesses.

Habeas Corpus and Bail Proceedings

• Petitioner filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his detention was illegal due to the procedural defect in the issuance of his arrest warrant.
• A writ of habeas corpus was issued on October 19, 1982, with instructions for its return to the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Cagayan de Oro City on November 8, 1982.
• During a due hearing, Judge Eulalio D. Rosete rendered a decision on November 17, 1982, denying the petitioner’s request for immediate release but ordering Judge Villaraza to expedite a hearing on the petitioner’s application for bail. The bail proceedings were to focus solely on determining whether the evidence against the petitioner in the murder charge was sufficiently strong to justify continued detention pending trial.

Subsequent Filing and Procedural Submissions by Petitioner

• In response to the irregular warrant, petitioner not only sought immediate release via the writ of habeas corpus but also applied for bail and submitted supporting memoranda as well as motions for reconsideration when his initial application was denied.
• Petitioner’s actions indicated his acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction despite the irregularities in the issuance of his arrest warrant.

Issue:

Whether the issuance of an arrest warrant without conducting a preliminary examination of the witnesses violated the petitioner’s constitutional and procedural rights.

• Did the lack of proper formality in taking the affidavits and the absence of a preliminary investigation render the warrant invalid?

Whether the petitioner’s subsequent submission of a bail application and related motions cured the initial irregularity in the warrant’s issuance such that his detention can be lawfully continued pending further evidence-based proceedings.

• Is the act of applying for bail an acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction that mitigates the procedural defects in the arrest warrant?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)