Facts:

The case involves Faustina Callanta as the petitioner against Hon. Felipe Villanueva, the City Judge of Dagupan City, and private respondents Cornelia Jimenez and Pastora David Jimenez. The events leading to this case began with the filing of two complaints for grave oral defamation against Callanta. On June 20, 1977, the petitioner contested the validity of the warrants of arrest issued by Judge Villanueva, arguing that the City Fiscal should have conducted the preliminary examination instead. Callanta's counsel claimed that this procedural misstep constituted a jurisdictional infirmity. Despite the issuance of the warrants, Callanta posted bail amounting to P600.00, which allowed her provisional liberty. The respondents, in their answer, indicated that the City Fiscal had indeed shown intent to prosecute Callanta, having conducted a preliminary examination and referred the complaints to his office as early as February 25, 1965. The arraignment was postponed on March 4, ...

Facts:

Procedural Background

• The case originated when petitioner Faustina Callanta was subject to two complaints for grave oral defamation.
• The respondent City Judge Felipe Villanueva of Dagupan City denied motions to quash those complaints.
• Subsequent to the issuance of arrest warrants, petitioner posted the required bail bonds amounting to P600.00, thereby obtaining provisional liberty.

Contention on Jurisdiction and Procedural Irregularity

• Petitioner’s counsel argued that the issuance of arrest warrants was improper because the preliminary examination should have been conducted by the City Fiscal rather than the City Judge.
• The alleged jurisdictional infirmity was based on the contention that only the City Fiscal possesses the authority to conduct such preliminaries, as inferred from certain precedents (e.g., Sayo v. Chief of Police of Manila).

Activities and Involvement of the City Fiscal

• Respondents’ answer detailed that the City Fiscal had conducted a preliminary examination and showed an intent to prosecute in Criminal Cases Nos. 9298 and 9375.
• The City Fiscal’s active involvement was further evidenced by:
• His acquisition of jurisdiction over the petitioner.
• The referral of the complaints from the City Judge to his office.
• His appearance at subsequent hearings and his readiness to proceed with trial.
• The postponement of arraignment and hearing dates pending the Fiscal’s investigation.

Reference to Authoritative Cases and Statutory Provisions

• The opinion referred to precedents such as Zacarias v. Cruz and Luna v. Plaza which emphasize that posting bail constitutes a waiver of any irregularity in the arrest process.
• Additional cases including People v. Olandag, Bermejo v. Barrios, People v. La Caste, Manzano v. Villa, and People v. Obngayan were cited to illustrate and support the doctrine regarding waiver by posting bail.
• The decision also underscored that the charter of Dagupan City expressly authorizes the City Court to conduct preliminary investigations regardless of the limits of punishment.

Issue:

Jurisdictional Infirmity

• Whether petitioner’s contention that the arrest warrants were invalid due to being issued by the City Judge instead of the City Fiscal holds merit.
• Whether the proper authority to conduct preliminary investigation in the pertinent circumstances was indeed confined solely to the City Fiscal.

Waiver of Procedural Defect by Posting Bail

• Whether the act of posting bail, which secured petitioner’s provisional liberty, automatically constitutes a waiver of any procedural irregularity or defect in the issuance of the warrant of arrest.
• Whether petitioner's participation in the process after posting bail indicates acceptance of the procedure and thereby precludes further objection to the manner of the preliminary investigation.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)