Case Digest (G.R. No. 155041)
Facts:
Reynaldo de Castro v. Hon. Manuel B. Fernandez, Jr., G.R. No. 155041, February 14, 2007, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Reynaldo de Castro (also styled in the lower information as Reynaldo de Castro y Avellana) was accused in Criminal Case No. 02-0527 by the People of the Philippines for rape allegedly committed against a seven‑year‑old child. The complaint was initiated when barangay tanods invited petitioner to the barangay hall on 11 June 2002 in connection with a complaint filed by AAA on behalf of her daughter BBB; petitioner went with the tanods voluntarily and without resistance.On 12 June 2002, the barangay officials turned petitioner over to the Las Piñas City Police Station. On 13 June 2002 the police indorsed the complaint to the city prosecutor for inquest proceedings, and a commitment order for detention was subsequently issued. On 18 June 2002, State Prosecutor Napoleon A. Monsod filed an Information charging petitioner with rape under Article 266‑A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (the Anti‑Rape Law of 1997), alleging insertion of a finger into the victim’s genitalia.
On 1 July 2002 petitioner filed a Motion for Reinvestigation asking the trial court to direct the Office of the Prosecutor of Las Piñas City to conduct a preliminary investigation under Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and, alternatively, to have the charge amended to acts of lasciviousness because petitioner argued that fingering is not covered by Article 266‑A(2). In an Order dated 5 August 2002, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 254, Las Piñas City (presided by Judge Manuel B. Fernandez, Jr.) denied the Motion for Reinvestigation. Petitioner moved for reconsideration on 22 August 2002, which the RTC denied in an Order dated 28 August 2002.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with this Court, captioned as a petition under Rule 65, challenging the RTC’s 5 and 28 August 2002 Orders and raising (a) whether a fin...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to assail the RTC’s interlocutory orders?
- Did petitioner waive his right to a preliminary investigation under Section 7, Rule 112 by failing to request it within five days after learning of the filing of the information?
- Does insertion of a finger into a minor’s genitalia constitute an “instrument or object” under Article 266‑A(2) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)