G.R. No. 47777 - Hashim vs. Boncan

On August 6, 1940, petitioner N. T. Hashim was caught red-handed in possession of counterfeit treasury certificates of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.
The arrest was executed without a warrant by operatives of the Division of Investigation of the Department of Justice.
Hashim was released on the same day when he filed a bond.

The following day, August 7, 1940, a complaint was filed against Hashim with the Office of the City Fiscal.
A preliminary investigation was conducted by the respondent Assistant Fiscal under section 2465 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 537.
The information lodged accused Hashim of violating article 168 of the Revised Penal Code for possessing 560 counterfeit 50-peso treasury certificates with malicious intent.
Testimonies and sworn statements were recorded by Assistant Fiscal Gregorio S. Narvasa and affirmed by Judge Sixto de la Costa of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

The case was docketed as criminal case No. 61464 in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
Based on the preliminary investigation, Judge Sixto de la Costa issued a warrant for Hashim's arrest, and thereafter, Hashim was admitted to bail.
On August 14, 1940, petitioner’s counsel filed a motion under sections 11 and 13 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, requesting that the respondent fiscal supply the clerk of court with the testimony of witnesses from the preliminary investigation and an extract of the counterfeit certificates.
The respondent fiscal opposed the motion, arguing that Rule 108’s provisions concerning preliminary investigations did not apply to those conducted by the City Fiscal or his assistants.
On August 19, 1940, an additional motion was filed by counsel, seeking that the court itself conduct the preliminary investigation if the fiscal’s objection was sustained.
Subsequent pleadings included objections, rejoinders, and further motions. The respondent judge denied the petitioner's motions on August 22, August 26, September 6, and after reconsideration on September 11 and 16, 1940.

Hashim excepted to several orders of the trial court and filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court.
The petition sought:

The cancellation of the arrest warrant.
A court-conducted preliminary investigation in accordance with section 1 of Rule 108 and relevant constitutional provisions.
Transmission to the clerk of court of the abstracted testimony and other evidence from the preliminary investigation.
Suspension of his arraignment during the pendency of these proceedings.

The core issue included whether the accused was entitled to be informed of the substance of the testimony and evidence presented against him during the preliminary investigation conducted by the City Fiscal.
There was a broader question on whether the existing legislation (including sections 2465 and 2474 of the Revised Administrative Code and the Manila Charter) was repealed and replaced by the New Rules of Court.
The case involved analysis of the procedural mandates under sections 11 and 13 of Rule 108, particularly regarding the transmission of abstracted testimony and the role of the "corresponding officer" in the context of City Fiscal–conducted investigations.
Relevant precedents (U. S. vs. Rafael; U. S. vs. Wilson; U. S. vs. McGovern; U. S. vs. Ocampo; U. S. vs. Grant and Kennedy; U. S. vs. Carlos) were cited to illustrate the customary practice of preliminary investigations in criminal cases.

Whether, during a preliminary investigation conducted by the City Fiscal, the accused is entitled to be informed of the substance of the testimony and evidence presented against him, as per section 11 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

Whether the provisions of Rule 108, particularly sections 11 and 13, apply to preliminary investigations conducted by the City Fiscal.
Whether the existing legislative framework authorizing the City Fiscal to conduct preliminary investigations (under sections 2465 and 2474 of the Revised Administrative Code) has been repealed and supplanted by the new Rules of Court.

Whether the transmission of an abstract of the testimony of witnesses is required from the City Fiscal, given his limited power in issuing warrants or controlling the personal custody of the accused.
The implications of mandating such transmission on the expeditious conduct of the preliminary investigation.