Case Digest (G.R. No. 109036)
Facts:
Bartolome F. Mercado v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Fourth Division, The Honorable Cesar C. Peralejo, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 98, Quezon City and the Honorable City Prosecutor of Quezon City, G.R. No. 109036, July 05, 1995, the Supreme Court First Division, Quiason, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Bartolome F. Mercado was the accused in Criminal Case No. Q-91-20150 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Check Law) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 98, Quezon City. Petitioner moved to defer his arraignment on the ground that he was not notified of the preliminary investigation and alleged that the private complainant deliberately supplied a wrong address on the subpoena, preventing him from submitting a counter-affidavit which, he claimed, would have negated probable cause.
Petitioner asserted that at the July 10, 1991 hearing the trial court granted his motion to defer arraignment and ordered the case remanded for reinvestigation; he later discovered that the written order only directed the prosecution to comment on the motion. Petitioner then filed a motion to cancel the arraignment scheduled for July 30, 1991. On that date the trial court denied his motion and, upon his refusal to enter a plea, the trial judge entered a plea of "not guilty" for him.
Petitioner sought relief from the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for prohibition and mandamus to prevent the RTC judge from proceeding with the criminal trial. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in its Decision dated January 13, 1993 (CA-G.R. SP No. 25630) and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated February 16, 1993, ruling among other things that (1) prohibition was not the proper remedy; (2) an actual preliminary investigation had been conducted and probable cause was established despite petitioner’s asserted lack of notice; and (3) the presence of the accused was not a prerequisite to the validity of the preliminary investigation.
Petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals. In their pleadings the City Prosecutor denied that the subpoena was sent to a wrong address, stated the subpoena was returned unserved, and poin...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is a preliminary investigation conducted ex parte by reason of lack of notice to the respondent valid where such omission is due to the complainant’s deliberate misinformation regarding the respondent’s address?
- Is the remedy of prohibition proper to restrain trial proceedings when a motion to suspend or def...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)