G.R. No. 155336 - Commission on Human Rights Employees' Association vs. Commission on Human Rights

The petitioner, Bartolome F. Mercado, is the accused in Criminal Case No. Q-91-20150 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Check Law) before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 98, Quezon City.
He filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court challenging the Court of Appeals’ decision which dismissed his petition for prohibition and mandamus.

The petitioner moved to defer his arraignment on the ground that he was not notified properly of the preliminary investigation.

He alleged that the private complainant deliberately provided an incorrect address for the issuance of the subpoena, thereby preventing him from submitting his counter-affidavit.
The petitioner contended that if his counter-affidavit had been considered, it would have prevented the filing of the criminal case against him.

In the hearing conducted on July 10, 1991, the trial court granted the petitioner’s motion to defer the arraignment and ordered the remand of the case for reinvestigation.

However, the written order only directed the prosecution to comment on his motion rather than explicitly canceling the arraignment.

On July 30, 1991, when the petitioner’s motion to defer the arraignment was revisited, it was denied, and in consequence, upon his refusal to enter a plea, the respondent judge entered for him a plea of “not guilty.”

Whether the preliminary investigation conducted ex parte due to the lack of notice (stemming from the alleged misinformation by the complainant) is valid.

ii. Whether the remedy of prohibition is applicable when a motion to suspend the arraignment is denied.

The City Prosecutor maintained that the subpoena was sent to the petitioner’s actual residence as evidenced by the address stated in his official cash bond receipt.
He argued that the failure to serve the subpoena (due to it being returned unserved) did not invalidate the preliminary investigation because the petitioner’s presence is not indispensable as long as proper efforts to notify him were made and his rights to controvert the evidence were preserved.

The evidence showed that the petitioner had issued a check that was dishonored because the bank account had been closed, which established probable cause against him.
The proceedings established that the objective of the preliminary investigation was to review evidence and determine if a crime had been committed, not necessarily to secure the physical presence of the accused.
The Court of Appeals, in its decision dated January 13, 1993, reiterated these points and further emphasized that the petitioner’s defenses should be ventilated during trial proceedings.

Whether a preliminary investigation conducted ex parte, due to the accused not being properly notified because of the complainant’s alleged misinformation regarding the petitioner’s address, is valid.
Whether the remedy of prohibition (or mandamus) is proper when a motion to suspend or defer the arraignment is denied, particularly in relation to ensuring the accused’s rights are not infringed.