Title
Palacios vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 240676
Decision Date
Mar 18, 2019
Petitioner denied due process in preliminary investigation due to incorrect address; Supreme Court ordered reinvestigation, suspending trial.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 240676)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Case Origin
    • Jimmy Lim Palacios (petitioner) filed a petition for review on certiorari against the Decision (Jan. 18, 2018) and Resolution (July 11, 2018) of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 150260.
    • The CA had upheld the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 86 orders (Oct. 5, 2016 and Jan. 25, 2017) denying petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation and recall of warrant of arrest.
  • Underlying Complaint and Proceedings
    • Maria Cecilia Ramirez (complainant) alleged economic abuse by petitioner, in violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act), on account of his abandonment and refusal to support her and their minor son.
    • Ramirez filed a Sinumpaang-Reklamong Salaysay before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Quezon City (OCP-QC), indicating petitioner’s residence at Block 3 Lot 24 Turquoise St., Las Piñas Royale Estate, Brgy. Pulang Lupa Dos, Las Piñas City.
    • On March 19, 2015, Assistant City Prosecutor Pedro M. Tresvalles recommended petitioner’s indictment after preliminary investigation; an Information was filed in RTC (Crim. Case No. R-QZN-15-04286) and a warrant of arrest issued (May 12, 2015).
  • Motion for Reinvestigation and Recall of Warrant; Lower Courts’ Rulings
    • In September 2016, petitioner moved for reinvestigation and recall of warrant, claiming lack of due process because Ramirez allegedly gave a false address (Block 9 Lot 6 Pag-Ibig Homes, Talon IV, Las Piñas City), thereby preventing notice and his participation in the preliminary investigation.
    • The RTC denied the motion (Oct. 5, 2016) citing A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC provision that preliminary investigation motions are only for inquest cases; reconsideration was likewise denied (Jan. 25, 2017).
    • The CA dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition, affirming that petitioner had opportunity to participate in the preliminary investigation per the prosecutor’s certification and that A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC barred his motion absent inquest proceedings.

Issues:

  • Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in upholding the RTC’s denial of petitioner’s motion for preliminary investigation and recall of warrant of arrest, in light of alleged deprivation of petitioner’s due-process right to notice and hearing.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.