Case Digest (G.R. No. 92847) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
Eden D. Paredes, the petitioner, is the wife of Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr., who served as the Provincial Attorney of Agusan del Sur. On January 21, 1976, Paredes, Jr. applied for a free patent for a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 3097-A, with a total area of 1,391 square meters, located near the Washington Highway in San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. His application was favorably endorsed by Land Inspector Armando Luison, leading to the issuance of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-8379 on May 11, 1976. However, in June 1984, the Sangguniang Bayan of San Francisco passed a resolution that sought assistance in reclaiming Lot No. 3097-A, designating it as a school site, and requested the provincial fiscal to charge Paredes, Jr. with perjury.
On March 28, 1985, the Republic filed Civil Case No. 512 in the Regional Trial Court to annul Paredes’ title to the land. During the ongoing civil case, on October 28, 1986, Teofilo Gelacio filed a complaint against Paredes with the
Case Digest (G.R. No. 92847) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Application for Free Patent and Issuance of Title
- On January 21, 1976, Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr., then serving as the Provincial Attorney of Agusan del Sur, applied for a free patent for Lot No. 3097-A, PLS-67, with an area of 1,391 square meters located beside the Washington Highway in San Francisco, Agusan del Sur.
- The application was favorably acted upon by the Land Inspector, Armando Luison.
- On May 11, 1976, OCT No. P-8379 was issued evidencing the title to the lot.
- Local Government Actions and Controversy Over the Land
- Eight years later, on June 27, 1984, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of San Francisco passed Resolution No. 40, requesting the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur to assist in recovering Lot No. 3097 from Attorney Paredes, arguing that the land had been designated and reserved as a school site.
- The resolution included a request for the provincial fiscal to file a perjury charge against Attorney Paredes, alleging that he had misused his official capacity to obtain a favorable endorsement on his patent application.
- The resolution received the approval of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
- Initiation of Criminal Proceedings
- On October 28, 1986, during the pendency of Civil Case No. 512 (which sought the annulment of Attorney Paredes’ title), Teofilo Gelacio, former vice-mayor of San Francisco, Agusan del Sur, filed a criminal complaint with the Tanodbayan (now the Ombudsman).
- The complaint charged Attorney Paredes with violating Section 3(a) of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019), for allegedly influencing Land Inspector Armando Luison to endorse his free patent application improperly.
- Section 3(a) of R.A. 3019 was cited, which prohibits a public officer from persuading, inducing, or influencing another public officer to commit acts contrary to duly promulgated rules and regulations.
- Preliminary Investigation and Procedural Irregularities
- On February 23, 1987, the Tanodbayan referred the case to Fiscal Ernesto Brocoy of Butuan City for a preliminary investigation (TBP Case No. 86-03368).
- Fiscal Brocoy issued summons requiring Attorney Paredes to appear on August 29, 1987; however, the summons were improperly served on November 19, 1987, on the INP Station Commander of San Francisco, and did not reach Paredes.
- Despite the failure to serve the summons directly to the accused, Fiscal Brocoy proceeded with the preliminary investigation by examining the complainant and his witnesses.
- On August 29, 1988, Fiscal Brocoy issued a resolution finding a prima facie case against Paredes. This resolution was later approved by Tanodbayan Prosecutor Josephine Fernandez on June 26, 1989.
- Attorney Paredes filed a motion for reconsideration of the Tanodbayan’s resolution, arguing that the preliminary investigation was conducted without proper notice to him; however, the motion was denied.
- Development of Concurrent Civil and Criminal Proceedings
- While Civil Case No. 512, which sought the annulment of his free patent, was pending, Attorney Paredes was elected governor of Agusan del Sur on January 18, 1988.
- On May 20, 1988, the Regional Trial Court of Agusan del Sur rendered a decision annulling Governor Paredes’ Free Patent (No. (X-8) 1253) and OCT No. P-8379, thereby restoring the land to the public domain.
- Subsequently, on August 28, 1988, an information was filed against Governor Paredes in the Sandiganbayan (Crim. Case No. 13800).
- A warrant for his arrest was issued on August 30, 1989, fixing bail at P20,000 for provisional liberty, and the warrant was properly served even though Paredes later refused to post bail in protest, resulting in his detention in the municipal jail of San Francisco.
- Filing of the Habeas Corpus Petition
- On September 20, 1989, Mrs. Eden Paredes, representing her detained husband, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the Sandiganbayan.
- The petition contended that the arrest warrant was void because the preliminary investigation was conducted without notice to Attorney Paredes and that the crime charged in the information against him had already prescribed.
- In its Return of the Writ, the Solicitor General, as counsel for the Sandiganbayan, concurred with the petitioner's assertion regarding the defective preliminary investigation, which purportedly invalidated both the information and the arrest warrant.
- Additionally, the Solicitor General noted that under the applicable prescriptive periods (ten years under Section 11 of R.A. 3019, not to be retroactively extended by the new fifteen-year period under Section 4, B.P. Blg. 195), the offense would have prescribed if committed on January 21, 1976.
- The Ombudsman argued against the petition on several grounds, including that the Sandiganbayan was not the proper respondent since it merely exercised jurisdiction over the case, and that issues regarding prescription should be addressed during the criminal prosecution, not in a habeas corpus proceeding.
- At the hearing on September 27, 1989, the Court directed the inclusion of the Tanodbayan (through the Special Prosecutor) and the Ombudsman as respondents, setting a hearing for October 18, 1989, and granting provisional liberty pending the resolution of the petition.
- The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed its comment on October 6, 1989, asserting that because the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the offense charged under R.A. 3019, it was proper in issuing a warrant for arrest based on the information filed against Paredes.
Issues:
- Whether the arrest and detention of Attorney Paredes, pursuant to a warrant issued by the Sandiganbayan based on a preliminary investigation conducted without notice to him, can be considered valid.
- Whether the crime charged against Attorney Paredes has already prescribed, considering the applicable prescriptive periods and the contention regarding the commencement of the running of such period.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)