G.R. No. 75206 - Galgala vs. Benguet Consolidated, Inc.

The case was presented on April 26, 1991, in Criminal Case No. 10126 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Bacolod City.
The Information charged Ernesto Java y Palmares and a person initially identified as John Doe with a violation of Article 38 (a) and (b) in relation to Article 39 (b) of the Labor Code (Illegal Recruitment) as amended.
The allegations involved the fraudulent recruitment of several individuals for employment in the Province of Zambales under the business name of Good Wisdom for All Nations, Inc., without securing the necessary license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment.

On May 29, 1991, the City Prosecutor submitted an "Urgent Motion To Amend the Information" to correct the identity of the co-accused, identifying him as ALELIO BERNALDEZ PEN instead of John Doe.
The motion also noted that the original Information failed to allege the qualifying circumstances that would have elevated the penalty under Section 39 (a) of the Labor Code.
Despite the motion, the name "John Doe" was inadvertently retained in the Amended Information until a Second Amended Information was later filed on August 27, 1991, which conclusively identified the co-accused as ALELIO BERNALDEZ PEN.

Subsequent to the filing of the Second Amended Information, accompanied by a Resolution indicating that evidence was sufficient, a warrant of arrest was issued against petitioner ALELIO BERNALDEZ PEN on September 20, 1991, by then Presiding Judge Jose Aguirre.
On October 7, 1991, petitioner Pen filed a motion with the Office of the City Prosecutor to declare the Resolution dated August 27, 1991, a nullity, arguing it violated his right to a preliminary investigation.
Due to the vacancy created by the transfer of Judge Aguirre, Judge Anita Amora de Castro later assumed as Presiding Judge of Branch 46, and the motion to nullify the Resolution was not acted upon for over three months.

On January 14, 1992, while the motion to nullify was pending, petitioner filed a Motion for Preliminary Investigation before Judge Amora de Castro, stressing that illegal recruitment, being a cognizable offense, required a preliminary investigation pursuant to Section 3, Rule 112, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
On January 30, 1992, the respondent judge found merit in Pen’s motion and ordered the City Prosecutor to conduct the requisite preliminary investigation.
Despite the pending investigation, on January 31, 1992, Judge Amora de Castro directed the issuance of an alias warrant for the immediate arrest of petitioner Pen.

Petitioner contended that the issuance of the alias warrant constituted grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction because it was issued prior to the conclusion of the preliminary investigation.
In her comment dated June 3, 1992, Judge Amora de Castro justified the issuance, noting that:

An amended information had already been filed and admitted by the court, establishing the basis for a capital offense.
Given that petitioner Pen was at large and faced serious charges, the circumstances warranted immediate custody to prevent the frustration of justice.

The pivotal issue was whether the respondent judge was authorized by law to issue the alias warrant without first terminating the preliminary investigation.
Additionally, the case questioned if the judge complied with the constitutional requirement that a warrant of arrest may only be issued upon probable cause, as determined personally by the judge.

Was the respondent judge legally empowered to issue the alias warrant for arrest prior to the completion of the preliminary investigation, given that the amended information had already been filed and admitted?
Does the procedural framework allow for such warrant issuance when a defendant is at large and facing a capital offense?

Did the respondent judge adhere to the constitutional mandate that no warrant of arrest shall be issued except upon the establishment of probable cause, determined through an examination of affidavits and supporting documents?
Was the evidence on record, particularly the sworn testimonies and supporting documents, sufficient to justify immediate custody of the petitioner?