G.R. No. 158211 - San Agustin vs. People

Luz Tan executed a notarized criminal complaint against petitioner Ernesto J. San Agustin, alleging that as Barangay Chairman of Barangay La Huerta, ParaAaque City, he unlawfully detained her husband, Vicente Tan, without lawful ground.
The complaint was subsequently filed with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), triggering an investigation into the alleged serious illegal detention.

On June 25, 2002, petitioner received a subpoena from Ferdinand M. Lavin, Chief of the Anti-Organized Crime Division of the NBI, ordering his appearance on June 26, 2002 at the NBI office.
Complying with the subpoena, petitioner appeared with the barangay logbook for June 19, 2002, which notably lacked any entry recording the arrest of Ricardo Tan.
Despite his compliance, the petitioner was arrested and detained, preventing his return home.

The NBI investigation uncovered that on June 19, 2002, at around 9:00 in the morning, an incident occurred where two tricycle drivers misidentified victim Ricardo Tan—selling his wares alongside witness Antonio Geronimo—as a snatcher.
Tan was turned over to petitioner San Agustin and other individuals at the Barangay Hall, where he was allegedly beaten and locked up in the Barangay jail.
Discrepancies were noted when complainant Luz Tan, on inquiring about her husband’s whereabouts at the Barangay Hall, encountered denials from barangay clerks and a confrontational response from petitioner San Agustin, who even brandished a knife.

On June 27, 2002, State Prosecutor Elizabeth L. Berdal conducted an inquest investigation, which concluded with a Resolution finding probable cause against petitioner for serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.
On June 28, 2002, an Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of ParaAaque City, charging petitioner with kidnapping/serious illegal detention, with the prosecution seeking no bail.
Petitioner filed two separate motions to quash the Information:

The first, on July 1, 2002, contended that his illegal arrest deprived him of a right to a preliminary investigation and sought his release pending proper investigation.
The second, on July 4, 2002, argued that the facts alleged did not evidence the offense charged, asserting that his capacity as Barangay Chairman should limit the charge to a lesser offense (i.e. arbitrary detention).

In response, the RTC issued an Order on July 24, 2002, directing the City Prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation within a fixed period of forty-five days.

Reinvestigation, Withdrawal of Information, and Refiling in a Different Court

Assistant City Prosecutor Antonietta Pablo Medina was tasked with conducting the reinvestigation, which the petitioner opposed by insisting that a regular preliminary investigation was required.
Despite the petitioner’s resistance, on August 27, 2002, the Assistant City Prosecutor resolved that there was probable cause for arbitrary detention against the petitioner, recommending the approval of the Information and the associated motion to withdraw the earlier Information.
On August 28, 2002, a Motion to Withdraw Information was filed, and by August 30, 2002, the RTC granted the motion and considered the previous Information withdrawn.
On the same day, a new Information was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), docketed as Criminal Case No. 02-2486, charging petitioner with arbitrary detention, a distinct offense with less severe penalties.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging:

The denial of his urgent motions to quash the Information and to quash on the ground that the facts did not constitute an offense.
The denial of his constitutional right to bail.
The authority of Judge Jose S. Jacinto, Jr. of the Metropolitan Trial Court to proceed with the new case.

The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the petition had become moot due to the withdrawal of the RTC Information and the refiled Information with the MTC.
The Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed the petition for certiorari, ruling that while the petitioner was unlawfully arrested, subsequent procedural developments mooted his claims.

Petitioner asserted that his arrest, conducted after he voluntarily complied with the subpoena, was illegal because it did not satisfy the requirements set out in Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Emphasis was placed on the invalidity of an inquest investigation when the accused is unlawfully arrested without a warrant, thereby necessitating a regular preliminary investigation.
The case presented critical issues regarding the proper procedure for filing an Information and ensuring the constitutional rights of detainees are observed.

Whether the petitioner’s arrest, following his voluntary appearance in response to an NBI subpoena, was lawful under the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Whether the absence of a regular preliminary investigation—replaced by an inquest investigation—renders the subsequent Information void.

Denying the petitioner’s urgent motions to quash the Information on the grounds that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense.
Denying his right to bail, contrary to constitutional guarantees.

Whether ordering a mere reinvestigation instead of a proper preliminary investigation amounted to a jurisdictional or procedural excess.

Whether the refiled Information for arbitrary detention in the MTC is valid given that it was based on an investigation that did not meet the requisite preliminary investigation standards for cases originally alleging kidnapping/serious illegal detention.