Case Summary (G.R. No. 20374)
Petitioners’ Challenges in MTCC and CA
Petitioners filed an omnibus motion in MTCC to quash the Informations, recall the warrants for lack of preliminary investigation and denial of counter-affidavit submission, and to suspend the criminal proceedings as prejudicial to the civil case. The MTCC denied the motion, ruling PI was not available in MTCC cases, the warrants were valid, and the civil suit did not present a prejudicial question. The Court of Appeals dismissed their certiorari petition for grave abuse of discretion, prompting petitioners to seek review under Rule 45.
Jurisdiction and Process Requirements for MTCC Cases
Under the 1987 Constitution and Rules, offenses punishable by less than four years imprisonment (such as Art. 172(2) falsification) are cognizable by the MTCC and need no preliminary investigation. The prosecutor may act on the complainant’s affidavits and supporting documents alone, without requiring counter-affidavits. For issuance of warrants, a judge must personally determine probable cause, but need not personally examine the complainant or witnesses if satisfied by the prosecutor’s report and documents.
Constitutional Mandate on Probable Cause Determination
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause determined personally by the judge after examination under oath of the complainant and any witnesses produced, particularly describing the persons or things to be seized. Established procedure allows a judge to rely on the prosecutor’s resolution and supporting documents, or, if unconvinced, to require additional affidavits.
Proper Procedure Followed but Probable Cause Lacking
While both the prosecutor and the MTCC judge properly followed the rules in determining probable cause for filing Informations and issuing warrants, the Supreme Court found that the actual complaint-affidavit and attachments failed to establish probable cause. PeAa’s affidavit alleged falsity of signatures without personal knowledge—he did not witness document execution nor demonstrate familiarity with the si
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 20374)
Procedural History
- Civil Case No. 754 for recovery of agent’s compensation, expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees filed by respondent PeAa against Urban Bank and petitioners before RTC Branch 62, Negros Occidental, Bago City
- Petitioners moved to dismiss, attaching four documents purportedly showing that ISCI, not they or Urban Bank, appointed respondent
- Respondent filed Complaint-Affidavit with City Prosecutor alleging the documents were falsified and that petitioners knowingly introduced them in Civil Case No. 754
- City Prosecutor issued Resolution (Sept. 23, 1998) finding probable cause for four counts of introducing falsified documents under Art. 172, RPC
- Informations filed in MTCC, Bago City (Criminal Cases Nos. 6683–6686); warrants of arrest issued
- Petitioners filed Omnibus Motion to Quash Warrant of Arrest and for Reinvestigation; MTCC denied motion (Nov. 13, 1998)
- Petitioners elevated the matter via certiorari to the CA; petition dismissed (June 20, 2000)
- Petitioners filed petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court; TRO issued (Aug. 2, 2000) enjoining further MTCC proceedings
Facts
- Urban Bank owned property along Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City; respondent allegedly contracted as agent to protect and maintain possession against intruders and squatters
- Petitioners insisted they never appointed respondent; presented letters dated Dec. 7, 9, 19, 1994, and a Memorandum Nov. 20, 1994 indicating ISCI as respondent’s principal
- Respondent claimed those documents were falsified: alleged signatories (Herman Ponce, Julie Abad, Marilyn G. Ong) never affixed signatures, were not ISCI officers or stockholders, and that Enrique Montilla III’s signature was forged
- Petitioners used the questioned documents as evidence in their M