G.R. No. 155041 - De Castro vs. Ferdez, Jr.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 155041)

Factual Background

On the evening of 11 June 2002 barangay tanods invited the petitioner to the barangay hall in connection with a complaint for sexual assault filed by AAA on behalf of her daughter BBB. The petitioner accompanied the barangay officials without resistance. On 12 June 2002 the barangay officials turned the petitioner over to the Las Piñas City Police Station. On 13 June 2002 the police indorsed the complaint to the city prosecutor for inquest. A commitment order for detention followed. On 18 June 2002 State Prosecutor Napoleon A. Monsod filed an Information charging the petitioner with rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 2, alleging that the petitioner inserted his finger into the victim’s vagina.

Trial Court Proceedings

The petitioner filed a Motion for Reinvestigation on 1 July 2002, asking the trial court to direct the Office of the Prosecutor of Las Piñas City to conduct a preliminary investigation in accordance with Rule 112 and to amend the charge to acts of lasciviousness on the ground that fingering does not fall within the definition of rape under RA 8353. The trial court denied the Motion by Order dated 5 August 2002. The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the trial court denied by Order dated 28 August 2002. The petitioner then filed a petition in this Court assailing those orders.

Issues Presented

The petitioner formally raised two issues: whether a finger constitutes an “object or instrument” within the meaning of RA 8353 for purposes of rape under Article 266-A, and whether the petitioner was entitled to a full preliminary investigation under Rule 112.

Procedural Posture and Proper Remedy

The Court first addressed the procedural propriety of the remedy employed by the petitioner. The petitioner invoked Rule 65 and characterized the questions as pure questions of law that would fall under Rule 45. The Court held that the petitioner availed of the wrong remedy. A special civil action under Rule 65 lies only where a court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and where no adequate remedy exists. The petitioner did not allege facts showing lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse. Moreover, the Court noted that an assailable order of the Regional Trial Court under Rule 65 should be taken to the Court of Appeals, and the petitioner offered no special reason for direct recourse to this Court.

Rule 45 Defects and Interlocutory Nature of Orders

The Court further observed that if the petition were treated as a petition for review under Rule 45, it would fail because Rule 45 permits review only of judgments or final orders that completely dispose of a case. The assailed orders were interlocutory. The Court explained that the proper course was to proceed to trial and, if aggrieved by a final judgment, to raise the interlocutory rulings on appeal from that final judgment. The petitioner also failed to comply with the documentary and timeliness requirements of Rule 45, Section 4 by not submitting a duplicate original or certified true copy of the 28 August 2002 order and by not stating the date when the petitioner received that order.

Waiver of Right to Preliminary Investigation

On the merits the Court ruled that the petitioner waived his right to a preliminary investigation. The Court applied Section 7, Rule 112, which permits an accused to request a preliminary investigation within five days from the time he learns that an information has been filed in court and provides that failure to do so constitutes a waiver. The Information was filed on 18 June 2002. The record showed that on 20 June 2002 an agent requested copies of pertinent documents and on 25 June 2002 Atty. Eduardo S. Villena entered his appearance for the petitioner. The petitioner did not request reinvestigation until 1 July 2002, more than five days after learning of the filing. The Court concluded that the petitioner thereby waived the statutory right to a preliminary investigation.

Appropriateness of the Rape Charge

The Court addressed the substantive contention that a finger is not an “object or instrument” under RA 8353 and therefore cannot support a cha

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 155041)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Reynaldo de Castro, Petitioner, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing trial court orders in Criminal Case No. 02-0527.
Hon. Manuel B. Fernandez, Jr., Respondent, acted in his official capacity as presiding judge of Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City, Branch 254.
The petition challenged the trial court Orders dated 5 August 2002 and 28 August 2002, which denied petitioner's Motion for Reinvestigation and Motion for Reconsideration respectively.

Key Factual Allegations

On the evening of 11 June 2002 barangay tanods invited petitioner to the barangay hall in connection with a complaint for sexual assault filed by AAA on behalf of her daughter BBB.
Petitioner accepted the invitation without resistance and was turned over to the Las Piñas City Police Station on 12 June 2002.
The police indorsed the complaint to the city prosecutor for inquest on 13 June 2002, and a commitment order for petitioner's detention was later issued by the prosecutor.
On 18 June 2002 State Prosecutor Napoleon A. Monsod filed an Information charging petitioner with rape under Article 266-A, par. 2 in relation to Article 266-B, as amended by RA 8353, and in relation to R.A. 7610, alleging insertion of a finger into the minor victim's genital orifice.
On 1 July 2002 petitioner filed a Motion for Reinvestigation requesting a preliminary investigation under Rule 112 and seeking amendment of the charge to acts of lasciviousness.

Procedural History

The trial court denied petitioner's Motion for Reinvestigation in its Order dated 5 August 2002.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 22 August 2002, which the trial court denied in its Order dated 28 August 2002.
Petitioner thereafter filed the present petition for certiorari in this Court seeking relief from the two interlocutory Orders.

Issues Presented

Whether a finger constitutes an object or instrument in the contemplation of RA 8353.
Whether the accused is entitled to a preliminary investigation in full accord with Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

Ruling and Disposition

The Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the trial court Orders dated 5 August 2002 and 28 August 2002.
The Court held that petitioner invoked the wrong remedy by filing under Rule