Case Summary (G.R. No. 195176)
Factual Background
The petitioner was apprehended without a warrant and later released on bail the same day. A formal complaint was filed against him the following day, leading to the issuance of an information by the City Fiscal, detailing the charges of possession of counterfeit treasury certificates. The petitioner sought to obtain evidence from the preliminary investigation, specifically the testimonies of witnesses and the evidence against him, through motions filed in the trial court.
Legal Arguments and Motions
Counsel for Hashim filed various motions requesting the City Fiscal to furnish the evidence from the preliminary investigation and later sought for the court to conduct its own investigation after the City Fiscal denied these requests. The court denied these motions, asserting that the existing laws did not mandate the disclosure of such evidence before trial.
Decision on the Preliminary Investigation Process
The case raised the central issue of whether an accused has the right to be informed of the substance of testimonies and evidence during a preliminary investigation conducted by the City Fiscal. The court reaffirmed that the preliminary investigations conducted by the City Fiscal operate under a separate legislative framework and not under the provisions applicable to justices of the peace, as outlined in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
Examination of Relevant Law
The pertinent sections of the Revised Administrative Code and the Manila Charter established that the City Fiscal possesses the authority to conduct preliminary investigations, but they differ from the procedures laid out in the Rules of Court. Specifically, Rule 108 prescribes procedures that are not applicable to investigations conducted by the City Fiscal of Manila, as he was not obliged to transmit abstracts of testimonies or prior witness statements to the court.
Constitutional and Statutory Considerations
The court held that the right to a preliminary investigation is statutory and not enshrined in the Constitution, and this right serves to protect against hasty prosecutions. The established pract
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 195176)
Background of the Case
- On August 6, 1940, N. T. Hashim was caught in possession of counterfeit treasury certificates of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.
- He was arrested without a warrant by operatives from the Division of Investigation of the Department of Justice but was released on the same day after posting bail.
- The following day, a complaint was filed against him with the Office of the City Fiscal, leading to an information being lodged under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code.
- The complaint stated that Hashim willfully and unlawfully possessed 560 counterfeit 50-peso treasury certificates, intending to use them contrary to law.
Preliminary Investigation and Arrest Warrant
- The case was assigned the criminal case number 61464 in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
- Based on the City Fiscal's sworn statement about conducting a preliminary investigation, Judge Sixto de la Costa issued a warrant for Hashim’s arrest.
- Hashim was later released on bail again.
Motions Filed by the Petitioner
- Hashim’s counsel filed several motions requesting the Fiscal to furnish the court with witness testimonies from the preliminary investigation and the counterfeit certificates.
- The Fiscal opposed the motions, arguing that the Rules of Court do not apply to his conduct of preliminary investigations.
- On August 22, 1940, Judge de la Costa denied these motions, citing the Fiscal's objections.
Subsequent Legal Actions
- Hashim's motions for reconsideration were also