Title
Supreme Court
Orquinaza vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 165596
Decision Date
Nov 17, 2005
A company manager accused of sexual misconduct challenged charges, claiming due process violations; Supreme Court upheld the charges, affirming prosecutor's discretion and sufficiency of preliminary investigation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 200169)

Facts of the Case

On February 5, 2003, Edelyn Arida reported to the Calamba City Police Station that Esmael Orquinaza, the General Manager, had kissed her and touched her breasts without consent while she was napping in the Development Room of the factory. Following her statement, a referral was made to the City Prosecutor for evaluation. The case escalated to involve a preliminary investigation, where Assistant City Prosecutor Rodel Paderayon initially found insufficiencies to charge for sexual harassment but later filed information against Orquinaza for acts of lasciviousness based on the nature of the reported acts.

Legal Proceedings

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) commenced proceedings under Criminal Case No. 40217-03 after issuing an arrest warrant against Orquinaza. He responded by filing an omnibus motion, seeking to recall the warrant, quash the information, invalidate his arraignment, and dismiss the case. The MTCC denied the motion, asserting that the prosecutor had discretion on what charges to file based upon the evidence presented. Orquinaza's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied, leading him to elevate the matter to the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

RTC Decision and Appeals

In its decision dated July 21, 2004, the RTC affirmed the MTCC's ruling, reinforcing the notion that the absence of a preliminary investigation specifically for the charge of acts of lasciviousness did not undermine the valid prosecution of Orquinaza. The RTC observed that the prosecutor had fulfilled his duties by allowing both parties to present evidence, thus arriving at the appropriate charge based on the allegations provided by Arida.

Analysis of Legal Issues

Orquinaza raised two primary arguments: first, the information for acts of lasciviousness was null due to a lack of preliminary investigation for that specific charge, and second, the motion he filed was timely. The Supreme Court found these arguments unmeritorious, referencing the case of People v. Casiano, highlighting that preliminary investigations serve to ascertain whether probable cause exists, not to determine the specific charge in advance. The lack of a separate preliminary investigation for acts of lasciviousness was deemed non-prejudicial since Arida's statement contained sufficient basis for such a charge.

The Court's Conclusion

The Court concluded

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.