Palacios vs. People

Factual Background

The complainant, Maria Cecilia Ramirez, filed an undated Sinumpaang-Reklamong Salaysay alleging that she and petitioner were married on November 17, 1987 and had a son, and that petitioner abandoned them and refused to provide financial support, acts constituting economic abuse under Section 5 (i) of RA 9262. Ramirez’s sworn statement listed petitioner’s residence for purposes of service as Block 3 Lot 24 Turquoise St., Las Pinas Royale Estate, Brgy. Pulang Lupa Dos, Las Piñas City. Petitioner later asserted that his true and correct address was Block 9 Lot 6 Pag-Ibig Homes, Talon IV, Las Piñas City, and alleged that Ramirez intentionally concealed that address.

Preliminary Investigation and Filing of Information

Assistant City Prosecutor Pedro M. Tresvalles certified on March 19, 2015 that he had conducted a preliminary investigation, examined the complainant’s statements and evidence, found probable cause, and that the accused was informed of the complaint and given opportunity to submit controverting evidence. On that basis the OCP-QC recommended indictment and filed the Information before the RTC, which issued a warrant pursuant to the RTC Order dated May 12, 2015. The warrant was subsequently returned unserved at the address Ramirez had provided.

Motion for Reinvestigation and RTC Rulings

Petitioner, through counsel, filed an urgent motion for reinvestigation and to recall the warrant, contending that he was denied procedural due process because he had not been notified of the preliminary investigation and could not submit a counter-affidavit or evidence. He supported his claim with a barangay certification, his Seaman’s Record Book, marriage contract, and prior pleadings in which Ramirez purportedly listed his Pag-Ibig Homes address. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion in an Order dated October 5, 2016, and denied reconsideration on January 25, 2017, relying in part on A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC, which, in the RTC’s view, limits motions for preliminary investigation to cases where the accused had been subjected to inquest proceedings.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Petitioner sought relief in the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari, asserting grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA, in a Decision dated January 18, 2018, dismissed the petition and affirmed the RTC Orders. The CA relied on ACP Tresvalles’s certification in the Information that a preliminary investigation had been conducted and that the accused was informed and given opportunity to submit controverting evidence. The CA also accepted the RTC’s application of A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC as a bar to the grant of petitioner’s motion. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated July 11, 2018.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the denial of petitioner’s motion for preliminary investigation and to recall the warrant of arrest.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court held that the petition had merit, reversed and set aside the decisions of the CA and the RTC orders, and ordered the OCP-QC to conduct forthwith a preliminary investigation on the charge of violation of Section 5 (i) of RA 9262 against petitioner. The Supreme Court also ordered that the trial on the merits in Crim. Case No. R-QZN-15-04286 be suspended until conclusion of the preliminary investigation. No pronouncement as to costs was made.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated the nature and purpose of preliminary investigation as defined in Section 1, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, namely, a summary proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty and should be held for trial. The Court emphasized that preliminary investigation serves to protect an accused from the inconvenience and burden of a formal trial unless there is a reasonable probability of guilt. The Court found that the central complaint in this case was one of notice and opportunity to be heard, the twin pillars of procedural due process under the 1987 Constitution, and that the record contains no proof that petitioner was duly notified of the preliminary investigation or served with a subpoena. The Court held that when service of notice is contested, the burden rests upon the party asserting that notice was served to prove the fact of service. The Court therefore rejected the CA’s reliance on ACP Tresvalles’s certification in the Information as sufficient proof of notice, describing that certification as pro forma and not entitled to a presumption of regularity in this context. The Court also observed that denying petitioner’s request on the basis of A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC would effectively deprive him of the substantive right to preliminary investigation and thus of due process, because the cited administrative guideline should not supplant the constitutional requirement of notice and the fair opportunity to be heard. The Court invoked precedent holding that the fiscal’s role is to assist in dispensing justice and