G.R. No. 240676 - Palacios vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 240676)

Facts and Allegations

Ramirez alleged marriage to petitioner on November 17, 1987, and the parties had a son. She filed a Sinumpaang‑Reklamong Salaysay alleging petitioner abandoned the family and refused financial support, constituting economic abuse under Section 5(i) of RA 9262. The OCP‑QC, through ACP Tresvalles and with the approval of the City Prosecutor, issued a Resolution dated March 19, 2015 recommending indictment and certified that a preliminary investigation had been conducted; an Information and an arrest warrant were subsequently filed/issued (Information and RTC Order dated May 12, 2015).

Procedural History (Lower Courts and Motions)

Petitioner learned of the complaint and the RTC’s May 12, 2015 Order only in the context of unrelated litigation and, through counsel, filed an “extremely very urgent” motion for reinvestigation and to recall the warrant on September 2, 2016, asserting he had been denied notice of the preliminary investigation because Ramirez furnished the wrong address. The RTC denied the motion in an Order dated October 5, 2016, citing A.M. No. 11‑6‑10‑SC (guidelines for litigation in Quezon City trial courts) and its provision that a motion for preliminary investigation is only granted where the accused was subjected to inquest proceedings. The RTC denied reconsideration on January 25, 2017. Petitioner elevated the matter to the CA by petition for certiorari; the CA, in a Decision dated January 18, 2018, dismissed the petition and affirmed the RTC orders, finding that ACP Tresvalles’ certification showed that petitioner had been informed and given the opportunity to submit counter‑affidavits and evidence. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in a Resolution dated July 11, 2018, leading to the present petition.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC’s denial of petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation and to recall the warrant of arrest, specifically whether petitioner was deprived of procedural due process by being denied notice and opportunity to participate in the preliminary investigation.

Legal Principles on Preliminary Investigation and Due Process

Preliminary investigation (Section 1, Rule 112, Rules of Court) is an inquiry to determine whether there is a reasonable ground to believe a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty, and is required when the penalty prescribed is at least four years, two months, and one day. The purpose is to protect the accused from the burden of trial unless reasonable probability of guilt is first ascertained in a fair, summary proceeding. Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard; these are essential and their non‑observance invalidates proceedings affecting a person’s interests.

Petitioner’s Factual Assertions Supporting Lack of Notice

Petitioner asserts that Ramirez intentionally supplied an incorrect address in the complaint, thereby preventing service and notice of the preliminary investigation. He offered a Barangay Talon Kuatro certification (July 10, 2017), his Seaman’s Service Record Book, their marriage contract (November 17, 1987), and earlier filings by Ramirez (a petition for declaration of nullity dated October 25, 1994 and an Affidavit of Withdrawal dated May 3, 1990) that allegedly list his address as Block 9 Lot 6 Pag‑Ibig Homes, Talon, Las Piñas—evidence which he contends shows Ramirez knew his correct address.

Court of Appeals’ Findings and Rationale

The CA relied on ACP Tresvalles’ certification in the Information that a preliminary investigation was conducted, that Ramirez’s statements and evidence established probable cause, and that the accused was informed of the complaint and evidence and given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. The CA also invoked A.M. No. 11‑6‑10‑SC to sustain the RTC’s reliance on the guideline that a motion for preliminary investigation is only warranted if the accused had been subjected to inquest proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Burden of Proof and Notice

The Supreme Court found error in the CA’s conclusion. Where service of notice is disputed, the burden is on the party asserting that notice was served to prove it. Because petitioner asserted nondelivery based on a wrong address alleged to have been supplied by Ramirez, the prosecution bore the obligation to show actual service or adequate notice; the CA’s reliance on ACP Tresvalles’ general certification in the Information was insufficient. The Court emphasized that certifications of compliance in the Information are pro forma and do not enjoy a presumption of regularity in issuance sufficient to prove notice where return of process shows non‑service.

Supreme Court’s Conclusion on Due Process Violation

Given the absence of proof that petitioner was properly notified and had an opportunity to participate in the preliminary investigation, the Court concluded petitioner was denied his procedural due process right to notice and hearing. The right to a preliminary investigation is substantive and not a mere procedural technicality;

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 240676)

Facts of the Case

Complainant Maria Cecilia Ramirez filed a complaint for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) against petitioner Jimmy Lim Palacios for acts constituting economic abuse, alleging abandonment and refusal to give financial support after marriage on November 17, 1987 and the birth of their son.
In her Sinumpaang-Reklamong Salaysay filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Quezon City (OCP-QC), Ramirez alleged petitioner’s residence for service as Block 3 Lot 24 Turquoise St., Las Piñas Royale Estate, Naga Road, Brgy. Pulang Lupa Dos, Las Piñas City.
Assistant City Prosecutor Pedro M. Tresvalles, in a Resolution dated March 19, 2015, recommended that petitioner be indicted. The investigating prosecutor found petitioner failed to appear during the preliminary investigation and to submit a counter-affidavit despite opportunity to do so.
An Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) as Crim. Case No. R-QZN-15-04286 and a warrant for petitioner’s arrest was issued pursuant to the RTC Order dated May 12, 2015.
In September 2016, petitioner, through counsel, filed an extremely very urgent motion for reinvestigation and to recall warrant of arrest, alleging denial of due process because he was not notified of the preliminary investigation and only learned of the complaint after a lawyer in another criminal case was furnished Ramirez’s Kontra-Salaysay (to which the May 12, 2015 RTC Order was attached).
Petitioner asserted Ramirez intentionally concealed his true and correct address (which he claimed was Block 9 Lot 6 Pag-Ibig Homes, Talon IV, Las Piñas City) and that, because of such alleged fraud, he could not interpose defenses to show absence of probable cause.
Documentary items cited by petitioner to support his claimed true address included: a Barangay Talon Kuatro Certification dated July 10, 2017 (issued by Barangay Chairman Lawrence Philip DL. Roco), his Seaman’s Service Record Book, and their Marriage Contract dated November 17, 1987.
Petitioner further pointed to earlier filings by Ramirez — a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage dated October 25, 1994 (which erroneously wrote “Loto” but indicated Block 9 Lot 6 Pag-Ibig Homes, Talon) and an Affidavit of Withdrawal dated May 3, 1990 — as showing Ramirez’s prior knowledge of his Pag-Ibig Homes address.
The warrant for arrest was returned unserved at the address indicated in Ramirez’s Sinumpaang-Reklamong Salaysay, as shown by a 1st Indorsement dated July 6, 2015.

Proceedings at the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

Petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation and to recall warrant of arrest was denied by the RTC in an Order dated October 5, 2016.
The RTC cited A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC (Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City Trial Courts, Notice of Resolution dated February 21, 2012), specifically paragraph C(2)(b), which provides that a motion for preliminary investigation shall only be granted where the accused was made subject to inquest proceedings pursuant to Rule 112, Section 7 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC in an Order dated January 25, 2017.

Proceedings at the Court of Appeals (CA)

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which rendered a Decision dated January 18, 2018 dismissing the petition and affirming the RTC Orders.
The CA relied on the certification in the Information dated March 19, 2015 signed by ACP Pedro M. Tresvalles, which stated that a preliminary investigation had been conducted in accordance with law, the complainant had been examined, the prosecutor found reasonable ground to believe the offense had been committed and the accused was probably guilty, and that the accused was informed of the complaint and evidence and was given opportunity to submit controverting evidence.
The CA concluded that petitioner was given the opportunity to participate in the preliminary investigation and that A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC barred a motion for preliminary investigation except where the accused had been subjected to inquest proceedings.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in a Resolution dated July 11, 2018.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the denial of petitioner’s motion for preliminary investi