G.R. No. 143591; May 5, 2010
TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, JR., ET AL., Petitioners, vs. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA and HON. MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Atty. Magdaleno Peña filed a civil case for agent’s compensation against Urban Bank and its officers, the petitioners. In their Motion to Dismiss the civil case, petitioners attached several documents to support their claim that Peña was appointed as an agent by Isabela Sugar Company, Inc. (ISCI), not by them. In reaction, Peña filed a criminal complaint-affidavit with the Bago City Prosecutor, alleging these documents were falsified as the signatories were not actual ISCI officers and their signatures were forged, and that petitioners knowingly introduced them as evidence. The City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed four Informations for Introducing Falsified Documents under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). The MTCC issued warrants of arrest.
Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash, Recall Warrants of Arrest and/or For Reinvestigation. They argued they were denied due process in the preliminary investigation, specifically the right to submit counter-affidavits. They also contended the warrants were issued without a proper determination of probable cause, that a prejudicial question existed due to the pending civil case, and that the Information against one petitioner was defective. The MTCC denied the motion, ruling that a preliminary investigation was not available for offenses within its jurisdiction, that the warrants were validly issued, and that posting bail constituted a waiver of the right to question the warrants. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners’ subsequent certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition and upholding the MTCC’s denial of the motion for reinvestigation and recall of the warrants of arrest.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the procedural issue, the Court held that a preliminary investigation is not a matter of right in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the first-level courts (MTCC), pursuant to Section 1, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The offense charged, with a penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). However, the jurisdiction for purposes of determining the right to a preliminary investigation is determined by the penalty prescribed by law for the offense, not the penalty actually imposable. Since the prescribed penalty exceeds six years, the case is cognizable by the RTC, and petitioners were entitled to a preliminary investigation. Nevertheless, this right was not violated. The City Prosecutor’s resolution showed a substantive evaluation of the complaint and attachments. Petitioners’ failure to submit counter-affidavits was their own doing, as they were notified but chose not to participate, thereby waiving that right. The Court also found no grave abuse of discretion in the MTCC’s finding of probable cause for issuing the warrants. The judge personally evaluated the prosecutor’s resolution and the evidence, which included the allegedly falsified documents and the complaint-affidavit detailing the falsities. The claim of a prejudicial question was rejected, as the issue in the civil case (existence of an agency) is not so intimately related to the issue in the criminal case (whether documents were falsified and knowingly introduced) that the resolution of the former is determinative of the latter.