GR 18826; (December, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18826 December 17, 1966
ANTONIO Y. MAYUGA, petitioner-appellant, vs. CESAR R. MARAVILLA, Justice of the Peace of the Municipality of Odiongan and AQUILINO GALLOMOSA, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
On March 22, 1960, an information for Homicide Through Reckless Imprudence was filed against Antonio Mayuga before the Justice of the Peace of Odiongan, Romblon. The charge stemmed from a cesarean operation performed by Mayuga, a medical practitioner, on Avelina Gallomosa, wherein he allegedly failed to remove an intestinal pack from the surgical opening, causing infection and leading to her death on December 8, 1956. After a preliminary examination, the Justice of the Peace, Cesar Maravilla, found a prima facie case and ordered Mayuga’s arrest. Mayuga moved to quash the information, arguing that the evidence presented during the preliminary examination—consisting of certain documentary exhibits (an autopsy report, a death certificate, and a certificate of death) and witness testimonies—were hearsay and insufficient to establish a prima facie case. The Justice of the Peace denied the motion and subsequent motions for reconsideration. Mayuga then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of First Instance of Romblon, alleging grave abuse of discretion and seeking annulment of the orders and dismissal of the information. The Court of First Instance dismissed the petition for lack of merit and directed the Justice of the Peace to continue with the preliminary investigation. Mayuga’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to an appeal to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court on questions of law.
ISSUE
1. Was the Court of First Instance in error in upholding the actuations of the Justice of the Peace?
2. Was the outright dismissal of the petition for certiorari also an error?
RULING
1. No, the Court of First Instance was not in error. The Supreme Court held that the purpose of a preliminary examination is only to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe the accused guilty thereof, for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest. The proceeding is not for the full display of evidence but for the presentation of such evidence as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty. The Justice of the Peace, in forming his conclusion, had before him not only the documentary evidence objected to as hearsay but also the testimonies of witnesses and affidavits of the complaining witness and a doctor. Even excluding the allegedly hearsay documents, these testimonies alone were sufficient under the applicable rules and jurisprudence to uphold the Justice of the Peace’s finding of a prima facie case. The Court found that the Justice of the Peace did more than required to form his conclusion, an act commendable in his efforts to clear his mind of doubts.
2. No, the outright dismissal of the petition for certiorari was not an error. The Supreme Court held that a petition for certiorari may be dismissed if, from its own allegations, it appears to be without merit. In this case, the petition was deficient in substance, justifying its dismissal without requiring an answer from the Justice of the Peace.
The order of dismissal by the Court of First Instance was affirmed, and the Justice of the Peace was directed to proceed with the preliminary investigation. Costs were imposed against the appellant.