G.R. No. L-25223 and G.R. No. L-25632, May 19, 1971
PABLO SANIDAD, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. ALADIN BERMUDEZ, ETC., ET AL., respondents.

MARIANO BANEZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HONORABLE ALADIN BERMUDEZ, ETC., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions for prohibition stem from a violent election-related shooting incident in Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, on October 19, 1965, resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. Assistant Provincial Fiscal Agileo Redoble filed an information for multiple murder and frustrated murder against numerous accused, including municipal officials of Narvacan, with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Ilocos Sur in Vigan. Simultaneously, Fiscal Redoble filed a motion, citing the accused’s status as local authorities and residents of Narvacan, requesting that the information be docketed and that the municipal judge of Vigan be authorized to conduct the preliminary investigation. Respondent CFI Judge Aladin Bermudez granted the motion and issued an order authorizing Municipal Judge Francisco Ante of Vigan to conduct the preliminary investigation. Judge Ante then examined witnesses and issued warrants of arrest.
The petitioners, including Congressman Pablo Sanidad and Mayor Justo Mendoza, sought to annul these proceedings. They argued that the authorization to the Vigan municipal judge was illegal, contending that under Section 13, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, only the municipal judge of the municipality where the offense was committed (Narvacan) could conduct the preliminary investigation. They asserted that the proceedings were oppressive and the arrest warrants void, forcing them to seek prohibition from the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the Court of First Instance validly authorized the municipal judge of Vigan, the provincial capital, to conduct the preliminary investigation of a crime committed in Narvacan, a different municipality within the same province.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the validity of the proceedings. The Court clarified that the applicable provision was not Section 13 of Rule 112, which pertains to the general authority of municipal judges in their own municipalities, but rather the second paragraph of Section 2 of the same Rule. This provision explicitly states that “where the preliminary investigation is conducted by a judge other than that of the province or city wherein the offense was committed, the information or complaint may be filed with the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the preliminary investigation was conducted.”
The legal logic is clear: Section 2, Rule 112 provides an independent and specific authority. It allows a judge of first instance, for special reasons such as ensuring an impartial investigation—which was pertinent here as the accused included local authorities in Narvacan—to designate the municipal judge of the provincial capital (Vigan) or the municipality where the provincial jail is located to conduct the preliminary investigation for any offense within the province. This designated judge is not confined to conducting the investigation in the municipality where the crime occurred; he may hold it in his own municipality or elsewhere in the province. The Court distinguished its ruling from Albano v. Arranz, which dealt with a different factual context. Consequently, Judge Bermudez’s order was a valid exercise of authority under Section 2, Rule 112, and Municipal Judge Ante’s acts, including the issuance of the warrants, were proper. The Court ordered Judge Ante to proceed with the preliminary investigation without delay.