G.R. No. 89989 ; January 28, 1991
EDEN D. PAREDES, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.

FACTS

Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr., then Provincial Attorney of Agusan del Sur, obtained a free patent and title for a lot in 1976. Years later, the municipality sought to recover the land, alleging it was a reserved school site. A civil case for annulment of title was filed. Subsequently, a criminal complaint was lodged with the Tanodbayan (now Ombudsman) in 1986, accusing Paredes of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by allegedly using his office to influence a land inspector in 1976. The preliminary investigation proceeded despite defective service of summons on Paredes. An information was filed with the Sandiganbayan in 1988, and a warrant for his arrest was issued in 1989. Paredes, by then the elected Governor, refused to post bail and was detained. His wife filed this habeas corpus petition, arguing the arrest warrant was void due to the invalid preliminary investigation and that the crime had prescribed.

ISSUE

(1) Whether the arrest and detention are invalid due to lack of a proper preliminary investigation; and (2) Whether the crime charged has prescribed.

RULING

The petition is denied. On the first issue, the absence of a proper preliminary investigation does not invalidate the information, affect the court’s jurisdiction, or render the arrest warrant void. The established remedy is not habeas corpus but to move for a reinvestigation or to quash the information in the trial court. The Sandiganbayan retains jurisdiction to proceed with the case. On the second issue, the defense of prescription is not a proper subject for habeas corpus. Prescription is a defense that must be actively pleaded in the criminal case itself, typically via a motion to quash before arraignment. Its merits should be determined within the orderly course of the criminal prosecution, not in a collateral habeas corpus proceeding. The Court directed Paredes to post the prescribed bail bond for his provisional liberty.