GR L 10450; (October, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10450; October 31, 1957
SANTIAGO MEDRANA, SR. and SANTIAGO MEDRANA, JR., petitioners-appellees, vs. HON. GAVINO R. SEPULVEDA and HON. MANUEL CABAGUIO in their capacities as Judge and Fiscal, respectively of the city of Davao, respondents-appellants.
FACTS
On September 12, 1955, the City Fiscal of Davao filed an information for murder against Santiago Medrana, Sr. and Santiago Medrana, Jr. in the municipal court. The information contained a certification that a preliminary investigation had been conducted and the witnesses had testified under oath. Based on this certification, the municipal judge had the accused arrested. After their arraignment and plea of not guilty, the court set a date for the holding of the preliminary investigation. The accused moved to be informed of “the substance of the testimony and the evidence presented against them” as required by Section 11 of Rule 108. The prosecution objected, contending that reading the information to them was sufficient compliance. The municipal judge sustained the objection. The defense then petitioned the Court of First Instance of Davao to compel the municipal judge to grant what was prayed for in their motion. The Court of First Instance issued an order requiring the municipal court to conduct the investigation “by requiring the prosecution to present witnesses or evidence against the accused.” The respondents appealed this order.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance acted correctly in ordering the municipal judge, in conducting a preliminary investigation, to require the prosecution to present witnesses or evidence against the accused to inform them of the substance of the testimony and evidence, as mandated by Section 11 of Rule 108.
RULING
Yes. The order of the Court of First Instance is affirmed. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to determine if there is reasonable ground to hold the accused for trial. Section 11 of Rule 108 provides that after arrest, the defendant shall be informed of the complaint or information and “of the substance of the testimony and evidence presented against him.” Merely reading the information does not sufficiently apprise the accused of the evidence he must controvert, thereby hindering his ability to show a lack of reasonable ground for trial. The municipal judge’s denial of the accused’s right to be so informed was non-compliance with the Rules. The appealed order, by requiring the prosecution “to present witnesses or evidence against the accused,” does not mandate live witness testimony but permits the alternative of presenting other evidence, such as an abstract or resume of the testimony and evidence, to fulfill the requirement of informing the accused. The claim that defendants asked for copies of witness affidavits is denied by the record, making a ruling on that point unnecessary.