G.R. No. L-20891 May 23, 1968
TOMAS B. TADEO, petitioner-appellant, vs. ROMULO VISPERAS, Justice of the Peace of Mangaldan, Pangasinan, LEONCIO MAICON and EMILIA ACOSTA, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Tomas B. Tadeo was charged with estafa before the Justice of the Peace Court of Mangaldan, Pangasinan. The complaint alleged that on or about March 27, 1948, Tadeo deceitfully made complainants Leoncio Maicon and Emilia Acosta sign a document they believed was a deed of partition, which turned out to be a deed of sale of their land to Tadeo’s brother-in-law for P400. The property was later sold to another for P700. After a preliminary examination, respondent Justice of the Peace Romulo Visperas found probable cause and issued a warrant for Tadeo’s arrest. Tadeo posted bail. During the scheduled second stage of the preliminary investigation, Tadeo moved for reinvestigation, arguing the complaint was defective because it alleged moral and exemplary damages of P5,000, whereas the penalty for estafa is based only on actual damage, and the land’s value was only P400 or P700. The motion was denied. Later, Tadeo verbally asked for ten days to file a motion to quash, which the Justice of the Peace denied as dilatory. Tadeo then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, alleging grave abuse of discretion in denying his motions. The lower court dismissed the petition and ordered the continuation of the criminal proceedings. Tadeo appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Justice of the Peace committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation and his motion to file a motion to quash, thereby depriving him of due process.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court held that during the preliminary examination (first stage of preliminary investigation), it is not a matter of right for the accused to confront and cross-examine witnesses; it is discretionary for the judge to grant such privilege. Petitioner’s proper recourse was to proceed to the second stage of the preliminary investigation, where he could present evidence in his favor, including any defense of prescription. The Court further ruled that even assuming the property value was only P400, the imposable penalty for estafa (arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum) is a compound penalty, and the higher penalty (correccional) governs prescription, which is ten years. Since the crime was allegedly committed on March 27, 1948, and the complaint was filed on April 30, 1957, only 9 years, 1 month, and 3 days had elapsed; thus, the crime had not prescribed. The Court agreed with the lower court that petitioner’s actions were dilatory.