G.R. No. L-26437; March 13, 1968
RAQUEL G. DOCE, petitioner, vs. BRANCH II OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON, THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF QUEZON and ARACELI TORRECHANTE, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Araceli Torrechante filed a complaint for libel against petitioner Raquel Doce in the Municipal Court of Real, Quezon Province on July 21, 1964. The complaint was amended on August 4, 1964. The municipal judge inhibited himself, and Judge Juntereal was designated. On October 28, 1964, Judge Juntereal issued a warrant for petitioner’s arrest, served on December 16, 1964. Petitioner was not detained due to a bail bond she filed earlier. On April 23, 1965, the case was called for the second stage of preliminary investigation; petitioner asked for a postponement. On December 4, 1965, petitioner filed a manifestation requesting that the preliminary investigation set for December 11, 1965, be conducted in Lucena City. Petitioner failed to appear on December 11, 1965. The municipal court, on January 13, 1966, deemed her non-appearance an implied waiver of her right to preliminary investigation and found a prima facie case. The case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance. The provincial fiscal filed an information for libel on February 21, 1966. On June 21, 1966, petitioner filed a motion to quash, alleging no preliminary examination or investigation was conducted. The court denied the motion, ruling it had jurisdiction and a preliminary investigation had been conducted. Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance acquired jurisdiction to try the petitioner for libel, considering the alleged defective issuance of the warrant of arrest and the absence of a preliminary investigation.

RULING

The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Court held that while the warrant of arrest was irregularly issued because the municipal judge did not personally examine the witnesses under oath with searching questions as required by Section 87 of the Judiciary Act, petitioner’s act of posting a bail bond constituted a waiver of this irregularity. Furthermore, her voluntary appearances before the courts submitted her to their jurisdiction. Regarding the preliminary investigation, the Court ruled that petitioner was at fault for the lack of a full preliminary investigation proper under Rule 112, Section 10, as she failed to appear on the scheduled date despite being aware of it. Her non-appearance was correctly deemed a waiver. Since she was afforded the opportunity and the municipal judge found a prima facie case, there was no need for the provincial fiscal to conduct another investigation under Rule 112, Section 14. Her rights could be protected during the trial.