G.R. No. L-26703 September 5, 1967
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF MARMOLITO CATELO Y RIVERA, petitioner-appellant, vs. CHIEF OF THE CITY JAIL, MANILA POLICE DEPARTMENT, MANILA, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Marmolito Catelo y Rivera was arrested on August 10, 1966, without a warrant, in connection with the murder of Deputy Sheriff Avelino Concepcion, Jr. An information for murder had previously been filed on April 20, 1966, against Jose Simborio (who had surrendered), naming Catelo as a conspirator but not including him as an accused. Following Catelo’s arrest, the City Fiscal filed an amended information on August 11, 1966, including Catelo as a co-accused in the same criminal case (No. 82116). The court set a hearing for the admission of the amended information. However, before this hearing, Catelo filed a petition for habeas corpus on August 15, 1966, alleging illegal detention due to lack of a warrant of arrest or order of commitment and claiming a violation of Section 38-C of the Revised Manila Charter for being charged without a preliminary investigation. The Court of First Instance denied the petition, ruling that filing the amended information constituted substantial compliance with Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code (requiring filing of charges within 18 hours for crimes with afflictive penalties). Catelo’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the detention of Marmolito Catelo y Rivera is illegal, thereby entitling him to release via habeas corpus, on the grounds that: (1) he was charged via an amended information without first being given a preliminary investigation as allegedly required by Section 38-C of the Revised Manila Charter, and (2) he was arrested without a warrant.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
1. On the lack of preliminary investigation: The Court held that Section 38-C of the Revised Manila Charter ( Republic Act No. 1201 ) did not require a preliminary investigation before filing the information against Catelo. The first part of Section 38-C, which requires giving the accused a chance to be heard in a preliminary investigation, applies only when the accused is “not already in the legal custody of the police.” Since Catelo was already under arrest and in police custody, this provision was inapplicable. Instead, the first proviso of Section 38-C governed, allowing the fiscal to file an information without a preliminary investigation when the accused is detained, provided the accused may ask for one by signing a waiver of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Catelo did not sign such a waiver. Consequently, the fiscal was compelled to file charges within the 18-hour period prescribed by Article 125 (as amended by Republic Act No. 1083 for crimes with afflictive penalties like murder). The amended information was filed within this period (on August 11, 1966, at 9:00 a.m., following arrest at 5:00 p.m. on August 10). The Court found substantial compliance with the law, noting that any delay in the court’s admission of the amended information was attributable to Catelo’s own objections.
2. On the warrantless arrest: The Court declined to rule on the legality of the warrantless arrest, as the amended information had already been admitted by the trial court on October 3, 1966, thereby placing Catelo under its jurisdiction. The issue should be threshed out in the trial court, as its determination would involve a detailed inquiry into the circumstances of the arrest, requiring the introduction and consideration of evidence.
The Court distinguished the case from Lino vs. Fugoso, where habeas corpus was granted because the legal period for detention without a formal charge had been exceeded. Here, the information was filed within the prescribed period.