G.R. No. L-27511 November 29, 1968
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, SIMON LUNA, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. LORENZO M. PLAZA, as Judge of the Municipal Court of Tandag, Surigao del Sur; HON. SANTOS B. BEBERINO as Provincial Fiscal of Surigao del Sur; and THE PROVINCIAL WARDEN of Surigao del Sur, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Simon Luna was charged with murder in the Municipal Court of Tandag, Surigao del Sur. The complaint was filed by T-Sgt. Candido Patosa, a PC investigator, and was supported by sworn statements of prosecution witnesses in question-and-answer form taken by Patosa and later subscribed and sworn to before respondent Judge Lorenzo M. Plaza. The respondent Judge examined the witnesses by reading to them the questions and answers in their written statements, and the witnesses confirmed the statements were true, freely given, and understood. Based on these statements and other documents, the Judge found probable cause for murder and issued a warrant of arrest, specifying no bail. Luna later applied for bail, which was initially granted but then revoked. After waiving his right to a preliminary investigation, the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance (CFI), where an information for murder was filed. Luna filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the CFI, claiming his detention was unlawful because the warrant of arrest was issued in violation of Republic Act No. 3828 , which requires a municipal judge to personally examine witnesses under oath and reduce the examination to writing in searching questions and answers before issuing a warrant. The CFI dismissed the petition, finding substantial compliance with the law. Luna appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Municipal Judge complied with the requirements of Republic Act No. 3828 before issuing the warrant of arrest, such that the denial of the writ of habeas corpus was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI decision, denying the writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that the respondent Judge substantially complied with Republic Act No. 3828 . The trial court’s factual finding that the Judge personally examined the witnesses by reading the questions and answers from their sworn statements, adopting them as his own examination, and confirming their truth with the witnesses, was binding on appeal as Luna raised only questions of law. The Court ruled that the law does not prohibit a judge from adopting questions previously asked by another, provided the judge personally examines the witnesses under oath and the examination is reduced to writing. Here, the sworn statements in question-and-answer form, subscribed before the Judge, satisfied the requirement of reducing the examination to writing. The Court emphasized strict compliance is necessary to prevent unfounded prosecutions but found no substantial right violation. Luna’s subsequent waiver of preliminary investigation and application for bail constituted an implied admission of probable cause and a waiver of any irregularity in his arrest.