G.R. No. L-27695 September 30, 1982
ANTONIO CALLANTA, petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, ANTONIO GONZALES and the PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY OF AGUSAN, respondents.

FACTS

On June 23, 1967, an altercation occurred between petitioner Antonio Callanta and private respondent Antonio Gonzales, both employees at the City Treasurer’s office in Butuan. Each party claimed to have been assaulted by the other. Following the incident, Callanta filed a complaint with the City Fiscal of Butuan City. In contrast, Gonzales bypassed the fiscal and filed a complaint directly with the Court of First Instance of Agusan, presided over by respondent Judge Manuel Lopez Enage, charging Callanta with “Assault upon a Person in Authority with Slight Physical Injuries.”
On the very same day the complaint was filed, Judge Enage issued an order directing the issuance of a warrant for Callanta’s arrest. Callanta then filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to annul the arrest warrant and to restrain its enforcement. He argued that the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion by issuing the warrant without prior notice to him, in violation of procedural rules.

ISSUE

Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing a warrant of arrest against the petitioner without prior notice and a proper preliminary investigation?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the arrest warrant. The Court held that the respondent judge’s action violated Section 13, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court. This rule governs when a complaint is filed directly with the Court of First Instance without a prior preliminary investigation by the fiscal. It mandates that the judge must either refer the complaint to the municipal judge or personally conduct both a preliminary examination and a preliminary investigation simultaneously.
Citing Albano vs. Arranz, the Court clarified that this simultaneous proceeding is not an ex parte examination. It requires the judge to receive the evidence of the complainant in the presence of the accused, and to also allow the accused to present counter-evidence if desired. Only after this adversarial proceeding, and upon finding reasonable ground to believe the accused committed the offense, may the judge issue a warrant of arrest. Since Judge Enage issued the warrant based on a proceeding conducted without any notice to Callanta, the order was issued without legal basis, was null and void, and constituted grave abuse of discretion. The preliminary injunction was made permanent.