G.R. No. L-28246 September 28, 1968
ROGELIO PUREZA, IGMIDIO ABUTAN, CONRADO NATI, REYNALDO PUREZA, ROGELIO REYES, PEDRITO RAMOS, VENERANDO ABUEG, JOHN DOE, PETER DOE and RICHARD DOE, petitioners, vs. ALBERTO AVERIA, Judge, CFI of Cavite, 7th Judicial District, Branch I, ERNESTO PEPA, Judge, City Court of Trece Martires City, CALIXTO D. ENRIQUEZ, Municipal Mayor of Rosario, Cavite, PRISCILLA QUINTO VDA. DE VICTOR, ANICIA MOLINA VDA. DE APRAO, AURORA MORALES VDA. DE HORARIO and REMEDIOS M. DIAZ, respondents.

FACTS

On September 30, 1967, a shooting incident in Barrio Ligtong, Rosario, Cavite, resulted in the deaths of Abelardo Victor, Santos Aprao, and Leonardo Horario, and serious injuries to Domingo Diaz. This led to two separate judicial proceedings. First, a complaint for triple murder with frustrated murder was filed on October 6, 1967, in the Municipal Court of Rosario by PC Corporal Antonio Credo against Leonardo Ibias, Edo Ibias, and Norberto Quinto, based on affidavits. Second, the widows of the deceased and the wife of the injured filed separate complaints for murder and frustrated murder directly with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cavite on October 5, 1967, against petitioners Rogelio Pureza, Reynaldo Pureza, Igmidio Abutan, Conrado Nati, Pedrito Ramos, Rogelio Reyes, Venerando Abueg, and others (John Doe, etc.). These CFI cases were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 600-603. Judge Alberto Averia of the CFI referred these complaints to City Judge Ernesto Pepa of Trece Martires City for preliminary investigation. Judge Pepa conducted a preliminary examination ex parte and subsequently issued warrants for the arrest of the petitioners. The petitioners then filed this original action for certiorari and injunction with the Supreme Court, seeking to prevent the enforcement of the warrants and to nullify the proceedings, arguing that the Municipal Court of Rosario had a better right to conduct the preliminary investigation and that the ex parte proceedings before Judge Pepa rendered the warrants void.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance of Cavite and the City Court of Trece Martires are barred from proceeding with the investigation and issuance of arrest warrants against the petitioners merely because a separate complaint implicating different individuals (Ibias, et al.) for the same crimes was filed earlier in the Municipal Court of Rosario.
2. Whether the warrants of arrest issued by Judge Pepa are null and void because the preliminary examination was conducted ex parte without notice to the petitioners.

RULING

1. No. The Supreme Court held that there is no legal bar preventing the CFI of Cavite or the City Court of Trece Martires from proceeding with the investigation of the charges against the petitioners simply because a different set of individuals was charged for the same crimes in another court. The crimes charged are within the original exclusive jurisdiction of the CFI, and such jurisdiction cannot be divested by the proceedings in the municipal court. Furthermore, the referral of the complaints (Criminal Cases Nos. 600-603) from the CFI to the City Court of Trece Martires for preliminary investigation is expressly sanctioned by Sections 13 and 2 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The case of Bacar v. Tordesillas cited by petitioners is inapplicable as it involved a different procedural context regarding venue and authority of a justice of the peace.
2. No. The Supreme Court ruled that the warrants of arrest issued by Judge Pepa are valid. Under Sections 5, 6, and 10 of Rule 112, a preliminary examination by a municipal or city judge may be conducted “either in the presence or absence of the accused.” If the judge is satisfied from such examination that there is reasonable ground to believe the accused committed the offense, he must issue a warrant of arrest. The accused’s right to a preliminary investigation, where they can present evidence, arises under Section 10 only “after the arrest of the accused and his delivery to the court.” Therefore, the ex parte nature of the preliminary examination preceding the arrest does not invalidate the warrant. The case of Marcos v. Cruz is distinguishable as it pertained to a situation where a preliminary investigation had already been conducted by the CFI.