G.R. No. L-9525; August 28, 1956
ALBERTO S. WONG, petitioner, vs. HON. NICASIO YATCO, ETC, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On December 28, 1954, petitioner Alberto S. Wong was charged before the Court of First Instance of Rizal with violating Commonwealth Act No. 104 for allegedly allowing over 400 laborers to work in a room of 3,427.20 cubic meters from May 3, 1954, to October 11, 1954. After pleading not guilty on February 17, 1955, Wong filed a motion to quash, arguing that the implementing regulations of the law had not been published in the Official Gazette at the time of the alleged violation. The Department of Labor’s legal assistant joined this motion, stating the violation was merely technical and that Wong’s factory was in substantial compliance, supported by a letter from the Secretary of Labor indicating compliance after a subsequent inspection. Respondent Judge Nicasio Yatco ordered the motion and letter detached from the record, holding the legal assistant had no authority to appear. On March 17, 1955, during a hearing, the first assistant city attorney verbally moved to dismiss on the same grounds. Instead of ruling, Judge Yatco conducted a surprise ocular inspection of the factory, questioning Wong, who stated there were 397 laborers working that day. After the inspection, the judge found a continuing violation, denied the motion to dismiss, and ordered the fiscal to file an amended information within five days. The fiscal filed an amended information on March 18, 1955, altering the violation period to January 2, 1954, to October 11, 1954. Wong reiterated his motion to quash. The fiscal, instead of opposing, filed a second amended information on March 31, 1955, changing the period to January 2, 1955, to March 17, 1955. On June 28, 1955, the judge denied the motion to quash. On January 23, 1955, Wong filed another motion to quash the amended informations, arguing no preliminary investigation was conducted for them, but the judge denied it, citing a continuous violation, and set the case for trial. Wong then filed this certiorari petition, alleging grave abuse of discretion, including that his testimony during the inspection was not under oath, he was denied opportunity to explain or cross-examine, his case was prejudged, the judge performed police functions, and the amended informations lacked preliminary investigation.

ISSUE

1. Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in conducting an ocular inspection and questioning the petitioner without oath, opportunity for explanation, or cross-examination, thereby prejudging the case and performing police functions.
2. Whether the amended informations, which changed the date of the alleged offense to a period after the original information was filed, were validly filed without a preliminary investigation and despite the original charge being for a non-punishable act at the time of filing.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge’s action in conducting the ocular inspection and questioning the petitioner, while creating an impression of personal interest in maintaining the action, was legally valid. The proceeding was not a preliminary investigation but a method adopted by the judge to exercise his discretion in ruling on the motion for dismissal. As such, the rights of the accused in a preliminary investigation did not apply, and there was no abuse of discretion in its adoption or manner.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the amended informations were not justified. The original information, filed on December 28, 1954, charged a violation from May 3, 1954, to October 11, 1954, but at that time, the law was not yet effective due to lack of publication, making the acts non-punishable. The amended information changed the period to January 2, 1955, to March 17, 1955, which constituted a substantial amendment because it referred to acts punishable only after the law became effective. Since an amendment retroacts to the filing date of the original pleading, and the original information charged a non-punishable act, the amendment could not cure this defect. The proper procedure was to dismiss the original information and file a new one. The Court set aside the orders complained of and directed the respondents to act in accordance with this decision.