FACTS:
On May 10, 1985, Attorney Laurente C. Ilagan
was arrested in Davao City by elements of the PC-INP and detained at Camp
Catitipan on the basis of a Mission Order allegedly issued by the Ministry of
National Defense. On that same day, fifteen lawyers from the IBP Davao Chapter
visited Atty. Ilagan. Thereafter, two other petitioners were arrested for the
same cause.
This petition for habeas corpus was
then filed by and on behalf of the three arrested lawyers hereinafter referred
to as the detained attorneys on the ground that their arrests were illegal and
violative of the Constitution, since arrests cannot be made on the basis of
Mission Orders. and that there appears to be a military campaign to harass
lawyers involved in national security cases.
On May 16, 1985, the Court issued the Writ,
required a Return, and set the petition for hearing on May 23, 1985.
Respondents contend that the lawyers were arrested due to basis of a PDA issued
by the President on January 25, 1985 and that the lawyers played active roles
in organizing mass actions of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the
National Democratic Front.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioners herein were denied of
their constitutional right to due process and the benefit of a preliminary
investigation.
HELD:
If the detained attorneys question their
detention because of improper arrest, or that no preliminary investigation has
been conducted, the remedy is not a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus but a
Motion before the trial court to quash the Warrant of Arrest, and /or the
Information on grounds provided by the Rules or to ask for an investigation /
reinvestigation of the case. Habeas corpus would not lie after the
Warrant of commitment was issued by the Court on the basis of the Information
filed against the accused. So is it explicitly provided for by Section.
14, Rule of 102 of the Rules of Court.
The right to a preliminary investigation,
being waivable, does not argue against the validity of the proceedings, the
most that could have been done being to remand the case in order that such
investigation could be conducted.
... The proper forum before which absence of
preliminary investigation should be ventilated is the Court of First Instance,
not this Court. Reason is not wanting for this view. Absence of preliminary
investigation does not go to the jurisdiction of the court but merely to the
regularity of the proceedings. It could even be waived. Indeed, it is
frequently waived. These are matters to be inquired into by the trial court,
not an appellate Court.
Section 7, Rule 112, of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure above referred to provides:
SEC. 7. When accused lawfully arrested
without warrant.- When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant for an
offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court the complaint or information may
be filed by the offended party, peace officer or fiscal without preliminary
investigation having been first conducted on the basis of the affidavit of the
offended party or arrested officer or person.
However, before the filing of such complaint
or information, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation by
a proper officer in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with the
assistance of a lawyer and in case of non-availability of a lawyer, a
responsible person of his choice. Notwithstanding such waiver, he may apply for
bail as provided in the corresponding rule and the investigation must be
terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.
No comments:
Post a Comment