SAN AGUSTIN v. PEOPLE, 437 SCRA 392 (2004)

FACTS: Luz Tan executed a notarized criminal complaint and filed the same with the NBI charging petitioner Barangay Chairman Ernesto San Agustin with serious illegal detention alleging that the petitioner detained her husband Vicente Tan without lawful ground. The investigation of the NBI found that the victim TAN was mistaken as a “snatcher” and was turned over to petitioner San Agustin where Tan was beaten and locked up. Luz Tan (complainant) went to the barangay hall and inquired but they denied having seen the victim Tan.

Later on, an inquest investigation was conducted by the State prosecutor. She came out with a Resolution which was affirmed by the Assistant Chief State Prosecutor, finding probable cause against the petitioner for serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that he was illegally arrested and subjected to an inquest investigation; hence, he was deprived of his right to a preliminary investigation. He also prayed that he be released from detention and that the prosecutor conduct a preliminary investigation.

ISSUE: WON the petitioner should be released on the ground that it did not conform with Section 7 Rule 112 which requires preliminary investigation to be conducted before the information is filed.

HELD: NO. An inquest investigation is proper only when the suspect is lawfully arrested without a warrant. Although the procedure does not conform with Section 7 Rule 112, it is not a ground to nullify the arrest. 

RATIO: The warrantless arrest or the detention of the petitioner in the instant case does not fall within the provision of Section 5, Rule 113. The inquest investigation conducted is void because under Rule 112, Section 7, an inquest investigation is proper only when the suspect is lawfully arrested without a warrant:

SEC. 7. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. – When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest investigation has been conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.

The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the jurisdiction of the trial court but merely the regularity of the proceedings. It does not impair the validity of the Information or otherwise render it defective. Neither is it a ground to quash the Information or nullify the order of arrest issued against him or justify the release of the accused from detention. However, the trial court should suspend proceedings and order a preliminary investigation considering that the inquest investigation conducted by the State Prosecutor is null and void. The RTC committed grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in ordering the City Prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation which is merely a review by the Prosecutor of his records and evidence instead of a preliminary investigation as provided for in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

Whether or not there is a need for a preliminary investigation under Section 1 in relation to Section 9 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure depends upon the imposable penalty for the crime charged in the complaint filed with the City or Provincial Prosecutor's Office and not upon the imposable penalty for the crime found to have been committed by the respondent after a preliminary investigation. In this case, the crime charged in the complaint of the NBI filed in the Department of Justice was kidnapping/serious illegal detention, the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua to death.