10 Mangila V Nbi

10. Anita Mangila vs. Judge Heriberto M. Mangila & NBI G.R. No.
160739 By Krissey Facts: Seven criminal complaints charging petitioner Anita Mangila and four others with syndicated estafa in violation of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1689, and with violations of Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995) were filed in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities in Puerto Princesa City (MTCC), docketed as Criminal Cases No. 16916 to No. 16922. The complaints arose from the recruiting and promising of employment by Mangila and the others to the private complainants as overseas contract workers in Toronto, Canada, and from the collection of visa processing fees, membership fees and on-line application the private complainants without lawful authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). On the following day, Judge Heriberto M. Pangilinan, Presiding Judge of the MTCC, conducted a preliminary investigation on the complaints. After examining Miguel Aaron Palayon, one of the complainants, Judge Pangilinan issued a warrant for the arrest of Mangila and her cohorts without bail. Mangila was arrested and detained at the headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Claiming that Judge Pangilinan did not have the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation; that the preliminary investigation he conducted was not yet completed when he issued the warrant of arrest; and that the issuance of the warrant of arrest was without sufficient justification or without a prior finding of probable cause, Mangila filed in the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for habeas corpus to obtain her release from detention. Her petition averred that the remedy of habeas corpus was available to her because she could no longer file a motion to quash or a motion to recall the warrant of arrest considering that Judge Pangilinan had already forwarded the entire records of the case to the City Prosecutor who had no authority to lift or recall the warrant. The CA denied the petition for habeas corpus for its lack of merit citing Sec 5 of rule 112 as its basis. Mangila moved for the reconsideration of the denial of her petition for habeas corpus, but the CA denied the motion. Hence, the petitioners appealed via petition for review on certiorari. Issues: 1. W/N the CA erred in ruling that habeas corpus was not the proper remedy to obtain the release of Mangila from detention. 2. W/N Judge Pangilinan, as the Presiding Judge of the MTCC, was empowered to conduct preliminary investigations involving all crimes cognizable by their court and their respective territorial jurisdiction. 3. W/N the investigating judge could issue a warrant of arrest during the preliminary investigation even without awaiting its conclusion. 4. W/N the writ of habeas corpus was the proper remedy to be availed of by Mangila to relieve her from the restraint of her liberty. Held: 1. The petition for review lacks merit. Habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error; nor intended as substitute for the trial courts function. It cannot take the place of appeal, certiorari or writ of er ror. The writ cannot be used to investigate and consider questions of error that might be raised relating to procedure or on the merits. The inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding is addressed to the question of whether the proceedings and the assailed order are, for any reason, null and void. The writ is not ordinarily granted where the law provides for other remedies in the regular course, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Moreover, habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of trial. The orderly course of trial must be pursued and the usual remedies exhausted before resorting to the writ where exceptional circumstances are extant. 2. Yes. There is no question that when the criminal complaints were lodged against Mangila and her cohorts Judge Pangilinan, as the Presiding Judge of the MTCC, was empowered to conduct preliminary investigations involving all July 17, 2013
crimes cognizable by the proper court in their respective territorial jurisdictions. His authority was expressly provided in Section 2, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit: Section 2.Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations. (b) Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; Their authority to conduct preliminary investigations shall include all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their respective territorial jurisdictions. (2a) 3. Yes. Under Section 6(b) of Rule 112of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the investigating judge could issue a warrant of arrest during the preliminary investigation even without awaiting its conclusion should he find after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and the witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers that a probable cause existed, and that there was a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. 4. No. Accordingly, Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court explicitly states: Section 4.When writ not allowed or discharge authorized. If it appears that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or order.

10 Mangila V Nbi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 Mangila V Nbi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10. Anita Mangila vs. Judge Heriberto M. Mangila & NBI G.R. No.

You might also like