IMELDA S. ENRIQUEZ v. JUDGE OLEGARIO R. SARMIENTO, JR.
498 SCRA 6 (2006), THIRD DIVISION
Anthony John Apura (Apura) was invited for questioning relative to the killing of Mark James Enriquez. A warrant of arrest was thereafter issued by Judge Apolinario Taypin. Apura alleges that his arrest was illegal because he went to the police station upon invitation, but immediately thereafter, he was placed under custody of the police. The motion was heard by Presiding Judge Olegario R. Sarmiento. Judge Sarmiento believing that there was lack of preliminary investigation, ordered the release of Apura and ordered Criminal Investigation and Detection Group Unit (CIDGU) to conduct a preliminary investigation. He subsequently ordered the release of Ampura, on bail, without conducting a hearing.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a Judge Sarmiento knowingly rendered an unjust order and gross ignorance of the law and procedure for ordering the release of Apura on bail without first conducting a hearing for the purpose
HELD:
The lack of preliminary investigation, in light of the finding that Apura was not lawfully arrested without warrant, he having gone to the CIDGU in response to its invitation, did not justify Judge Sarmiento‘s disregard of the mandatory procedure governing the grant of bail.
Indeed, a preliminary investigation should have been conducted before the filing of the Amended Information. A preliminary investigation is a proceeding distinct from an inquest. A preliminary investigation is “an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial”. An inquest is “a summary inquiry conducted by a prosecutor for the purpose of determining whether the warrantless arrest of a person was based on probable cause.”
The conduct of an inquest investigation does not fulfill the requirement for the conduct of a preliminary investigation before the filing of an information or complaint involving any such offenses, except when the accused was lawfully arrested without a warrant.
In the case at bar, Apura was not even arrested. He repaired to the CIDGU on its invitation. He should thus have been subjected to a preliminary investigation, not a mere inquest investigation.
