G.R. No. L-27018 August 30, 1972
AMORSOLO R. MANZANO, petitioner-appellant, vs. JUDGE PATROCINIO S. VILLA, the MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF VICTORIA, TARLAC and the CHIEF OF POLICE OF VICTORIA, TARLAC, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Police Sergeant Felix G. Felipe, designated as acting chief of police, filed three criminal complaints (for assault upon an agent of a person in authority, alarm and scandal, and concealing a deadly weapon) against Amorsolo Manzano before the Municipal Court of Victoria, Tarlac. These complaints stemmed from a single incident on May 7, 1966. The municipal judge conducted a preliminary examination by taking sworn statements from several witnesses in question-and-answer form and subsequently issued warrants of arrest. Manzano, through counsel, filed a motion to dismiss and recall the warrants, arguing he was not notified of the examination nor given a chance to cross-examine witnesses, and later supplemented it by challenging Sgt. Felipe’s authority to file the complaints as he was merely designated, not formally appointed, as chief of police.
The municipal judge did not act on the motion. Consequently, Manzano filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Tarlac to compel the judge to resolve the motion and to halt the criminal proceedings. The CFI issued a preliminary injunction but later dismissed the petition. Manzano appealed, contending the complaints were defective, the preliminary examination was illegally conducted, and the CFI erred in dismissing his petition without a formal hearing.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the petition for mandamus and prohibition challenging the validity of the criminal complaints and the preliminary examination conducted by the municipal judge.

RULING

Yes, the CFI’s dismissal was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the order, holding that the petition for mandamus and prohibition was without merit and prematurely filed. On the authority to file complaints, Sgt. Felipe, as a member of the municipal police, was a peace officer under Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, authorized to subscribe to criminal complaints. His designation as acting chief of police, even without a formal appointment, did not strip him of this inherent authority as a peace officer.
Regarding the preliminary examination, the Court ruled it was conducted in accordance with law. The sworn statements of witnesses, taken in question-and-answer form before the judge, complied with the requirement under Section 87(e) of Republic Act No. 296 , as amended. A preliminary examination is ex parte and not a trial on the merits; its purpose is merely to determine probable cause for arrest. The accused has no right to be present or to cross-examine witnesses at this stage, as held in Bustos v. Lucero. Thus, Manzano’s claim of denial of due process was unfounded.
The Court further found the petitions for mandamus and prohibition improper. Prohibition did not lie because any error in the judge’s appreciation of evidence was not a grave abuse of discretion warranting such writ. Mandamus was also not warranted, as the municipal judge’s failure to act on the motion to dismiss within roughly three weeks did not constitute gross neglect, especially since the motion lacked a proper notice of hearing. Manzano’s remedy was to await arraignment and file a motion to quash under Rule 117, or to first seek action from the municipal court before resorting to a higher court. His petition was premature and merely delayed the proceedings.