Bianca Danica Santiago Villarama [CASE # 03]

HOW THE CASE REACHED THE SC: Hashim filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus praying for
the court to cancel the warrant of arrest; to require Judge Boncan to conduct a PI; to require the City
Fiscal of Manila to furnish the documents requested; to suspend arraignment; to grant such other
remedy as may be just and equitable.

FACTS: On August 6, 1940, Hashim was arrested without a warrant for possession of counterfeit
treasury certificates of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. He was released upon filing a bond. The
next day, a complaint was filed against him with the Office of the City Fiscal. The Assistant City Fiscal
of Manila conducted an investigation pursuant to section 2465 of the Revised Administrative Code, as
amended, and lodged an information against him. A warrant of arrest was issued, and he was later
admitted to bail. Before arraignment, his counsel filed motions asking the Fiscal to furnish the clerk of
court with the testimony of the witnesses who testified at the PI. The Fiscal opposed the motion on the
ground that the provisions of the Rules of Court on "Preliminary Investigation" do not apply to PIs
conducted by the Fiscal for the City of Manila. CFI Manila Judge Boncan dismissed the motion. By
another motion, petitioner asked the warrant be cancelled and insisted that the court conduct the PI
referred to in Sec 1, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The respondent Fiscal filed an objection on the
ground, among others, that there was no necessity for the court to conduct a PI in this case because
the substitute therefor had already been performed by the Fiscal. Judge Boncan again dismissed.

PETITIONERS ARGUMENT: Judge Boncan should conduct a PI. If not, the Fiscal should be ordered
to furnish the clerk of court with abstract of the testimony of the witnesses and such other evidence
based on Sec. 13 of Rule 108 which says:
SEC. 13. Transmission of abstract. Upon the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, the
judge or corresponding officer shall transmit without delay to the clerk of the Court of First
Instance having jurisdiction of the offense (a) the warrant, if the arrest was by virtue of a
warrant; (b) an abstract of the testimony of the witnesses; (c) the undertaking or bail of the
defendant, and (d) the person of the defendant if not on bail.

RESPONDENT (FISCAL)S ARGUMENT: No need for the court to conduct PI because the substitute
therefor had already been performed in accordance with law (Revised Administrative Code) by the
office of the Fiscal of the City of Manila. Moreover, the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court on
"Preliminary Investigation" do not apply to a PI conducted by the Fiscal for the City of Manila or any of
his assistants.

ISSUES: W/N in a PI conducted by the City Fiscal of Manila, the accused is entitled to be informed of
the substance of the testimony and of the evidence presented against him (Broader question: W/N
existing law under which the City Fiscal conducts PI has been supplanted by the New Rules of Court).

HASHIM v. BONCAN G.R. No. L-47777
13 JANUARY 1941 LAUREL, J.
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Preliminary Investigation and Inquest (Definition; When Required)
SUMMARY: Hashim was arrested without a warrant for possession of counterfeit treasury
certificates. The Asst. City Fiscal of Manila conducted the PI (more like an inquest) and filed the
information. Hashim's counsel invoked provisions of the Rules requiring officers conducting PI
to inform the accused of substance of the testimony and evidence against him. SC held that
said provisions apply only when the PI is conducted by justices and judges, not by fiscals.
Bianca Danica Santiago Villarama [CASE # 03]
HELD: NO. Rule 108 pertains to a PI conducted by a justice of the peace or by a municipal
judge, not by a Fiscal. Petition for certiorari and mandamus DISMISSED.

The phrase "corresponding officer" in Sec. 13 does not pertain to the Fiscal. It refers to other
officers also authorized to conduct PI, e.g. the justice of the peace.
1. The purpose of transmission of abstract was explained in US v. Rafael: The purpose of
requiring the justice of the peace to forward to the provincial Fiscal a brief statement of the
substance of the testimony is to enable the provincial Fiscal to decide 1) W/N he shall file a
complaint against the defendant, and 2) to enable him, in case he decides to prosecute, to
properly formulate said complaint. It is practically impossible, in the thickly populated provinces
of the Philippine Islands, for the provincial Fiscal to personally attend all of the trials and PI held
before the justices of the peace.
o If the abstract in Sec. 13 is intended for the Fiscal, the duty to transmit is plainly not cast
upon him (if it's for him, it can't be from him). Further, if the said abstract is for the use
and guidance of the Fiscal, the failure to transmit it cannot be prejudicial to the accused.
2. Sec. 13 also requires the "corresponding officer" to transmit the warrant of arrest. Hence, the
officer must be one who is authorized to issue such a warrant. The Fiscal is not so authorized.
3. Sec. 13 also assumes the 2-stage PI provided for justices of the peace and judges, not for the
Fiscal. Under existing laws, the City Fiscal conducts a single investigation, and this is a
summary one. To say that the respondent Fiscal is bound by the procedure provided in the cited
section is to duplicate proceedings, where at present there is but one, in contradiction with the
spirit of simplicity underlying the new Rules.
4. Sec. 13 requires the "corresponding officer" to transmit the person of the defendant if not on
bail. This is impossible for the Fiscal to comply with because he has no direct control over the
person of the accused, not being empowered to order his arrest or release.
To subject the respondent Fiscal to the provisions of Rule 108 Sec. 11 (Rights of defendant after
arrest) is to prolong an otherwise brief investigation which said officer is authorized to conduct.
The New Rules of Court have not repealed the existing laws governing the Fiscal's power to
conduct PI. If neither Sec. 11 nor Sec. 13 of Rule 108 is applicable to the PI conducted by the City
Fiscal, as above shown, and if existing legislation thereon is to be deemed repealed, then the
matter would be left uncovered by rule or law.
The right to PI is statutory, not constitutional. Its oft-repeated purpose is to secure the innocent
against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecutions, and to protect him from open and public
accusation of crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the
State from useless and expensive prosecutions. The new Rules were drafted in the light of the
Court's experience with cases where preliminary investigations had dragged on for weeks and even
months. The occasion is not for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence; it is for the
presentation of such evidence only as may engender well- grounded belief that an offense has
been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. When all this is fulfilled, the
accused will not be permitted to cast about for fancied reasons to delay the proceedings; the time to
ask for more is at the trial.

PI conducted by justice of the peace/ municipal judge PI conducted by a fiscal
2 stages: The investigation 1) before and for the purpose of the
issuance of the warrant of arrest, and 2) that thereafter made for
the purpose of their releasing the offender or filing the information
Single, summary investigation
prior to filing the information in
court