Calvan v. CA

G.R. No. 140823 (October 3, 2000)

Supreme Court rules Judge's warrant against Mayor Sales illegal due to their family ties.

Facts:

On August 2, 1999, a shootout occurred in a sitio in Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte, resulting in the death of former Mayor Rafael Benemerito, who was fatally shot by the incumbent town mayor, Reynolan T. Sales. Following the incident, Sales surrendered his firearm to the Municipal Police and requested to be taken into custody. The next day, a murder complaint was filed against him by Police Chief Inspector Crispin Aguno and Thelma Benemerito, the victim's wife, at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Adams-Baagui-Dumalueg-Pagudpud, which was presided over by Judge Melvyn U. Calvan.

Judge Calvan conducted a preliminary examination and subsequently issued an order and warrant of arrest against Sales, stating "with NO BAIL." Sales was then transferred to the Provincial Jail on August 4, 1999. On August 5, Judge Calvan forwarded the case records to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for further action. Sales contended that his right to due process was violated due to the abrupt conclusion of the preliminary investigation, which did not allow him to present a counter-affidavit or witnesses.

In response, Sales filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus and Certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 54416) before the Court of Appeals, arguing that Judge Calvan was disqualified from presiding over the case due to his familial relationship with the complainant, Thelma Benemerito. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the petition on August 30, 1999, but after Sales withdrew the certiorari aspect of his petition, the habeas corpus petition remained.

On November 18, 1999, the Court of Appeals granted the habeas corpus petition, ordering Sales' release from detention, subject to the outcome of a proper preliminary investigation. The Office of the Solicitor General subsequently filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, challenging the appellate court's decision.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the petition for habeas corpus and ordering the release of Mayor Sales despite the ongoing criminal proceedings against him.
  2. Whether the order and warrant of arrest issued by Judge Calvan were valid given his disqualification due to his relationship with the complainant.

Arguments:

  • Petitioners (Office of the Solicitor General):

    • The petition for habeas corpus should have been limited to the legality of Sales' detention, not the validity of the order and warrant of arrest, which should be addressed through a petition for certiorari.
    • The Court of Appeals exceeded its jurisdiction by ruling on the legality of the arrest warrant, which was not the proper subject of a habeas corpus petition.

  • Respondent (Mayor Sales):

    • The issuance of the order and warrant of arrest by Judge Calvan was illegal due to his disqualification, as he was related to the complainant within the third civil degree of affinity.
    • The lack of a proper preliminary investigation and the violation of due process warranted the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to secure his release from illegal detention.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that the disqualification of Judge Calvan was clear and mandatory under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, which prohibits a judge from presiding over a case in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity. The Court emphasized that the right to due process requires a hearing before an impartial tribunal, and the failure of Judge Calvan to conduct a proper preliminary investigation rendered the order and warrant of arrest invalid.

The Court further clarified that the inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding is not limited to errors committed by a court within its jurisdiction but extends to whether the order or judgment under which a person is detained is a complete nullity. The Court found that the irregularities in the preliminary investigation and the lack of an adequate remedy for Sales justified the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. A judge is disqualified from presiding over a case if he is related to a party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, and such disqualification is mandatory.
  2. The writ of habeas corpus serves as a remedy to challenge the legality of detention, particularly when the order or warrant of arrest is issued without legal authority.
  3. The right to due process necessitates that an accused be heard by an impartial tribunal, and any failure to provide this can lead to the invalidation of judicial orders.