LOZADAVHERNANDEZ 1.CriminalProcedurePreliminaryInvestigationItsNature.Apreliminaryinvestigationisnot properlyatrialoranypartthereofbutismerelypreparatorythereto,itsonlypurposebeingto determinewhetheracrimehasbeencommittedandwhetherthereisprobablecausetobelieve theaccusedguiltythereof.Therighttosuchinvestigationisnotafundamentalrightguaranteed bytheConstitution.Atmost,itisstatutory.Andrightsconferreduponaccusedpersonsto participateinpreliminaryinvestigationsconcerningthemselvesdependupontheprovisionsof lawbywhichsuchrightsarespecificallysecured,ratherthanuponthephrase"dueprocessof law". 2.Id.Id.WhenFiscalisRequiredtoGiveNoticeThereof.Thefiscalisrequiredtogivetothe accusednoticeofthepreliminaryinvestigationaftertheaccusedhasrequestedtobe presentthereat.[Lozadavs.Hernandez,etc.,etal.,92Phil.

,1051(1953)]

USVBANZUELA CRIMINALLAWPRELIMINARYINVESTIGATION.Thegeneralprovisionscontainedinsection 13ofGeneralOrdersNo.58areverydefinite.Theyprovidethatwhenacomplaintislaidbeforea magistrate,hemustmakea.preliminaryinvestigation,andifheissatisfiedthatthecrime complainedofhasbeencommittedandthatthereisreasonablegroundtobelievethattheparty chargedhascommittedit,hemusttaketheactionthelawrequires. 2.ID.ID.ACQUITTALSUBSEQUENTINVESTIGATIONBYCOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCE.A preliminaryinvestigationheldbyajusticeofthepeace,whereinhefindstheaccusedperson innocentandordershisreleasefromcustody,isnotabartomakinganotherpreliminary investigationintheCourtofFirstInstanceoncomplaintbeingfiledthereinbythefiscalagainst thesaidaccusedpersonforthesamecrime. 3.ID.ID.ID.ID.Bothsection14ofGeneralOrdersNo.58andsection2ofActNo.194 expresslyprovidethat.theorderofreleasefromarrestbythejusticeofthepeaceormagistrate whomadethepreliminaryinvestigationshallnotoperateasafinalacquittal,orpreventthefiling ofanewcomplaintorinformationandthearrestoftheaccusedforthesamecrimeatanytime beforetheprosecutionoftheoffenseisbarredbythestatute. 4.ID.ID.RIGHTTOPRELIMINARYINVESTIGATION.Thelawhavingexplicitlyrecognizedand establishedthatnopersonchargedwiththecommissionofacrimeshallbedeprivedofhis libertyorsubjectedtotrialwithoutpriorpreliminaryinvestigationthatshallshowthatthereare reasonablegroundstobelievehimguilty,therecanbenodoubtthattheaccusedwhois deprivedofhisliberty,triedandsentencedwithouttheproperpreliminaryinvestigationhaving beenmadeinhisregard,is'convictedwithoutdueprocessoflaw.[UnitedStatesvs.Banzuela., 31Phil.564(1915)] CONDEVJUDGEOFFIRSTINSTANCEOFTAYABAS 2.ID.NUMBEROFINFORMATIONSANDCOMPLAINTS.Section9oftheCodeofCriminal Procedureprovidingthattheinformationorcomplaintmaybeamendedinsubstanceorform withoutleaveofcourtatanytimebeforethedefendantpleads,lodgesadiscretionarypowerin theprosecutingofficer.Nevertheless,thefiscal,asaguasijudicialofficer,shouldnotharassthe

accusedbyconstantlyamendingtheinformation. 3.ID.PRELIMINARYINVESTIGATION.Therightofanaccusedpersonnottobebroughttotrial exceptwhenremandedthereforasaresultofapreliminaryexaminationbeforeacommitting magistrate,isasubstantialone.Itsdenialovertheobjectionsoftheaccusedisprejudicialerror. [Condevs.JudgeofFirstInstanceandFiscalofTayabas,45Phil.173(1923)] PEOPLEVRAMILO CRIMINALPROCEDURERIGHTSOFDEFENDANTAFTERARRESTRIGHTOFACCUSED TOCROSSEXAMINEWlTNESSESDURINGTHEPRELIMINARYINVESTIGATION.Under section11ofRule108oftheRulesofCourt,therightsofadefendantafterhisarrestare(1)to beinformedofthecomplaintorinformationfiledagainsthimandofthesubstanceofthe testimonyandevidencepresentedagainsthimand(2)tobeallowed,ifhesodesires,totestify ortopresentwitnessesorevidenceinhisfavor.Asofright,therefore,inapreliminary investigation,anaccusedisnotentitledtocrossexaminethewitnessespresentedagainsthim. Hence,thedemandoftheaccusedduringthereinvestigationconductedbytheCityAttorneythat thewitnessesfortheprosecutionberecalledsothatshecouldcrossexaminethemwasnot basedonanyprovisionoflawandthereforetheCityAttorneyhascorrectlydeniedsuchdemand. [Peoplevs.Ramilo,98Phil.545(1956)] PEOPLEVCASIANO CriminalprocedurePreliminaryinvestigationWhenestafachargecontainsallegations regardingillegalpossessionoffalsebanknote.Wheretheoriginalandamendedcomplaintsfor estafa,onwhichapreliminaryinvestigationwasconducted,containallegationsthatthe defendantknowinglyhadinherpossession,withintenttouse,andhadactuallyused,afalse banknote,thetrialcourterredindismissingtheinformationchargingthatoffenseandinholding thatthedefendantisentitledtoanotherpreliminaryinvestigation. SameWaiverofpreliminaryinvestigation.Adefendantisdeemedtohavewaivedthe preliminaryinvestigationuponhisfailuretoinvokeitpriorto,oratleastat,thetimeoftheentryof hispleaintheCourtofFirstInstance. SameEffectoflackofpreliminaryinvestigationDutyofthecourtincasethedefendantinvokes apreliminaryinvestigation.Theabsenceofapreliminaryinvestigationdoesnotaffectthe court'sjurisdictionoverthecase.Nordoesitimpairthevalidityoftheinformationorotherwise renderitdefective.Iftherewasnopreliminaryinvestigationandthedefendant,beforeentering hisplea,callstheattentionofthecourttotheabsenceofapreliminaryinvestigation,thecourt, insteadofdismissingtheinformation,shouldconductsuchinvestigation,orderthefiscalto conductitorremandthecasetotheinferiorcourtsothatthepreliminaryinvestigationmaybe conducted. AppealsCriminalprocedureProvisionforappealsincriminalcasesdoesnotaffectappellate jurisdictionofSupremeCourt.TheprovisionintheRulesofCourt,thattheprosecutioncannot appealifthedefendantwouldbeplacedtherebyindoublejeopardy,doesnotimpairtheappellate jurisdictionoftheSupremeCourt,sincetheRulesofCourtcannotmodifytheconstitutionaland legalprovisionsregardingjurisdictionnorincrease,diminishormodifysubstantiverights.The

prosecutionmayappealtotheSupremeCourtincasesinvolvingpurequestionsoflaw.Thisis theruleinelectioncases. Same.TheprovisionintheRulesofCourtforappealsincriminalcaseswasadoptedasa proceduralmeasureforthepurpose,notofaffectingsubstantiverights,butofenforcingthe constitutionalimmunityfromdoublejeopardy,apersonaJprivilegewhichtheaccusedmay waive. SameDoublejeopardyWaiverofimmunityfromdoublejeopardy.Wheretheaccuseddidnot seasonablyobjecttotheappealoftheprosecutiononthegroundthatsuchanappealwould placehimindoublejeopardy,heisdeemedtohavewaivedhisconstitutionalimmunityfrom doublejeopardy. SameDoublejeopardy.Ifadefendantpleadstothecharge,withoutinvokinghisimmunityfrom asecondjeopardy,thesameisdeemedwaived.[Peoplevs.Casiano,1SCRA478(1961)] NOMBREVPEOPLE Petitionforcertiorariwithpreliminaryinjunction.Acriminalchargeofbigamywaspresented againstpetitioner.TheFiscalissuedasubpoenatohimathisknownaddressbuthecouldnot befoundbecausehehadmovedtoanotherplace,withoutnotifyingtheCityFiscal'sOfficeofhis newaddress.Inhisabsence,theFiscalproceededwiththepreliminaryinvestigationand thereafterfiledthecorrespondinginformationagainstpetitioner.PetitionerinvokesSec.38Cof RepublicActNo.1201,whichprovidesthatnocomplaintorinformationshallbefiledwithoutfirst givingtheaccusedachancetobeheardinapreliminaryinvestigation,wheresuchaccusedcan besubpoenaedandappearsbeforetheinvestigatingfiscal,withtherighttocrossexaminethe complainantandhiswitnesses,Held:Petitionerwasnotdeniedachancetobeheard.A subpoenawasissuedtohimathisknownaddress.Awareofapendingpreliminaryinvestigation againsthim,petitioner'sactofmovingoutfromhislastknownresidencewithoutadvisingthe CityFiscal'sOfficeconstitutesanimpliedwaiverofhischancetobeheardinapreliminary investigation.[Nombresvs.People,etal.,105Phil.1259(1959)] PEOPLEVMONTEVERDE SameCriminalProcedurePreliminaryInvestigationRulethatwhilegenerallyapreliminary investigationismandatoryandacertificationthattheinvestigationwasheldisrequired,doesnot applyifraisedonlyafterconviction,orevenafterapleaofnotguiltytotheinformationwas made.Finally,Wewishtostatethatwhilegenerally,apreliminaryinvestigationismandatory andacertificationthatsuchinvestigationwasheldisrequired,stillthisruledoesnotapplyifthe issueisraisedonlyafterconviction.Thus,ithasbeenheldthatafterapleaofnotguiltytothe information,anaccusedisdeemedtohaveforegonetherightofpreliminaryinvestigationandto haveabandonedtherighttoquestionanyirregularitythatsurroundsit(SeeZacariasv.Cruz,30 SCRA728,Peoplevs.Beltran,32SCRA71.SeealsoPeoplevs.Arbola,L16936,Aug.5, 1985).[Peoplevs.Monteverde,142SCRA668(1986)]

PEOPLEVBALURAN RemediallawCriminalprocedurePreliminaryinvestigationWhenvalidityofpreliminary investigationisdeemedwaived.Whereappellanthadwaivedthepreliminaryinvestigationin thetrialcourtandfailedtoraisetheissueofvalidityofthepreliminaryinvestigationatanystage oftheproceedingsinthetrialcourt,thesamequestionmaynotberaisedonappealforthefirst time.[Peoplevs.Baluran,32SCRA71(1970)] PEOPLEVMEDTED CRIMINALLAWANDPROCEDUREMURDERDOUBLEJEOPARDYPURPOSEOFTHE PRELIMINARYINVESTIGATION.Theappellantsbasetheirdefenseofdoublejeopardyonthe factthatthefirstcomplaintfiledagainsttheminthejusticeofthepeacecourtwasdismissed uponpetitionofthefiscalhimself,forlackofevidence,68soonasithadbeenreceivedinthe CourtofFirstInstance,andonthefactthat,notwithstandingsaiddismissal,thefiscalagain chargedthemwiththesameactaandoffenseinanothercase.Thisdefenseisunfounded.The resultofapreliminaryinvestigationcanneitherconstitutenorgiverisetothedefenseofdouble jeopardyinanycase,becausesuchpreliminaryinvestigationisnotanddoesnotinitself constituteatrialorevenanypartthereof.Theonlypurposeofapreliminaryinvestigationisto determine,beforethepresentationofevidencebytheprosecutionandbythedefense,ifthe latterpartyshouldwishtopresentany,whetherornottherearereasonablegroundsfor proceedingformallyandresolutelyagainsttheaccused(Peoplevs.PejiBautista,G.R.No. 45739,April25,1939U.S.vs.YuTuico,34Phil.,209).Inorderthatthedefenseofjeopardy maylie,theremustbeaformerjudgment,eitherofacquittalorofconviction,renderedbyacourt competenttorenderthesame,notonlybyreasonoftheoffensecommitted,whichmustbethe sameoratleastcomprisedwithinit,butalsobyreasonoftheplacewhereitwascommitted. Undertheestablishedfactsitcannotbestatedthatthesamecircumstancesexistinthecase underconsideration.Consequently,thedefenseofdoublejeopardyisuntenable.[Peoplevs. DatuGalantuMedted,68Phil.485(1939)] LUCIANOVMARIANO RulesofCourtPurposeofpreliminaryinvestigationWhencategoryofoffenseisraised,anew investigationisneeded.Apreliminaryinvestigation,itmustbeborneinmind,isapractical devicecreatedbystatuteandbymandateofourRulesofCourt,principallyforthepurposeof preventinghasty,maliciousandilladvisedprosecutions.TheRulesofCourtonthematterof preliminaryinvestigation,construedintheirintegratedentirety,directthat,inthecircumstances hereobtaining,theFiscal,ifhebelievesthatheshouldraisethecategoryoftheoffense,must conductapreliminaryinvestigationanewastotheentirecharge.Fundamentalprinciplesoffair playdictatethiscourseofaction.TheFiscalisnotallowedbytheRulesofCourttowaitin ambushtheroleofaFiscalisnotmainlytoprosecute,butessentiallytodojusticetoeveryman andtoassistthecourtsindispensingthatjustice. SameRightsoftheaccusedinthepreliminaryinvestigation.Sincetheinformationforalleged violationoftheAntiGraftLawwasfiledwithoutanypreviousnoticetopetitionersandthedue preliminaryinvestigationthereof,anddespitethedismissaloftheoriginalchargeforfalsification asbeingwithoutanyfactualorlegalbasis,petitionersareentitledtoanewpreliminary

investigationforthegraftcharge,withalltherightstowhichtheyareentitledunderSection1of RepublicActNo.5180,approvedSeptember8,1967,asinvokedbythemanewfromrespondent court,viz,thesubmittalofthetestimoniesinaffidavitformofthecomplainantandhiswitnesses dulysworntobeforetheinvestigatingfiscal,andtherightofaccused,throughcounsel,to crossexaminethemandtoadduceevidenceintheirdefense.Inlinewiththesettleddoctrineas restatedinPeoplevs.Abejuela,38SCRA324(Mar.31,1971),respondentcourtshallholdin abeyanceallproceedingsinthecasebeforeituntilaftertheoutcomeofsuchnewpreliminary investigation.[Lucianovs.Mariano,40SCRA187(1971)] CRUZVSALVA CRIMINALPROCEDUREPRELIMINARYINVESTIGATIONAUTHORITYOFTHEFlSCALTO REINVESTIGATEWHILECASEISPENDINGAPPEALCASEATBAR.Ordinarily,whena criminalcaseinwhichafiscalintervenedthoughnominally,istriedanddecidedanditis appealedtoahighercourt,thefunctionsandactuationsofsaidfiscalhaveterminatedusually, theappealishandledforthegovernmentbytheSolicitorGeneral.Consequently,therewouldbe noreasonoroccasionforsaidfiscaltoconductareinvestigationtodeterminecriminal responsibilityforthecrimeinvolvedintheappeal.Inthepresentcase,however,oneofthe defendantswasnotincludedinthetrialmuchlessinthejudgmentforthereasonthathewas arrestedonlyafterthetrialagainsttheotheraccusedhadcommenced,evenafterthe prosecutionhadresteditscaseandthedefensehadbeguntopresentitsevidence.Naturally, thisdefendantremainedtostandtrial.Therefore,insofarasthisdefendantisconcerned,the Fiscalwaswarrantedinholdingthepreliminaryinvestigationinvolvedinthiscase. 2.ID.ID.ACCUSEDMAYNOTBECOMPELLEDTOATTENDINVESTIGATION.Whileitis therightoftheaccusedtobepresentatthepreliminaryinvestigation,however,suchrightmay berenounced,andiftheaccusedobjecttoappearatsaidinvestigation,hecannotbecompelled todoso. 3.ID.ID.GIVINGWIDEPUBLICITYANDSENSATIONALISMTOINVESTIGATION CONSTITUTESCONTEMPTOFCOURT.Inthecaseatbar,whiletheProvincialFiscalhas establishedajustificationforhisreinvestigationofthecasealthoughthesameisonappealand pendingconsiderationbythisTribunal,however,saidFiscalcommittedagrievouserrorand poorjudgmentwhenheallowed,evenencouraged,thereinvestigationtobeconductedwith muchfanfare,publicityandsensationalism.SuchactuationsoftheFiscalconstitutecontemptof courtpunishablebypubliccensure.[Cruzvs.Salva,105Phil.1151(1959)] PLACERVVILLANUEVA CriminalProcedureWarrantsofarrestPowerofjudgetoissuewarrantofarrestuponfiscal's certificationoftheexistenceofprobablecauseIssuanceofwarrantofarrestdiscretionary powerofjudge.Thereisthusnodisputethatthejudgemayrelyuponthefiscal'scertificationof theexistenceofprobablecauseand,onthebasisthereof,issueawarrantofarrest.Butdoes suchcertificationbindthejudgetocomeoutwiththewarrant?Weanswerthisqueryinthe negative.Theissuanceofawarrantisnotamereministerialfunctionitcallsfortheexerciseof judicialdiscretiononthepartoftheissuingmagistrate. SameSameSameBeforeissuanceofwarrantofarrest,judgerequiredtosatisfyhimselfof

existenceofprobablecauseAbsentprobablecauseininformationthejudgemaydisregard fiscal'scertificationandrequiresubmissionofaffidavitsofwitnessestodeterminetheexistence ofprobablecause.Underthissection(Sec.6,Rule112,RulesofCourt)thejudgemustsatisfy himselfoftheexistenceofprobablecausebeforeissuingawarrantororderofarrest.Ifonthe faceoftheinformationthejudgefindsnoprobablecause,hemaydisregardthefiscal's certificationandrequirethesubmissionoftheaffidavitsofwitnessestoaidhiminarrivingata conclusionastotheexistenceofaprobablecause.ThishasbeentherulesinceU.S.vs. OcampoandAmargavs.Abbas.Andthisevidentlyisthereasonfortheissuancebyrespondent ofthequestionedordersofApril13,15,16,19,1982andJuly13,1982.Withouttheaffidavitsof theprosecutionwitnessesandotherevidencewhich,asamatteroflongstandingpracticehad beenattachedtotheinformationsfiledinhissala,respondentfoundtheinformationsinadequate basesforthedeterminationofprobablecause. SameSameAffidavitsRuleonSummaryProcedureinSpecialCasesFilingofaffidavitsof witnesseswiththecourtundertheRule,mandatory.Insaidcases,thefilingoftheaffidavitsof witnesseswiththecourtismandatory.Section9,par.2ofsaidRuleprescribesthat"the complaintorinformationmustbeaccompaniedbytheaffidavitsofthecomplainantandofhis witnessesinsuchnumberofcopiesastherearedefendantsplustwo(2)copiesforthecourt's files."[Placervs.Villanueva,126SCRA463(1983)] LAVAVGONZALES CriminalprocedureWarrantofarrestissuedunderdefectiveinformationValidwhere informationamendedtoremedydefect.Awarrantofarrestissuedunderadefective informationbecauseofanimproperdescriptionoftheoffensemaystillbeheldvalidwheresaid informationislateramendedtodescribetheproperoffense. SameSameWhenarrestmaybelegaldespitedefectivewarrant.Evenifthewarrantof arrestinquestionisdefective,stillpetitioner'sarrestislegal,becauseanoffendercanbe arrestedwithoutwarrantunderthecircumstancesmentionedinSec.6b,Rule133,Rev.Rules ofcourt. SameNonewpreliminaryinvestigationafteramendmentofinformationinvolvingnochangein natureofcrime.Anewpreliminaryinvestigationisnotnecessaryaftertheamendmentofan informationinvolvingnochangeinthenatureofthecrimechargedandtheaccuseddidnotask forareinvestigationofthecasewithin5daysfromthetimehelearnedoftheamended information.[Lavavs.Gonzales,11SCRA650(1964)] PEOPLEVBARIALES CriminalprocedurePreliminaryinvestigationReinvestigationWhereaccusedmovesfor reinvestigationofcase,trialcourtshouldholdinabeyancearraignmentandtrialuntilafter reinvestigationReasons.Afterthetrialcourtgrantedtheappellantsmotionforreinvestigation, itbecameincumbentuponthecourttoholdinabeyancethearraignmentandtrialofthecase untiltheCityFiscalshallhaveconductedandmadehisreportontheresultofsuch reinvestigation.Thatwasamatterofdutyonitspart,notonlytobeconsistentwithitsownorder butalsotodojusticeandatthesametimetoavoidapossiblemiscarriageofjustice.[Peoplevs. Beriales,70SCRA361(1976)]

PEOPLEVDELAIGLESIA RemedialLawEvidenceSection8,Rule112WitnessesTestimonyTestimonyofwitness duringpreliminaryinvestigationmustbeintroducedasevidenceinorderthatsuch"fact"may formpartoftherecordofthecase.Corollarily,wefindnoorderofthecourtaquo,whetheron itsownmotion,orbypositivemoveonthepartoftheprosecution,tointroducesuchtestimonyof Rosalindaduringthepreliminaryinvestigationasevidence,inorderthatsuch"fact"mayform partoftherecordofthecase.[Peoplevs.DelaIglesia,241SCRA718(1995)] SameSameSameCriminalProcedureAbrokenchainofcircumstancescannotovercome theconstitutionalpresumptionofinnocenceinfavoroftheaccusedwhichentitleshimtoan acquittal.Insum,werulethatwhileaccusedappellant'salibimayhavebeenweak,the evidencepresentedbytheprosecutionwasmuchweaker.Abrokenchainofcircumstances cannotovercometheconstitutionalpresumptionofinnocenceinfavoroftheaccusedwhich entitleshimtoanACQUITTAL.[Peoplevs.DelaIglesia,241SCRA718(1995)]