RULE 112

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Section 1. Preliminary Investigation
Defined; When Required.
Offenses entitled to preliminary
investigation are those punishable
by at least four (4) years, two (2)
months and (1) day.
Purpose
of
Preliminary
Investigation:
- Determine whether there is
sufficient ground to engender a
well-grounded belief that a crime
has been committed and that
the respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for
trial. And if the evidence so
warrants,
the
investigating
prosecutor is duty bound to file
the corresponding information.
It may be waived expressly or by
silence. If not waived the absence
thereof may amount to a denial of
due process.
The lack of authentication of the
document presented during the
preliminary investigation does not
impair
the
validity
of
the
investigation.
The
absence
of
preliminary
investigation does not affect the
courts jurisdiction over the case,
but merely to the regularity of the
proceedings. Nor do they impair the
validity of the information or
otherwise render it defective; but, if
there
were
no
preliminary
investigation and the defendants,
before entering their plea, invite the
attention of the court to their
absence, the court, instead of
dismissing the information, should
conduct such investigation, or order
the fiscal to conduct it.
The absence of a preliminary
investigation
will
not
justify
petitioners release because such
defect
did
not
nullify
the
information and the warrant of
arrest against him.
Right May be Waived
The
right
to
a
preliminary
investigation may be waived by
failure to invoke the right prior to or
at least at the time of their plea.

After a plea of not guilty to the

information, an accused is deemed
to have foregone the right of
preliminary investigation and to
have abandoned the right to
question
any
irregularity
that
surrounds it.
The right to a PI shall be deemed
waived for failure to invoke it during
arraignment or by failing to go to
Appellate Court on certiorari to
question denial. The right to a PI
may not be raised for the first time
on appeal.
A waiver, whether express or
implied, must be made in clear and
unequivocal manner.
Presumption of Regularity
The accused who alleges lack of PI
must
prove
such
allegation
convincingly.
Effect of Lack of Certification.
Lack of certification by the fiscal
that a PI had been conducted does
not vitiate the information, as a PI is
not an essential part of the
information. The absence of a
certification is waived by the failure
to allege it before the plea.
Other cases on whether or not
another preliminary investigation is
needed.
a) If after PI, a case is filed in the CIF
which was dismissed, the Fiscal
cannot file another information
charging a different offense based
on the same PI. He must conduct
another PI.
b) A new PI is not, however, necessary
after the amendment of the
information, where there has been
no change in the nature of the
crime charged which is rebellion,
and moreover, petitioner, who was
already in custody when the
amended information was filed,
should have asked, but did not, for
re-investigation of said case within
the period of five days from the
time he learned of the amended
information.
c) Where the amendment to an
information is not substantial, there
is no need of PI.

d) In Gasper v. Sandiganbayan, the SC

pointed that there is no rule or law
requiring
the
Tanodbayan
to
conduct another PI of a case under
review by it.
e) It is a fundamental principle that
when on its face the information is
null and void for lack of authority to
file the same, it cannot be cured nor
resurrected by an amendment.
Another PI must be undertaken and
thereafter, based on the evidence
adduced, a new information should
be filed.
Exception to Right of PI
- There is no right of PI when a
person is lawfully arrested
unless there is waiver of the
provisions of Art. 125 of the RPC.
- There is a right to PI where
warrantless arrest is not lawful.
A motion for reinvestigation should,
after the court had acquired
jurisdiction over the case, be
addressed to the trial judge and to
him alone. The private complainant
cannot move for reinvestigation.
But he can appeal to the DOJ or the
Ombudsman as the case may be.
Section 2. Officers Authorized to Conduct
PI:
a) Provincial or City prosecutors and
their assistants;
b) National
and
Regional
State
Prosecutors
c) Other officers as may be authorized
by law.
Other
persons
authorized
to
conduct PI
a) The COMELEC
- If the Fiscal or Prosecutor files an
information charging an election
offense or prosecutes a violation
of election law, it is because he
has been deputized by the
COMELEC.
b) Office of the Ombudsman
- The ombudsman is clothed with
authority to conduct PI and to
prosecute all criminal cases
involving public officers and
employees, not only those within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Sandiganbayan, but those within
the jurisdiction of the regular
courts.
- Section 15 of RA 6770 vests the
Ombudsman with the power to
investigate and prosecute any
act or omission of any public

officer or employee, office or

agency, when such act or
omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper or inefficient.
Distinction between Office of the
Ombudsman and Office of the
Special Prosecutor
- The office
of the special
prosecutor
is
merely
a
component of the Office of the
Ombudsman and may only act
under
the
supervision
and
control and upon authority of the
Ombudsman.
Its
power
to
conduct PI and to prosecute is
limited to criminal cases within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Sandiganbayan.
Non-Interference with Ombudsman
- The court will not interfere nor
pass upon the findings of the
Ombudsman to avoid its being
hampered
by
innumerable
petitions assailing the dismissal
of
investigatory
proceedings
conducted by the Office of the
Ombudsman with regard to
complaints filed before it, and
that it will not review the
exercise of discretion on the part
of the fiscals or prosecuting
attorneys each time they decide
to file an information in court or
dismiss a complaint by a private
complainant.
- No writ of injunction shall be
issued by any court to delay an
investigation being conducted
by the Ombudsman under this
act, unless there is a prima face
evidence that the subject matter
of the investigation s outside the
jurisdiction of the office of the
Ombudsman.
- Remedy: fle an original action for
certiorari with the Supreme
Court.
Jurisdiction over money-laundering
cases
Provides for two kinds of cases
which are independent of each
other:
a. the criminal action for antimoney-laundering offense
b. the civil forfeiture proceedings
-

The RTC have jurisdiction

Section 3. Procedure.

 A
preliminary
investigation
is
merely
inquisitorial,
but
is
considered as a judicial proceeding
wherein
the
prosecutor
or
investigating officer, by nature of
his functions acts as a judicial
officer.
PI
is
considered
a
judicial
proceeding wherein the prosecutor

or investigating officer, by the

nature of his functions, acts as a
quasi-judicial officer but only to the
extent that, like quasi-judicial
bodies, the prosecutor is an officer
of
the
executive
department
exercising powers akin to those of a
court.