Estrada vs
COMPLAINANT and not to the
Doctrine: Preliminary investigation is
not a part of trial and it is only in a
trial where an accused can demand
the full exercise of his rights, such as
the right to confront and cross-
examine his accusers to establish his
innocence
Facts :
A complaint was filed by the NBI and
Atty. Baligod with the Ombudsman in
order that criminal proceedings be
conducted against Senator Estrada.
The Ombudsman then served a copy
of the complaint to Senator Estrada.
Senator Estrada had 2 co-respondents
who filed their counter affidavits.
Senator Estrada then filed a request to
be furnished with Copies of Counter-
Affidavits of the Other Respondents,
Affidavits of New Witnesses and Other
Filings.
This request was made pursuant to
the right of a respondent to examine
the evidence submitted by the
complainant which he may not have
been furnished ( SEC 3[b], RULE 112
of the RULES OF COURT ) and to have
access to the evidence on record.
Senator Estradas request was denied
by the Ombdusman stating that
Estrada is not entitled to be furnished
with all the FILINGS of the
respondents.
Ombudsmans position. That the
Ombdusman is only required to furnish
the coutner affidavits and
controverting evidence to the
RESPONDENT.
Issue:
Whether or not the Ombudsman is
required to furnish Estrada the counter
affidavits of his co-respondents
DURING THE PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION.
Ruling:
1. No.
Sen. Estrada fails to specify a law
or rule which states that it is a
compulsory requirement of due
process in a preliminary
investigation that the Ombudsman
furnish a respondent with the
counter-affidavits of his co-
respondents. Neither Section 3(b),
Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure nor Section
4(c), Rule II of the Rules of
Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman supports Sen.
Estradas claim.
The denial of his Request happened
during the preliminary investigation
where the only issue is the
existence of probable cause for the
purpose of determining whether an
information should be filed, and
does not prevent Sen. Estrada from
requesting a copy of the counter-
affidavits of his co-respondents
during the pre-trial or even during
the trial.
 During the preliminary
investigation, Estrada was still not
an accused so that he may not
demand to exercise the full rights
of an accused.
x------------------------------------------------
----x
Preliminary Investigation as defined in
this case;
A preliminary investigation is
defined as an inquiry or proceeding
for the purpose of determining
whether there is sufficient ground
to engender a well founded belief
that a crime cognizable by the
Regional Trial Court has been
committed and that the respondent
is probably guilty thereof, and
should be held for trial.
Quantum of proof required -
such evidence sufficient to
engender a well founded belief
as to the fact of the commission of
a crime and the respondent's
probable guilt thereof. A
preliminary investigation is not the
occasion for the full and exhaustive
display of the parties evidence; it
is for the presentation of such
evidence only as may engender a
well-grounded belief that an
offense has been committed and
that the accused is probably guilty
thereof.
x------------------------------------------------
---x
Relevant rules as to why
Estradas request was denied :
Estrada not entitled to be furnished
with the affidavits of his co-
respondents during PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION.
Rule 112 Sec 4 (b ) refers to
affidavits of the complainant and
his witnesses, not the affidavits of
the co-respondents.
Sec 4 c should be construed in
relation to 4a and 4b. Sec 4c
mandates that the respondent shall
have access to the evidence on
record. This rule refers to the
witnesses of the complainant and
do not refer to the co-respondents.
Sec 4b - states that the
investigating officer shall issue an
order attaching thereto a copy of
the affidavits and all other
supporting documents, directing
the respondent to submit his
counter-affidavit. The affidavits
referred to in Section 4(b) are the
affidavits mentioned in Section
4(a). Clearly, the affidavits to be
furnished to the respondent are the
affidavits of the complainant and
his supporting witnesses. The
provision in the immediately
succeeding Section 4(c) of the
same Rule II that a respondent
shall have access to the evidence
on record does not stand alone,
but should be read in relation to
the provisions of Section 4(a and b)
of the same Rule II requiring the
investigating officer to furnish the
respondent with the affidavits and
other supporting documents
submitted by the complainant
or supporting witnesses. Thus,
a respondents access to evidence
on record in Section 4(c), Rule II of
the Ombudsmans Rules of
Procedure refers to the affidavits
and supporting documents of the
complainant or supporting
witnesses in Section 4(a) of the
same Rule II.
Roberts vs CA
Facts:
Petitioners, who are corporate officers and
members of the Board of Pepsi Cola
Products Phils., Inc. were prosecuted in
connection with the Pepsi Number Fever
promotion by handlers of the supposedly
winning 349 Pepsi crowns. Of the four
cases filed against the petitioners,
probable cause was found by the
investigating prosecutor only for the crime
of estafa, but not for the other alleged
offenses.
An information was filed with the trial
Court without anything accompanying it.
No Affidavits of the witnesses, transcripts
of stenographic notes of the proceedings
during the preliminary investigation, or
other documents submitted in the course
thereof were found in the records of the
case.
The petitioner submitted motions
to suspend proceedings and hold in
abeyance the issuance of warrants
of arrest and to defer arraignment
until the petition for review filed
with the DOJ has been resolved.
The trial court denied the motion
and proceeded to issue the warrant
of arrest.
Petitioner elevated the case to the
CA averring that the respondent
judge had not the slightest basis at
all for determining probably cause
when he ordered the issuance of
warrants ( No affidavit of witness
and complainants, no stenographic
notes of the proceedings during
preliminary investigation . ). That
the probable cause was solely
determined on the basis of the joint
resolution submitted to it by the
prosecutor or fiscal. CA upheld the
ruling of Trial court
 Issue:
Did Judge Asuncion commit grave
abuse of discretion in ordering the
issuance of warrants of arrest
without examining the records of
the preliminary investigation?
Ruling:
YES, Judge Asuncion committed
grave abuse of discretion in
ordering the issuance of warrants
of arrest without examining the
records of the preliminary
investigation.
In Soliven, Inting, Lim, Allado and
Webb, the court rejected the
proposition that the investigating
prosecutors certification in an
information or his resolution which is
made the basis for the filing of the
information, or both, would suffice in
the judicial determination of probable
cause for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest.
In this case, nothing accompanied the
information upon its filing with the trial
court. When the judge directed the
issuance of warrant of arrest he only
had the information and the joint
resolution as bases for its issuance. He
did not have the records of evidence
supporting the prosecutors finding of
probable cause. In short, the judge did
not make a specific finding of probable
cause.
* Issue as to whether appeal of the
decision of fiscal to the DOJ has the
effect of suspending issuance of
warrant, and arraignment
As to arraignment the SC ruled that
it should be suspended pending
appeal to DOJ
As to enforcement of warrant after
determination of probable cause this
falls under the prerogative of the
judge and may therefore, not be
suspended.