Case Digest: People vs. Gomez, G.R. No. L-29086, September 30, 1982

       Rule 112, Preliminary Investigation | Criminal Procedure


Facts:

In 1962, four cases were filed by the prosecuting fiscals before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City for the crime of Estafa thru falsification of public/official documents. The accused were released on a bond for provisional liberty and subsequently pleaded not guilty to the charges. 

The cases were docketed as Criminal Case No. 3083, 3084, 3088, and 3128. 

The state prosecutors certified under oath that they conducted a preliminary investigation and believed the offense charged had been committed and the accused were probably guilty thereof. However, In Criminal Case No. 3128, the District Judge himself made the preliminary investigation as the information did not contain a certification that a preliminary investigation had been made by the prosecutors.

In 1966, the accused in four cases filed a motion to declare the informations and warrants of arrest null and void, alleging that the prosecution failed to observe the provisions of Section 13 and 14 of Rule 112 of the New Rules of Court regarding preliminary investigation. 

The lower court initially denied the motion but later reversed its ruling and ordered the dismissal of all four cases against the accused without prejudice to refiling. The court also canceled the bonds posted for the provisional liberty of the accused.


Issue:

WoN the trial court erred in dismissing Criminal Cases Nos. 3083, 3084, 3088 and 3128 on the ground that the preliminary investigations conducted therein were not in accordance with Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112, in relation to Rule 144 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Held: DISMISSED.

The People's appeal should be sustained. The trial court's questioned order of dismissal is erroneous.

The preliminary investigations in these four (4) cases were terminated in 1962, or before the New Rules of Court took effect on January 1, 1964. Rules 112 and 113 thereof cannot, therefore, apply to these cases at bar.

Besides, in Criminal Case No. 3803, the government prosecutors certified under oath that they had conducted a preliminary investigation in said case in accordance with law, and on the basis thereof, then Judge Carmelo Alvendia issued the corresponding warrant of arrest against all the accused. Likewise, in Criminal Cases Nos. 3084 and 3088, there appear the certifications of Special Prosecutor Edilberto Barot, Jr. and Special Counsel Vicente G. Largo. And, in Criminal Case No. 3128, it was District Judge Gregorio Montejo who conducted the preliminary investigation and, finding the existence of a prima facie case, ordered the arrest of the defendant. It is clear, therefore, that the required investigations were complied with.

But then, assuming that the informations did not contain the requisite certificates regarding the Fiscal's having held a preliminary investigation, the omissions are not necessarily fatal. The absence of preliminary investigations does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case. Nor do they impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective. If there were no preliminary investigations 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, order the fiscal to conduct it or remand the case to the inferior court so that the preliminary investigation may be conducted." 

The defendants in these cases did not question the validity of the informations on the ground of defective certifications or the right to preliminary investigations before they entered the plea of not guilty. They filed the motion to declare informations and warrants of arrest null and void only after more than one (1) year thereafter. Consequently, when they entered a plea of not guilty, they thereby waived all objections that are grounds for a motion to quash, except lack of jurisdiction or failure of the information to charge an offense. Thus, they waived the right to a preliminary investigation when they failed to invoke it prior to, or at least at, the time of the entry of their plea in the Court of First Instance.

All the defendants in the four (4) cases had already entered the plea of not guilty when they filed the motion to declare the informations and warrants of arrest null and void.

Principle:

Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112 of the New Rules of Court provide:

SEC. 13. Preliminary examination and investigation by the judge of the Court of First Instance.—Upon complaint filed directly with the Court of First Instance, without previous preliminary examination and investigation conducted by the fiscal, the judge thereof shall either refer the complaint to the municipal judge referred to in the second paragraph of section 2 hereof for preliminary examination and investigation, or himself conduct both preliminary examination and investigation simultaneously in the manner provided in the preceding sections, and should he find reasonable ground to believe that the defendant has committed the offense charged, he shall issue a warrant for is arrest, and thereafter refer the case to the fiscal for the filing of the corresponding information.

SEC. 14. Preliminary examination and investigation by provincial or city fiscal or by state attorney in cases cognizable by the Court of First Instance.—Except where an investigation has been conducted by a judge of first instance, municipal judge or other officer in accordance with the provisions of the preceding sections, no information for an offense cognizable by the Court of First Instance shall be filed by the provincial or city fiscal, or state attorney, without first giving the accused a chance to be heard in a preliminary investigation conducted by him or by his assistant by issuing a corresponding subpoena. If the accused appears the investigation shall be conducted in his presence and he shall have the right to be heard, to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses, and to adduce evidence in his favor. If he cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed he does not appear before the fiscal, the investigation shall proceed without him.

The fiscal or state attorney shall certify under oath in the information to be filed by him that the defendant was given a chance to appear in person or by counsel at said examination and investigation.

——
Inasmuch as the settled doctrine in this jurisdiction is that the right to the preliminary investigation itself must be asserted or invoked before the plea, otherwise, it is deemed waived, it stands to reason, that the absence of the certification in question is also waived by failure to allege it before the plea.
——

Recit Version

Facts: 
In 1962, four cases of Estafa through falsification of public documents were filed against several individuals in Zamboanga City, Philippines. The accused were released on bond and pleaded not guilty to the charges. The state prosecutors certified under oath that they conducted a preliminary investigation and believed the accused were probably guilty. However, in one of the cases, the District Judge conducted the investigation himself as the information did not contain a certification that a preliminary investigation had been made by the prosecutors. 
In 1966, the accused filed a motion to declare the informations and warrants of arrest null and void, alleging that the prosecution failed to observe the provisions of Rule 112 of the New Rules of Court regarding preliminary investigation. 
Initially, the lower court denied the motion but later reversed its ruling and dismissed all four cases against the accused without prejudice to refiling. The court also canceled the bonds posted for the provisional liberty of the accused.
Issue:

WoN the trial court erred in dismissing the criminal cases on the ground that the preliminary investigations conducted therein were not in accordance with Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112, in relation to Rule 144 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Held: DISMISSED.

The People's appeal should be sustained. The trial court's questioned order of dismissal is erroneous.

The preliminary investigations in these four cases were completed in 1962, before the New Rules of Court took effect, and therefore the rules cannot apply to these cases. 
Assuming that the informations did not contain the requisite certificates regarding the Fiscal's having held a preliminary investigation, the omissions are not necessarily fatal. The absence of preliminary investigations does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case. Nor do they impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective. 
If there were no preliminary investigations 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, order the fiscal to conduct it or remand the case to the inferior court so that the preliminary investigation may be conducted." 
The defendants did not question the validity of the informations before entering their plea of not guilty, and they waived their right to a preliminary investigation by failing to invoke it at or before that time. Therefore, the defendants' motion to declare the informations and warrants of arrest null and void is without merit, and the cases against them must proceed.

 

 

 

Popular posts from this blog

Election Laws: Requirements Before Election

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE ELECTION A. Registration Registration of Voters The right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo, among others, the process of registration. Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage .  It is not a qualification for such right.  R.A. No. 8189, the Voter's Registration Act of 1996 (approved June 11, 1996) : Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State to systematize the present method of registration in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act: Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board; Registration Record refers to an ...
Read more

Case Digest: Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, GR. No. 122156, February 3, 1997

Political Law Review | Self-executing Provisions, Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy The GSIS decided to privatize the Manila Hotel by selling 51% of its shares to a qualified bidder through public bidding. In the bidding, the Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC) offered ₱41.58 per share, which was ₱0.58 higher than the ₱41.00 per share offered by a Malaysian firm, Renong Berhad. Despite MPHC being a Filipino-owned corporation and having a higher bid, the GSIS awarded the sale to the Malaysian firm, citing that MPHC failed to match the terms of payment required. MPHC filed a petition, invoking Section 10, second paragraph, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “ In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos .” MPHC argued that the provision is self-executing and GSIS was bound to apply it without need for an enabling law. Whether Section 10, Article XII of the 19...
Read more

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more