Republic of the Philippines

8th Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
xxx
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff;

Case No. __________

For:

-versusxxx
Accused.
x-------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
On file is an Urgent Motion to Defer Arraignment and Motion for
Reinvestigation filed by the accused, alleging that he was not given the chance to
file his counter-affidavit or countervailing evidence at the stage where the
preliminary investigation was conducted in this case. Accused attached a machine
copy of his passport showing that he left the Philippines on July 05, 2013 just
two days after the City Prosecutor Office received the complaint of private
complainant. Thus, he denied having received the complaint/subpoena supposedly
served upon him.
On the part of the prosecution, public prosecutor verbally manifested their
opposition to the said motion on the ground that accused was duly notified during
the proceedings at their office.
This Court rules to grant the motion for reinvestigation on the ground of due
process. For one, the prosecution did not submit evidence to show that accused was
duly notified during the preliminary investigation. Second, a perusal of the
resolution dated August 28, 2013, in connection with this complaint, shows only
that respondent failed to appear and that respondent did not file his counteraffidavit. Again, there is no showing of valid service of subpoena.
As held by the Honorable Supreme Court in Duterte vs. Sandiganbayan1, to
wit:
The right to a preliminary investigation is not a mere formal right; it is a substantive right.
To deny the accused of such right would be to deprive him of due process.
xxxx
A preliminary investigation, on the other hand, takes on an adversarial quality and an
entirely different procedure comes into play. This must be so, because the purpose of a
preliminary investigation or a previous inquiry of some kind before an accused person is
placed on trial, is to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive

1 G.R. No. 130191, April 27, 1998

Page 1 of 2

prosecution, and to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime, from the
trouble, expenses and anxiety of public trial. It is also intended to protect the state from
having to conduct useless and expensive trials. While the right is statutory rather
than constitutional in its fundament, it is a component part of due process in
criminal justice. The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before
being bound over to trial for a criminal offense and hence formally at risk of
incarceration or some other penalty, is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a
substantive right. To deny the accused's claim to a preliminary investigation
would be to deprive him of the full measure of his right to due process. (emphasis
added)
xxxx
As this Court held in Cojuangco, Jr. v. PCGG:
Although such a preliminary investigation is not a trial and is not intended to usurp the
function of the trial court, it is not a casual affair. The officer conducting the same
investigates or inquires into the facts concerning the commission of the crime with the
end in view of determining whether or not an information may be prepared against the
accused. Indeed, a preliminary investigation is in effect a realistic judicial appraisal of the
merits of the case. Sufficient proof of the guilt of the accused must be adduced so that
when the case is tried, the trial court may not be bound as a matter of law to order an
acquittal. A preliminary investigation has then been called a judicial inquiry. It is a judicial
proceeding. An act becomes judicial when there is opportunity to be heard and for
the production and weighing of evidence, and a decision is rendered thereof.
(emphasis added)

In other cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that the absence of preliminary
investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case. Nor do they
impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective, but, 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 . . . (Sanciangco, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 72830, 149 SCRA 1 [1987]
and reiterated in Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 85468, 177 SCRA 354
[1989]).
WHEREFORE, in order to give the accused the full measure of his right to
due process, let this case be remanded to the City Prosecutors Office, xxxCity, for
reinvestigation.
SO ORDERED.
IN CHAMBERS, this 6th day of May 2015, at xxx
.
xxx
Presiding Judge

Page 2 of 2