Effect of absence of preliminary investigation | Preliminary Investigation (RULE 112) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive discussion of the effect of absence of preliminary investigation under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure in the Philippines, including key principles, remedies, and relevant jurisprudence. This write-up integrates statutory provisions, Supreme Court decisions, and procedural rules that govern preliminary investigation and the consequences of its absence or irregularity.

I. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

  1. Definition

    • Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. (See Rule 112, Section 1, Rules of Court).

  2. Statutory Right, Not Constitutional

    • The right to a preliminary investigation is statutory rather than constitutional in nature. It is granted by the Rules of Court and other procedural laws. While the Constitution recognizes the right of persons to due process, the conduct of a preliminary investigation in criminal proceedings is specifically governed by procedural rules.

  3. Purpose

    • The main purpose is to protect the innocent from the embarrassment, expense, and anxiety of a public trial, and to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution.
    • It also ensures that the State does not expend resources in a futile prosecution of a case that has no probable cause.

II. GENERAL RULE ON THE REQUIREMENT OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

  1. Offenses Requiring Preliminary Investigation

    • Under Rule 112, Section 1, a preliminary investigation is generally required when the offense charged carries a penalty of at least four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day (imprisonment) without regard to the fine.
    • For offenses with lower penalties, there may be a different procedure (i.e., summary procedure or direct filing in court).

  2. Conduct of Preliminary Investigation

    • Sections 2 to 6 of Rule 112 outline the procedure for preliminary investigation:
      a. Filing of the Complaint
      b. Counter-Affidavit and Supporting Evidence
      c. Clarificatory Hearing (if necessary)
      d. Resolution and Filing of Information (if probable cause is found)

III. ABSENCE OR IRREGULARITY OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

  1. Not a Jurisdictional Defect

    • The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the jurisdiction of the trial court over the case. It does not render the information void or deprive the court of its power to hear and decide the criminal action.
    • Hence, a claim that no preliminary investigation was conducted will not ipso facto invalidate the criminal information or result in the automatic dismissal of the case.

  2. Remedial Nature

    • Since the right is statutory, the failure to conduct a preliminary investigation, or the incomplete or irregular conduct thereof, is considered a reversible error but not a ground to oust the trial court of jurisdiction.
    • The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the remedy in case of absence or irregularity in the preliminary investigation process is to remedy the defect—not automatically dismiss the case.

  3. Waiver of the Right

    • The right to preliminary investigation may be waived explicitly (e.g., by opting not to ask for one) or impliedly (e.g., by failing to timely invoke it or by participating in the trial without objection).
    • If the accused goes to trial without questioning the lack of a preliminary investigation, such omission is deemed a waiver of that right.

IV. REMEDIES WHEN PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS NOT CONDUCTED

  1. Motion for Reinvestigation or Motion to Suspend Arraignment

    • If a case is already filed in court without a proper preliminary investigation, the accused may file a motion requesting (a) the suspension of arraignment and/or (b) the conduct of a preliminary investigation or reinvestigation by the prosecutor’s office.
    • Under Rule 116, Section 11(a) of the Rules of Court, the accused may move for a bill of particulars or for suspension of arraignment if there was no preliminary investigation or there was an irregularity in the conduct thereof. The court may grant said motion and direct the prosecutor to conduct the required preliminary investigation.

  2. No Automatic Dismissal; Conduct of New or Supplemental Preliminary Investigation

    • The court will not dismiss the information solely for lack of a preliminary investigation. Instead, it may order the case returned to the Office of the Prosecutor for a new or supplemental preliminary investigation.
    • Proceedings before the court are often held in abeyance until the prosecution finishes the reinvestigation and submits the corresponding resolution and/or amended information.

  3. Motion to Quash

    • Technically, the lack of preliminary investigation is not one of the grounds for a motion to quash under Rule 117, Section 3, Rules of Court. However, in some instances, defense counsel may include it as part of a broader due process argument or as a prayer for the case’s dismissal or reinvestigation.
    • The better remedy, however, is usually a motion to suspend proceedings and to refer the case back to the Prosecutor’s Office for preliminary investigation.

V. JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDELINES

  1. Absence of PI Does Not Nullify Information

    • The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the absence or irregularity of preliminary investigation does not nullify the criminal information, nor does it impair the validity of subsequent proceedings if the court has otherwise valid jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person of the accused.
    • In PEOPLE v. LAGMAN, PEOPLE v. GOMEZ, and other cases, the Court stressed that preliminary investigation is not a jurisdictional requirement and that the lack thereof only violates a statutory right.

  2. Remedy is to Conduct/Complete Preliminary Investigation

    • In cases such as PEOPLE v. LABARIA, the Supreme Court stated that the proper remedy for lack of preliminary investigation is not to dismiss the case but rather to hold it in abeyance and direct the public prosecutor to conduct or complete the preliminary investigation.

  3. Waiver by Failure to Timely Object

    • In PEOPLE v. DEUNIDA and other rulings, the Supreme Court emphasized that an accused who fails to object to the alleged absence or irregularity of a preliminary investigation before entering a plea is deemed to have waived that right.

VI. EFFECT ON THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND THE PROSECUTION

  1. Accused’s Right to Due Process

    • While the right to a preliminary investigation is statutory, the conduct of a fair and proper preliminary investigation fosters due process by ensuring that there is probable cause to hold the accused for trial.
    • The accused who is not accorded a preliminary investigation (where required) can move for a reinvestigation or to suspend the arraignment and trial until a proper determination of probable cause is made.

  2. State’s Interest in Prosecution

    • The prosecution is likewise interested in ensuring that a valid preliminary investigation is conducted to strengthen its case, to avoid potential defenses based on denial of procedural rights, and to ensure that the case rests on a solid finding of probable cause.

  3. No Double Jeopardy

    • The absence or irregularity in preliminary investigation will not give rise to double jeopardy concerns because it does not involve an acquittal or conviction—rather, it involves a procedural step prior to trial.

VII. PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR COUNSEL

  1. Check the Existence and Regularity of PI

    • Defense counsel should verify whether a proper preliminary investigation was conducted. If the case was filed directly in court without the mandatory PI, or if there was an obvious irregularity (no chance to submit counter-affidavits, no clarificatory hearing when required, etc.), counsel should promptly file the necessary motion before arraignment.

  2. Timely Assertion is Key

    • The accused (through counsel) must promptly move for the suspension of arraignment or for reinvestigation before entering a plea. A failure to invoke the lack of PI before arraignment generally amounts to a waiver of that right.

  3. Utilize the Remedy of Reinvestigation

    • Instead of seeking immediate dismissal, which courts seldom grant on that basis alone, a more prudent approach is to ask the court to refer the case back to the prosecution for a new or supplemental preliminary investigation.

VIII. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

  1. Preliminary Investigation is a statutory right meant to protect individuals from baseless charges.
  2. Absence or Irregularity in the preliminary investigation does not affect the trial court’s jurisdiction and does not nullify the information.
  3. Remedy for lack of preliminary investigation is to request a reinvestigation or move for suspension of arraignment, rather than an outright dismissal of the case.
  4. Waiver occurs when the accused fails to timely raise the absence of a preliminary investigation before arraignment or proceeds to trial without objection.
  5. Court’s Power is to either direct the Prosecutor to conduct the omitted (or deficient) preliminary investigation or proceed with trial if the accused has waived the right.

CONCLUSION

The absence of a preliminary investigation under Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure does not automatically vitiate the entire criminal proceeding. While such an omission violates a statutory right, it is not a jurisdictional defect. The proper remedy is typically to move for reinvestigation or to suspend the arraignment until a proper preliminary investigation can be conducted. The accused’s failure to promptly and timely invoke this right amounts to a waiver. Courts will generally allow a belated preliminary investigation to cure any defect, rather than dismissing the case outright.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login