CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | PILAPIL VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 101978, APRIL 7, 1993

PILAPIL VS. SANDIGANBAYAN,

G.R. NO. 101978, APRIL 7, 1993

 

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

The right to a preliminary investigation is not a fundamental right and may be waived expressly or by silence. Failure of accused to invoke his right to a preliminary investigation constituted a waiver of such right and any irregularity that attended it. The right may be forfeited by inaction and can no longer be invoked for the first time at the appellate level.

 

FACTS

The Investigating Ombudsman issued an order requiring Pilapil to submit his counter-affidavit, affidavits of his witnesses and other controverting evidence. This order was captioned as Case No. OMB-1-89-0168 for "Malversation of Public Property under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code." Pilapil submitted his counter-affidavit. After the preliminary investigation, a resolution was issued finding no crime of malversation but a prima facie case for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. An Information for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 was thus filed with the Sandiganbayan. 

Pilapil went to the Supreme Court via petition for certiorari. He harped on the lack of preliminary investigation on the specific charge of violation of Sec. 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, filed before the Sandiganbayan. He alleged that the preliminary investigation was conducted for the charge of malversation.

 

ISSUE

Whether the absence of preliminary investigation is a ground for motion to quash.

Whether the absence of preliminary investigation affect the court's jurisdiction over the case.

 

RULING

NO as to the first issue.

The court ruled that absence of a preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash a complaint or information under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. The proper procedure in case of lack of preliminary investigation is to hold in abeyance the proceedings upon such information and the case remanded to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal or the Ombudsman, for that matter, for him or the Special Prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation.

NO as to the second issue.

The court ruled that 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. The right to a preliminary investigation is not a fundamental right and may be waived expressly or by silence. Failure of accused to invoke his right to a preliminary investigation constituted a waiver of such right and any irregularity that attended it. The right may be forfeited by inaction and can no longer be invoked for the first time at the appellate level.







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BALA V. MARTINEZ, 181 SCRA 459