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.