Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6177)
Facts:
- Petitioners Gabino Lozada and Isidro Lozada filed a petition to annul an order denying their motion to dismiss an information against them for robbery with homicide.
- The provincial fiscal of Capiz filed an information charging the petitioners with the crime and certified that a proper preliminary investigation had been conducted.
- The petitioners were arrested and requested the court to fix their bail.
- They were arraigned and pleaded not guilty with the assistance of counsel.
- The trial was scheduled but postponed, and the petitioners moved to dismiss the case, claiming a violation of their right to a preliminary investigation.
- When the motion was denied, they filed a petition for certiorari.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The court denied the petition and upheld the order denying the motion to dismiss the infor...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- A preliminary investigation is not a trial but a preparatory process to determine whether a crime has been committed and if there is probable cause to believe the accused is guilty.
- The right to a preliminary investigation is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution but is statutory.
- The right to participate in a preliminary investigation depends on the provisions of law that specifically secure such rights, rather than on the phrase "due process of law."
- The fiscal is required to give notice of the preliminary investigation to the accused only after the accused has requested to be present.
- Requiring notice before the investigation ...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6177)
Facts:
In the case of Lozada v. Hernandez, Gabino and Isidro Lozada filed a petition to annul an order denying their motion to dismiss a robbery with homicide case. They claimed a violation of their right to a preliminary investigation. The Court of First Instance of Capiz denied their petition and upheld the order. The facts of the case are as follows: On July 1, 1952, the provincial fiscal of Capiz filed an information charging the petitioners with the crime of robbery with homicide. The fiscal certified under oath that he had conducted a proper preliminary investigation of the case on the 27th of the preceding month. The petitioners were arrested based on this information and asked the court to fix the amount of their bail, which was done on July 16. Three weeks later, the petitioners were arraigned and pleaded not guilty with the assistance of counsel. The trial was scheduled for August 20 but was postponed to September 19 at the request of the petitioners. They then moved to have the case against them dismissed, claiming that they had been deprived of their right to a preliminary investigation without due process of law. When this motion was denied, they filed a petition for c...