Title
People vs. Gomez
Case
G.R. No. L-29086
Decision Date
Sep 30, 1982
Multiple estafa cases involving falsification of public documents; accused challenged preliminary investigations, but Supreme Court ruled investigations complied with law, no waiver of rights before plea, ordered trial to proceed.
supreme court
absence of preliminary investigations
defective information

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-48362)

The Informations and Manner of Preliminary Investigation

Four separate Criminal Cases were filed by the prosecuting fiscals, all in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City, charging Estafa thru falsification of public/official documents.

In Criminal Case No. 3083, filed on May 24, 1962, Edilberto Gomez, Prudencio N. Cichon, Cesar V. Castillo, Pedro Cuento, and John Doe were charged. The prosecuting officers certified under oath that they had conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with law and that they believed the offense had been committed and the accused were probably guilty. Arrest warrants issued, and the accused posted bonds for provisional liberty. At arraignment, all pleaded not guilty.

In Criminal Case No. 3084, also filed on May 24, 1962, Lorenzo Delantar, Prudencio Cichon, Jesus F. Atilano, and two unidentified persons (Richard Doe and John Doe) were charged. Again, the prosecutors certified under oath that they had conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with law and believed the accused were probably guilty. Arrest warrants issued and bonds for provisional liberty were posted, after which the accused pleaded not guilty.

In Criminal Case No. 3088, likewise filed on May 24, 1962, Prudencio Cichon and Paulino Duma were charged. The information carried a certification that the state prosecutors had conducted a preliminary investigation and had found probable guilt. After arrest, the accused were released on a bond of P1,000.00 each, and they later pleaded not guilty.

In Criminal Case No. 3128, filed on October 1, 1962, Prudencio Cichon, Jesus F. Atilano, and Pedro Cuento were charged. Unlike the other three informations, this information did not contain a certification that a preliminary investigation had been made by the prosecutors. Instead, the District Judge conducted the preliminary investigation himself on October 1, 1962, found a prima facie case, and issued warrants for arrest on the same day. The accused were released on P1,000.00 each and later pleaded not guilty at arraignment.

The Accused’s Motion to Declare Nullity of Informations and Warrants

On June 22, 1966, the accused in all four cases, through counsel, filed a Motion to Declare Informations and Warrants of Arrest null and void. They grounded the motion on the prosecution’s alleged failure to observe Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112 of the New Rules of Court concerning preliminary investigation. They prayed that the warrants of arrest be cancelled.

On September 27, 1966, the trial court denied the motion for lack of merit. Upon reconsideration, however, the trial court reversed course and, on November 2, 1966, ordered the dismissal of all four cases without prejudice to the refiling of the same. It also ordered the cancellation of the bonds posted for the accused’s provisional liberty.

The Prosecution’s Appeal and the Central Legal Controversy

The prosecution appealed from the November 2, 1966 dismissal. The People alleged that the trial court erred in dismissing Criminal Cases Nos. 3083, 3084, 3088, and 3128 on the ground that the preliminary investigations conducted therein were not in accordance with Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112, in relation to Rule 144 of the revised rules.

The core contention on appeal was thus whether alleged non-compliance with the formal and procedural requirements of preliminary investigation and its certification justified nullifying the informations and warrants and dismissing the criminal cases.

Applicable Rules on Preliminary Investigation

The Court held that Rules 112 and 113 of the New Rules of Court could not apply to the cases because the preliminary investigations in the four matters had been terminated in 1962, or before the New Rules took effect on January 1, 1964. Consequently, the trial court’s reliance on the New Rules’ Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112 as standards for validity was misplaced.

The Court nevertheless addressed the factual record to determine whether, even under the cited framework, the required investigations had in substance been complied with. It noted that in Criminal Case No. 3083, the government prosecutors certified under oath that they had conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with law, and Judge Carmelo Alvendia had issued the corresponding warrants based on that certification. It further noted that in Criminal Cases Nos. 3084 and 3088, certifications appeared from Special Prosecutor Edilberto Barot, Jr. and Special Counsel Vicente G. Largo, and that in Criminal Case No. 3128, the District Judge Gregorio Montejo conducted the preliminary investigation, found a prima facie case, and ordered the arrest of the accused.

From these circumstances, the Court concluded that the required investigations had been complied with.

Effect of Alleged Defective Certifications and Waiver by Plea

The Court then addressed an alternative position: even assuming that the informations lacked the requisite certifications regarding the fiscal’s holding of a preliminary investigation, the Court held that the omissions were not necessarily fatal.

It ruled that the absence of preliminary investigations did not affect the court’s jurisdiction over the cases, did not impair the validity of the information, and did not automatically render the informations defective. It relied on the doctrinal teaching in People vs. Casiano, 1 SCRA 478, that where there were no preliminary investigations and the defendants, before entering their plea, invoked the defect, the court should instead conduct the investigation, order the fiscal to conduct it, or remand the case for the preliminary investigation.

More critically, the Court found that the accused did not timely assert their right. It observed that the defendants did not question the validity of the informations based on defective certifications or the right to preliminary investigation before entering their plea of not guilty. Instead, they filed the motion to declare the informations and warrants null and void only after more than one year.

Thus, when they entered their plea of not guilty, the accused were deemed to have waived objections that were grounds for a motion to quash, except lack of jurisdiction or the failure of the information to charge an offense. The Court specifically held that the accused waived the right to a preliminary investigation by failing to invoke it prior to, or at least at, the time of entry of their plea in the Court of First Instance. It cited Estrella vs. Ruiz, 58 SCRA 779, stating that the right to preliminary investigation must be asserted or invoked before the plea, otherwise it is deemed waived, and that failure to allege the absence of the certification before the plea constituted a waiver as well.

The Court also noted that, in all four cases, the accused had already entered not guilty pleas when they filed the motion on June 22, 1966.

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms