ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic
1. Nature and Purpose of Preliminary Investigation
Full text: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_199082_2012.html
⚡ Disambiguation
This is the 2012 case arising from the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary Investigation Committee's investigation of alleged 2004 and 2007 electoral sabotage, decided while the electoral-sabotage Information against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) was pending before the RTC of Pasay City. It is not the later, separately known GMA v. People Plunder-acquittal case (G.R. Nos. 220598 & 220953, 2016) or any other Arroyo-related decision. Do not conflate the two.
ℹ️ Rule 6b application
The bulk of this Decision resolves the constitutionality of creating the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Committee (equal protection, due process/impartiality, separation of powers, and COMELEC independence) — matters outside Topic 1. The Decision, however, contains its own dedicated internal section, "Validity of the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation," squarely on this Topic. Per Rule 6b, the MAIN ISSUE and ratio below are anchored to that section; the broader constitutional-structure holdings are treated as SECONDARY issues and summarized efficiently under the Materiality Rule.
Facts
- On 2 August 2011, acting on newly discovered evidence of massive electoral fraud in the 2004 and 2007 elections, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9266 approving a joint committee with the DOJ; on 15 August 2011 the two issued Joint Order No. 001-2011 creating the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary Investigation Committee and a Fact-Finding Team; on 23 August 2011 the Joint Committee promulgated its own Rules of Procedure.
- The Fact-Finding Team's Initial Report of 20 October 2011 found electoral manipulation in the 2007 senatorial elections in North and South Cotabato and Maguindanao, recommending preliminary investigation of Benjamin Abalos, Sr., Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and twenty-four others for electoral sabotage (DOJ-Comelec Case No. 001-2011), and further investigation of Jose Miguel "Mike" Arroyo. On 17 October 2011 Senator Aquilino Pimentel III filed his own Complaint-Affidavit (No. 002-2011); the cases were consolidated.
- On 24 October 2011 subpoenas issued requiring counter-affidavits by 14 November 2011. Mike Arroyo and Abalos moved to defer pending certiorari; GMA filed an Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam asking that Senator Pimentel be compelled to furnish the election documents referenced but not attached to his complaint, and for ten days from receipt to answer. All motions were denied 15 November 2011. The documents she sought were never in the Committee's hands — that fact decides the issue.
- On 18 November 2011 the COMELEC En Banc approved the Joint Resolution with modifications, directing Informations for electoral sabotage against GMA, Abalos, Bedol, Ampatuan, Sr. and Reyes, ordering further investigation of others, and dismissing the charges against Mike Arroyo for insufficiency of evidence. The same day an Information was filed in the RTC of Pasay City, Branch 112, which issued a warrant of arrest served that day.
- GMA moved before the RTC to defer the warrant and Hold Departure Order, and before the COMELEC to vacate its Resolution; the warrant was served, she was arrested, and she was later granted bail.
- On 23 February 2012 she was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and was granted bail on her own motion. The Court would treat those acts as a waiver.
- On 18 September 2012 the En Banc, through Justice Peralta, dismissed the consolidated petitions.
Issue
Was the preliminary investigation conducted by the Joint Committee against GMA valid, notwithstanding denial of her motion to compel production of documents referenced in the complaint and to extend the period for her counter-affidavit?
Secondary issues. Whether Joint Order No. 001-2011 violated equal protection, due process (impartiality), separation of powers, or COMELEC independence.
Ancillary issues. Whether the petitions were moot; whether the hierarchy of courts barred direct resort; whether GMA's multiple filings were forum shopping; and whether the Joint Committee's Rules required publication.
Ruling
YES — the investigation was VALID. Her claimed right under Section 3(b), Rule 112 is one whose "right of examination is limited only to the documents or evidence submitted by the complainants… which she may not have been furnished," and since "there were no annexes or attachments to the complaint filed" and she received everything attached to the Initial Report, "she was already granted the right to examine." Besides, "the absence or irregularity of preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case[,] [n]or does it impair the validity of the criminal information or render it defective. Dismissal is not the remedy." And her arraignment, plea and grant of bail were a "waiver… of her right to submit counter-affidavit and countervailing evidence before the Joint Committee," an election of "judicial remedies instead of the executive remedy of going back to the Joint Committee."
Secondary issues. NO VIOLATION. Equal protection — not all respondents were linked to GMA and private individuals were also investigated. Impartiality — "no showing that the statements claimed to have prejudged the case… were made… or were in the prejudicial context… claimed," and the COMELEC being collegial, "the perceived prejudgment of Chairman Brillantes… cannot be considered an act of the body itself." Separation of powers — no new office was created, the members "perform such functions that they already perform by virtue of their current positions." Independence — resolutions finding probable cause required COMELEC En Banc approval, so "the Comelec, though it acts jointly with the DOJ, remains in control of the proceedings."
Ancillary issues. Not moot, mandates as to other respondents being unfulfilled and the constitutional questions surviving. Hierarchy no bar, given the urgency and due-process questions. No forum shopping, the reliefs sought in each forum being different. But the Joint Committee's Rules were ineffective for want of publication, several provisions restricting rights or providing remedies — without invalidating the proceedings, which independently complied with Rule 112 and the COMELEC Rules.
Ratio
- The right of examination is bounded by what the complainant actually submitted. It does not oblige a complainant to produce documents he never filed, nor the Committee to procure them.
- So the denial of the extension worked no prejudice — there was nothing further to examine, and she had already received all attachments to the Initial Report.
- Irregularity in preliminary investigation is not a jurisdictional defect and is not cured by dismissal; the remedy is to complete or repeat the investigation, not to void the Information.
- And her own choices closed the point. Having pleaded and sought bail, she elected the judicial forum — the executive remedy of returning to the Joint Committee was abandoned.
- On the structural questions the Court looked to actual operation, not form: who was in fact investigated (equal protection), whether the body or one member spoke (impartiality), whether new offices were created (separation of powers), and who had final say (independence).
Doctrine
The right to examine is limited to what was submitted. Under Section 3(b), Rule 112 the respondent may examine the evidence the complainant actually submitted; a complaint with no annexes gives rise to nothing to produce. Irregularity in preliminary investigation is not jurisdictional — it "does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case[,] [n]or does it impair the validity of the criminal information or render it defective. Dismissal is not the remedy." And arraignment, plea and bail waive the right to press the investigative complaint, being an election of judicial over executive remedies. Rules of procedure that restrict rights or provide remedies require publication to take effect — but their ineffectivity does not invalidate proceedings that independently complied with the Rules of Court.
Limits. The waiver holding depends on affirmative steps, not mere silence — it was arraignment, plea and a granted bail motion, each invoking the court's own processes. And the publication ruling is narrow: it voided the Joint Committee's Rules, not the investigation, precisely because compliance rested on Rule 112 and the COMELEC Rules independently. Do not conflate this 2012 Decision with the later plunder-acquittal case, G.R. Nos. 220598 and 220953 (2016) — this one concerns the constitutionality of the Joint Committee and the validity of one preliminary investigation, nothing more. Note also the shape of the Topic-1 holding: it is a completeness ruling, not a probable-cause ruling — the Court says the investigation was regularly conducted, and says nothing about whether the electoral-sabotage charge was well-founded. That question stayed with the RTC of Pasay City, exactly as Alawiya v. Datumanong would have it.
Full Digest — Recitation Format
Gist
Classification: DIRECT. (per Rule 6b, anchored to the Decision's own "Validity of the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation" section). Following the discovery of alleged new evidence of massive electoral fraud in the 2004 and 2007 elections, the COMELEC and the DOJ created a Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team to investigate and, where warranted, prosecute election offenses, including against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA), her husband Jose Miguel "Mike" Arroyo, and former COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos, Sr. All three separately petitioned the Supreme Court to annul the Joint Committee's creation and proceedings on constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the Joint Committee's constitutionality and, of direct relevance to this Topic, upholding the validity of the preliminary investigation conducted against GMA — holding that her requests for additional documents and time were properly denied because the documents she sought were never actually submitted to the Joint Committee, and that her subsequent arraignment, plea, and successful bail application operated as a waiver of her right to press the matter further at the investigative stage.
Facts
- On 2 August 2011, acting on newly discovered evidence and witnesses indicating massive electoral fraud in the 2004 and 2007 National Elections, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9266, approving the creation of a committee jointly with the DOJ to conduct preliminary investigation of the alleged election offenses. On 15 August 2011, the DOJ and COMELEC issued Joint Order No. 001-2011, creating the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary Investigation Committee (Joint Committee) and a Fact-Finding Team, the latter tasked to gather evidence for the former's use. On 23 August 2011, the Joint Committee promulgated its own Rules of Procedure.
- The Fact-Finding Team's Initial Report (20 October 2011) concluded that electoral manipulation had occurred in the 2007 senatorial elections in North and South Cotabato and Maguindanao, and recommended that Abalos, GMA, and twenty-four others be subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage, while Mike Arroyo and several others be subjected to further investigation. This became DOJ-Comelec Case No. 001-2011. Separately, on 17 October 2011, Senator Aquilino Pimentel III filed a Complaint-Affidavit for Electoral Sabotage against petitioners and others, docketed as DOJ-Comelec Case No. 002-2011; the Joint Committee later consolidated both cases.
- On 24 October 2011, the Joint Committee issued subpoenas to petitioners, directing them to submit counter-affidavits by 14 November 2011. Petitioners instead filed motions: Mike Arroyo and Abalos separately moved to defer or suspend the proceedings pending their forthcoming certiorari petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the Joint Committee's creation; GMA filed an Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam asking that Senator Pimentel be compelled to furnish her the election documents referenced (but not attached) in his complaint, and that she be given ten days from receipt of those documents to file her counter-affidavit. The Joint Committee denied all these motions on 15 November 2011. Petitioners then brought separate Rule 65 petitions before the Supreme Court, which were consolidated.
- On 16 November 2011, the Joint Committee promulgated a Joint Resolution, which the COMELEC En Banc approved with modifications on 18 November 2011 — directing the filing of Informations for electoral sabotage against GMA, Abalos, Bedol, Ampatuan, Sr., and Reyes; ordering further investigation as to several respondents; and dismissing the charges against Mike Arroyo and several others for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause. On the same day, the COMELEC's Law Department filed an Information against GMA, Ampatuan, Sr., and Bedol before the RTC of Pasay City (Branch 112), which issued a warrant of arrest served on GMA that same day.
- GMA moved before the RTC (Urgent Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam) to defer the warrant and Hold Departure Order pending resolution of her motion for reconsideration before the Joint Committee, and separately moved before the COMELEC (Motion to Vacate Ad Cautelam) to annul its Resolution. The RTC nonetheless served the warrant; GMA was arrested and later granted bail on motion.
- The Supreme Court deferred ruling on petitioners' prayer for a TRO, required comment, and set the consolidated petitions for oral argument, limiting discussion to the constitutionality of Joint Order No. 001-2011 (due process, equal protection, separation of powers, COMELEC independence) and the COMELEC's jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation jointly with the DOJ, including whether due process was observed in the conduct of the investigation. The Court thereafter required Memoranda.
- As a further supervening event material to the Topic-1 holding, the Court took judicial notice that on 23 February 2012, GMA was arraigned, entered a plea of "not guilty," and thereafter filed and was granted a Motion for Bail — actions the Court would treat as bearing directly on whether she could still be heard to complain of denial of her right to submit a counter-affidavit at the preliminary-investigation stage.
- The Supreme Court (Peralta, J., En Banc) rendered the Decision under digest on 18 September 2012, dismissing the petitions.
Arguments of the Parties
A. Petitioners (Mike Arroyo, Abalos, and GMA).
Petitioners jointly argued that the creation of the Joint Committee violated the equal protection clause (as it was designed to target only the Arroyo Administration and its allies, akin to the Truth Commission struck down in Biraogo v. Truth Commission); violated due process because the Fact-Finding Team's own finding of probable cause made it impossible for the Joint Committee — dominated by the same DOJ personnel and subject to public prejudgment by DOJ Secretary De Lima and COMELEC Chairman Brillantes — to reach an impartial conclusion; usurped the Legislature's power to create public offices; and stripped the COMELEC of its constitutionally guaranteed independence by subordinating it to a DOJ-controlled body. GMA separately argued, in her Supplemental Petition, that the undue haste of the proceedings, the denial of her request for documents and additional time to answer, and the filing of the Information and issuance of a warrant without her counter-affidavit violated her right to due process and to a valid preliminary investigation.
B. Respondents (DOJ, COMELEC, and Joint Committee officials).
Respondents argued that the wide array of possible election offenses and broad spectrum of potentially liable individuals negated any claim that the Joint Committee targeted only Arroyo-linked officials; that no proof existed of actual bias or improper intervention by Secretary De Lima or Chairman Brillantes in the Joint Committee's actual deliberations; that the Joint Committee performed no new power but merely exercised functions the DOJ and COMELEC already possessed; that the COMELEC, as a collegial body voting en banc, retained control of and approved the ultimate Resolution, negating any surrender of independence; and that GMA was furnished all documents actually in the Joint Committee's possession, her request extending only to documents never submitted to it.
C. Common Ground.
The parties did not dispute the existence and content of the various complaints, subpoenas, motions, and resolutions constituting the procedural history, nor that Informations had by then been filed against GMA, Ampatuan, Sr., and Bedol; the dispute concerned the constitutionality of the Joint Committee's creation and the fairness of the process by which the case against GMA proceeded to that filing.
Issue
A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).
Per Rule 6b, anchored to the Decision's "Validity of the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation" section: Was the preliminary investigation conducted by the Joint Committee against GMA valid, notwithstanding the denial of her motion to compel production of documents referenced in Senator Pimentel's complaint and to correspondingly extend the period for filing her counter-affidavit?
B. Secondary Issues.
Whether Joint Order No. 001-2011 and the creation of the Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team violated the equal protection clause, the due process clause (impartiality), the principle of separation of powers, and the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the COMELEC.
C. Ancillary/Incidental Issues.
Whether the consolidated petitions had become moot; whether the principle of hierarchy of courts barred direct resort to the Supreme Court; whether GMA's multiple filings (before the Court, the RTC, and the COMELEC) constituted forum shopping; and whether the Joint Committee's Rules of Procedure required publication to be effective.
Ruling
MAIN ISSUE — YES, the preliminary investigation was VALID. GMA's claimed right rested on Section 3(b), Rule 112, but "such right of examination is limited only to the documents or evidence submitted by the complainants... which she may not have been furnished," and since "there were no annexes or attachments to the complaint filed," and she was furnished all documents actually attached to the Fact-Finding Team's Initial Report, "she was already granted the right to examine as guaranteed by the [applicable rules]." Further, "the absence or irregularity of preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case[,] [n]or does it impair the validity of the criminal information or render it defective. Dismissal is not the remedy." Finally, GMA's arraignment, plea of not guilty, and grant of bail were treated as "waiver... of her right to submit counter-affidavit and countervailing evidence before the Joint Committee," an election of "judicial remedies instead of the executive remedy of going back to the Joint Committee."
SECONDARY ISSUES — NO violation on any ground. Equal protection: not all respondents investigated were linked to GMA, and private individuals were also investigated, negating any claim the Joint Committee singled out one political camp. Due process/impartiality: there was "no showing that the statements claimed to have prejudged the case... were made... or were in the prejudicial context... claimed," and the COMELEC being a collegial body, "the perceived prejudgment of Chairman Brillantes... cannot be considered an act of the body itself." Separation of powers: the Joint Committee is not a new public office since "the members of the Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team... perform such functions that they already perform by virtue of their current positions." COMELEC independence: since Joint Committee resolutions finding probable cause required COMELEC En Banc approval, "the Comelec, though it acts jointly with the DOJ, remains in control of the proceedings," negating any abdication of independence.
ANCILLARY ISSUES: The petitions were not moot, since the Fact-Finding Team's and Joint Committee's mandates as to other respondents remained unfulfilled and the constitutional questions raised survived the filing of the Information. The hierarchy of courts did not bar direct resort given the urgency and due-process questions raised. There was no forum shopping, as the reliefs sought before the RTC (deferring the warrant) and COMELEC (vacating its Resolution) differed from those sought before the Supreme Court (annulling the Joint Committee itself). The Joint Committee's Rules of Procedure were declared ineffective for lack of publication, since several of its provisions restricted rights or provided remedies to affected parties — though this did not invalidate the underlying proceedings, which independently complied with Rule 112 and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Dispositive portion (verbatim):
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions and supplemental petitions are DISMISSED. Comelec Resolution No. 9266 dated August 2, 2011, Joint Order No. 001-2011 dated August 15, 2011, and the Fact-Finding Team's Initial Report dated October 20, 2011, are declared VALID. However, the Rules of Procedure on the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation on the Alleged Election Fraud in the 2004 and 2007 National Elections is declared INEFFECTIVE for lack of publication.In view of the constitutionality of the Joint Panel and the proceedings having been conducted in accordance with Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and Rule 34 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, the conduct of the preliminary investigation is hereby declared VALID.Let the proceedings in the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 112, where the criminal cases for electoral sabotage against petitioners GMA and Abalos are pending, proceed with dispatch.SO ORDERED.
Ratio
- The Court first established that it retained authority to pass on the validity of the preliminary investigation notwithstanding the filing of the Information, following Cojuangco, Jr. v. PCGG and Allado v. Diokno, where the Court likewise examined preliminary-investigation propriety despite informations already having been filed — though it ultimately distinguished those cases on the facts (below).
- Turning to the merits of GMA's claim, the Court traced her document-production demand to Section 3(b), Rule 112, then examined precisely what had been "submitted" to the Joint Committee: Senator Pimentel's complaint referenced certain election documents but did not attach them, and Pimentel had separately adopted the affidavits attached to the Fact-Finding Team's Initial Report, which GMA had already received. Since Section 3(b)'s right of examination extends only to evidence actually "submitted by the complainant," and not to documents merely referenced but never filed with the investigating body, no violation occurred.
- The Court then applied the settled consequence of any residual irregularity: even assuming the denial of GMA's motion effectively cut short her opportunity to answer, "such irregularity would not divest the RTC of jurisdiction over the case and would not nullify the warrant of arrest," since "[d]ismissal is not the remedy" — the available remedy being to hold proceedings in abeyance and remand for completion of the investigation, a step the Court found unnecessary to order given the case's subsequent posture.
- That posture — GMA's arraignment, plea, and grant of bail — was treated by the Court as decisive: by actively invoking judicial remedies (bail) rather than pursuing her pending motion for reconsideration before the Joint Committee, GMA was deemed to have waived further recourse to the executive stage of the proceedings, reinforcing the conclusion that no live defect in the preliminary investigation remained for the Court to correct.
Doctrine
B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.
- A preliminary investigation is held to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution and to protect the State from useless and expensive trials; though statutory rather than constitutional, it is a component of due process and "not a mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive right," quoting Uy v. Office of the Ombudsman — echoing, and part of the same doctrinal lineage as, the identical formulation opening Duterte v. Sandiganbayan.
- "A preliminary investigation is the crucial sieve in the criminal justice system which spells for an individual the difference between months if not years of agonizing trial and possibly jail term... and peace of mind and liberty."
- A respondent's right under Section 3(b), Rule 112 to examine evidence extends only to evidence actually submitted to the investigating body by the complainant — not to documents merely cited or referenced but never filed; the complainant's failure to submit supporting documents "may only weaken his claims" but does not, by itself, entitle the respondent to compel their production as a precondition to filing a counter-affidavit.
- "A preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' respective evidence[,] but the presentation only of such evidence as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial[,] [p]recisely there is a trial to allow the reception of evidence" — the same formula applied in Callo-Claridad v. Esteban.
- "[T]he absence or irregularity of preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case[,] [n]or does it impair the validity of the criminal information or render it defective. Dismissal is not the remedy[,] [n]either is it a ground to quash the information or nullify the order of arrest... or justify the release of the accused from detention[;] [t]he proper course of action... is to hold in abeyance the proceedings... and to remand the case for the conduct of preliminary investigation" — squarely consistent with, and citable alongside, the no-jurisdictional-effect doctrine applied in People v. Gomez.
- A respondent may waive further recourse to the preliminary-investigation stage through unequivocal, inconsistent conduct before the trial court — here, arraignment, entry of a plea, and an application for and grant of bail — which the Court treated as an election of judicial remedies over completion of the executive-stage investigation.
C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.
- The Court expressly distinguished Cojuangco, Jr. v. PCGG and Allado v. Diokno — where informations and warrants of arrest were actually set aside for defective preliminary investigations — from the present case: in Cojuangco, the investigating body (PCGG) itself lacked authority to conduct the investigation and lacked the "cold neutrality of an impartial judge," while in Allado, serious doubt existed as to the corpus delicti itself; here, by contrast, the Information was filed by a body (the COMELEC En Banc) with authority to do so, and petitioners did not, in their assignment of errors, actually contest the existence of probable cause — GMA's belated evidentiary argument in her Memorandum went only to the documents-production issue, not to probable cause itself.
- The ruling on waiver is similarly fact-bound: it turns on GMA's own subsequent invocation of judicial remedies (bail) rather than continued pursuit of her pending motion for reconsideration before the Joint Committee, and would not necessarily apply to a respondent who consistently pursued only executive-stage remedies.
D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).
- Classification: DIRECT, anchored per Rule 6b to the "Validity of the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation" section. Although the Decision's larger controversy concerns the constitutionality of the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Committee — a separation-of-powers and COMELEC-independence question outside this Topic — its treatment of GMA's PI-fairness claim directly applies and reinforces core Topic 1 doctrine: the definitional/purpose formula shared with Duterte v. Sandiganbayan, the "full and exhaustive display" limitation shared with Callo-Claridad v. Esteban, and the jurisdiction-unaffected consequence of PI irregularity shared with People v. Gomez.
Separate Opinions
Carpio, J. (Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion): Concurred in the ponencia's conclusions on equal protection, due process, and the validity of the preliminary investigation conducted against petitioners under Rule 112 and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure — the Topic-1 holding is undisturbed by this opinion. Carpio dissented only from the finding that the Joint Committee's Rules of Procedure required publication, reasoning that those Rules merely complemented, and did not amend or supersede, Rule 112 and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure already duly published, such that their non-publication caused no surprise or prejudice to petitioners. He voted to DISMISS the petitions.
Brion, J. (Dissenting and Concurring Opinion): Opening with the "boiling frog" metaphor, Brion dissented from the ponencia's holding that the creation of the Joint Committee did not compromise COMELEC's constitutionally guaranteed independence, arguing that a DOJ-dominated body effectively directing COMELEC's exercise of its exclusive constitutional mandate over election-offense prosecution — with COMELEC largely ratifying findings substantially made for it — violated the separation-of-powers structure protecting COMELEC as an independent constitutional commission. Notwithstanding this dissent on the constitutional-structure question, Brion ultimately concurred in sustaining the finding of probable cause and supported dismissal of the petitions, reasoning that the COMELEC En Banc had itself independently deliberated on and adopted the Joint Committee's findings, curing the constitutional defect he identified as to the actual disposition reached. His opinion does not dispute the ponencia's Topic-1 holding on the validity of the preliminary investigation's conduct as measured against Rule 112.