People v. Gomez

1 — Nature and Purpose

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: Duterte v. SandiganbayanPrevious case

Primary source ↗Next: Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy ChimNext case→

Case DigestWeek 6 - Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation

People v. Gomez

G.R. No. L-29086 · September 30, 1982 · First Division

1 — Nature and Purpose

Petitioner: People of the PhilippinesRespondent: Edilberto Gomez, Prudencio N. Cichon, Cesar V. Castillo, Pedro Cuento and John Doe

Core Doctrine

The absence of a preliminary investigation, or a defect in one, is not a jurisdictional defect: it does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case, nor does it impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective. Where the omission is timely raised, the proper judicial remedy is to conduct or order the investigation, not to dismiss the case. The right must be invoked before plea or it is deemed waived, and the absence of the required certification is waived on the same footing.

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

1. Nature and Purpose of Preliminary Investigation Full text: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/sep1982/gr_l29086_1982.html

ℹ️ Citation verification

The class spreadsheet and syllabus cite this case simply as "People vs. Gomez, G.R. No. L-29086, September 30, 1982." The Decision itself resolves four consolidated dockets (L-29086, L-29087, L-29088, L-29089) arising from four separate but related Zamboanga City estafa-thru-falsification prosecutions, decided together because they raise the identical preliminary-investigation question. This digest follows the assigned docket, L-29086, and narrates all four cases only insofar as necessary to explain the common ruling.

Facts

On 24 May 1962 the prosecuting fiscals of Zamboanga City filed three Informations for Estafa thru Falsification of Public/Official Documents in the CFI of Zamboanga City — Crim. Case No. 3083 against Edilberto Gomez, Prudencio N. Cichon, Cesar V. Castillo, Pedro Cuento and a John Doe; No. 3084 against Lorenzo Delantar, Cichon, Jesus F. Atilano and two unidentified persons; and No. 3088 against Cichon and Paulino T. Duma.
In each of the three the fiscals certified under oath that they had conducted a preliminary investigation and believed the accused probably guilty; warrants issued, the accused posted bail, and all pleaded not guilty — Cuento and Castillo on 26 June 1964, Gomez and Cichon on 21 October 1964.
On 1 October 1962 a fourth Information — Crim. Case No. 3128 — was filed against Cichon, Atilano and Cuento, again for Estafa thru Falsification. It carried no fiscal's certification; instead the District Judge himself conducted the preliminary investigation and, satisfied a prima facie case existed, issued the warrants that same day. The accused posted bail and pleaded not guilty on 26 June 1966. Two different modes of investigation, both on the record.
On 22 June 1966 — more than a year after arraignment — all the accused jointly moved to declare the Informations and warrants null and void for failure to observe Sections 13 and 14, Rule 112 of the 1964 Rules, praying that the warrants be cancelled.
On 27 September 1966 the lower court denied the motion, then reversed itself on 2 November 1966, dismissing all four cases without prejudice and cancelling the bail bonds.
The People appealed, and the First Division, through Justice Relova, set the dismissal aside and ordered trial to proceed.

Issue

Did the trial court err in nullifying the Informations and dismissing for failure to comply with Sections 13 and 14, Rule 112 — that is, what is the effect of an absent, defective or uncertified preliminary investigation on the validity of the Information and on the court's jurisdiction?

Secondary issues. Whether the 1964 Rules applied at all to investigations terminated in 1962; and whether the accused waived the right by pleading not guilty and objecting only a year later.

Ruling

YES — the trial court erred. An absent or defective certification neither affects jurisdiction nor renders the Information invalid. Where no investigation was held and the accused timely object before plea, "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" (People v. Casiano).

Secondary issues. NOT APPLICABLE. "The preliminary investigations in these four (4) cases were terminated in 1962, or before the New Rules of Court took effect on January 1, 1964. Rules 112 and 113 thereof cannot, therefore, apply to these cases at bar." And on the record the investigations were conducted — by prosecutorial certification in Nos. 3083, 3084 and 3088, and by the District Judge's own investigation on a prima facie finding in No. 3128. WAIVED. Since "the right to the preliminary investigation itself must be asserted or invoked before the plea, otherwise, it is deemed waived, it stands to reason, that the absence of the certification in question is also waived by failure to allege it before the plea" (Estrella v. Ruiz) — and all had already pleaded.

ACCORDINGLY, the order dated November 2, 1966 of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga is set aside and the said court is hereby ordered to proceed with the trial of the said criminal cases.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

The threshold ground disposed of the premise. The 1964 Rules did not govern investigations already terminated in 1962, so the very provisions invoked had no application.
The record independently showed compliance — sworn certification in three cases, and in the fourth the judge's own investigation, an alternative mode the Rules expressly recognised.
And the governing rule on consequence is settled: an absent or defective investigation is not jurisdictional and does not invalidate the Information; the remedy is to conduct or order the missing investigation, never to dismiss.
Finally, waiver. Having pleaded not guilty and challenged the Informations more than a year later, the accused waived both the right and any objection to its certification.

Doctrine

An absent or defective preliminary investigation is not a jurisdictional defect. "[T]he omissions are not necessarily fatal. The absence of preliminary investigations does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case. Nor do they impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective." The remedy is to supply it, not to dismiss — the court should conduct it, order the fiscal to, or remand for it. And the right must be invoked before plea or it is waived, the absence of the certification being waived on the same footing.

Limits. The holding turns on delay — an unqualified plea followed a year later by the objection. It does not say a defective investigation is always inconsequential; it says the objection must come before plea, and that even then the remedy is to complete the investigation, not to void the Information. And note the ruling's structure: the Court had two independent grounds before it reached waiver — the inapplicability of the 1964 Rules and the factual finding of compliance — so the waiver holding, though stated broadly, was offered as an additional sufficient ground rather than as the necessary basis of the result. Read with Marinas v. Siochi on the right's statutory, waivable character, and against Duterte v. Sandiganbayan, which calls its denial a denial of due process. The two are consistent: the right may be waived by the accused, but it may not be withheld by the State — and this case is about the first, not the second. The affidavit procedure was, on this record, actually followed.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Classification: DIRECT. Four sets of accused, prosecuted in four separate but related 1962 Informations for Estafa thru Falsification of Public/Official Documents before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City, moved — more than a year after arraignment and after having already pleaded not guilty — to declare the Informations and warrants of arrest null and void for non-compliance with the preliminary-investigation provisions of Rule 112. The trial court initially denied the motion but reversed itself on reconsideration and dismissed all four cases without prejudice to refiling. On the People's appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal, holding that the 1964 Rules of Court did not even apply (the investigations having been terminated in 1962), that the required investigations had in fact been complied with, that an absent or defective preliminary-investigation certification does not void an Information or divest the court of jurisdiction, and that, in any event, the accused had waived the right by pleading not guilty without first raising the objection.

Facts

On 24 May 1962, the prosecuting fiscals of Zamboanga City filed three separate Informations for Estafa thru Falsification of Public/Official Documents before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City: Criminal Case No. 3083 against Edilberto Gomez, Prudencio N. Cichon, Cesar V. Castillo, Pedro Cuento, and a John Doe; Criminal Case No. 3084 against Lorenzo Delantar, Prudencio Cichon, Jesus F. Atilano, and two unidentified persons; and Criminal Case No. 3088 against Prudencio Cichon and Paulino T. Duma. In each of these three Informations, the prosecuting officers certified under oath that they had conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with law and believed the accused probably guilty; warrants of arrest issued accordingly, and the accused posted bail. The accused in Criminal Case No. 3083 pleaded not guilty on 26 June 1964 (Cuento and Castillo) and 21 October 1964 (Gomez and Cichon); the accused in Criminal Case No. 3084 pleaded not guilty on arraignment as well.
On 1 October 1962, a fourth Information — Criminal Case No. 3128 — was filed against Prudencio Cichon, Jesus F. Atilano, and Pedro Cuento, again for Estafa thru Falsification. This Information did not carry the fiscal's certification of a preliminary investigation; instead, the District Judge himself conducted the preliminary investigation and, satisfied that a prima facie case existed, issued the warrants of arrest that same day. The accused posted bail and pleaded not guilty on 26 June 1966.
On 22 June 1966, the accused in all four cases, through counsel, jointly filed a Motion to Declare Informations and Warrants of Arrest Null and Void, arguing that the prosecution had failed to observe Sections 13 and 14, Rule 112 of the (1964) Rules of Court on preliminary investigation, and praying for cancellation of the warrants of arrest.
On 27 September 1966, the lower court denied the motion for lack of merit. On the accused's motion for reconsideration, however, the lower court reversed itself on 2 November 1966, dismissing all four cases without prejudice to refiling and ordering cancellation of the bail bonds.
The People appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the trial court's dismissal of the four cases on the ground that the preliminary investigations were not conducted in accordance with Sections 13 and 14, Rule 112, in relation to Rule 144, of the Revised Rules of Court. The Supreme Court (Relova, J., First Division) sustained the People's appeal and set aside the dismissal order.

Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner-Appellant (People of the Philippines).

The People argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the four criminal cases, because the preliminary investigations conducted were, in fact, in accordance with law, and because, in any event, the accused's delay of more than a year — during which they were arraigned and pleaded not guilty without objection — constituted a waiver of any right to question the sufficiency of the preliminary investigation or its certification.

B. Respondents-Appellees (Accused).

The accused argued before the trial court that the Informations and warrants of arrest were null and void because the prosecution failed to observe Sections 13 and 14, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court governing preliminary investigation and its certification, warranting dismissal of all four cases.

C. Common Ground.

It was not disputed that three of the four Informations bore the fiscal's sworn certification of a preliminary investigation, that the fourth (Criminal Case No. 3128) instead reflected a preliminary investigation conducted directly by the District Judge, that all of the investigations were concluded in 1962, and that all the accused had already been arraigned and had pleaded not guilty before filing their joint motion in 1966.

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

Did the trial court err in nullifying the Informations and dismissing the four criminal cases on the ground that the preliminary investigations failed to comply with Sections 13 and 14, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court — that is, what is the legal effect of an absent, defective, or uncertified preliminary investigation on the validity of an Information and on the trial court's jurisdiction?

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether the 1964 Rules of Court's Rule 112 provisions applied at all, given that the preliminary investigations in question were terminated in 1962, before the New Rules of Court took effect on 1 January 1964.
Whether the accused, by pleading not guilty and raising the objection only more than a year later, had waived the right to a preliminary investigation and any defect in its certification.

C. Ancillary/Incidental Issues.

None material to this Topic.

Ruling

MAIN ISSUE — YES, the trial court erred. An absent or defective preliminary-investigation certification neither affects the court's jurisdiction over the case nor renders the Information invalid or defective. Where no preliminary investigation was in fact held and the accused timely object before plea, "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," citing People v. Casiano.

SECONDARY ISSUE 1 — NOT applicable. "The preliminary investigations in these four (4) cases were terminated in 1962, or before the New Rules of Court took effect on January 1, 1964. Rules 112 and 113 thereof cannot, therefore, apply to these cases at bar." The Court additionally found that the required investigations had, on the record, actually been complied with — by prosecutorial certification in Criminal Cases Nos. 3083, 3084, and 3088, and by the District Judge's own preliminary investigation, upon a prima facie finding, in Criminal Case No. 3128.

SECONDARY ISSUE 2 — YES, waived. Since "the right to the preliminary investigation itself must be asserted or invoked before the plea, otherwise, it is deemed waived, it stands to reason, that the absence of the certification in question is also waived by failure to allege it before the plea," citing Estrella v. Ruiz. All the accused here had already pleaded not guilty before filing their motion, more than a year after arraignment.

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

ACCORDINGLY, the order dated November 2, 1966 of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga is set aside and the said court is hereby ordered to proceed with the trial of the said criminal cases.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

The Court first resolved the case on a threshold, non-constitutional ground: the 1964 Rules of Court's preliminary-investigation provisions (Rule 112) did not govern investigations already terminated in 1962, before those Rules took effect — making the accused's entire premise for the motion inapplicable to begin with.
The Court then examined the record and found the required investigations had, as a factual matter, been complied with in all four cases — either through the prosecutors' sworn certification or, in Criminal Case No. 3128, through the District Judge's own investigation and prima facie finding, an alternative mode the 1964 Rules expressly recognized.
Independently of both findings, the Court articulated the governing rule on the consequence of an absent or defective preliminary investigation: it is not a jurisdictional defect and does not invalidate the Information; the proper remedy is for the court to conduct, or order the conduct of, the missing investigation — not to dismiss the case.
Finally, the Court applied the waiver doctrine: because the accused pleaded not guilty and challenged the Informations only more than a year afterward, they were deemed to have waived both the right to a preliminary investigation and any objection to the sufficiency of its certification.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

An absent or defective preliminary investigation is not a jurisdictional defect and does not invalidate the Information. "[T]he omissions are not necessarily fatal. The absence of preliminary investigations does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case. Nor do they impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective."
The proper judicial remedy for a missing preliminary investigation, timely raised, is to conduct or order it — not to dismiss the case, citing People v. Casiano, 1 SCRA 478.
The right to a preliminary investigation must be invoked before plea, or it is deemed waived — and the absence of the required certification is waived on the same footing, citing Estrella v. Ruiz, 58 SCRA 779: "the settled doctrine in this jurisdiction is that the right to the preliminary investigation itself must be asserted or invoked before the plea, otherwise, it is deemed waived, it stands to reason, that the absence of the certification in question is also waived by failure to allege it before the plea."
Statutory text applied: Section 13, Rule 112 (1964 Rules) — preliminary examination and investigation by the CFI judge on direct filing, culminating in a warrant of arrest upon a finding of reasonable ground, with referral to the fiscal for the Information; Section 14, Rule 112 (1964 Rules) — preliminary examination and investigation by the provincial or city fiscal or state attorney, including the accused's right to be heard, to cross-examine, and to adduce evidence, and the fiscal's duty to certify under oath that the accused was given the chance to appear.

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

The ruling turns on the accused's delay in raising the objection — more than a year after arraignment and after an unqualified plea of not guilty.
The Decision does not hold that a defective or absent preliminary investigation is always inconsequential; it holds only that the objection, to be given effect, must be raised before plea, and that even then the remedy is to complete the investigation, not to dismiss the Information outright.
The Court's alternative, fact-based finding — that the investigations were actually conducted — and its threshold ruling that the 1964 Rules did not apply at all, mean the waiver holding, while stated broadly, was not strictly necessary to the result; it was offered as an independent and sufficient ground.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Classification: DIRECT.

People v. Gomez speaks directly to the nature of the preliminary investigation — clarifying that it is a personal, waivable right of the accused and a procedural safeguard, not a jurisdictional prerequisite to a valid Information or a valid exercise of the court's authority to try the case.
This nature-defining function is precisely what the "Nature and Purpose of Preliminary Investigation" Topic requires, and the case is a frequently cited early authority for the waiver-by-failure-to-object-before-plea rule that recurs throughout later Rule 112 jurisprudence.

Separate Opinions

None. The Decision records that Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concurred.

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Implementing Rules

Section 1, Rule 112, Rules of Court

Preliminary investigation defined; when required

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 112 (Preliminary Investigation)

Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.

Except as provided in section 7 of this Rule, a preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine. (1a)

LawPhil posts the text as amended effective 1 December 2000. Later amendments — notably to the bail and preliminary-investigation rules — are not reflected here, so check the date of the decision against the date of the amendment.

Why it is cited here

The provision the accused invoked, and the reason it did not reach his case.

"Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial."

The Court disposed of the case on a threshold, non-constitutional ground: the 1964 Rules of Court's preliminary-investigation provisions did not govern investigations already terminated in 1962, before those Rules took effect.

So the accused's entire premise failed. He was measuring a completed 1962 investigation against requirements that did not yet exist.

That is the same discipline as De la Cruz v. Moya on jurisdiction: identify the rule in force when the act occurred, not the rule in force when the argument is made.

Implementing Rules

Section 3, Rule 112, Rules of Court

Procedure

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 112 (Preliminary Investigation)

The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner:

(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish probable cause. They shall be in such number of copies as there are respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file. The affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public, each of who must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.

(b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the investigating officer shall either dismiss it if he finds no ground to continue with the investigation, or issue a subpoena to the respondent attaching to it a copy of the complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents.

The respondent shall have the right to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant which he may not have been furnished and to copy them at his expense. If the evidence is voluminous, the complainant may be required to specify those which he intends to present against the respondent, and these shall be made available for examination or copying by the respondent at his expense.

Objects as evidence need not be furnished a party but shall be made available for examination, copying, or photographing at the expense of the requesting party.

(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, the respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense. The counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to and certified as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, with copies thereof furnished by him to the complainant. The respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit.

(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period, the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant.

(e) The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness. The parties can be present at the hearing but without the right to examine or cross-examine. They may, however, submit to the investigating officer questions which may be asked to the party or witness concerned.

The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from submission of the counter-affidavits and other documents or from the expiration of the period for their submission. It shall be terminated within five (5) days.

(f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating officer shall determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial. (3a)

Why it is cited here

What the current rule requires, for contrast.

The officer shall issue a subpoena with a copy of the complaint and supporting affidavits; the respondent has ten (10) days to submit a counter-affidavit; he may not file a motion to dismiss in lieu of it; and he has no right to cross-examine.

Those entitlements are the product of successive revisions. A respondent investigated under an earlier regime had a different — often thinner — set, and cannot claim the later one retroactively.

The general principle is that procedural rules apply to pending proceedings, but not to proceedings already terminated. A completed investigation is a closed transaction.

Constitution

Article III, Section 14, 1987 Constitution

Bill of Rights

1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article III (Bill of Rights)

No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Why it is cited here

Why the ground chosen was non-constitutional, and why that matters.

The accused shall "enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him," and shall not be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

A preliminary investigation is a statutory right, not a constitutional one. So a complaint that the 1964 Rules were not followed is a complaint about a rule, answerable by asking whether the rule applied.

Had the right been constitutional, timing would not have disposed of it so cleanly — a constitutional guarantee is not defeated by the date a rule took effect.

The distinction runs through the whole cluster: denial of preliminary investigation is a due process problem only because a statute grants it, which is also why the remedy is remand rather than dismissal.

Related notes:

Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy Chim — same Rule 112 framework, illustrating probable cause rather than the waiver-of-PI question addressed here.
Rule 112, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — preliminary investigation.

Source: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/sep1982/gr_l29086_1982.html

Cited laws & provisions

Section 1, Rule 112, Rules of Court

Implementing Rules

Preliminary investigation defined; when required

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 112 (Preliminary Investigation)

Why it is cited here

The provision the accused invoked, and the reason it did not reach his case.

So the accused's entire premise failed. He was measuring a completed 1962 investigation against requirements that did not yet exist.

That is the same discipline as De la Cruz v. Moya on jurisdiction: identify the rule in force when the act occurred, not the rule in force when the argument is made.

Full entry below ↓

Section 3, Rule 112, Rules of Court

Implementing Rules

Procedure

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 112 (Preliminary Investigation)

The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner:

Objects as evidence need not be furnished a party but shall be made available for examination, copying, or photographing at the expense of the requesting party.

(f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating officer shall determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial. (3a)

Why it is cited here

What the current rule requires, for contrast.

Those entitlements are the product of successive revisions. A respondent investigated under an earlier regime had a different — often thinner — set, and cannot claim the later one retroactively.

The general principle is that procedural rules apply to pending proceedings, but not to proceedings already terminated. A completed investigation is a closed transaction.

Full entry below ↓

Article III, Section 14, 1987 Constitution

Constitution

Bill of Rights

1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article III (Bill of Rights)

No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

Why it is cited here

Why the ground chosen was non-constitutional, and why that matters.

The accused shall "enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him," and shall not be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

Had the right been constitutional, timing would not have disposed of it so cleanly — a constitutional guarantee is not defeated by the date a rule took effect.

Full entry below ↓

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

1. Nature and Purpose of Preliminary Investigation Full text: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/sep1982/gr_l29086_1982.html

ℹ️ Citation verification

Facts

On 24 May 1962 the prosecuting fiscals of Zamboanga City filed three Informations for Estafa thru Falsification of Public/Official Documents in the CFI of Zamboanga City — Crim. Case No. 3083 against Edilberto Gomez, Prudencio N. Cichon, Cesar V. Castillo, Pedro Cuento and a John Doe; No. 3084 against Lorenzo Delantar, Cichon, Jesus F. Atilano and two unidentified persons; and No. 3088 against Cichon and Paulino T. Duma.
In each of the three the fiscals certified under oath that they had conducted a preliminary investigation and believed the accused probably guilty; warrants issued, the accused posted bail, and all pleaded not guilty — Cuento and Castillo on 26 June 1964, Gomez and Cichon on 21 October 1964.
On 1 October 1962 a fourth Information — Crim. Case No. 3128 — was filed against Cichon, Atilano and Cuento, again for Estafa thru Falsification. It carried no fiscal's certification; instead the District Judge himself conducted the preliminary investigation and, satisfied a prima facie case existed, issued the warrants that same day. The accused posted bail and pleaded not guilty on 26 June 1966. Two different modes of investigation, both on the record.
On 22 June 1966 — more than a year after arraignment — all the accused jointly moved to declare the Informations and warrants null and void for failure to observe Sections 13 and 14, Rule 112 of the 1964 Rules, praying that the warrants be cancelled.
On 27 September 1966 the lower court denied the motion, then reversed itself on 2 November 1966, dismissing all four cases without prejudice and cancelling the bail bonds.
The People appealed, and the First Division, through Justice Relova, set the dismissal aside and ordered trial to proceed.

Issue

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, the order dated November 2, 1966 of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga is set aside and the said court is hereby ordered to proceed with the trial of the said criminal cases.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

The threshold ground disposed of the premise. The 1964 Rules did not govern investigations already terminated in 1962, so the very provisions invoked had no application.
The record independently showed compliance — sworn certification in three cases, and in the fourth the judge's own investigation, an alternative mode the Rules expressly recognised.
And the governing rule on consequence is settled: an absent or defective investigation is not jurisdictional and does not invalidate the Information; the remedy is to conduct or order the missing investigation, never to dismiss.
Finally, waiver. Having pleaded not guilty and challenged the Informations more than a year later, the accused waived both the right and any objection to its certification.

Doctrine

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Facts

On 24 May 1962, the prosecuting fiscals of Zamboanga City filed three separate Informations for Estafa thru Falsification of Public/Official Documents before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City: Criminal Case No. 3083 against Edilberto Gomez, Prudencio N. Cichon, Cesar V. Castillo, Pedro Cuento, and a John Doe; Criminal Case No. 3084 against Lorenzo Delantar, Prudencio Cichon, Jesus F. Atilano, and two unidentified persons; and Criminal Case No. 3088 against Prudencio Cichon and Paulino T. Duma. In each of these three Informations, the prosecuting officers certified under oath that they had conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with law and believed the accused probably guilty; warrants of arrest issued accordingly, and the accused posted bail. The accused in Criminal Case No. 3083 pleaded not guilty on 26 June 1964 (Cuento and Castillo) and 21 October 1964 (Gomez and Cichon); the accused in Criminal Case No. 3084 pleaded not guilty on arraignment as well.
On 1 October 1962, a fourth Information — Criminal Case No. 3128 — was filed against Prudencio Cichon, Jesus F. Atilano, and Pedro Cuento, again for Estafa thru Falsification. This Information did not carry the fiscal's certification of a preliminary investigation; instead, the District Judge himself conducted the preliminary investigation and, satisfied that a prima facie case existed, issued the warrants of arrest that same day. The accused posted bail and pleaded not guilty on 26 June 1966.
On 22 June 1966, the accused in all four cases, through counsel, jointly filed a Motion to Declare Informations and Warrants of Arrest Null and Void, arguing that the prosecution had failed to observe Sections 13 and 14, Rule 112 of the (1964) Rules of Court on preliminary investigation, and praying for cancellation of the warrants of arrest.
On 27 September 1966, the lower court denied the motion for lack of merit. On the accused's motion for reconsideration, however, the lower court reversed itself on 2 November 1966, dismissing all four cases without prejudice to refiling and ordering cancellation of the bail bonds.
The People appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the trial court's dismissal of the four cases on the ground that the preliminary investigations were not conducted in accordance with Sections 13 and 14, Rule 112, in relation to Rule 144, of the Revised Rules of Court. The Supreme Court (Relova, J., First Division) sustained the People's appeal and set aside the dismissal order.

Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner-Appellant (People of the Philippines).

B. Respondents-Appellees (Accused).

C. Common Ground.

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether the 1964 Rules of Court's Rule 112 provisions applied at all, given that the preliminary investigations in question were terminated in 1962, before the New Rules of Court took effect on 1 January 1964.
Whether the accused, by pleading not guilty and raising the objection only more than a year later, had waived the right to a preliminary investigation and any defect in its certification.

C. Ancillary/Incidental Issues.

None material to this Topic.

Ruling

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

ACCORDINGLY, the order dated November 2, 1966 of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga is set aside and the said court is hereby ordered to proceed with the trial of the said criminal cases.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

The Court first resolved the case on a threshold, non-constitutional ground: the 1964 Rules of Court's preliminary-investigation provisions (Rule 112) did not govern investigations already terminated in 1962, before those Rules took effect — making the accused's entire premise for the motion inapplicable to begin with.
The Court then examined the record and found the required investigations had, as a factual matter, been complied with in all four cases — either through the prosecutors' sworn certification or, in Criminal Case No. 3128, through the District Judge's own investigation and prima facie finding, an alternative mode the 1964 Rules expressly recognized.
Independently of both findings, the Court articulated the governing rule on the consequence of an absent or defective preliminary investigation: it is not a jurisdictional defect and does not invalidate the Information; the proper remedy is for the court to conduct, or order the conduct of, the missing investigation — not to dismiss the case.
Finally, the Court applied the waiver doctrine: because the accused pleaded not guilty and challenged the Informations only more than a year afterward, they were deemed to have waived both the right to a preliminary investigation and any objection to the sufficiency of its certification.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

An absent or defective preliminary investigation is not a jurisdictional defect and does not invalidate the Information. "[T]he omissions are not necessarily fatal. The absence of preliminary investigations does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case. Nor do they impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective."
The proper judicial remedy for a missing preliminary investigation, timely raised, is to conduct or order it — not to dismiss the case, citing People v. Casiano, 1 SCRA 478.
The right to a preliminary investigation must be invoked before plea, or it is deemed waived — and the absence of the required certification is waived on the same footing, citing Estrella v. Ruiz, 58 SCRA 779: "the settled doctrine in this jurisdiction is that the right to the preliminary investigation itself must be asserted or invoked before the plea, otherwise, it is deemed waived, it stands to reason, that the absence of the certification in question is also waived by failure to allege it before the plea."
Statutory text applied: Section 13, Rule 112 (1964 Rules) — preliminary examination and investigation by the CFI judge on direct filing, culminating in a warrant of arrest upon a finding of reasonable ground, with referral to the fiscal for the Information; Section 14, Rule 112 (1964 Rules) — preliminary examination and investigation by the provincial or city fiscal or state attorney, including the accused's right to be heard, to cross-examine, and to adduce evidence, and the fiscal's duty to certify under oath that the accused was given the chance to appear.

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

The ruling turns on the accused's delay in raising the objection — more than a year after arraignment and after an unqualified plea of not guilty.
The Decision does not hold that a defective or absent preliminary investigation is always inconsequential; it holds only that the objection, to be given effect, must be raised before plea, and that even then the remedy is to complete the investigation, not to dismiss the Information outright.
The Court's alternative, fact-based finding — that the investigations were actually conducted — and its threshold ruling that the 1964 Rules did not apply at all, mean the waiver holding, while stated broadly, was not strictly necessary to the result; it was offered as an independent and sufficient ground.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Classification: DIRECT.

People v. Gomez speaks directly to the nature of the preliminary investigation — clarifying that it is a personal, waivable right of the accused and a procedural safeguard, not a jurisdictional prerequisite to a valid Information or a valid exercise of the court's authority to try the case.
This nature-defining function is precisely what the "Nature and Purpose of Preliminary Investigation" Topic requires, and the case is a frequently cited early authority for the waiver-by-failure-to-object-before-plea rule that recurs throughout later Rule 112 jurisprudence.

Separate Opinions

None. The Decision records that Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concurred.