**Facts:**
1. On January 27, 1997, Gian Paulo Villaflor was allegedly assaulted by Dindo Vivar outside the Fat Tuesday Bar in Muntinlupa City. Villaflor sustained injuries and was threatened by Vivar, who said, “Next time, I will use my gun on you.”
2. On February 7, 1997, an Information for slight physical injuries (Criminal Case No. 23365) was filed against Vivar.
3. Villaflor’s injuries were later deemed more serious, leading to the filing of an Information for serious physical injuries (Criminal Case No. 23787), and the charge of slight physical injuries was withdrawn.
4. On March 17, 1997, an Information for grave threats (Criminal Case No. 23728) was also filed against Vivar.
5. Vivar posted a P6,000 cash bond for the serious physical injuries case on April 14, 1997.
6. On April 21, 1997, instead of filing a counter-affidavit, Vivar filed a Motion to Quash the Information in the grave threats case, arguing that the threat should be absorbed in the serious physical injuries charge.
7. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) denied Vivar’s motion on April 28, 1997, and maintained jurisdiction over the grave threats case.
8. Vivar’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the MTC on June 17, 1997, and he pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
9. On July 18, 1997, Vivar filed a Petition for Certiorari with the RTC of Muntinlupa City (Civil Case No. 97-134).
10. The RTC granted the Motion to Quash on January 20, 1998, and dismissed both criminal cases, citing the lack of preliminary investigation.
11. A Motion for Reconsideration filed by Villaflor was denied by the RTC on July 6, 1998.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the trial court can dismiss criminal cases due to the public prosecutor’s failure to conduct a preliminary investigation.
2. Whether the absence of a preliminary investigation is a valid ground to quash criminal informations.
3. Whether Vivar’s actions (pleading not guilty and posting bond) constituted a waiver of his right to a preliminary investigation.
**Court’s Decision:**
1. **Lack of Preliminary Investigation:**
– The Supreme Court ruled that although preliminary investigation is an essential part of due process, its absence does not invalidate the information or affect court jurisdiction. The proper course of action is for the court to hold proceedings in abeyance and order a preliminary investigation.
2. **Motion to Quash:**
– The Court held that lack of preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash an information per Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The RTC erred in granting the Motion to Quash filed by Vivar.
3. **Waiver by Respondent:**
– By pleading not guilty and posting bail, Vivar effectively waived his right to a preliminary investigation. The Court stated it was unnecessary to address this further due to the resolution of the other issues.
**Doctrine:**
1. Lack of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of an information or affect court jurisdiction.
2. A preliminary investigation is a statutory right, but its absence does not warrant quashing an information.
3. Pleading to the charge and posting bail can be seen as a waiver of the right to preliminary investigation.
**Class Notes:**
– **Preliminary Investigation:** An essential part of due process to determine if there is sufficient ground for a charge.
– *Cite:* Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
– *Rule:* The absence of a preliminary investigation does not render an information defective.
– *Example:* People v. Deang, et al., and Go v. CA.
– **Grounds for Motion to Quash:** Listed under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
– Lack of preliminary investigation is not an enumerated ground.
– Prohibited pleading under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
– **Waiver:** Pleading to charge and posting bail can indicate waiver of certain procedural rights.
**Historical Background:**
The case reflects the enforcement of procedural due process in Philippine criminal law, emphasizing the importance of preliminary investigation. It reiterates long-standing legal principles and ensures defendants are not deprived of due process, while balancing the need for efficient judicial proceedings. The decision aligns with past jurisprudence, such as People v. Deang and Paredes v. Sandiganbayan, upholding the integrity of the judicial process in the context of criminal litigation.
Leave a Reply