Lozada v. Hernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Gabino Lozada and Isidro Lozada were charged with robbery with homicide via an information filed by the provincial fiscal of Capiz on July 1, 1952. The fiscal certified under oath that a proper preliminary investigation was conducted on June 27, 1952. Procedural History: Petitioners requested the court to fix their bail, which was done on July 16, 1952. Subsequently, they were arraigned with counsel and pleaded not guilty. Their trial was initially scheduled for August 20 but was postponed to September 19 at their request. The Petition: Prior to the trial, petitioners moved to dismiss the information, alleging deprivation of their right to a preliminary investigation without due process of law. Upon denial of this motion, they filed the present petition for certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners were deprived of their right to a preliminary investigation without due process of law. Whether the petitioners waived their right to a preliminary investigation.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied. The order of the Court of First Instance of Capiz denying the motion to dismiss is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of deprivation of preliminary investigation without due process: A preliminary investigation is not a trial but a preparatory step to determine if a crime has been committed and if there is probable cause to believe the accused guilty. The right to such an investigation is statutory, not a fundamental constitutional right. Rights conferred upon accused persons to participate in preliminary investigations depend on specific legal provisions, not solely on the phrase "due process of law." The relevant law, Section 1687 of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by Republic Act No. 732, states that the accused is not entitled to a preliminary investigation as a matter of right if the provincial fiscal files an information after due investigation and certifies under oath that a proper preliminary investigation was conducted. While the law allows the accused to request presence and cross-examination, notice is not always mandatory prior to the fiscal's investigation, especially if the accused's whereabouts are unknown. The Solicitor General's argument that notice is only required upon the accused's request, to avoid practical impossibility in cases where the accused is unknown, carries weight. Therefore, the petitioners' contention that they were deprived of due process by not being notified of the preliminary investigation lacks merit under the prevailing statutory framework. On the issue of waiver of the right to preliminary investigation: Even assuming that the petitioners had a right to be notified of the preliminary investigation to participate therein, such a right was deemed waived when they entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment. It is a settled rule that the right to a preliminary investigation is waived by the failure to claim it before the accused pleads not guilty. The petitioners' actions, including requesting bail and pleading not guilty, occurred after the information was filed and before the trial commenced, indicating they had knowledge of the proceedings and an opportunity to assert their right, which they did not do prior to their plea.
Main Doctrine
The right to a preliminary investigation is statutory, not fundamental, and can be waived by the accused's failure to claim it before pleading not guilty.