Estrella v. Ruiz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 21, 1973, a vehicular collision occurred between a jeep driven by petitioner Romero Estrella and a motorized tricycle driven by Dante Custodio, resulting in one fatality, three injuries, and damage to vehicles. Procedural History: A complaint for "Homicide through Reckless Imprudence" was filed against petitioner. Petitioner signed a "Waiver" of preliminary investigation. Subsequently, petitioner filed a complaint against Dante Custodio. The Provincial Fiscal granted petitioner's request for a reinvestigation of the case against him and the preliminary investigation of his complaint against Custodio. On December 19, 1973, an information for "Homicide with Multiple Physical Injuries and Damage to Property through Reckless Imprudence" was filed against both petitioner and Dante Custodio. The Petition: Petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. He later filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the information was invalid because the fiscal's certification of preliminary investigation referred only to Dante Custodio. The respondent Judge denied the motion but ordered a reinvestigation concerning petitioner. Petitioner seeks to annul this order and prohibit further proceedings, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the information filed against petitioner Romero Estrella y De Venecia is null and void insofar as he is concerned, due to the investigating fiscal's certification of preliminary investigation being limited only to his co-accused Dante Custodio. Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss the case and in further ordering the reinvestigation of the complaint insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The order of the respondent Judge denying the motion to dismiss is affirmed, with the modification that a new reinvestigation need not be made.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the information filed against the petitioner is not null and void despite the certification of preliminary investigation explicitly mentioning only Dante Custodio. Citing People vs. Marquez (L-23654, March 28, 1969), the Court reiterated that such a certification is not an essential part of the information itself, which is merely an accusation in writing, and its absence cannot vitiate the information. What Rule 111, Section 14 (as amended by Presidential Decree No. 77) enjoins is the non-holding of the preliminary investigation, not merely the absence of the certification. The Court emphasized that the right to a preliminary investigation is a procedural right that must be asserted or invoked before or at the time the accused enters his plea, otherwise it is deemed waived. In this case, the petitioner filed his motion to dismiss approximately 1½ months after he had already been arraigned and pleaded not guilty, consequently waiving any objection based on the alleged defect in the certification and his right to a preliminary investigation. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Judge. Even though the certification in the information specifically named Dante Custodia, the petitioner did not deny that a reinvestigation of the case originally filed against him in the Municipal Court, and his own complaint against Dante Custodia, had been ordered and presumably conducted by the Provincial Fiscal's Office. The Provincial Fiscal's comment further affirmed concurrence with the investigating fiscal's finding of prima facie evidence against both accused. Crucially, the petitioner had already expressly waived his right to a preliminary investigation when the case was still with the Municipal Court, which led the Fiscal to see "no necessity in including the name of the petitioner in his certification in the Information." The Court underscored that the basis for accusing the petitioner was the actual holding of a preliminary investigation (or valid waiver thereof), not merely the presence or specific wording of a certification.
Main Doctrine
The right to a preliminary investigation, or the objection to the absence of a certification regarding its conduct, must be asserted before or at the time of the entry of a plea; otherwise, it is deemed waived, except for lack of jurisdiction or failure to charge an offense.