People v. Gomez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Four (4) informations were filed in 1962 before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City charging various accused, including Edilberto Gomez, Prudencio N. Cichon, Cesar V. Castillo, Pedro Cuento, Lorenzo Delantar, Jesus F. Atilano, and Paulino T. Duma, with the crime of Estafa thru falsification of public/official documents. In three of these cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 3083, 3084, and 3088), the prosecuting officers certified under oath that they had conducted preliminary investigations and believed the offenses were committed and the accused were probably guilty. In Criminal Case No. 3128, the District Judge himself conducted the preliminary investigation after the information lacked the fiscal's certification, finding a prima facie case and issuing warrants of arrest. Procedural History: The accused were arrested and subsequently released on provisional liberty upon filing bonds. They all pleaded not guilty to the charges upon arraignment. More than a year after entering their pleas, the accused, through counsel, filed a motion to declare the informations and warrants of arrest null and void, citing the prosecution's failure to observe Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112 of the New Rules of Court regarding preliminary investigations. The lower court initially denied this motion but later reversed its ruling upon reconsideration, ordering the dismissal of all four cases without prejudice and the cancellation of the bonds. The Petition: The People of the Philippines appealed the order of dismissal, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing the cases based on the alleged non-compliance with preliminary investigation rules.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the criminal cases on the ground that the preliminary investigations were not in accordance with Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112 of the New Rules of Court. Whether the accused waived their right to a preliminary investigation by entering a plea of not guilty before filing their motion to declare the informations and warrants of arrest null and void.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and ordered the trial court to proceed with the trial of the criminal cases. The Court held that the appeal of the People should be sustained as the trial court's order of dismissal was erroneous.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged non-compliance with preliminary investigation rules: The Supreme Court held that the New Rules of Court, specifically Rules 112 and 113, took effect on January 1, 1964, and therefore could not apply to the preliminary investigations in these cases, which were terminated in 1962. Furthermore, the Court noted that in Criminal Case No. 3083, the prosecutors certified under oath that a preliminary investigation was conducted. In Criminal Cases Nos. 3084 and 3088, similar certifications from Special Prosecutors were present. In Criminal Case No. 3128, the District Judge himself conducted the preliminary investigation and found a prima facie case. Thus, the required investigations were complied with. On the waiver of the right to preliminary investigation: Even assuming that the informations did not contain the requisite certificates, the Supreme Court clarified that the absence of preliminary investigations does not affect the court's jurisdiction or impair the validity of the information. If such an issue is raised before plea, the court should conduct the investigation or order the fiscal to do so. However, in these cases, the defendants did not question the validity of the informations or their right to preliminary investigations before entering their plea of not guilty. They filed their motion to declare the informations and warrants of arrest null and void only after more than one year had passed since their arraignment. By entering a plea of not guilty, they waived all objections that are grounds for a motion to quash, except lack of jurisdiction or failure of the information to charge an offense. Therefore, they waived the right to a preliminary investigation when they failed to invoke it prior to, or at least at, the time of the entry of their plea. The settled doctrine is that the right to a preliminary investigation must be asserted before the plea, otherwise, it is deemed waived, and consequently, the absence of the certification in question is also waived by failure to allege it before the plea.
Main Doctrine
The right to a preliminary investigation must be asserted before the plea; otherwise, it is deemed waived. The absence of a certification regarding a preliminary investigation is also waived by failure to allege it before the plea.