Pilapil vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 101978. April 7, 1993

 Facts:

The Investigating Ombudsman issued an order requiring Pilapil to submit his counter-affidavit, affidavits of his witnesses and other controverting evidence. This order was captioned as Case No. OMB-1-89-0168 for "Malversation of Public Property under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code." Pilapil submitted his counter-affidavit. After the preliminary investigation, a resolution was issued finding no crime of malversation but a prima facie case for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. An Information for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 was thus filed with the Sandiganbayan. 

Pilapil filed a motion to quash on the ground that respondent Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over his person because the information was filed without probable cause since there is absolutely no proof adduced in the preliminary investigation of any of the elements of the crime defined in Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The Court denied the motion.

Pilapil went to the Supreme Court via petition for certiorari. He harped on the lack of preliminary investigation on the specific charge of violation of Sec. 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, filed before the Sandiganbayan. He alleged that the preliminary investigation was conducted for the charge of malversation.

Issues:

1. Is absence of a preliminary investigation a ground to quash a complaint or information?
2. Does absence of preliminary investigation affect the court's jurisdiction over the case?
3. Is absence of preliminary investigation waivable?
4. Was there no preliminary investigation conducted in the case necessitating the suspension of the proceedings in the case until after the outcome of such preliminary investigation?

Held:

1. The absence of a preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash a complaint or information under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. The proper procedure in case of lack of preliminary investigation is to hold in abeyance the proceedings upon such information and the case remanded to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal or the Ombudsman, for that matter, for him or the Special Prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation.

2. The absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case. Nor do they impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective, but, if there were no preliminary investigations and the defendants, before entering their plea, invite the attention of the court to their absence, 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 

3. The right to a preliminary investigation is not a fundamental right and may be waived expressly or by silence. Failure of accused to invoke his right to a preliminary investigation constituted a waiver of such right and any irregularity that attended it. The right may be forfeited by inaction and can no longer be invoked for the first time at the appellate level.

4. The facts on record show that in an order dated October 3, 1990, Deputy Ombudsman Domingo required petitioner to answer the charges against him as stated in the affidavits-complaints and supporting documents thereto. Petitioner fully complied with said order and filed his and his witnesses' affidavits. In other words, petitioner was properly apprised of the act complained of and given ample opportunity to rebut the same. Thus, petitioner could not validly raise violation of his right to due process because the bases for the information filed by the Ombudsman were all reflected in the complaint and the evidence supporting it. In Cinco vs. Sandiganbayan, this Court held that preliminary investigation is nothing more than the submission of the parties' respective affidavits, counter-affidavits and evidence to buttress their separate allegations.

Petitioner attaches significance to the fact that the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman against him was under the title of "malversation." According to him, this is not sufficient to justify the filing of the charge of violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law.

Petitioner loses sight of the fact that preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of discovering whether a person may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the prosecutor to prepare his complaint or information. The preliminary designation of the offense in the directive to file a counter-affidavit and affidavits of one's witnesses is not conclusive. Such designation is only a conclusion of law of Deputy Ombudsman Domingo. The Ombudsman is not bound by the said qualification of the crime. Rather, he is guided by the evidence presented in the course of a preliminary investigation and on the basis of which, he may formulate and designate the offense and direct the filing of the corresponding information. In fact, even, the designation of the offense by the prosecutor in the information itself has been held inconclusive, to wit:

". . . the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information . . . it is not the technical name given by the Fiscal appearing in the title of the information that determines the character of the crime but the facts alleged in the body of the Information."

Petitioner's argument that he could not have asked for a new preliminary investigation in the Office of the Ombudsman since he came to know about the charge only after the information was filed in the Sandiganbayan, is not tenable. Under the last paragraph of Section 7, Rule 112 of 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, the right to ask for preliminary investigation is recognized even after the case has already been filed, to wit:

"If the case has been filed in court without a preliminary Investigation having been first conducted, the accused may within five (5) days from the time he learns of the filing of the information, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence to his favor in the manner prescribed in this Rule."

Clearly, the alleged lack of a valid preliminary investigation came only as an afterthought to gain a reversal of the denial of the motion to quash. Sad to say, this last ditch effort came a bit late. His failure to invoke this right below constituted a waiver of such right.