● [The] absence of a preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash a Complaint or Information under Sec. 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. A preliminary investigation may be done away with entirely without infringing the constitutional right of an accused under the due process clause to a fair trial. The reason being is that such proceeding is merely preparatory to trial, not a trial on the merits. An adverse recommendation by the investigating prosecutor in a concluded preliminary investigation does not result in the deprivation of liberty of the accused as contemplated in the Constitution. Relatedly, although the restrictive effect on liberty of those arrested in flagrante delicto is more apparent during the initial stages of prosecution   (inquest   proceedings),   it   is   merely   indirect   since   the pronouncement on according provisional liberty or imposing preventive imprisonment ultimately depends on the trial court's action after giving all parties the opportunity to be heard in a bail proceeding. 

Moreover, Sec. 8, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court even enumerates instances where a preliminary investigation is not required; allowing the complainant (public or private) or handling prosecutor to directly file the Complaint or Information with the trial court. Significantly, even jurisprudence is settled that the absence of a preliminary investigation neither affects the court's jurisdiction over the case nor impairs the validity of the Information or otherwise renders it defective. (Gomez v People, G.R. No. 216824, November 10, 2020). 


● Petitioner harps 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 alleges that the preliminary investigation was conducted for the charge of malversation.

At the outset, this Court bears mention of the rudimentary rule that 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. Thus, We enunciated in Sanciangco, Jr. vs. People, and reiterated in Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan, that:

"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 . . ."

Petitioner takes exception to the doctrine and urges this Court to take a second look arguing that lack of preliminary investigation affects the court's jurisdiction because it is violative of due process. He reasons out that jurisprudence abounds with the rule that denial of due process is grave jurisdictional defeat rendering the judgment void.

We are not persuaded. The lack of jurisdiction contemplated in Section 3(b), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court refers to the lack of any law conferring upon the court the power to inquire into the facts, to apply the law and to declare the punishment for an offense in a regular course of judicial proceeding. When the court has jurisdiction, as in this case, any irregularity in the exercise of that power is not a ground for a motion to quash. Reason is not wanting for this view. Lack of jurisdiction is not waivable but absence of preliminary investigation is waivable. In fact, it is frequently waived (Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101978. April 7, 1993)


Note:

● The absence of a preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash a complaint or information.

● 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.

● When there is no preliminary investigation, the accused, before entering their plea, must invite the attention of the court to their absence and the court should hold in abeyance or suspend proceedings and order the office of the prosecutor to conduct preliminary investigation.

● The absence of preliminary investigation is waivable.