You are on page 1of 2

PADERANGA v.

DRILON (Ragalado, 1991) A preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence; it is for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. FACTS: An information for multiple murder was filed in t e RTC, !ingoog Cit", against Felipe !alarion, #anuel Sa$it, Cesar Sa$it, %ulito Ampo, &ddie Torion, %o n 'oe, (eter 'oe and Ri) ard 'oe, for t e deat s of Renato *u)ag, is wife #el) ora *u)ag, and t eir son Renato *u)ag ++. ,enue was, owever, transferred to Caga"an de -ro Cit". -nl" Felipe !alarion was tried and found guilt" as ) arged. T e rest of t e a))used remained at large. An amended information was filed in)luding , Feli.ardo Ro/as, alias 0&l" Ro/as,0 0Fel" Ro/as0 and 01olong Ro/as,0 as a )o2a))used. Ro/as retained (aderanga as is )ounsel. (aderanga filed, among ot ers, an -mni$us #otion to dismiss, to 3uas t e 4arrant of Arrest and to 5ullif" t e Arraignment. T e trial )ourt denied t is omni$us motion $ut dire)ted t e Cit" (rose)utor 0to )ondu)t anot er preliminar" investigation or reinvestigation in order to grant t e a))used all t e opportunit" to addu)e w atever eviden)e e as in support of is defense.0 +n t e )ourse of t e preliminar" investigation, t roug a signed affidavit, Feli.ardo Ro/as impli)ated (aderanga in t e )ommission of t e )rime ) arged. +n a resolution, State (rose)utor 6enri)7 F. !ingo"on, dire)ted t e amendment of t e previousl" amended information to in)lude and implead (aderanga as one of t e a))used t erein. (aderanga moved for re)onsideration, )ontending t at t e preliminar" investigation was not "et )ompleted w en said resolution was promulgated, and t at e was deprived of is rig t to present a )orresponding )ounter2 affidavit and additional eviden)e )ru)ial to t e determination of is alleged 0lin7age0 to t e )rime ) arged. T e motion was, denied $" respondent !ingo"on. (aderanga filed a (etition for Review wit t e 'epartment of %usti)e. T e 8nderse)retar" of t e 'epartment of %usti)e Silvestre 6. *ello +++ issued Resolution dismissing t e said petition for review. (aderanga filed a petition for #andamus and (ro i$ition. +SS8&S: (1) 4-5 t e preliminar" investigation as to (aderanga was )omplete9 :&S (;) 4-5 t ere was prima facie eviden)e or pro$a$le )ause to <ustif" is in)lusion in t e se)ond amended information9 :&S RAT+-:
1.

(reliminar" investigation is generall" in=uisitorial, and it is often t e onl" means of dis)overing t e persons w o ma" $e reasona$l" ) arged wit a )rime, to ena$le t e fis)al to prepare is )omplaint or information. +t is not a trial of t e )ase on t e merits and as no purpose e/)ept t at

of determining w et er a )rime as $een )ommitted and w et er t ere is pro$a$le )ause to $elieve t at t e a))used is guilt" t ereof, and it does not pla)e t e person against w om it is ta7en in <eopard". T e institution of a )riminal a)tion depends upon t e sound dis)retion of t e fis)al. 6e as t e =uasi2<udi)ial dis)retion to determine w et er or not a )riminal )ase s ould $e filed in )ourt. Firstly, (etitioner ad alread" filed is )ounter2affidavit, w erein e )ontroverted t e ) arge against im and dismissed it as a mali)ious design of is politi)al opponents and enemies to lin7 im to t e )rime. T is is suffi)ient )omplian)e wit t e pro)edural re=uirement under Se)tion >($) of Rule 11; of t e Rules of Court. Secondly, t e vera)it" and )redi$ilit" of t e witnesses and t eir testimonies are matters of defense $est addressed to t e trial )ourt for its appre)iation and evaluation. Thirdly, t e rig t of petitioner to as7 )larifi)ator" =uestions is not a$solute. T e fis)al as t e dis)retion to determine w et er or not e will propound t ese =uestions to t e parties or witnesses )on)erned. As provided for under Se)tion >(e), Rule 11; of t e Rules of Court: (e !f the investigating officer believes that there are matters to be clarified" he may set a hearing to propound clarificatory #uestions to the parties or their witnesses" during which the parties shall be afforded an opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or cross$examine. !f the parties so desire" they may submit #uestions to the investigating officer which the latter may propound to the parties or witnesses concerned. %astly, it as $een eld t at 0t e proper forum $efore w i) a$sen)e of preliminar" investigation s ould $e ventilated is t e Court of First +nstan)e of a preliminar" investigation does not go to t e <urisdi)tion of t e )ourt $ut merel" to t e regularit" of t e pro)eedings. +t )ould even $e waived. +ndeed, it is fre=uentl" waived. T ese are matters to $e in=uired into $" t e trail )ourt not an appellate )ourt.0
;.

A preliminar" investigation is defined as an in=uir" or pro)eeding for t e purpose of determining w et er t ere is suffi)ient ground to engender a well founded $elief t at a )rime )ogni.a$le $" t e Regional Trial Court as $een )ommitted and t at t e respondent is pro$a$l" guilt" t ereof, and s ould $e eld for trial. T e =uantum of eviden)e now re=uired in preliminar" investigation is su) eviden)e suffi)ient to 0engender a well founded $elief as to t e fa)t of t e )ommission of a )rime and t e respondent?s pro$a$le guilt t ereof. A preliminar" investigation is not t e o))asion for t e full and e/ austive displa" of t e parties? eviden)e@ it is for t e presentation of su) eviden)e onl" as ma" engender a well grounded $elief t at an offense as $een )ommitted and t at t e a))used is pro$a$l" guilt" t ereof. T e SC is in a))ord wit t e state prose)utor?s findings in t e )ase at $ar t at t ere e/ists prima facie eviden)e of petitioner?s involvement in t e )ommission of t e )rime, it $eing suffi)ientl" supported $" t e eviden)e presented and t e fa)ts o$taining t erein.

'+S(-S+T+,&: (etition 'enied

5ino 6errera (*a)7 up)