You are on page 1of 2

Villafor v.

- Information for slight physical injuries, was fled against Respondent Vivar.
he case stemmed from the alleged mauling of !etitioner Villafor "y
- #hen the injuries sustained "y petitioner turned out to "e more serious than
they had appeared at frst, an Information for serious physical injuries, was
fled against respondent. he earlier charge of slight physical injuries was
- $nother Information for grave threats, was fled against respondent
- Respondent fled a %otion to &uash the Information in 'riminal 'ase (o.
)*+), -for grave threats.. /e contended that the threat, having "een made
in connection with the charge of serious physical injuries, should have "een
a"sor"ed "y the latter. hus, he concluded, the grave threats case should "e
dismissed, as the trial court did not ac0uire jurisdiction over it.
- %' denied the %otion to &uash1 %R fled "y respondent also denied
- Respondent fled a !etition for Certiorari with the R'. R' ruled in favor of
respondent and ruled that information should "e dismissed for "eing fled
without preliminary investigation
Issue: 'an the court order the dismissal of criminal cases on the ground that pu"lic
prosecutor failed to conduct a !.I2 3 (4.
- !reliminary investigation is 5an in0uiry or proceeding to determine whether
there is su6cient ground to engender a well7founded "elief that a crime has
"een committed and the respondent is pro"a"ly guilty thereof, and should "e
held for trial
- o deny their claim to a preliminary investigation would "e to deprive them of
the full measure of their right to due process.
o However, the absence of a preliminary investigation does not
impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it
o Neither does it afect the jurisdiction of the court or constitute
a ground for quashing the information
o he trial court, instead of dismissing the information, should hold in
a"eyance the proceedings and order the pu"lic prosecutor to conduct
a preliminary investigation
- $ preliminary investigation for slight physical injuries was made. $ new !.I
cannot "e demanded "y respondent. his is "ecause the change made "y
the pu"lic prosecutor was only a formal amendment
- he fling of the $mended Information, without a new !.I, did not violate the
right of respondent to "e protected from a hasty, malicious and oppressive
prosecution1 an open and pu"lic accusation of a crime1 or from the trou"le,
the e8penses and the an8iety of a pu"lic trial.
o The Amended Information could not have come as a surprise to him for the
simple and obvious reason that it charged essentially the same offense as that
under the original Information. Moreover, if the original charge was related to the
amended one, such that an inquiry would elicit substantially the same facts, then a
new preliminary investigation was not necessary