Prosecutor without the benefit of the accused answering the charges against him;
2. The Resolution of the Honorable City Prosecutor
states that the accused failed to submit his countervailing evidence at the scheduled preliminary investigation;
1|Page 3. The accused was not able to participate in the conduct of the preliminary investigation because he was neither informed nor given notice thereof;
4. In fact, the City Prosecutor’s Office received the
complaint on February 4, 2018, just two days after the accused left for Europe on a scheduled business trip;
5. The accused denies of having received the
complaint/subpoena supposedly served upon him;
6. The accused only learned of the charges filed
against him upon his arrival in the Philippines on February 17, 2018;
7. The deprivation of the right to preliminary
investigation is tantamount to a violation of the constitutional right to due process of law;
8. The right to preliminary investigation is statutory
rather than constitutional in its fundament, it is a component part of due process in criminal justice;
9. The right to a preliminary investigation is not a
mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive right. Right to due process simply demands an opportunity to be heard. This is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy;
10. The machine copy of the accused’s Passport
showing that he left the country on February 4, 2018 and returned on February 17, 2018 as well as the Certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation attesting that the accused left and returned on the said dates is attached to this Motion. 2|Page WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court, that the foregoing motion be favorably granted.