The very purpose of a preliminary

investigation is to shield the innocent from

precipitate, spiteful and burdensome
prosecution
In the case of JOSE BERNARDO vs. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA, G.R. No. L-37876, May  25, 1979, it was
held that although “prosecutors are endowed with ample powers in order that they may properly fulfill their
assigned role in the administration of justice x x x, (it) should be realized, however, that when a man is
haled to court on a criminal charge, it brings in its wake problems not only for the accused but for his
family as well” and that “therefore, it behooves a prosecutor to weigh the evidence carefully and to
deliberate thereon to determine the existence of a prima facie case before filing the information in court”,
otherwise, it, held that, it “would be a dereliction of duty”. 

In the case of “SUSANA B. CABAHUG, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

SANDIGANBAYAN, 3rd  Division, and OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, respondents”,  G.R.
No. 132816, February 5, 2002,  the Supreme Court ”(admonished) agencies tasked with the preliminary
investigation and prosecution of crimes that the very purpose of a preliminary investigation is to shield the
innocent from precipitate, spiteful and burdensome prosecution”. It added that such investigating
agencies were “duty-bound to avoid, unless absolutely necessary, open and public accusation of crime
not only to spare the innocent the trouble, expense and torment of a public trial, but also to prevent
unnecessary expense on the part of the State for useless and expensive trials”. It held that “when at the
outset the evidence cannot sustain a prima facie case or that the existence of probable cause to form a
sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused cannot be ascertained, the prosecution must desist from
inflicting on any person the trauma of going through a trial”. Thus:

“x x x.

We cannot overemphasize the admonition to agencies tasked with the preliminary investigation and
prosecution of crimes that the very purpose of a preliminary investigation is to shield the innocent from
precipitate, spiteful and burdensome prosecution. They are duty-bound to avoid, unless absolutely
necessary, open and public accusation of crime not only to spare the innocent the trouble, expense and
torment of a public trial, but also to prevent unnecessary expense on the part of the State for useless and
expensive trials. Thus, when at the outset the evidence cannot sustain a prima facie case or that the
existence of probable cause to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused cannot be
ascertained, the prosecution must desist from inflicting on any person the trauma of going through a trial. 

X x x”.