Villaflor vs.

Vivar y Gozon

G.R. No. 134744

PANGANIBAN, J

Jan 16, 2001

In Villaflor v. Vivar y Gozon, the Supreme Court ruled that the absence of a
preliminary investigation does not invalidate the information or affect the
court's jurisdiction, but the trial court should have ordered the public
prosecutor to conduct one before proceeding with the case.

Facts:
 Two criminal cases were filed against the respondent for slight physical injuries and
grave threats.
 The charge of slight physical injuries was withdrawn and replaced with a charge of
serious physical injuries.
 The respondent filed a Motion to Quash the Information for grave threats, arguing that
the threat should have been absorbed by the charge of serious physical injuries.
 The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) denied the Motion to Quash.
 The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion and dismissed the criminal cases
because they were filed without a preliminary investigation.

Issue:
 Can the court order the dismissal of the criminal cases on the ground that the public
prosecutor failed to conduct a preliminary investigation?

Ruling:
 The absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the
information.
 The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the jurisdiction of the court.
 The absence of a preliminary investigation is not a ground for quashing the information.
 The trial court should have held the proceedings in abeyance and ordered the public
prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation.

Ratio:
 Preliminary investigation is a statutory and substantive right accorded to the accused
before trial.
 The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the validity of the information
or the jurisdiction of the court.
 The trial court should hold the proceedings in abeyance and order the public prosecutor to
conduct a preliminary investigation.
 A new preliminary investigation is not necessary if the amended charge is essentially the
same as the original charge.
 The failure of the accused to assert any ground for a motion to quash before arraignment
shall be deemed a waiver of such grounds.