SATURNINO OCAMPO V. HON. EPHREM S. ABANDO, G.R. NO.

176830
FEBRUARY 11, 2014

FACTS:

Petitioners were charged with the murder of the victims found in a mass graveyard and
with the crime of rebellion as leaders of the CPP/NPA/NPDF. They claimed that copies
of the subpoena, the complaint and other supporting documents never reached them so
that they were denied due process during the preliminary investigation, but the Court
held that efforts were made by sending these to their addresses. Also, the judge
complied with the Constitutional requirements in his determination of probable cause for
the issuance of the warrants of arrest.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners’ right to due process was violated during the preliminary
investigation

RULING:

NO. Section 3(d), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, allows Prosecutor Vivero to resolve
the complaint based on the evidence before him if a respondent could not be
subpoenaed. As long as efforts to reach a respondent were made, and he was given an
opportunity to present countervailing evidence, the preliminary investigation remains
valid. It was only because a majority of them could no longer be found at their last
known addresses that they were not served copies. The rule was meant to foil
underhanded attempts of a respondent to delay the prosecution of offenses. A
preliminary investigation is "not a casual affair." It is conducted to protect the innocent
from the embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a public trial. In the context of a
preliminary investigation, the right to due process of law entails the opportunity to be
heard. It serves to accord an opportunity for the presentation of the respondent’s side
with regard to the accusation. Afterwards, the investigating officer shall decide whether
the allegations and defenses lead to a reasonable belief that a crime has been
committed and that it was the respondent who committed it. Otherwise, the investigating
officer is bound to dismiss the complaint.