People of the Philippines vs. Gomez, et al.

The right to a preliminary investigation, including objections based on the absence of the requisite certification, must be invoked before the accused enters a plea; otherwise, it is deemed waived, and the absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction or invalidate the information. Rules 112 and 113 of the New Rules of Court do not apply to preliminary investigations terminated before the New Rules took effect on January 1, 1964.

The People of the Philippines prosecuted several individuals in four separate criminal cases before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City for Estafa thru falsification of public/official documents. The cases shared several accused, including Prudencio N. Cichon, and were filed by prosecuting fiscals in 1962. The controlling procedural backdrop is the preliminary investigation requirement under Rule 112 of the New Rules of Court, which took effect on January 1, 1964, and the prior Rules of Court under which the 1962 investigations were conducted.

In 1962, four informations were filed by prosecuting fiscals before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City. In Criminal Case No. 3083, filed on May 24, 1962, Edilberto Gomez, Prudencio N. Cichon, Cesar V. Castillo, Pedro Cuento, and John Doe were charged with Estafa thru falsification of public/official documents. The prosecuting officers certified under oath that they had conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with law and believed that the offense charged had been committed and that the accused were probably guilty. Warrants of arrest were issued, and the accused posted bonds for provisional liberty. Pedro Cuento and Cesar Castillo pleaded not guilty on June 26, 1964, while Edilberto Gomez and Prudencio Cichon pleaded not guilty on October 21, 1964.

Also on May 24, 1962, in Criminal Case No. 3084, Lorenzo Delantar, Prudencio Cichon, Jesus F. Atilano, Richard Doe, and John Doe were charged with the same offense. The prosecution again certified under oath that it had conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with law and believed the offense was committed and the accused probably guilty. Prudencio Cichon and Lorenzo Delantar filed bonds for provisional liberty. Upon arraignment, Jesus Atilano, Prudencio Cichon, and Lorenzo Delantar pleaded not guilty.

On the same date, in Criminal Case No. 3088, Prudencio Cichon and Paulino Duma were charged with Estafa thru falsification of public/official documents. The information carried the certification of the State Prosecutors that they had conducted a preliminary investigation and believed that the offense charged had been committed and that the accused were probably guilty. After their arrest, the accused were released provisionally upon filing a bond of P1,000.00 each. On April 26, 1964, both accused pleaded not guilty.

In Criminal Case No. 3128, filed on October 1, 1962, Prudencio Cichon, Jesus F. Atilano, and Pedro Cuento were charged with the same offense. The information did not contain a certification that a preliminary investigation had been made by the prosecutors. The District Judge himself conducted the preliminary investigation and, once satisfied that a prima facie case against the three accused existed, issued warrants for their arrest on the same day. The accused were released on bail of P1,000.00 each. At the arraignment on June 26, 1966, all the accused pleaded not guilty.

On June 22, 1966, the accused in the four cases, through counsel, filed a Motion to Declare Informations and Warrants of Arrest null and void on the ground that the prosecution failed to observe Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112 of the New Rules of Court regarding preliminary investigation, and prayed that the warrants of arrest be cancelled. The record showed that the preliminary investigations in the four cases were terminated in 1962, before the New Rules of Court took effect on January 1, 1964; that certifications of preliminary investigation appeared in Criminal Cases Nos. 3083, 3084, and 3088; and that in Criminal Case No. 3128 the District Judge conducted the preliminary investigation and found a prima facie case.

• Erroneous Dismissal: The People, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed and alleged that the trial court erred in dismissing Criminal Cases Nos. 3083, 3084, 3088, and 3128 on the ground that the preliminary investigations conducted therein were not in accordance with Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112, in relation to Rule 144 of the Revised Rules of Court.

• Invalid Informations and Warrants: The accused, as defendants-appellees, moved to declare the informations and warrants of arrest null and void on the ground that the prosecution failed to observe Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112 of the New Rules of Court regarding preliminary investigation, and prayed for cancellation of the warrants of arrest.

• Applicability of Rule 112: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the criminal cases for alleged non-compliance with Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112 of the New Rules of Court.
• Retroactivity: Whether Rules 112 and 113 of the New Rules of Court apply to preliminary investigations terminated in 1962, before the New Rules took effect on January 1, 1964.
• Compliance with Preliminary Investigation: Whether the required preliminary investigations were conducted in the four criminal cases.
• Effect of Missing Certification: Whether the absence of the requisite certification of preliminary investigation in the informations is fatal to the informations or to the court's jurisdiction.
• Waiver: Whether the accused waived their right to preliminary investigation and their objections to the informations and warrants by entering pleas of not guilty before raising the issue.

• Applicability of Rule 112: Yes, the trial court erred in dismissing the cases. The dismissal was set aside, and trial was ordered to proceed.
• Retroactivity: No. Rules 112 and 113 of the New Rules of Court cannot apply because the preliminary investigations were terminated in 1962, before the New Rules took effect on January 1, 1964.
• Compliance with Preliminary Investigation: Yes. The required investigations were complied with: certifications existed in Criminal Cases Nos. 3083, 3084, and 3088, and in Criminal Case No. 3128 the District Judge conducted the preliminary investigation and found a prima facie case.
• Effect of Missing Certification: No. The absence of the requisite certification is not necessarily fatal; it does not affect the court's jurisdiction or impair the validity of the information.
• Waiver: Yes. The accused waived the right to preliminary investigation and objections based on the absence of certification when they pleaded not guilty without invoking the issue before plea.

• Applicability of Rule 112: The trial court's order of dismissal was erroneous. The informations were filed and the preliminary investigations were terminated in 1962, before the New Rules of Court took effect on January 1, 1964. Because Rules 112 and 113 are procedural rules that took effect only on that date, they could not govern the 1962 investigations. The Court therefore set aside the dismissal and ordered the lower court to proceed with trial.
• Retroactivity: The Court quoted Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112, which govern preliminary examination and investigation by the judge of the Court of First Instance and by the provincial or city fiscal or state attorney, respectively. It held that these provisions could not apply to the cases at bar because the preliminary investigations had already been terminated in 1962. The controlling rules were those in force at the time of the investigations, not the New Rules.
• Compliance with Preliminary Investigation: The record showed compliance. In Criminal Case No. 3083, the government prosecutors certified under oath that they had conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with law, and Judge Carmelo Alvendia issued the warrants on that basis. In Criminal Cases Nos. 3084 and 3088, certifications appeared from Special Prosecutor Edilberto Barot, Jr. and Special Counsel Vicente G. Largo. In Criminal Case No. 3128, District Judge Gregorio Montejo himself conducted the preliminary investigation and, finding a prima facie case, ordered the arrest of the defendants. Thus, the required investigations were complied with.
• Effect of Missing Certification: Even assuming the informations lacked the requisite certificates, the omissions were not necessarily fatal. The absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case, nor does it impair the validity of the information or render it defective. If no preliminary investigation was held and the defendants, before entering their plea, invited the court's attention to its absence, the court should not dismiss the information; instead, it should conduct the investigation, order the fiscal to conduct it, or remand the case to the inferior court for that purpose, citing People vs. Casiano.
• Waiver: The defendants did not question the validity of the informations on the ground of defective certifications or the right to preliminary investigation before entering their pleas of not guilty. They filed the motion to declare the informations and warrants null and void only after more than one year from their pleas. By entering pleas of not guilty, they waived all objections that are grounds for a motion to quash, except lack of jurisdiction or failure of the information to charge an offense. They thus waived the right to preliminary investigation when they failed to invoke it prior to, or at least at the time of, the entry of their plea in the Court of First Instance. The settled doctrine is that the right to preliminary investigation must be asserted or invoked before the plea, otherwise it is deemed waived; the absence of the certification is also waived by failure to allege it before the plea, citing Estrella vs. Ruiz.

• Waiver of Right to Preliminary Investigation — The right to a preliminary investigation is not jurisdictional and must be invoked before the accused enters a plea; failure to do so waives the right. In this case, the accused pleaded not guilty years before filing their motion, so the right was deemed waived.
• Non-Fatality of Absence of Preliminary Investigation or Certification — The absence of a preliminary investigation or of the requisite certification does not affect the court's jurisdiction, invalidate the information, or render it defective. If raised before plea, the remedy is not dismissal but conducting the investigation, ordering the fiscal to conduct it, or remanding the case. The Court applied this by holding that even if certifications were missing, dismissal was improper.
• Prospective Application of Procedural Rules — Rules of procedure, such as the New Rules of Court effective January 1, 1964, apply prospectively and do not govern acts or proceedings completed before their effectivity. The Court applied this by holding Rules 112 and 113 could not apply to preliminary investigations terminated in 1962.
• Certification Requirement under Section 14, Rule 112 — The fiscal or state attorney must certify under oath in the information that the defendant was given a chance to appear in person or by counsel at the preliminary examination and investigation. The Court quoted this requirement but held non-compliance did not invalidate the information and was waived if not raised before plea.

• "The preliminary investigations in these four (4) cases were terminated in 1962, or before the New Rules of Court took effect on January 1, 1964. Rules 112 and 113 thereof cannot, therefore, apply to these cases at bar." — This passage states the Court's threshold ruling on retroactivity: the New Rules of Court could not govern investigations already completed before their effectivity.
• "Besides, assuming that the informations did not contain the requisite certificates regarding the Fiscal's having held a preliminary investigation, the omissions are not necessarily fatal. The absence of preliminary investigations does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case. Nor do they impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective." — This passage defines the non-fatal effect of a missing preliminary investigation or certification and is central to the Court's rejection of dismissal as a remedy.
• "If there were no preliminary investigations and the defendants, before entering their plea, invite the attention of the court to their absence, the court, "instead of dismissing the information, should conduct such investigation, order the fiscal to conduct it or remand the case to the inferior court so that the preliminary investigation may be conducted." (People vs. Casiano, 1 SCRA 478)." — This passage states the corrective remedy when the absence of preliminary investigation is timely raised before plea.
• "Inasmuch as the settled doctrine in this jurisdiction is that the right to the preliminary investigation itself must be asserted or invoked before the plea, otherwise, it is deemed waived, it stands to reason, that the absence of the certification in question is also waived by failure to allege it before the plea." (Estrella vs. Ruiz, 58 SCRA 779) — This passage articulates the waiver doctrine applied to both the right to preliminary investigation and objections based on the absence of certification.

• People vs. Casiano, 1 SCRA 478 — Cited for the rule that when there was no preliminary investigation and the defendants, before entering their plea, invite the court's attention to its absence, the court should not dismiss the information but should conduct the investigation, order the fiscal to conduct it, or remand the case to the inferior court.
• Estrella vs. Ruiz, 58 SCRA 779 — Cited for the settled doctrine that the right to preliminary investigation must be asserted or invoked before the plea; otherwise it is waived, and the absence of the certification is also waived by failure to allege it before the plea.

• Sections 13 and 14, Rule 112, New Rules of Court — Section 13 governs preliminary examination and investigation by the judge of the Court of First Instance when a complaint is filed directly with that court without previous preliminary examination and investigation by the fiscal; the judge may refer the complaint to the municipal judge or himself conduct both, and if reasonable ground exists, issue a warrant and refer the case to the fiscal for information. Section 14 governs preliminary investigation by the provincial or city fiscal or state attorney in cases cognizable by the Court of First Instance; except where an investigation has been conducted by a judge, municipal judge, or other officer under the preceding sections, no information shall be filed without first giving the accused a chance to be heard in a preliminary investigation by issuing a subpoena, with the right to be heard, cross-examine the complainant and witnesses, and adduce evidence; if the accused cannot be subpoenaed or does not appear, the investigation proceeds without him, and the fiscal or state attorney shall certify under oath in the information that the defendant was given a chance to appear in person or by counsel. The Court quoted these provisions but held they could not apply because the preliminary investigations were terminated in 1962, before the New Rules took effect on January 1, 1964.
• Rule 144, Revised Rules of Court — Invoked by the prosecution in its appeal in relation to Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112; the decision does not quote or separately apply it.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.