The Rules of Court provide that it is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.
A preliminary investigation is “merely an inquisitorial mode of discovering whether or not there is reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person charged should be held responsible for it.” [1]
The rationale of preliminary investigation is to “protect the accused from the inconvenience, expense, and burden of defending himself in a formal trial unless the reasonable probability of his guilt shall have been first ascertained in a fairly summary proceeding by a competent officer.” [2]
When is a preliminary investigation required?
Section 1, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court [3] requires the conduct of a preliminary investigation before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to a fine. [4]
Is a preliminary investigation required to be conducted?
Yes, the right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound over to trial for a criminal offense and being formally at risk of incarceration or some other penalty is not a mere formal or technical right. It is a substantive right since the accused in a criminal trial is inevitably exposed to prolonged anxiety, aggravation, and humiliation, not to mention that the expense, and the right to an opportunity to avoid a painful process are valuable rights.
It is meant to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution and to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime, from the trouble, expenses, and anxiety of a public trial. It is also intended to protect the state from having to conduct useless and expensive trials. Indeed, to deny a person’s claim to a preliminary investigation would be to deprive him the full measure of his right to due process. [5] However, the right to a preliminary investigation may be waived for failure to invoke the right prior to or at the time of the plea. [6]
Who conducts the preliminary investigation?
The following are authorized to conduct a preliminary investigation:
- Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
- National and Regional State Prosecutors;
- Other officers, as may be authorized by law.
When is a preliminary investigation not required?
A preliminary investigation is not required when the penalty prescribed by law for the offense involves imprisonment of less than four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day.
What is the procedure for cases not requiring a preliminary investigation?
- By filing the complaint directly with the Prosecutor; or
- By filing the complaint or information with the Municipal Trial Court.
When is a preliminary investigation not required, even if the offense is one that normally requires a preliminary investigation?
If a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense that requires a preliminary investigation, information or a complaint may be filed against him without need for a preliminary investigation. The person arrested shall be required to undergo an inquest proceeding.
What is an inquest proceeding?
An inquest is defined as an informal and summary investigation conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether said persons should remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court. [7]
When are inquest proceedings required?
As we have discussed, a preliminary investigation is required before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months, and one day without regard to a fine. As an exception, the rules provide that there is no need for a preliminary investigation in cases of a lawful arrest without a warrant involving such type of offense, so long as an inquest, where available, has been conducted. [8]
Can a person arrested lawfully without a warrant ask for a preliminary investigation?
Yes, the fact that a person was lawfully arrested without a warrant does not prevent him from availing of a preliminary investigation. Before a complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel.
What is the difference between a preliminary investigation and inquest proceedings?
A preliminary investigation is “an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.” [9]
An inquest is “a summary inquiry conducted by a prosecutor for the purpose of determining whether the warrantless arrest of a person was based on probable cause.” [10]
Where the penalty prescribed by law for an offense is at least four years, two months, and one day of imprisonment without regard to the fine, a preliminary investigation must be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for such an offense.
The conduct of an inquest investigation does not fulfill the requirement for the conduct of a preliminary investigation before the filing of an information or complaint involving any such offenses, except when the accused was lawfully arrested without a warrant. [11]
Footnotes:
[1] Cambe v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 212015-15, 06 December 2016.
[2] Palacios v. People, G.R. No. 240676, 18 March 2019.
[3] Section 1, Rule 11, Rules of Court.
[4] Id at 2.
[5] Labay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 235937-40, 23 July 2018.
[6] People v. Gomez, G,R, No. 216824, 10 November 2020.
[7] Leviste v. Alameda, G.R. No. 182677, 3 August 2010.
[8] Id.
[9] Section 1, Rule 112, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[10] Enriquez v. Sarmiento, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2011, 7 August 2006.
[11] Larranaga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130644, 27 October 1997.