G.R. Nos. 59241-44.

July 05, 1989

PEDRO TANDOC, ROGELIO ERCELLA, RUDY DIAZ, JUAN
ROSARIO, AND FRED MENTOR, PETITIONERS, VS. THE
HONORABLE RICARDO P. RESULTAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE CITY COURT OF SAN CARLOS
CITY (PANGASINAN), ARNULFO PAYOPAY, MANUEL
CANCINO, AND CONRADO PAYOPAY, SR., RESPONDENTS.

PADILLA, J.:

FACTS:
This controversy arose from a heated altercation and physical
assaults amongst neighbors. Based on the collated complaints of both
parties, in October 1980, at the house of Pacita Tandoc, respondents
Cancino, Arnulfo Payopay, Conrado Payopay, Sr. and several others
intruded the sari-sari store and house of the former and an altercation
ensued. In the middle of the verbal joust, Arnulfo and Beda Acosta
picked up stones and hurled them unto Pacita, though, the projectiles
instead hit the latter’s helpers who sustained physical injuries.
Thereafter, Tandoc’s party filed complaints against the intruders with
the City Fiscal of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, which sometime
November 1980 found probable cause that all the respondents
committed trespass to dwelling, Arnulfo serious physical injuries and
Acosta slight physical injuries. Four days later, respondents filed
complaints against Tandoc’s party with the same fiscal’s office,
however, the latter found them merely as belated countercharges
meriting dismissal, except the trespass to dwelling charged against
Pedro Tandoc. Displeased with the fiscal’s resolution, in July 1981,
Payopay’s party directly lodged their complaints with City Court San
Carlos (CCSC), where the criminal cases initiated by the Tandocs
against them are pending. Subsequently, the CCSC issued several
Orders which are the subject of this Petition for Certiorari, whereby
the said court, after conducting preliminary examination of Payopay’s
complaints found reasonable ground to believe that the offenses
charged may have been committed by the accused, herein petitioners.
The Tandocs moved for reconsideration and re-investigation of the
complaints by the city fiscal, insisting that the latter had already
evaluated the same and found no prima facie case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CCSC had the power and authority to
conduct anew a preliminary examination of charges, which already
went thru a preliminary investigation (PI) by the city fiscal who
ordered their dismissal.
RULING:
No. Petition is denied, re-investigation is not allowed in this
instance. The policy objective for the conduct of a PI is to protect the
accused from the inconvenience, expense and burden of defending
himself in a formal trial unless reasonable probability of his guilt shall
have been first ascertained in a fairly summary proceeding by a
competent officer. It is also intended to protect the state from having to
conduct useless and expensive trials. There are TWO (2) STAGES in a
PI; FIRST, the PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION of the complainant
and his witnesses prior to the arrest of the accused to determine
whether or not there is ground to issue a warrant of arrest; SECOND,
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION PROPER, wherein the accused,
after his arrest, is informed of the complaint filed against him and is
given access to the testimonies and evidence presented, and he is also
permitted to introduce evidence in his favor. The purpose of this stage
of investigation is to determine whether or not the accused should be
released [and the complaint be dismissed or he should be held for
trial]. A PI is inquisitorial in nature and it is not a trial on the merits of
the case and has no purpose except that of determining whether a
crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to
believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it does not place the
person against whom it is taken in jeopardy (as does not constitute a
trial on the merits). Under the Section 9, Rule 112, certain crimes
require a different approach in PI. The rationale for this is as follows.
“xxx the withholding of the right of the PI from the accused in cases
triable by the inferior courts involving offenses with lower penalties
than those exclusively cognizable by CFIs, could not be termed an
unjust or unfair distinction. The loss of time entailed in the conduct of
PIs, with the consequent extension of deprivation of the accused's
liberty, in case he fails to post bail, which at times outlasts the period
of the penalty provided by law for the offense, besides the mental
anguish suffered in protracted litigations, are eliminated with the
assurance of a speedy and expeditious trial for the accused, upon his
arraignment (without having to undergo the second stage of the PI),
and of a prompt verdict on his guilt or innocence. On the other hand,
the so-called first stage of PI or the preliminary examination,
conducted by the duly authorized officer, as borne out by the
examination and sworn written statement of the complainants and
their witnesses, generally suffices to establish the existence of
reasonable ground to charge the accused with having committed the
offense complained of.