In Crim. Case No. R-QZN-15-04286, pending before the RTC of Quezon City Branch 86, Jimmy filed an extremely very urgent motion for reinvestigation and to recall warrant of arrest. According to him, he only learned of the case in the Kontra-Salaysay submitted by his wife, Celia for a criminal case he filed against her. The reason he was not able to participate in the preliminary investigation of the case leading to the filing of an Information for RA 9262 against was that his wife furnished the Office of the City Prosecutor a wrong address, Block 3 Lot 24 Turquoise St., Las Piñas Royale Estate, Naga Road, Brgy. Pulang Lupa Dos, Las Piñas City, when in fact, she knew very well that his true address is Block 9 Lot 6 Pag-Ibig Homes, Talon IV, Las Piñas City. As a result of the fraud employed by Ramirez, petitioner asserted that he was not able to interpose his valid and meritorious defenses to show that no probable cause exists to charge him in this case.
The trail court denied his motion for reinvestigation. According to the trial court, A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC (GUIDELINES FOR LITIGATION IN QUEZON CITY TRIAL COURTS,” dated February 21, 2012) states that a motion for preliminary investigation shall only be granted where the accused was subjected to inquest proceedings.
On petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC ruling. The CA ruled that Jimmy was given the opportunity to participate in the preliminary investigation, based on the certification of Assistant City Prosecutor Pedro M. Tresvalles (ACP Tresvalles) dated March 19, 2015. Likewise, it was observed that ACP Tresvalles had examined Ramirez’s statements and the pieces of evidence, and on the basis thereof, found that there was probable cause. Furthermore, it was determined that the accused was informed of the complaint and evidence against him and was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Finally, the RTC was correct in relying on A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC as basis for denying the motion.
The Issue:
Whether or not Jimmy can avail of preliminary investigation despite the provision of A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC that reinvestigation can only be availed of by those subjected to inquest proceedings.
The Ruling:
The petition is impressed with merit.
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. 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.” Section 1, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court 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 fine.
In this case, although the OCP-QC conducted a preliminary investigation relative to the complaint filed by Ramirez against petitioner, the latter bewails the lack of notice to him of the proceedings, which resulted in his failure to participate in the preliminary investigation. He claims that Ramirez committed fraud by intentionally giving the wrong address in her Sinumpaang-Reklamong Salaysay instead of his true and correct residence address, which is Block 9 Lot 6 Pag-Ibig Homes, Talon IV, Las Piñas City, as evidenced by: (a) a Certification dated July 10, 2017 issued by Barangay Talon Kuatro, Las Piñas City; (b) his Seaman’s Service Record Book; and (c) their Marriage Contractdated November 17, 1987. To bolster his claim that Ramirez was fully aware of his correct address, he pointed out that in the petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage and the Affidavit of Withdrawal dated May 3, 1990, both of which Ramirez filed, she indicated his address at Block 9 Lot 6Pag-Ibig Homes, Talon, Las Piñas, Metro Manila. Thus, petitioner contends that he was denied due process when Ramirez supplied the wrong address when she filed the present complaint against him.
Due process is comprised of two (2) components – substantive due process which requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty, or property, and procedural due process which consists of the two basic rights of notice and hearing, as well as the guarantee of being heard by an impartial and competent tribunal. The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard. “Non-observance of these rights will invalidate the proceedings. Individuals are entitled to be notified of any pending case affecting their interests, and upon notice, they may claim the right to appear therein and present their side and to refute the position of the opposing parties.”
The Court has punctiliously examined the available records of this case and found no showing that indeed, petitioner had been duly notified of the charges filed against him by Ramirez or served with a subpoena relative to the preliminary investigation conducted by the OCP-QC. The Court therefore takes exception to the CA’s observation] that petitioner failed to prove that he was denied participation in the preliminary investigation, for it would have been impossible for him to prove such negative allegation. Instead, under the circumstances, it was incumbent upon respondent to show that petitioner had been duly notified of the proceedings and that, despite notice, he still failed to appear or participate thereat. In the absence of such proof, the Court therefore finds that petitioner had not been given an opportunity to be heard. Case law states that “[w]hen service of notice is an issue, the rule is that the person alleging that the notice was served must prove the fact of service. The burden of proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence.”
It bears to stress that the right to preliminary investigation is substantive, not merely formal or technical. As such, to deny petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation on the basis of the provisions of A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC would be to deprive him of the full measure of his right to due process on purely procedural grounds. Thus, the courts a quo should allow petitioner to be accorded the right to submit counter-affidavits and evidence in a preliminary investigation for, after all, “the fiscal is not called by the Rules of Court to wait in ambush; the role of a fiscal is not mainly to prosecute but essentially to do justice to every man and to assist the court in dispensing that justice.”
Contrary to the CA’s conclusion, the fact that ACP Tresvalles certified in the Information that: (a) he had conducted the preliminary investigation in accordance with law and examined Ramirez’s statements and pieces of evidence; and (b) the accused was informed of the complaint and evidence against him, and thus, given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence, should not suffice in light of the absence of notice to petitioner regarding the conduct of the preliminary investigation. Given petitioner’s insistence that Ramirez provided the wrong address in her complaint, it behooved the respondent to show that petitioner was duly notified at the said address, especially in light of the fact that the warrant for his arrest was returned unserved at the said address. Such failure, to the Court’s mind, compounded the violation of petitioner’s constitutionally-guaranteed right to due process. Besides, the said certification in the Information is merely pro forma, and hence, does not enjoy the presumption of regularity in its issuance. Consequently, Crim. Case No. R-QZN-15-04286 pending before the RTC must be suspended until the completion of a preliminary investigation in order to afford petitioner a chance to present his counter-affidavit and any countervailing evidence.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated January 18, 2018 and the Resolution dated July 11, 2018 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 150260 upholding the Orders dated October 5, 2016 and January 25, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 86 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Office of the City Prosecutor, Quezon City is hereby ORDERED to conduct forthwith a preliminary investigation on the charge of violation of Section 5 (i) of Republic Act No. 9262 against petitioner Jimmy Lim Palacios. The trial on the merits of Crim. Case No. R-QZN-15-04286 shall be SUSPENDED until the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Carpio,(Acting C.J., Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 240676, March 18, 2019, JIMMY LIM PALACIOS, PETITIONER, V. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
Citations omitted.