This document discusses the rules and procedures regarding preliminary investigations in the Philippines according to Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. It defines a preliminary investigation as an inquiry to determine if there is probable cause that a crime has been committed and the respondent is guilty. Preliminary investigations are required for offenses with penalties of at least 4 years and are conducted by prosecutors, judges, and other authorized officers in an inquisitorial manner. Their purpose is to preserve evidence and determine if a case should be filed in court. The rights and procedures related to preliminary investigations are further discussed.

1. PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
RULE 112 OF THE RULES OF COURT
BY: CHELDY SYGACO ELUMBA-PABLEO,MPA,LLB
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

2. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (PI) DEFINED
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 respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for trial.
EXCEPT: (as provided in Sec. 7) PI is require
to be conducted before filing a complaint or
information for an offense where the penalty
prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2 months
and 1 day without regard to the fine.

3. NATURE OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (PI)
Is generally, INQUISITORIAL and it is
often the only means of discovering the
persons who may be reasonably charged
with a crime, to enable the prosecutor to
prepare his complaint or information.
It is a function that belongs to the
prosecutor.

4. NATURE OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (PI)
It is an executive function, although the
prosecutor, in the discharge of such
function, is quasi-judicial authority tasked
to determine whether or not a criminal
case must be filed in court.
Not part of the trial of the criminal action
of the court nor its record be part of the
record of the case in the Regional Trial
Court.

5. NATURE OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (PI)
It is a judicial inquiry, a judicial proceeding as
it involves opportunity to be heard on the
part of the complainant and the respondent,
the production and weighing of evidence and
decision thereon and as the prosecutor, in
the discharge of this function, acts as a
quasi-judicial officer.
It is subject to the requirements of both
substantive and procedural due process.

6. Purpose of preliminary investigation
GENERALLY has a 3 fold-purpose:
1.To inquire concerning the commission of crimes
and the connection of accused with it, in order that
he may be informed of the nature and character of
the crime charged against him and if there is
probable cause for believing him guilty, that the
state may take the necessary steps to bring him to
trial;
2.To preserve the evidence and keep the witnesses
within the control of the state;
3.To determine the amount of bail, if the offense is
bailable.

7. PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF PI
Is to determine whether a crime has been
committed and whether there is PROBABLE
CAUSE to believe that the accused is guilty
thereof.
It is to secure the innocent against hasty,
malicious, and oppressive prosecution, and to
protect him from an open and public
accusation of the crime, from the trouble,
expense, anxiety of a public trial and also to
protect the state from useless and expensive
trials. (Salonga vs Cruz Pano)

8. RIGHT TO PI
The right of the accused to PI is not a
constitutional right but merely a
statutory right.
Nonetheless, it is a component part of
due process in criminal justice.
It is not a mere formal or technical right
but a substantive right that is
indispensable element of the criminal
justice system, which may not be
treated lightly or ignored.

9. WAIVER OF RIGHT—WHEN IS THERE NO WAIVER
The right of an accused to a Preliminary Investigation is
a PERSONAL RIGHT and can be waived expressly or by
implications.
IF NOT WAIVED: absence of PI may amount to denial of
due process.
LACK OF PI: is not a ground to quash or dismiss a
complaint or information, not does it affect the courts’
jurisdiction.
NO PI: the court should hold in abeyance or suspend
proceedings and remand the case to the office of the
prosecutor for him to conduct a preliminary investigation.
RULE: Preliminary Investigation is WAIVED when the
accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering
a plea of arraignment.

10. WAIVER OF RIGHT—WHEN IS THERE NO WAIVER
Accused who posted BAIL before his trial has
waived the same but he can always asked to
have PI before the bail is approved.
WARRANTLESS ARREST: if the accused allows
to be arraigned without asking for PI, he is
deemed to have waived the same.
ANY OBJECTION FOR LACK OF PI: must be
made BEFORE entry of the plea and the court
must remand for PI.
REFUSAL OF THE COURT FOR REMAND: can
be controlled bob certiorari and prohibition to
prevent trial.

11. WHO ARE NOT ENTITLED FOR PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
GENERAL RULE:
Penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2
months and 1 day is ENTITLED for PI before the
complaint or information is filed against him in
court.
EXAMPLE: Libel case which penalty is 6 months,
1 day to 6 years (no need for PI)
EXCEPTION:
Persons being LAWFULLY ARRESTED (Sec. 7
of Rule 112)

12. OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT PI
Sec. 2 states:
1.Provincial or city prosecutors and
their assistants;
2.Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
3.National and Regional state
prosecutors and;
4.Other officers as may be authorized
by law. (INCLUDE:

13. OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT PI
A. Legal Officer of the Commission on Election and those
deputized—in connection with the election offense
EXCEPTION: those with exclusive authority under COMELEC —
prosecutors and municipal judges have the power to conduct PI.
➤ However, those that falls under the original jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan shall TRANSMIT the records for appropriate
action.
➤ Moreover, prosecutors and judges cannot dismiss the complaint
without prior written authority)
B. Ombudsman, Special Prosecutor and Prosecutor DULY
authorized by the Ombudsman——in connection with the
offense cognizable by the Sandiganbayan)
Their authority to conduct PI INCLUDES all crimes cognizable by
the proper courts in their respective territorial jurisdiction.

14. OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT PI
RTC Judges have no power to conduct PI.
They don’t have the authority to order specific
assistant prosecutor to conduct the PI.
COMELEC is vested with EXCLUSIVE
authority to conduct PI on cases involving
violations of election laws, including acts or
omission constituting election frauds, offenses
and malpractice. May designate a prosecutors
its DEPUTY who is thus placed under his
supervision and control.

15. AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO PROSECUTE
COMELEC has the exclusive power
to conduct preliminary investigation
of ALL election offenses punishable
under the election laws and to
prosecute the same.
The commission can
appoint/designate deputies to
conduct PI under their depict
supervision and control.

16. INITIATION OF COMPLAINT
Election offenses may be done MOTO
PROPRIO by the:
1. Commission, or
2.upon written complaint by any citizen of the
Philippines
3.candidates
4.registered political party
5.coalition of political parties, or
6.organizations under the party-list system or
7.any accredited citizens arms of the
Commission.

17. OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT PI
Other officers who can conduct PI in election offenses
are the following:
1.COMELEC Legal Officer
2.Solicitor General (if he agrees with the action of the
COMELEC)
3.The Chief State Prosecutor
4.All provincial prosecutors and their assistants
5.All city prosecutors and their assistants
May be directly filed with them or endorsed to them by
the Commission or its duly authorized representatives
and to prosecute the same.

18. FORM OF COMPLAINT —-WHERE TO FILE
A.When not initiated Moto proprio by the Commission, the
complaint must be verified and supported with affidavits
and/or other evidences.
Moto propio complaints may be signed by the Chairman
of the Commission, or the Manager of the Law
Department upon direction of the Chairman, and need
not be verified.
B.Can be filed in the Law Department or with the Office of
the Registrars, Provincial Election Supervisors, Regional
Election Directors, State Prosecutors, Provincial Fiscal or
City Fiscals, investigation thereof can be delegated to
their assistants.

19. CONDUCT OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
NO GROUNDS: complaint, affidavits and the supporting
evidence, the investigating officer shall RECOMMEND
DISMISSAL following the procedure prescribed in Sec. 8
[c], otherwise, he shall issued a subpoena to the
respondent attaching the complaint, affidavit and
evidences GRANTING him 10 days from receipt to submit
his counter-affidavit.
IF CANNOT BE SUBPOENAED of FAILED to answer, the
investigating officer shall base his resolution on the
evidence presented by him by the respondent.
PI must be terminated within 20 days after the receipt of
counter-affidavit and the resolution shall be made within 5
days thereafter.

20. CONDUCT OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
GENERAL INVESTIGATORY POWER OF THE
OMBUDSMAN: The power was granted by the 1987
Constitution to investigate on its own, or on complaint by
any person, any act or omission of any public official,
employee, office, or agency when such act APPEARS TO
BE:
1.Illegal
2.Unjust
3.Improper
4.Inefficient
Includes the authority to conduct PI of criminal complaints
and to file in the Sandiganbayan the corresponding criminal
information when the evidences so warrants.

21. CONDUCT OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
THE POWER OF THE OMBUDSMAN
EXTENDS TO any illegal act or omission
of any public official, whether or not the
same is committed in relation to his office.
(not exclusive nut shared to prosecutors)
Shared with PCGG—for cases of ill-gotten
wealth and unexplained wealth under EO
Nos. 1,2, 14 and 14-, and the state and city
prosecutor.

22. CONDUCT OF Pi—ombudsman
The Ombudsman can act on ANY
COMPLAINT filed “in any form or
manner”. This includes:
1. unsigned or unverified complaint
2.Testimony given at a fact-finding
investigation and charges made in a
pleading in a case in court.

23. CONDUCT OF Pi—ombudsman
The complaint must act in good faith.
It is clothed with power to prosecute all criminal
charges within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan but also those within the
jurisdiction of the regular courts as well. (the
Ombudsman may endorse the same to deputize
the provincial/city prosecutor who has
jurisdiction over the case for proper PI.
If the offense is cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan, PI will be conducted pursuant
to Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure to the
Office of the Ombudsman.

24. Procedure in INVESTIGATION—ombudsman
EVALUATION: officer shall recommend
whether it may be
1.Dismissed outright for want of palpable
merit
2.Referred to respondent for comment
3.Endorsed to the proper government
office or agency which has jurisdiction
over the case
4.Referred for administrative adjudication

25. PERSONS WHO MAY CONDUCT PI—OMBUDSMAN
The Preliminary Investigation may be
conducted by the following:
1.Ombudsman Investigators
2.Special Prosecuting Officers
3.Deputized Prosecutors
4.Investigating Officials authorized by law to
conduct PI
5.Lawyers in the government service, so
designated by the Ombudsman

26. Procedure in INVESTIGATION—ombudsman
PROCEDURE: If the complaint is under oath or is based on
official reports, the investigating officer shall require the
complainant or supporting witnesses to execute affidavits to
substantiate the complaint.
No motion to dismiss is allowed EXCEPT for lack not
jurisdiction. Neither may a motion for a bill of particulars be
entertained. (if the respondent desires any matter in the
complainants' affidavit to be clarified, the particularization
thereof may be done at the time of questioning [Rule II (f)
of the Ombudsman procedure]—“parties shall be afforded
with the opportunity to present BUT WITHOUT THR RIGHT
to examine or cross-examine the witness being
questioned.” If in writing, it must be under oath and parties
will be furnished thereof.

27. Procedure in INVESTIGATION—ombudsman
Upon the termination of the PI, the investigating officer
shall FORWARD the records of the case together with his
resolution to the designated authorities for their appropriate
action thereon.
No information may be filed and no complaint may be
dismissed without the written authority or approval of the
Ombudsmanin the case falling under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan or of the proper Deputy Ombudsman in all
other cases.
NO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION or
REINVESTIGATION shall be entertained after the
information shall have filed in court, EXCEPT upon order of
the court wherein case was filed.

28. Procedure in INVESTIGATION—ombudsman
RE-INVESTIGATION: after the Ombudsman or the prosecutor
has filed the information in court, the accused may file a “petition
for reinvestigation the court which the information is pending. (If
granted, may conduct such re-investigation)
It is like an appeal, it renders the entire case open for review.
It is merely a repeat investigation of the case.
New matters or evidence are NOT prerequisite for it, which is
simply a chance for the prosecution or the Office of the
Ombudsman to review and reevaluate its findings and the
evidences already submitted.
After concluding its re-investigation, the prosecutor submits his
recommendation to the court, either to move to dismiss the case
for insufficiency of evidence or to inform the court that he finds
no reason to reverse his previous findings and the court now
proceed to try the case.

29. RIGHT OF SPEEDY DISPOSITION—-OMBUDSMAN
The inordinate delay in the conduct of PI infringed
upon their constitutionally guaranteed right to a
speedy disposition of their cases. (Duterte vs
Sandiganbayan)
Undue delay of close to 3 years in the termination
of the PI in the light of the circumstances obtaining
in that case warranted the dismissal of the car.
(Tatad vs Sandiganbayan)
Long delay of the termination of the PI is violative
of the constitutional right of the accused to due
process. (Angchangco Jr. )

30. REMEDY AGAINST OMBUDSMAN RESOLUTION
The law is silent as to the remedy which an
aggrieved party may avail against resolutions of the
the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative
case.
Hence, appeal is not available as a remedy
because the right to appeal is a statutory privilege
and may be availed of ONLY if there is a statute to
that effect.
HOWEVER, an aggrieved party is not without
remedy, as he can resort to the SPECIAL CIVIL
ACTION of certiorari under Rule 65.

31. REMEDY AGAINST PROSECUTOR’S REFUSAL TO
INDICT
Where the prosecutor UNREASONABLY refuses to file an
information or to include a person as an accused therein
despite the fact that the evidence clearly warrants such action,
the offended party has the following remedies:
1. In case of grave abuse of discretion, —-he may file
“mandamus” to compel the prosecutor to file such information.
2. He may lodge a new complaint against the offenders and have
a new examination conducted as required by law.
3. He may institute administrative charges against the erring
prosecutor, or criminal complaint under Art. 27, of the Civil
Code
4. He may secure the appointment of another prosecutor,
5. He may institute another criminal action no double jeopardy
involved;
6. Appeal the ruling of the prosecutor to the Secretary of Justice.

32. APPEAL TO THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE (POWER OF
CONTROL)
An aggrieved party may appeal by filing a verified
petition for review with the Office of the Secretary,
Department of Justice, and by furnishing copies
thereof to the adverse party and the Prosecution
Office issuing the appealed resolution.
The petition shall be accompanied by legible
duplicate original or certified true copy of the
resolution appealed from together with legible true
copies of the complaint, affidavits/sworn statements
and other evidence submitted by the parties during

33. APPEAL TO THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE (POWER OF
CONTROL)
The Secretary of Justice may dismiss the petition
outright if he finds the same to be patently
without merit or manifestly intended for delay, or
when the issues raised therein are too
unsubstantial to require consideration. If an
information has been filed in court pursuant to the
appealed resolution, the petition shall not be
given due course if the accused had already
been arraigned. Any arraignment made after the
filing of the petition shall not bar the Secretary of
Justice from exercising his power of review.

34. WAIVER OF THE PI
GENERAL RULE: The right to PI is waived when the
accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering
a plea or arraignment.
This rule DOES NOT APPLY when the accused has
actively and consistently demanded a regular PI even
before he was charged in court and where during
arraignment, hen refuse to enter a plea because he has a
previous pending case with the appellate court regarding
his right to avail of a regular preliminary investigation.
A WAIVER whether express or implied, must be made in
a clear and unequivocal manner.

35. REMEDY WHERE NO PROBABLE CAUSE-COURT
File a motion to dismiss on such ground or
for determination of probable cause (the
judge AFTER review may either call for
complainant and the witness themselves or
simply dismiss the case for lack of probable
cause)
Or if the warrant of arrest has been issued
by the trial judge, the accused may file a
ground of lack of probable cause .

36. COURT HAS CONTROL OF CASES ONCE INFORMATION IS
FILED
RULE: once the criminal complaint or information is filed in
court, any disposition thereof such as dismissal or conviction or
acquittal of the accused, rest in the sound discretion and
control of the court.
While the prosecutor retains the discretion and control of the
prosecution of the case, he cannot impose his opinion on the
court.
The court has the best and sole discretion on what to do with
the case.
If trial courts denies the motion of the prosecutor, even when
the latter acted upon the instruction of the Secretary of Justice
to dismiss the case for lack of probable cause, the prosecutor
has no choice but to proceed to trial. (if he refuses, he can be

37. WHEN ACCUSED LAWFULLY ARRESTED WITHOUT
WARRANT
If arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires
a PI, the complaint or information may be filed by prosecutor
without need of such investigation PROVIDED an inquest has
been conducted in accordance with the existing rules.
In ABSENCE OR UNAVAILABILITY OF INQUEST, complainant
may be filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly
with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended
party or arresting officer or person.
BEFORE the complaint or information is filed, the person
arrested may ask for a PI in accordance with this rule (Rule
112) 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. (Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper
judicial authorities.)

38. Thank you for reading!
Cheldhaye