Hashim vs.

Boncan Topic: Preliminary investigation and inquest; definition, nature and purpose; definitionwhen required Nature: Petition for certiorari and mandamus Facts: Hashim was caught red handed in possession of counterfeit treasury certificates. A criminal action was filed against him. A warrant for his arrest was issued on the strength of the fiscals sworn statement that he had conducted a preliminary investigation and that he had examined the witnesses under oath. Prior to his arraignment, his counsel filed a motion asking that the fiscal furnish the clerk of court with the testimony of the witnesses who testified at the preliminary investigation, or an extract thereof, as well as the alleged 560 counterfeit treasury certificate or in the alternative, that the court immediately conduct an investigation. Fiscals Position: There is no necessity for the court to conduct another preliminary investigation because the office of the fiscal has already conducted one in accordance with the law. Supreme Court: No need for another preliminary investigation. The right to PI is statutory and not constitutional. Its purpose is to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecutions, and to protect him from open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of public trial, and also to protect the State from useless and expensive prosecutions. The new rules on PI were drafted in light of the courts experience where PIs drag on for weeks and even months, so now rules were promulgated to make it as simple and speedy as is consistent with the rights of the accused. As the name implies, the proceedings are only preliminary, the investigation judge or prosecutor acts upon probable cause and reasonable belief and not upon proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not an occasion for full and exhaustive display of the parties evidence but only for the presentation of such evidence as may engender a wellgrounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. In this case, a PI was already conducted by the fiscal, the result of which became the basis of an information which in turn was the basis for the courts decision to issue a warrant. To ask for an abstract testimony of such proceedings for no other purpose than to scrutinize the evidence which convinced the Fiscal and the Judge that there was reasonable ground to proceed against the petitioner, is contrary the nature of PIs as a brief investigation. Administrative Order No. 07 [RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMANRule II PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL CASES] Section 1. Grounds A criminal complaint may be brought for an offense in violation of R.A. 3019, as amended, R.A. 1379 as amended, R.A. 6713, Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2 of the Revised Penal Code, and for such other offenses

committed by public officers and employees in relation to office. Section 2. Evaluation Upon evaluating the complaint, the investigating officer shall recommend whether it may be: a) dismissed outright for want of palpable merit; b) referred to respondent for comment; c) indorsed to the proper government office or agency which has jurisdiction over the case; d) forwarded to the appropriate office or official for fact-finding investigation; e) referred for administrative adjudication; or f) subjected to a preliminary investigation. Section 4. Procedure The preliminary investigation of cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts shall be conducted in the manner prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, subject to the following provisions: a) If the complaint is not under oath or is based only on official reports, the investigating officer shall require the complainant or supporting witnesses to execute affidavits to substantiate the complaints. b) After such affidavits have been secured, the investigating officer shall issue an order, attaching thereto a copy of the affidavits and other supporting documents, directing the respondents to submit, within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, his counter-affidavits and controverting evidence with proof of service thereof on the complainant. The complainant may file reply affidavits within ten (10) days after service of the counter-affidavits. c) If the respondents does not file a counteraffidavit, the investigating officer may consider the comment filed by him, if any, as his answer to the complaint. In any event, the respondent shall have access to the evidence on record. d) No motion to dismiss shall be allowed except for lack of jurisdiction. Neither may a motion for a bill of particulars be entertained. If respondents desires any matter in the complainant's affidavit to be clarified, the particularization thereof may be done at the time of clarificatory questioning in the manner provided in paragraph (f) of this section. e) If the respondents cannot be served with the order mentioned in paragraph 6 hereof, or having been served, does not comply therewith, the complaint shall be deemed submitted for resolution on the basis of the evidence on the record. f) If, after the filing of the requisite affidavits and their supporting evidences, there are facts material to the case which the investigating officer may need to be clarified on, he may conduct a clarificatory hearing during which the parties shall be afforded the opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or cross-examine the witness being

questioned. Where the appearance of the parties or witnesses is impracticable, the clarificatory questioning may be conducted in writing, whereby the questions desired to be asked by the investigating officer or a party shall be reduced into writing and served on the witness concerned who shall be required to answer the same in writing and under oath. g) Upon the termination of the preliminary investigation, 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 Ombudsman in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, or of the proper Deputy Ombudsman in all other cases. Section 5. Cases falling under the jurisdiction of municipal trial courts. Cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman which are cognizable by municipal trial courts, including those subject to the Rule on Summary Procedure may only be filed in court by information approved by the Ombudsman or the proper Deputy Ombudsman. Section 6. Notice to parties. The parties shall be served with a copy of the resolution as finally approved by the Ombudsman or by the proper Deputy Ombudsman. Section 7. Motion for reconsideration a) Only one motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation of an approved order or resolution shall be allowed, the same to be filled within five (5) days from notice thereof with the Office of the Ombudsman, or the proper Deputy Ombudsman as the case may be, with corresponding leave of court in cases where information has already been filed in court; b) The filing of a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation shall not bar the filing of the corresponding information in Court on the basis of the finding of probable cause in the resolution subject of the motion. (As amended by Administrative Order No. 15, dated February 16, 2000)