G.R. No. L-24122. January 29, 1975.
MARGARITO SAUSI, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JOSE R. QUERUBIN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental and THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, respondents.

FACTS

The municipal court of Talisay, Negros Occidental, after conducting a preliminary investigation, recommended that the proper complaint against petitioner Margarito Sausi be for serious physical injuries with permanent deformity, not the originally alleged frustrated murder. The municipal court did not dismiss the case outright. Subsequently, the Provincial Fiscal of Negros Occidental filed an information in the Court of First Instance charging Sausi with frustrated murder. The fiscal did not conduct a new preliminary investigation before filing this information.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the information, arguing the fiscal had no authority to file it for a different offense without first conducting a new preliminary investigation. The respondent Judge denied the motion. Petitioner then filed this certiorari proceeding, contending the denial raised a jurisdictional issue, as the fiscal’s act deprived him of a substantive right to a preliminary investigation for the new charge.

ISSUE

Whether the Provincial Fiscal may file an information for an offense different from that certified by the municipal judge after preliminary investigation, without conducting a new preliminary investigation for that different offense.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The ruling is anchored on the distinct roles and powers of the municipal judge and the provincial fiscal in the prosecutorial process. While a municipal judge’s finding that evidence points to a lesser offense does not bar a fiscal from prosecuting a graver one, the fiscal must first conduct his own preliminary investigation for that graver charge before filing the corresponding information.
The Court clarified the prevailing doctrine: a fiscal is not precluded from conducting his own preliminary investigation of a case even after a municipal judge’s dismissal or different certification, as such prior action creates no bar to another prosecution. However, this power is coupled with the duty to actually conduct that new investigation. The object of a preliminary investigation is to secure the innocent against hasty prosecutions and to protect the state from useless trials. By filing an information for frustrated murder without a new inquiry, the fiscal deprived the accused of this safeguard, despite the municipal judge’s express doubt on the evidence for that charge.
Consequently, the respondent Judge’s order denying the motion to dismiss was annulled. The case was remanded to the lower court with the directive to require the Provincial Fiscal to conduct the necessary preliminary investigation for the offense of frustrated murder before any further proceedings. The Court emphasized this remedy ensures the fiscal’s discretionary power to evaluate evidence is exercised properly, while upholding the accused’s right to due process.