G.R. No. L-34834. November 16, 1982. ARTURO H. TROCIO, petitioner, vs. HON. LUIS D. MANTA, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Camiguin and FRANCISCO P. CEDRO, in his capacity as Provincial Auditor formerly of Camiguin, respondents.
FACTS

Petitioner Arturo H. Trocio was charged with malversation of public funds before the Court of First Instance of Camiguin. He claimed the information was filed without a proper preliminary investigation, specifically arguing he was deprived of his right to cross-examine the complainant, Provincial Auditor Francisco Cedro. Petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation was granted, but during the scheduled hearing, Cedro failed to appear. Petitioner moved for dismissal, which was denied. The Secretary of Justice sustained the fiscal, stating Cedro’s appearance was unnecessary as he lacked personal knowledge of the malversation.
Respondents countered that a preliminary investigation was duly conducted. Petitioner was subpoenaed and appeared, but he insisted on Cedro’s presence. The fiscal proceeded to investigate the actual witnesses—Assistant Provincial Auditor Ernesto Ceta and clerks Policarpio Sanchez and Candido Javier—who discovered the irregularities. Their testimonies were taken, with the opportunity for cross-examination deferred to the next setting, which petitioner subsequently avoided by insisting on Cedro’s exclusive appearance.

ISSUE

Whether the preliminary investigation was invalid for failing to afford the accused the right to cross-examine the complainant, Francisco Cedro.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the preliminary investigation. The legal logic centers on the nature and purpose of a preliminary investigation. It is not a trial and does not require the resolution of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but only the determination of probable cause. The right to cross-examine under Section 14, Rule 112 is not absolute to any particular person labeled as the “complainant” if that person cannot testify on personal knowledge.
Here, the complainant Cedro, as the head of the auditing office, filed the complaint based on the report of his subordinates. The witnesses with personal knowledge were Ceta, Sanchez, and Javier, who were actually investigated by the fiscal. Their testimonies provided the evidentiary basis for probable cause. Cedro’s absence did not prejudice petitioner, as Cedro could not have provided substantive testimony on the facts of the malversation. Petitioner’s remedy, if he desired Cedro’s testimony, was to subpoena him as his own witness. The fiscal complied with procedural requirements by investigating the competent witnesses, and thus, no grave abuse of discretion attended the filing of the information.