G.R. No. L-24652 September 30, 1970
JAIME BANDIALA and GABRIEL ANDAYA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL, presided by the HON. MARIANO A. ZOSA and HON. DIOSDADO BACOLOD, Provincial Fiscal of Misamis Occidental, respondents.

FACTS

On April 10, 1962, an amended complaint for robbery in band was filed against petitioners Jaime Bandiala and Gabriel Andaya (and two others) with the municipal court of Sapangdalaga, Misamis Occidental. The complaint alleged that on February 23, 1962, the accused, disguised as PC soldiers and armed, hogtied and robbed Lim Bing San of P60,000.00. The affidavit of Lim Bing San, submitted during the preliminary investigation, stated he was hogtied and carried from Sapangdalaga to Ozamis City (about 90 km) before being released. Evidence showed only two of the four accused were armed. Bandiala underwent the second stage of preliminary investigation (Andaya waived it), during which his request for a copy of his alleged written confession was refused by the Provincial Fiscal. On February 28, 1963, the municipal court found a prima facie case and remanded the case to the Court of First Instance (CFI). On June 11, 1963, the respondent Fiscal filed an information with the CFI charging the petitioners with “Robbery with Kidnapping,” alleging they kidnapped or deprived Lim Bing San of his liberty by detaining him inside the car from Sapangdalaga to Ozamis City. Upon arraignment on March 10, 1965, the petitioners moved to quash the information, arguing the Fiscal altered the substance of the crime from “robbery in band” to the more serious “robbery with kidnapping” without conducting a new preliminary investigation. The respondent CFI denied the motion on March 27, 1965.

ISSUE

Whether the Provincial Fiscal could validly file an information for “Robbery with Kidnapping” after the municipal court’s preliminary investigation for “Robbery in Band,” without conducting a new preliminary investigation for the more serious and complex offense.

RULING

No. The disputed order of the CFI is modified. The respondent Fiscal must grant the petitioners a new preliminary investigation. The CFI is directed to hold the case in abeyance pending the outcome. The Fiscal cannot, under Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, amend the information to charge a higher offense based on evidence already in his possession during the municipal court’s investigation without conducting a new preliminary investigation. A preliminary investigation is designed to prevent hasty and ill-advised prosecutions. The Fiscal’s role is not to ambush the accused but to ensure justice. The evidence at the municipal court indicated the detention was incidental to the robbery (a ploy to facilitate escape). The Fiscal himself conceded the kidnapping was “merely incidental” and “absorbed by the robbery.” If the Fiscal has new evidence justifying the charge of “robbery with kidnapping,” he may file the proper information only after a full-blown preliminary investigation where the accused can contest the legal characterization of the detention.