G.R. No. L-24273 April 30, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PEDRO FIGUEROA, BOY AHIJAL, CELEDONIO CARINGAL, KARIM JAUKAL, RAJAH MAHAMMAD, MUSTALI GAJALI, ALI MAHAMMAD, STAJI BADTANG and ENTAS BAANG, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The accused were apprehended on December 13, 1964, off Tara Island, Palawan, aboard the kumpit M/L “Pershia” for possessing 388 cases of untaxed “Old Gold” cigarettes. They were brought to Manila and investigated by Naval officers on December 14, 1964, where they executed affidavits admitting the facts of apprehension. Provincial Fiscal Zoilo Alviar of Palawan conducted a preliminary investigation in Manila on the same day, taking sworn statements from the arresting officers and the accused. The accused executed a joint statement agreeing to the investigation in Manila and waiving their rights under Section 125 of the Revised Penal Code regarding prompt delivery to judicial authorities. Fiscal Alviar individually interrogated the accused, confronted them with their affidavits, and they affirmed their truth. On December 15, 1964, Fiscal Alviar instructed his assistant in Palawan to file an information. On December 16, 1964, he wrote to Assistant Fiscal R. Abaca, suggesting a follow-up investigation in Puerto Princesa to affirm the previous statements and obviate any technical defects. On December 19, 1964, Assistant Fiscal Abaca conducted this investigation in Puerto Princesa, advised the accused of their right to counsel (which they declined), and had them reaffirm their previous sworn statements. He then filed the information for violation of the National Internal Revenue Code on the same day. The accused filed a Motion to Quash, alleging the preliminary investigation was conducted in Manila, not in Palawan where the crime was committed, violating Section 14, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The trial court granted the motion, finding the accused were not given ample chance to be heard, and ordered a new preliminary investigation. The State appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in quashing the information on the ground that the preliminary investigation did not substantially comply with Section 14, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court by failing to give the accused ample chance and opportunity to be heard.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s order. The preliminary investigation conducted substantially complied with the Rules. The accused were given a full opportunity to be heard. They were interrogated twice: first in Manila by Fiscal Alviar, where they waived procedural rights and affirmed their detailed affidavits, and second in Puerto Princesa by Fiscal Abaca, where they reaffirmed their statements after being advised of their right to counsel. The investigation’s purpose is to determine probable cause, not to conduct a full trial. The accused did not interpose any defense or claim innocence during the investigations. The trial court’s proper course, if it believed the investigation was hurried, was to remand the case for further investigation, not to quash the information. The order of dismissal was patently erroneous. The case was remanded for arraignment and trial.