G.R. No. 101837 February 11, 1992
ROLITO GO y TAMBUNTING, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. BENJAMIN V. PELAYO, Presiding Judge, Branch 168, Regional Trial Court, NCJR Pasig, M.M., and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rolito Go was accused of shooting Eldon Maguan following a traffic altercation. He voluntarily presented himself at the San Juan Police Station on July 8, 1991, accompanied by lawyers, and was detained after being positively identified. The prosecutor informed him he could avail of a preliminary investigation provided he first signed a waiver of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, which he refused. After the victim died, an information for murder was filed on July 11, 1991, with a certification that no preliminary investigation was conducted due to the lack of waiver. Petitioner filed an omnibus motion for immediate release and preliminary investigation. The Provincial Prosecutor recommended a P100,000 bail, which the trial court approved, leading to petitioner’s release on July 12.
On July 17, 1991, the trial judge motu proprio recalled the bail order and the subsequent order granting leave to conduct a preliminary investigation, treating the omnibus motion as a petition for bail and setting it for hearing. Petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court, which was remanded to the Court of Appeals. Despite pending motions, the trial court proceeded with petitioner’s arraignment on August 23, 1991, where a plea of not guilty was entered for him, and trial dates were set. Petitioner’s counsel entered a continuing objection to these proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the arraignment and trial despite the pending issue regarding the validity of the information filed without a prior preliminary investigation.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. The right to a preliminary investigation is a substantive, not a mere technical, right. The filing of an information without a prior preliminary investigation, when the accused has not waived it, is a violation of due process that renders the information invalid. The Court held that the accused’s refusal to execute a waiver of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code cannot justify the denial of a preliminary investigation, as the right to such investigation is separate from detention limits. Consequently, the trial court should have suspended proceedings and ordered the conduct of a preliminary investigation. Its act of arraigning the petitioner and setting the case for trial, while the issue of the information’s validity was pending before a higher court, constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of power. The proceedings undertaken after the filing of the defective information were declared null and void.