G.R. No. L-29086, L-29087, L-29088, L-29089. September 30, 1982.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. EDILBERTO GOMEZ, et al., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Four separate criminal cases for Estafa thru falsification of public documents were filed in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City in 1962 against various accused, including Prudencio Cichon. In three of the cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 3083, 3084, and 3088), the filed informations contained certifications by the prosecuting officers that they had conducted a preliminary investigation. In the fourth case (Criminal Case No. 3128), the information lacked such a certification, prompting the trial judge himself to conduct a preliminary investigation before issuing warrants of arrest. All accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment between 1964 and 1966.
Subsequently, in June 1966, all accused filed a consolidated motion to declare the informations and warrants of arrest null and void, arguing that the prosecution failed to comply with the rules on preliminary investigation under Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 112. The trial court initially denied the motion but, upon reconsideration, reversed itself and dismissed all four cases without prejudice.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the criminal cases on the ground of alleged defects or omissions in the conduct of the preliminary investigations.

RULING

Yes, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court reinstated the cases and ordered the trial court to proceed with the trial. The legal logic is twofold. First, the record substantiates that the required preliminary investigations were in fact conducted. For the first three cases, the informations contained the requisite certifications from the prosecutors. For the fourth case, the trial judge personally conducted the investigation, which is a valid alternative procedure.
Second, and more critically, any objection to irregularities in the preliminary investigation or to the absence of the certification was waived. The right to a preliminary investigation is not jurisdictional and must be invoked before entering a plea. The accused in all four cases had already pleaded not guilty—some as early as 1964—before filing their challenge in 1966. By failing to raise the issue prior to or at the time of their plea, they are deemed to have waived any right to question the investigation’s validity. The settled doctrine is that such defects do not impair the court’s jurisdiction or the validity of the information, and the proper remedy, if invoked timely, is not dismissal but a court order to conduct the investigation. The belated motion filed years after arraignment was therefore without merit.