G.R. No. L-38621 August 30, 1974
ROMERO ESTRELLA y DE VENECIA, petitioner, vs. Hon. G. JESUS B. RUIZ, Presiding Judge, Branch I, CFI of Cagayan First Judicial District, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, and FLORENTINO DE LA PEÑA Provincial Fiscal of Cagayan, respondents.

FACTS

A vehicular collision occurred on July 21, 1973, between a jeep driven by petitioner Romero Estrella and a tricycle driven by Dante Custodio, resulting in a fatality, injuries, and property damage. A complaint for “Homicide through Reckless Imprudence” was filed against Estrella before the Municipal Court, where he waived preliminary investigation. Subsequently, Estrella himself filed a complaint against Custodio with the Provincial Fiscal’s Office. At Estrella’s request, the Provincial Fiscal conducted a joint reinvestigation of both complaints.
Following this investigation, an information for “Homicide with Multiple Physical Injuries and Damage to Property through Reckless Imprudence” was filed against both Estrella and Custodio in the Court of First Instance. Estrella was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. He later moved to dismiss the case, arguing the information was invalid as to him because the fiscal’s certification at the bottom of the information stated a preliminary investigation had been conducted only with respect to his co-accused, Dante Custodio. The respondent judge denied the motion but ordered a reinvestigation concerning Estrella.

ISSUE

Whether the information filed against the petitioner is null and void due to the fiscal’s certification referencing only the preliminary investigation of his co-accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the information. The Court ruled that the certification regarding the conduct of a preliminary investigation is not an essential part of the information itself, and its absence or defect does not vitiate the information. Citing People vs. Marquez, the Court clarified that the constitutional and procedural requirement is the actual conduct of a preliminary investigation, not the certification thereof. The certification is merely evidence that the investigation was held.
The legal logic established is that the right to a preliminary investigation, and by extension any defect in the certification of it, is waived if not asserted before the accused enters a plea. Since Estrella pleaded not guilty without previously objecting to the alleged defect in the certification, he is deemed to have waived any objection. The Court found that a preliminary investigation was in fact conducted concerning Estrella, as he himself requested the reinvestigation which led to the filing of the joint information. The body of the information clearly accused both drivers, demonstrating the fiscal’s intent to prosecute both based on a prima facie case. Therefore, the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss, though the ordered reinvestigation was deemed unnecessary.