Rule 112 Section 3 – Procedure Rules of Criminal Procedure provides the instances when such

warrantless arrest may be effected, thus:

LADLAD v. SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR VELASCO Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
FACTS: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
This case is a consolidation of 2 petitions. Some petitioners are committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
members of the House of Representatives representing various party- commit an offense;
list groups while some are private individuals. All face charges for (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has
Rebellion in two criminal cases pending with the RTC Makati during probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
the time of Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
The Beltran Petition (members of the House of Representatives) xxxx
Beltran was arrested without a warrant and the arresting officers did In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the
not inform Beltran of the crime for which he was arrested. He was person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
subjected to an inquest at the Quezon City Hall of Justice for Inciting delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be
to Sedition based on a speech Beltran allegedly gave during a rally on proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.
the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the EDSA Revolution. The The joint affidavit of Beltran’s arresting officers states that the officers
inquest prosecutor indicted Beltran and filed the corresponding arrested Beltran, without a warrant, for Inciting to Sedition, and not for
Information with the MeTC of Quezon City. Rebellion. Thus, the inquest prosecutor could only have conducted as
He was subjected to a second inquest this time for Rebellion he did conduct an inquest for Inciting to Sedition and no other.
conducted by a panel of State prosecutors from the DOJ. The panel Consequently, when another group of prosecutors subjected Beltran to
issued a Resolution finding probable cause and then filed an a second inquest proceeding for Rebellion, they overstepped their
Information with the RTC Makati. Beltran moved for a judicial authority rendering the second inquest void.
determination of probable cause against him. Judge Alameda, to whom None of Beltran’s arresting officers have personal knowledge of facts
the case was re-raffled, issued an Order denying Beltran’s motion. and circumstances that Beltran had just committed Rebellion,
Hence, the petition to set aside the Orders and to enjoin Beltran’s sufficient to form probable cause to believe that he had committed
prosecution. In his Comment to the petition, the Solicitor General Rebellion. What these arresting officers alleged in their affidavit is that
claims that Beltran’s inquest for Rebellion was valid and that the RTC they saw and heard Beltran make an allegedly seditious speech. For
Makati correctly found probable cause to try Beltran for such felony. the failure of Beltran’s panel of inquest prosecutors to comply with
Section 7, Rule 112 in relation to Section 5, Rule 113, Beltran’s inquest
The Maza and Ladlad Petitions (private individuals) is void.
The DOJ sent subpoenas to petitioners requiring them to appear at the
DOJ Office to get copies of the complaint and its attachment. During B. There is No Probable Cause to Indict Beltran for Rebellion.
the preliminary investigation, the counsel for the Criminal Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as
Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) presented a masked man, would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within
later identified as Fuentes. Fuentes subscribed to his affidavit before the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of
respondent prosecutor Velasco who then gave copies of the affidavit the crime for which he was prosecuted.
to media members present during the proceedings. Petitioners were To accord respect to the discretion granted to the prosecutor and for
furnished the complete copies of documents supporting the CIDGs reasons of practicality, as a rule, the Supreme Court does not interfere
letters only after 4 days from the preliminary investigation. Petitioners with the prosecutor’s determination of probable cause; except where
moved for the inhibition of the members of the prosecution panel for the prosecutor abused his discretion by ignoring a clear insufficiency
lack of impartiality and independence. The DOJ panel of prosecutors of evidence to support a finding of probable cause, thus denying the
denied petitioners motion as well as his motion for reconsideration. accused his right to substantive and procedural due process.
Petitioners now seek the nullification of these DOJ Orders. This exception holds true here. The evidence before the panel of
The panel of prosecutors issued a Resolution finding probable cause prosecutors who conducted the inquest of Beltran for Rebellion
and filed an Information with RTC Makati charging petitioners consisted of the affidavits and other documents which are insufficient
and their co-accused as principals, masterminds, or heads of a to show probable cause to indict him for Rebellion. Except for two
Rebellion. In his separate Comment to the Maza petition, the Solicitor affidavits, none of the affidavits mentions Beltran. None of the
General submits that the preliminary investigation of petitioners was affidavits stated that Beltran committed specific acts of promoting,
not tainted with irregularities. The Solicitor General also claims that maintaining, or heading a rebellion.
the filing of Criminal Case has mooted the Maza petition (nullification The Solicitor General points to Fuentes affidavit, as basis for the
of these DOJ Orders). finding of probable cause against Beltran. This claim is, however,
untenable. Fuentes affidavit was not part of the attachments supporting
ISSUES: the CIDG’s letters. Thus, the panel of inquest prosecutors did not have
1. Beltran Petition: Fuentes affidavit in their possession when they conducted the
(a) Whether or not the inquest proceeding against Beltran for Rebellion Rebellion inquest against Beltran on that day. The CIDG first
was valid. -NO presented it only during the preliminary investigation of the other
(b) Whether or not there is probable cause to indict Beltran for petitioners during which Fuentes subscribed to his statement before
Rebellion. -NO respondent prosecutor Velasco. Assuming them to be true, what the
2. Maza and Ladlad Petition: allegations in Fuentes affidavit make out is a case for Conspiracy to
Whether or not respondent prosecutors should be enjoined from Commit Rebellion not Rebellion. Thus, the RTC Makati erred when it
continuing with the prosecution of Criminal Case against Maza and found probable cause to try Beltran for Rebellion based on the
Ladlad. - YES evidence before it.

RULING: On the Ladlad and Maza Petitions

On the Beltran Petition The Preliminary Investigation was Tainted With Irregularities.
A. The Inquest Proceeding against Beltran for Rebellion is invalid. Respondent prosecutors should be enjoined from continuing with the
Inquest proceedings are proper only when the accused has been prosecution of Criminal Case against Maza and Ladlad.
lawfully arrested without warrant. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised
As in the determination of probable cause, the Supreme Court is - Ladlad claims that he was not served a subpoena due to the
unwilling to enjoin the prosecution of offenses, a practice rooted on false address indicated in the affidavit or even through his
public interest as the speedy closure of criminal investigations fosters counsels’ addresses.
public safety. However, such relief in equity may be granted if the - Ocampo argues that he was denied the opportunity to reply
same is necessary (a) to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in to the Supplemental Affidavit by not being furnished a copy
an oppressive and vindictive manner or (b) to afford adequate and that Judge Abando did not comply with the requirements
protection to constitutional rights. of the Constitution in finding the existence of probable cause
The instant case falls under these exceptions. Instead of following this for the issuance of warrants of arrest against petitioners did
procedure scrupulously, the respondent prosecutors disregarded it. not point out facts and evidence in the record that were used
Respondent prosecutors failed to comply with Section 3(a) of Rule 112 as bases for his finding of probable cause to issue a warrant
which provides that the complaint (which, with its attachment, must be of arrest..
of such number as there are respondents) be accompanied by the
affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, subscribed and sworn ISSUE:
to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to 1. Whether or not petitioners were accorded due process during
administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary preliminary investigation and in the issuance of the warrants of arrest.
public. Respondent prosecutors treated the unsubscribed letters of the - YES
CIDG, PNP as complaints and accepted the affidavits attached to the
letters even though some of them were notarized by a notary public RULING:
without any showing that a prosecutor or qualified government official Petitioners were accorded due process during preliminary
was unavailable as required by Section 3(a) of Rule 112. investigation and in the issuance of the warrants of arrest.
Further, Section 3(b) of Rule 112 mandates that the prosecutor, after
receiving the complaint, must determine if there are grounds to A. Preliminary Investigation
continue with the investigation. If there is none, he shall dismiss the In the context of a preliminary investigation, the essence of due process
case, otherwise he shall issue a subpoena to the respondents. Here, by is reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support
peremptorily issuing the subpoenas to petitioners, tolerating the of one's defense." What is proscribed is lack of opportunity to be heard.
complainants antics during the investigation, and distributing copies of Thus, one who has been afforded a chance to present one’s own side
a witness affidavit to members of the media knowing that petitioners of the story cannot claim denial of due process.
have not had the opportunity to examine the charges against them, Moreover, it should be noted that Section 3(d), Rule 112 of the Rules
respondent prosecutors not only trivialized the investigation but also of Court, allows Prosecutor to resolve the complaint based on the
lent credence to petitioners claim that the entire proceeding was a evidence before him if a respondent could not be subpoenaed. As long
sham. Moreover, contrary to the submission of the Solicitor General, as efforts to reach a respondent were made, and he was given an
respondent prosecutors filing of the Information against petitioners opportunity to present countervailing evidence, the preliminary
with the RTC Makati does not moot the petitions. The SC’s power to investigation remains valid.
enjoin prosecutions cannot be frustrated by the simple filing of the In this case, efforts were undertaken to serve subpoenas on the named
Information with the trial court. respondents at their last known addresses. This is sufficient for due
process. It was only because a majority of them could no longer be
OCAMPO vs. ABANDO found at their last known addresses that they were not served copies of
the complaint and the attached documents or evidence. (for Echanis
FACTS: and Baylosis’s arguments)
A mass grave was discovered at Inopacan, Leyte which contained As to Ladlad’s claim, his counsel filed a formal entry of appearance,
skeletal remains of individuals believed to be victims of "Operation hence, Prosecutor Vivero had a reason to believe that petitioner Ladlad
Venereal Disease" (Operation VD) launched by members of the had received the subpoena and accordingly instructed his counsel to
Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army/National prepare his defense. Also, he had every opportunity to secure copies of
Democratic Front of the Philippines (CPP/NPA/NDFP) to purge their the complaint after his counsel’s formal entry of appearance and to
ranks of suspected military informers. Affidavits of Zacarias Piedad participate fully in the preliminary investigation. Having opted to
and others were filed narrating that they were former members of the remain passive during the preliminary investigation, Ladlad and his
CPP/NPA/NDFP. Allegedly, petitioners Ocampo, Echanis, Baylosis counsel cannot now claim a denial of due process, since their failure to
and Ladlad were then members of the Central Committee of the file a counter-affidavit was of their own doing.
Communist Party. Neither is there any merit in petitioner Ocampo’s allegation of
Prosecutor Vivero issued a subpoena requiring petitioners to submit collusion to surreptitiously insert the Supplemental Affidavit of
their counter-affidavits and those of their witnesses. Zacarias Piedad in the records. It was clear that it was executed after
- Ocampo submitted his counter-affidavit. petitioner Ocampo had submitted his counter-affidavit. Should the
- Echanis and Baylosis did not file counter-affidavits because case go to trial, such will provide Ocampo with the opportunity to
they were allegedly not served the copy of the complaint and question the execution of Zacarias Piedad’s Supplemental Affidavit.
the attached documents or evidence. Also, for him to claim that he was denied due process by not being
- Counsel of petitioner Ladlad made a formal entry of furnished a copy of the Supplemental Affidavit of Zacarias Piedad
appearance during the preliminary investigation. However, would imply that the entire case of the prosecution rested on the
petitioner Ladlad did not file a counter-affidavit because he Supplemental Affidavit. The OSG has asserted that the indictment of
was allegedly not served a subpoena. petitioner Ocampo was based on the collective affidavits of several
An Information for 15 counts of multiple murder was filed before other witnesses.
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Hilongos, Leyte presided by Judge
Abando. Judge Abando ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest B. Issuance of the Warrants of Arrest
against them with no recommended bail. Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been defined
Here, petitioners allege that were denied due process during as "such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
preliminary investigation and in the issuance of the warrants of arrest. discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed
- Echanis and Baylosis allege that they did not receive a copy by the person sought to be arrested."
of the complaint and the attached documents or evidence. Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall be
determined by the judge after an examination under oath or an
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses, we have ruled that a
hearing is not necessary for such determination thereof. It is enough of his rights, such as the right to confront and cross-examine his
that the judge personally evaluates the prosecutor’s report and accusers to establish his innocence."
supporting documents showing the existence of probable cause for the Thus, the rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation are
indictment and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or if, on limited to those granted by procedural law. A preliminary investigation
the basis of his evaluation, he finds no probable cause, to disregard the is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties’
prosecutor's resolution and require the submission of additional evidence; it is for the presentation of such evidence only as may
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in determining its existence. engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed
The determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.
arrest against petitioners is addressed to the sound discretion of Judge The Ombudsman, in furnishing Sen. Estrada a copy of the complaint
Abando as the trial judge. and its supporting affidavits and documents, fully complied with
As the court stated in Court stated in Sarigumba v. Sandiganbayan, Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
. . . . The trial court's exercise of its judicial discretion should Procedure, and Section 4, Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the
not, as a general rule, be interfered with in the absence of Office of the Ombudsman, Administrative Order No. 7, which require
grave abuse of discretion. Indeed, certiorari will not lie to the investigating officer to furnish the respondent with copies of the
cure errors in the trial court's appreciation of the evidence of affidavits of the complainant and affidavits of his supporting
the parties, the conclusion of facts it reached based on the witnesses.
said findings, as well as the conclusions of law. . . . . However, neither of these Rules require the investigating officer to
Whether or not there is probable cause for the issuance of furnish the respondent with copies of the affidavits of his co-
warrants for the arrest of the accused is a question of fact respondents. The right of the respondent is only "to examine the
based on the allegations in the Informations, the Resolution evidence submitted by the complainant," as expressly stated in Section
of the Investigating Prosecutor, including other documents 3(b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
and/or evidence appended to the Information.
As stated above, the trial judge's appreciation of the evidence and Likewise devoid of cogency is petitioner’s argument that the
conclusion of facts based thereon are not interfered with in the absence testimonies of Galarion and Hanopol are inadmissible as to him since
of grave abuse of discretion. Here, the judge sufficiently complied with he was not granted the opportunity of cross-examination.
the requirement of personal determination after he reviewed the It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary
Information and the documents attached, and on the basis thereof investigation has no right to cross-examine the witnesses which the
formed a belief that the accused is probably guilty of the crime with complainant may present.
which he is being charged. Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that the
respondent shall only have the right to submit a counter-affidavit, to
ESTRADA vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant and, where
the fiscal sets a hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the
FACTS: parties or their witnesses, to be afforded an opportunity to be present
The Ombudsman served upon Sen. Estrada a copy of the complaint but without the right to examine or cross examine.
which prayed that criminal proceedings for Plunder be conducted Moreover, the Supreme Court has unequivocally ruled in Paderanga
against Sen. Estrada. The Ombudsman also served upon Sen. Estrada that "Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
a copy of the complaint which prayed that criminal proceedings for expressly provides that the respondent shall only have the right to
Plunder and for violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, be submit a counter-affidavit, to examine all other evidence submitted by
conducted against Sen. Estrada. the complainant and, where the fiscal sets a hearing to propound
18 of Sen. Estrada’s co-respondents in the two complaints filed their clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses, to be afforded
counter-affidavits. Sen. Estrada then filed his Request to be Furnished an opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or cross-
with Copies of Counter-Affidavits of the Other Respondents, examine."
Affidavits of New Witnesses and Other Filings (Request) pursuant to Moreover, a person under preliminary investigation, as Sen. Estrada is
the right of a respondent ‘to examine the evidence submitted by the in the present case when he filed his Request, is not yet an accused
complainant which he may not have been furnished’ and to ‘have person, and hence cannot demand the full exercise of the rights of an
access to the evidence on record’. accused person.
The Ombudsman issued an order finding that Sen. Estrada is not
entitled to be furnished all the filings of the respondents and that the ATTY. PADERANGA vs. HON. DRILON
respondents are only required to furnish their counter-affidavits and
controverting evidence to the complainant, and not to the other FACTS:
respondents. An information for multiple murder was filed in the RTC, Gingoog
City, against Felipe Galarion and others for the deaths of Bucag, his
ISSUE: wife and their son. Only Galarion was tried and found guilty. The rest
Whether the denial of Estrada’s Request to be furnished copies of of the accused remained at large. Galarion, however, escaped from
counter-affidavits of his co-respondents violated Sen. Estrada’s detention and has not been apprehended since then. In an amended
constitutional right to due process. - NO information, Felizardo Roxas was included as a co-accused. Roxas
retained Paderanga as his counsel.
RULING: As counsel, Paderanga filed an Omnibus Motion to dismiss, to Quash
The Ombudsman’s denial of Sen. Estrada’s Request did not violate the Warrant of Arrest and to Nullify the Arraignment. The trial court
Sen. Estrada’s constitutional right to due process. denied this omnibus motion but directed the City Prosecutor "to
First. There is no law or rule which requires the Ombudsman to furnish conduct another preliminary investigation or reinvestigation to grant
a respondent with copies of the counter-affidavits of his co- the accused all the opportunity to adduce whatever evidence he has in
respondents. support of his defense." During the preliminary investigation,
It should be underscored that the conduct of a preliminary investigation through a signed affidavit, Roxas implicated Paderanga in the
is only for the determination of probable cause, and "probable cause commission of the crime charged. State Prosecutor Gingoyon
merely implies probability of guilt and should be determined in a directed the amendment of the previously amended information to
summary manner. A preliminary investigation is not a part of the trial include Paderanga as one of the accused.
and it is only in a trial where an accused can demand the full exercise Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Department of Justice.
Thereafter, he submitted a Supplemental Petition with Memorandum,
and then a Supplemental Memorandum with Additional 2. Yes, there exists prima facie evidence or probable cause to justify
Exculpatory/Exonerating Evidence Annexed, attaching an affidavit of his inclusion in the second amended information.
Roxas purporting to be a retraction of his previous affidavit where he A preliminary investigation is defined as an inquiry or proceeding for
implicated Paderanga. the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to
The Department of Justice dismissed the said petition for review and engender a well-founded belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional
his motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed the petition for Trial Court has been committed and that the respondent is probably
mandamus and prohibition. guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
Petitioner raises two basic issues, namely: In the case at bar, there exists prima facie evidence of petitioner's
(1) that he was deprived of a full preliminary investigation by reason involvement in the commission of the crime, it being sufficiently
of the fact that at the time the resolution was issued, there were still supported by the evidence presented and the facts obtained.
several incidents pending resolution (such as the validity of the There is also no merit to the petitioner's argument that the testimonies
testimonies and affidavits of Roxas and Hanopol as bases for of Galarion and Hanopol are inadmissible as to him since he was not
preliminary investigation, the polygraph test of Roxas, and the granted the opportunity of cross-examination.
clarificatory questions which were supposed to be propounded by It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary
petitioner's counsel to Roxas and Hanopol). Petitioner likewise claims investigation has no right to cross-examine the witnesses which the
that he was deprived of the opportunity to file his counter-affidavit to complainant may present.
the subpoena. Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that the
(2) that there is no prima facie evidence, or probable cause to hold him respondent shall only have the right to submit a counter-affidavit, to
to a public trial, on the basis of the following grounds: decision of the examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant and, where
Regional Trial Court against Galarion suffers from constitutional and the fiscal sets a hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the
procedural infirmities considering that petitioner was not a party parties or their witnesses, to be afforded an opportunity to be present
thereto nor was he given opportunity to comment on or rebut the but without the right to examine or cross-examine.
prosecution evidence; reliance on Hanopol's testimony is likewise Thus, even if petitioner was not given the opportunity to cross-examine
"contemptible," it being merely hearsay and that petitioner was never Galarion and Hanopol at the time they were presented to testify, he
given the opportunity to cross-examine Hanopol at the time he testified cannot assert any legal right to cross-examine them at the preliminary
in court; and the affidavit of Roxas which is the only evidence against investigation precisely because such right was never available to him.
petitioner, has been rendered nugatory by his affidavit of retraction. The admissibility or inadmissibility of said testimonies should be
ventilated before the trial court during the trial proper and not in the
ISSUES: preliminary investigation. If the prosecution does present such
1. Whether or not the preliminary investigation as to him was testimonies, Paderanga can always object and the trial court can rule
complete. - YES on their admissibility; or Paderanga can, during the trial, petition said
2. Whether or not there exists prima facie evidence or probable cause court to compel the presentation of Galarion and Hanopol for purposes
to justify his inclusion in the second amended information. - YES of cross-examination.

RULING: ALVIZO vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN

1. The preliminary investigation as to him was complete.
Firstly, petitioner had already filed his counter-affidavit, pursuant to FACTS:
the subpoena issued to him wherein he controverted the charge against Congressman Estrella of the 2nd District of Surigao del Sur called
him and dismissed it as a malicious design of his political opponents the attention of then Secretary of Justice Ordoñez to the apparent
and enemies to link him to the crime. This is sufficient compliance inability of the Provincial Fiscal of Surigao del Sur to prosecute
with the procedural requirement of the Rules of Court, specifically petitioner Alvizo, who was then a member of the Surigao del Sur
Section 3(b) of Rule 112. Besides, he failed to show that the subpoena Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
issued involved a separate complaint charging an offense different and It appears that petitioner had been dismissed as Clerk of Court of the
distinct from that charged in the complaint attached to the first Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur when he was found to have
subpoena issued to him earlier. incurred a deficiency in his accounts pursuant to a decision of the
Secondly, the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies are Supreme Court. Petitioner's dismissal was without prejudice to his
matters of defense best addressed to the trial court for its appreciation criminal prosecution.
and evaluation. Then Chief State Prosecutor de Leon, on behalf of Justice Secretary
Thirdly, the right of petitioner to ask clarificatory questions is not Ordoñez, referred the matter to the Provincial Fiscal for appropriate
absolute. The fiscal has the discretion to determine whether or not he action. Consequently, a preliminary investigation was conducted by
will propound these questions to the parties or witnesses concerned. Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Suarez. An information was
As clearly provided for under Section 3(e), Rule 112 of the Rules of filed with Sandiganbayan which charges Alvizo with malversation
Court.: of public funds.
(e) If the investigating officer believes that there are matters Alvizo filed a motion to quash the information allegedly for failure
to be clarified, he may set a hearing to propound clarificatory to include a certification by the investigating fiscal that he conducted
questions to the parties or their witnesses, during which the a personal examination of the complainant and his witnesses during
parties shall be afforded an opportunity to be present but the preliminary investigation.
without the right to examine or cross-examine. If the parties Then, Alvizo filed a supplemental motion to quash contending that
so desire, they may submit questions to the investigating the filing of the information in this case is violative of his
officer which the latter may propound to the parties or constitutional rights to due process and the speedy disposition of
witnesses concerned. the case against him. It was only twelve years after the initial
Lastly, it has been held that "the proper forum before which absence preliminary investigation was conducted, that an information was filed
of preliminary investigation should be ventilated is the Court of First against him with the Sandiganbayan.
Instance, not this Court. Reason is not wanting for this view. Absence Sandiganbayan denied the motion and supplemental motion to quash.
of a preliminary investigation does not go to the jurisdiction of the Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
court but merely to the regularity of the proceedings. It could even be
waived. Indeed, it is frequently waived. These are matters to be ISSUE:
inquired into by the trial court, not an appellate court."
Whether or not the information is valid even though it does not contain
a certification by the investigating prosecutor that the latter personally
examined the complainant and his witnesses. - YES

RULING:
The information is valid.
Certification by the investigating prosecutor that he personally
examined the complainant and his witnesses is not an essential part of
the information. Its absence is merely a formal defect.
Contrary to petitioner's submission, Sandiganbayan made a finding
that the investigating officer who conducted the preliminary
investigation personally examined the witness for the prosecution. The
records of the Office of the Ombudsman disclose that Nereo A. Sales,
COA Auditor, who examined the cash and accountabilities of the
accused, was personally examined by Second Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Vicente L. Suarez, by taking down his statement which the
witness subscribed and swor(e) to before said assistant prosecutor and
who certified as follows: 'THIS IS TO CERTIFY that I have personally
examined the affiant and that I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed
and understood his affidavit.'
The fact that it was not stated in the Information itself is merely a
formal defect which does not prejudice the substantial rights of the
accused and, hence, does not warrant the quashal of the information.
The certification appearing in the information filed in Criminal Case
of the Sandiganbayan reads as follows: "THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a
preliminary investigation has been conducted in this case; that there is
reasonable ground to engender a well-founded belief that the crime
charged has been committed; and that the accused is probably guilty
thereof."
Definitely settled is the rule that notwithstanding the absence in the
information of a certification as to the holding of a preliminary
investigation, the information is nonetheless considered valid for the
reason that such certification is not an essential part of the information
itself and its absence cannot vitiate it as such.
Accordingly, as held in People vs. Marquez, "What is not allowed is
the filing of the information without a preliminary investigation having
been previously conducted, and the injunction that there should be a
certification is only a consequence of the requirement that a
preliminary investigation should first be conducted."
In the case at bar, there is a certification to the effect that a preliminary
investigation had been conducted. The alleged violation referred to by
petitioner merely consists of a failure to state that the investigating
prosecutor has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses.