D. Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112, partly repealed by AM 24- 02-09-SC; Department of Justice [DOJ] DC 15 and 28, s. 2024)

D. Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112)

• Authorized Officers; Determination of Probable Cause – Sections 2-4
• Cases Not Requiring Preliminary Investigation – Section 1
• Motion to Reopen; Motion for Reinvestigation
• Modes of Review – DOJ Department Circular No. 027, Series of 2022
• Inquest Proceedings; Waiver of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code

> RULE 112

Preliminary Investigation

Section 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required. — Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.

Except as provided in section 7 of this Rule, a preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine. (1a)

Section 2. Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations. —

The following may conduct preliminary investigations:

(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;

(b) Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;

(c) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and

(d) Other officers as may be authorized by law.

Their authority to conduct preliminary investigations shall include all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their respective territorial jurisdictions. (2a)

Section 3. Procedure. — The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner:

(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish probable cause. They shall be in such number of copies as there are respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file. The affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public, each of who must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.

(b) Within ten (10) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the investigating officer shall either dismiss it if he finds no ground to continue with the investigation, or issue a subpoena to the respondent attaching to it a copy of the complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents.

The respondent shall have the right to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant which he may not have been furnished and to copy them at his expense. If the evidence is voluminous, the complainant may be required to specify those which he intends to present against the respondent, and these shall be made available for examination or copying by the respondent at his expense.

Objects as evidence need not be furnished a party but shall be made available for examination, copying, or photographing at the expense of the requesting party.

(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, the respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense. The counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to and certified as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, with copies thereof furnished by him to the complainant. The respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit.

(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period, the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant.

(e) The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness. The parties can be present at the hearing but without the right to examine or cross-examine. They may, however, submit to the investigating officer questions which may be asked to the party or witness concerned.

The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from submission of the counter-affidavits and other documents or from the expiration of the period for their submission. It shall be terminated within five (5) days.

(f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating officer shall determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial. (3a)

Section 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review. — If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and information. He shall certify under oath in the information that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him; and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint.

Within five (5) days from his resolution, he shall forward the record of the case to the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. They shall act on the resolution within ten (10) days from their receipt thereof and shall immediately inform the parties of such action.

No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.

Where the investigating prosecutor recommends the dismissal of the complaint but his recommendation is disapproved by the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy on the ground that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by himself, file the information against the respondent, or direct any other assistant prosecutor or state prosecutor to do so without conducting another preliminary investigation.

If upon petition by a proper party under such rules as the Department of Justice may prescribe or motu proprio, the Secretary of Justice reverses or modifies the resolution of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the prosecutor concerned either to file the corresponding information without conducting another preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information with notice to the parties. The same rule shall apply in preliminary investigations conducted by the officers of the Office of the Ombudsman. (4a)

Section 5. Resolution of investigating judge and its review. — Within ten (10) days after the preliminary investigation, the investigating judge shall transmit the resolution of the case to the provincial or city prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, for appropriate action. The resolution shall state the findings of facts and the law supporting his action, together with the record of the case which shall include: (a) the warrant, if the arrest is by virtue of a warrant; (b) the affidavits, counter-affidavits and other supporting evidence of the parties; (c) the undertaking or bail of the accused and the order for his release; (d) the transcripts of the proceedings during the preliminary investigation; and (e) the order of cancellation of his bail bond, if the resolution is for the dismissal of the complaint.

Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the records, the provincial or city prosecutor, or the Ombudsman or his deputy, as the case may be, shall review the resolution of the investigating judge on the existence of probable cause. Their ruling shall expressly and clearly state the facts and the law on which it is based and the parties shall be furnished with copies thereof. They shall order the release of an accused who is detained if no probable cause is found against him. (5a)

Section 5. When warrant of arrest may issue. — (a) By the Regional Trial Court. — Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint of information.

(b) By the Municipal Trial Court. — When required pursuant to the second paragraph of section 1 of this Rule, the preliminary investigation of cases falling under the original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court may be conducted by either the judge or the prosecutor. When conducted by the prosecutor, the procedure for the issuance of a warrant or arrest by the judge shall be governed by paragraph (a) of this section. When the investigation is conducted by the judge himself, he shall follow the procedure provided in section 3 of this Rule. If the findings and recommendations are affirmed by the provincial or city prosecutor, or by the Ombudsman or his deputy, and the corresponding information is filed, he shall issue a warrant of arrest. However, without waiting for the conclusion of the investigation, the judge may issue a warrant of arrest if he finds after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching question and answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.

(c) When warrant of arrest not necessary. — A warrant of arrest shall not issue if the accused is already under detention pursuant to a warrant issued by the municipal1 trial court in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, or if the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 6 of this Rule or is for an offense penalized by fine only. The court shall then proceed in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. (6a)

Section 6. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. — When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.

Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.

After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this Rule. (7a; sec. 2, R.A. No. 7438)

Section 7. Records. — (a) Records supporting the information or complaint. — An information or complaint filed in court shall be supported by the affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties and their witnesses, together with the other supporting evidence and the resolution on the case.

(b) Record of preliminary investigation. — The record of the preliminary investigation, whether conducted by a judge or a fiscal, shall not form part of the record of the case. However, the court, on its own initiative or on motion of any party, may order the production of the record or any its part when necessary in the resolution of the case or any incident therein, or when it is to be introduced as an evidence in the case by the requesting party. (8a)

Section 8. Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation nor covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. —

(a) If filed with the prosecutor. — If the complaint is filed directly with the prosecutor involving an offense punishable by imprisonment of less four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, the procedure outlined in section 3(a) of this Rule shall be observed. The prosecutor shall act on the complaint based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant within ten (10) days from its filing.

(b) If filed with the Municipal Trial Court. — If the complaint or information is filed directly with the Municipal Trial Court or Municipal Circuit Trial Court for an offense covered by this section, the procedure in section 3(a) of this Rule shall be observed. If within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint or information, the judge finds no probable cause after personally evaluating the evidence, or after personally examining in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching question and answers, he shall dismiss the same. He may, however, require the submission of additional evidence, within ten (10) days from notice, to determine further the existence of probable cause. If the judge still finds no probable cause despite the additional evidence, he shall, within ten (10) days from its submission or expiration of said period, dismiss the case. When he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused had already been arrested, and hold him for trial. However, if the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the accused under custody, he may issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest. (9a)

Definition:

It is an inquiry or a proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial (Rule 112, Sec. 1).

It is purely executive in nature. The courts can only come in when there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecution. PI is based on probable cause. It does not import absolute certainty, and need not be based on clear and convincing evidence. The investigating officer acts upon reasonable belief. It implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence to justify a conviction. (Manebo v. Acosta, G.R. No. 169554, 2009, see also SEC v. Santos, G.R. No. 195542, 2014)

Offenses Where a Preliminary Investigation is required

Preliminary investigation is required for offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is AT LEAST 4 years, 2 months and 1 day (prision correccional max) of imprisonment without regard to the fine. (Rule 112, Sec. 1(2))

When Required

General Rule: BEFORE the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day without regard to the fine.

Exception: If the accused was lawfully arrested without warrant (Rule 112, Sec. 1).

The dismissal of the case by the investigator will not constitute double jeopardy and will not bar the filing of another complaint for the same offense, but if refiled, the accused is entitled to another preliminary investigation. (Solado Law Offices v. CA, G.R. No. 219914, 2016 citing Estrada v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212140-41, 2015).

Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases in Preliminary Investigation

Inordinate delay in the resolution of the preliminary investigation when unjustified violates the accused right to speedy disposition of cases (J. Caguioa, Perez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 245862, 2020).

Updated: Delay beyond the prescribed preliminary-investigation periods weighs against the prosecution absent reasonable justification, and the respondent need not object unless the delay is attributable to them (Sarigumba v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 263615, 19 August 2025).

Waiver

Failure of accused to invoke his right to a preliminary investigation constituted a waiver of such right and any irregularity that attended it. The right may be forfeited by inaction and can no longer be invoked for the first time at the appellate level. (People v. Liwanag y Buenaventura, G.R. No. 120468, 2001)

Failure to request it within 5 days from the time he learns of the filing of the complaint or information in those instances where the accused is lawfully arrested without a warrant (Rule 112, Sec. 6).

No Right of Preliminary Investigation

When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant unless there is a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

NOTE: Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the periods within which the public officer or employee detaining a person for some legal ground is directed to deliver such person to the judicial authorities (12, 18 or 36 hours depending upon the penalties prescribed for the offense).

HOWEVER: The Accused Can Ask for Preliminary Investigation: If he is subjected to lawful arrest or inquest proceeding, he can ask for preliminary investigation BEFORE the filing of the complaint/ information BUT he must sign a waiver in accordance with Article 125, Revised Penal Code.

NOTE: By virtue of Section 2 of RA 7438, any waiver by the person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing, signed by such person in the presence of his counsel, otherwise such waiver shall be null and void.

AFTER the filing of the information/complaint, the accused may, within 5 days from the time he learns of its filing ask for preliminary investigation.

If the accused is already arraigned, he waives his right to preliminary investigation.

NOTE: This rule has been partially amended by A.M. 05-0-8-26-SC. The amendments took effect on October 3, 2005. The amendment removed the conduct of preliminary investigation from the judges of the first level courts.

Purposes:

• To determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof (Bautista v. CA, G.R. No. 143375, July 6, 2001).

NOTE: Probable cause for purposes of filing a criminal information is defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. Probable cause, although it requires less than evidence justifying a conviction, demands more than bare suspicion (Callo-Claridad v. Esteban, G.R. No. 191567, March 20, 2013)

• To preserve evidence and keep the witnesses within the control of the State.
• To determine the amount of bail, if the offense is bailable. (Callo-Claridad vs. Esteban, G.R. No. 191567, 2013)

NOTE: It must be stressed that a preliminary investigation is essentially prefatory and inquisitorial. It is not a trial based on the merits of the case. (Community Rural Bank of Guimba, Inc. v. Judge Talavera, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1909, 2005)

Rights of Respondent in a Preliminary Investigation:

• To examine the evidence submitted by the complainant.
• To submit counter-affidavit.
• To be present in the clarificatory hearing (Rule 112, Sec. 3).

NOTE: The Rules do not require the presence of the respondent in the Preliminary Investigation. What is required is that he be given the opportunity to controvert the evidence of the complainant by submitting counter-affidavits.

A clarificatory hearing is not indispensable during preliminary investigation. It is optional on the part of the investigating officer. If the investigating prosecutor is already satisfied that he can reasonably determine the existence of probable cause based on the parties’ evidence thus presented, he may terminate the proceedings and resolve the case. What is determined during preliminary investigation is only probable cause, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. (De Ocampo v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 147932, 2006, Fenix v. CA, G.R. No. 189878, 2016)

• Distinguish: Executive and Judicial Determination of Probable Cause

Determination of probable cause is either executive or judicial in nature. The first pertains to the duty of the public prosecutor during preliminary investigation for the purpose of filing an information in court. At this juncture, the investigating prosecutor evaluates if the facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.

On the other hand, judicial determination of probable cause refers to the prerogative of the judge to ascertain if a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. At this stage, the judge makes a preliminary examination of the evidence submitted, and on the strength thereof, and independent from the findings of the public prosecutor, determines the necessity of placing the accused under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. (Young v. People, G.R. No. 213910, 2016)

There are two kinds of determinations of probable cause:

• Preliminary Investigation: Done by the Executive Department
• Preliminary Examination: Done by the Judicial Department (Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 197293, 2014)

Since a preliminary investigation does not finally adjudicate the rights and obligations of parties, "probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay” (Reyes v. Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212593-94, 2016).

The executive determination of probable cause is within the exclusive domain of the prosecutor and, absent grave abuse of discretion, this determination cannot be interfered with by the courts. (Baya v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 204978-83, 2020)

Persons Authorized to File a Complaint

• Offended party;
• Any peace officers;
• Other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated (Rule 112, Sec. 3)

Evaluation

Upon evaluating the complaint, the investigating officer shall recommend whether it may be:

• Dismissed outright for want of palpable merit;
• Referred to respondent for comment;
• Indorsed to the proper government office or agency which has jurisdiction over the case;
• Forwarded to the appropriate office or official for fact-finding investigation;
• Referred for administrative adjudication; or
• Subjected to a preliminary investigation

(Rule II, Sec. 2, Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman)

Prosecutor’s Decision Subject to Review by:

• The Secretary of Justice who exercises supervision and control over the prosecutor’s actions and who may sustain, modify or set aside the prosecutor’s resolution on the matter (Rule 112, Sec. 4, last paragraph); and
• In appropriate cases, by the courts when the prosecutor acts with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Review

No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy (Rule 112, Sec. 4).

Action by Provincial / City Fiscal or Chief State Prosecutor

Where an assistant fiscal or state prosecutor who has investigated the case recommends the dismissal of the case but his findings are reversed by the Provincial or City Fiscal or by the Chief State Prosecutor on the ground that a prima facie case exists, the Provincial or City Fiscal or the Chief State Prosecutor may, by himself, and on the basis of the same sworn statements and evidence submitted:

• File the information against the respondent; or
• Direct any other assistant fiscal or state prosecutor to do so, without conducting another preliminary investigation (Rule 112, Sec. 4).

Procedure

The preliminary investigation of cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts shall be conducted in the manner prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. (Rule II, Sec. 4, Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman)

No motion to dismiss shall be allowed except for lack of jurisdiction. Neither may a motion for a bill of particulars be entertained. If respondents desires any matter in the complainant’s affidavit to be clarified, the particularization thereof may be done at the time of clarificatory questioning if the investigating officer deems to conduct a clarificatory hearing. (Rule II, Sec. 4(d), Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman)

No information may be filed and no complaint may be dismissed without the written authority or approval of the Ombudsman in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, or of the proper Deputy Ombudsman in all other cases. (Rule II, Sec. 4, Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman)

If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and information. Otherwise, he shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint. The investigating prosecutor shall forward the record of the case to the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority of the Ombudsman or his deputy. (Rule 112, Sec. 4)

The filing of an Information by an officer without the requisite authority to file the same constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity which cannot be cured by silence, waiver, acquiescence, or even by express consent. Hence, such ground may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. (Quisay v. People, G.R. No. 216920, Jan. 13, 2016)

Where the investigating prosecutor recommends the dismissal of the complaint but his recommendation is disapproved by the Ombudsman or his deputy on the ground that probable cause exists, the latter may, by himself, file the information against the respondent, or direct another prosecutor to do so without conducting another preliminary investigation. (Rule 112, Sec. 4)

Appeal to the Office of the President

Appeals from or petition for review of decisions/orders/resolutions of the Secretary of Justice on preliminary investigations of criminal cases are entertained by the Office of the President.

Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation

Cases where the penalty imposed is less than 4 years 2 months and 1 day.

Upon the finding of probable cause, a warrant of arrest must be issued and arraignment has to be set. (Rule 112, Section 6).

Procedure to Be Followed if Complaint/Information filed with MTC/MCTC:

• Evaluate the evidence presented;
• Examine the witnesses in the form of searching questions or answers; and
• Require the submission of additional evidence if necessary (Rule 112, Section 6).

If a complaint or information is filed directly with the Municipal Trial Court, [xxx] the judge is given the discretion to merely issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest if he does not find it necessary to place the accused under custody. [xxx] Whether it is necessary to place the accused in custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice is left to the judge’s sound judgment. (Sesbreo v. Aglugub, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1581, 2005)

For cases under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, upon finding of probable cause, the judge will order the arraignment of the accused.

Duty of Inquest Officer

• To determine if the arrest of the detained person is valid;
• If found valid he shall:
• Ask the detainee if he desires to avail of himself preliminary investigation
• If he does, he shall be made to execute a waiver of the provision of Art. 125 of the RPC.
• If the arrest was not made in accordance with the law and/or the Rules, he shall:
• Recommend the release of the person arrested or detained
• Note down the disposition on the referral document;
• Prepare a brief memorandum indicating the reasons for the action taken
• Forward the same, together with the record of the case to the City or Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action (Sec. 9 DOJ Circular No. 61).

Accused may ask for a preliminary investigation; conditions to do so

Before the filing of a complaint or information, the person arrested without a warrant may ask for a preliminary investigation by a proper officer, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the RPC.

• If the accused allows himself to be arraigned without asking for a preliminary investigation, he is deemed to have waived the right to such PI.
• If the complaint or information was filed without PI, the accused may, within 5 days from the time he learns of the filing of the information, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his favor in the manner prescribed in this Rule. (5–day period is MANDATORY; failure to file within the said period amounts to a waiver)
• Where the information was amended without a new PI having been conducted, the 5-day period is computed from the time the accused learns of the filing of said amended information (Rule 112, Sec. 7).

The inquest must pertain to the offense for which the arrest was made. This rule is exemplified by Beltran v. People (G.R. No. 175013, 2007). “The joint affidavit of Beltran’s arresting officers states that the officers arrested Beltran, without a warrant, for Inciting to Sedition, and not for Rebellion. Thus, the inquest prosecutor could only had conducted as he did conduct an inquest for Inciting to Sedition and no other. Consequently, when another group of prosecutors subjected Beltran to a second inquest proceeding for Rebellion, they overstepped their authority rendering the second inquest void.”

Records

An information or complaint filed in court shall be supported by the affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties and their witnesses, together with the other supporting evidence and the resolution on the case.

Records of the preliminary investigation shall NOT automatically form part of the records of the case. Courts are not compelled to take judicial notice thereof. It must be introduced as evidence. (De Lima v. Reyes, G.R. No. 209330, January 11, 2016)

However, the court, on its own initiative or on motion of any party, may order the production of the record or any of its part when necessary in the resolution of the case or any incident therein, or when it is to be introduced as evidence in the case by the requesting party. (Rule 112, Sec. 7)