ATTY. MIGUEL P. PADERANGA, vs. HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, HON. SILVESTRE H. BELLO III, ATTY. HENRICK F. GINGOYON, HELEN B. CANOY and REBECCA B. TAN
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 96080
- Promulgated: 1991-04-19
- Ponente: Regalado, J.
Doctrine
A preliminary investigation is inquisitorial, not a trial, and requires only evidence sufficient to engender a well-founded belief of the commission of a crime and the respondent's probable guilt.
The accused in preliminary investigation has no right to cross-examine complainant's witnesses; the respondent's remedies are limited to filing a counter-affidavit and examining other evidence, subject to the fiscal's discretion on hearings and clarificatory questions.
The fiscal's quasi-judicial discretion to file or not to file criminal charges generally bars injunctive relief against a criminal prosecution except in recognized exceptions.
Facts
Preliminary investigation is generally inquisitorial and serves only to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to charge a person; it is not a trial on the merits and does not place a person in jeopardy.
The fiscal has quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether to file a criminal case; consequently, injunctions restraining criminal prosecutions are generally not granted, subject to limited exceptions.
Petitioner had filed a counter-affidavit in response to an earlier subpoena and failed to show that a later subpoena involved a different complaint; the Court found this compliance sufficient under Section 3(b), Rule 112.
The Court emphasized that in preliminary investigation the accused has no right to cross-examine the complainant's witnesses; the respondent may submit a counter-affidavit and examine other evidence, but not cross-examine unless the fiscal allows clarificatory questioning.
Issues
Whether the accused has a right to cross-examine witnesses during a preliminary investigation.
Whether an injunction should be granted to restrain the preliminary investigation or criminal prosecution.
Ruling
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit; the Court held that the accused has no right to cross-examine witnesses in a preliminary investigation and that the fiscal's discretion in instituting criminal action generally precludes granting injunctions to restrain prosecution.
Keywords
G.R. No. 96080, mandamus and prohibition, preliminary injunction/restraining order, Criminal Case No. 86-39, multiple murder, second amended information, preliminary investigation, Omnibus Motion to dismiss, Quash the Warrant of Arrest, Nullify the Arraignment, probable cause, discretion of the fiscal, injunction will not be granted to restrain a criminal prosecution, Brocka, et al. vs. Enrile, et al., constitutional rights of the accused, orderly administration of justice, multiplicity of actions, pre-judicial question, double jeopardy, no prima facie case