Last week, my client and I had the chance to take part in a preliminary investigation, which represents a critical stage of criminal justice that most people hear about. I was nervous because, while I know it is not a full-blown trial, I understood that what happens in those few minutes can make or break a case.
Way back as a law student, I only knew what was written in the books and codals in which the preliminary investigation hearing is a process governed by Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. A preliminary investigation, as what was explained to us in school, is an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is guilty thereof and should be held for trial. The law also states that preliminary investigation is required for offenses punishable by at least four years, two months, and one day without regard to fine.
This concept isn’t just academic jargon; rather, it is the very safeguard that stands between an individual and the ordeal of a criminal trial, ensuring that only those cases with probable cause can proceed further. The purpose of this investigation is to protect the respondent from the inconvenience, expense, and burden of a public trial, unless there is prima facie evidence of guilt. A dismissal at this level spares them the stigma of being criminally charged.
In a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor acts as a gatekeeper, ensuring that only cases with sufficient basis reach the courts. A complaint-affidavit is filed, and evidence is attached —every word, every document, and every piece of evidence is scrutinized. The process is summary, but the consequences are profound.
The threshold for probable cause is not absolute certainty but a reasonable belief based on facts and circumstances. As stated in the case of Sales vs. Adapon (G.R. No. 171420, Oct. 5, 2016), “probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.”
If there is no probable cause found, then the investigating prosecutor shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint. But if there is probable cause to hold the respondent for trial, the prosecutor 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. 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.
While I sat beside my client, I came to understand that there is a balance of what a preliminary investigation tries to achieve. On one hand, it protects individuals from the hardship of an unfounded criminal trial. On the other, it ensures that those who have a case to answer for are not allowed to escape accountability.
The prosecutor really took the time to assess my client’s case as he weighed the evidence impartially. The questions were thorough, the inquiry objective, and the process fair and transparent.
Looking back, I now see preliminary investigation not just as a procedural requirement under Rule 112, but as a vital checkpoint of fairness in our justice system. The preliminary investigation may not be a trial, but it is, easily, the crucible where cases are forged or broken. And as I learned, what happens there is anything but preliminary.