TANDOC VS.

RESULTAN
G.R. Nos. 59241-44. July 5, 1989
175 SCRA 37

FACTS:

This controversy arose from a heated altercation and physical assaults amongst neighbors. Based on the
collated complaints of both parties, in October 1980, at the house of Pacita Tandoc, respondents Cancino,
Arnulfo Payopay, Conrado Payopay, Sr. and several others intruded the sari-sari store and house of the
former and an altercation ensued. In the middle of the verbal joust, Arnulfo and Beda Acosta picked up
stones and hurled them unto Pacita, though, the projectiles instead hit the latter’s helpers who sustained
physical injuries. Thereafter, Tandoc’s party filed complaints against the intruders with the City Fiscal of San
Carlos City, Pangasinan, which sometime November 1980 found probable cause that all the respondents
committed trespass to dwelling, Arnulfo serious physical injuries and Acosta slight physical injuries.

Four days later, respondents filed complaints against Tandoc’s party with the same fiscal’s office, however,
the latter found them merely as belated countercharges meriting dismissal, except the trespass to dwelling
charged against Pedro Tandoc.

Displeased with the fiscal’s resolution, in July 1981, Payopay’s party directly lodged their complaints with
City Court San Carlos (CCSC), where the criminal cases initiated by the Tandocs against them are pending.

Subsequently, the CCSC issued several Orders which are the subject of this Petition for Certiorari, whereby
the said court, after conducting preliminary examination of Payopay’s complaints found reasonable ground
to believe that the offenses charged may have been committed by the accused, herein petitioners.

The Tandocs moved for reconsideration and re-investigation of the complaints by the city fiscal, insisting that
the latter had already evaluated the same and found no prima facie case.

ISSUE: WON the CCSC had the power and authority to conduct anew a preliminary examination of charges,
which already went thru a preliminary investigation (PI) by the city fiscal who ordered their dismissal.

RULING: Petition is denied, re-investigation is not allowed in this instance.

The policy objective for the conduct of a PI is to protect the accused from the inconvenience, expense and
burden of defending himself in a formal trial unless reasonable probability of his guilt shall have been first
ascertained in a fairly summary proceeding by a competent officer. It is also intended to protect the state
from having to conduct useless and expensive trials.

There are TWO (2) STAGES in a PI; FIRST, the PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION of the complainant and his
witnesses prior to the arrest of the accused to determine whether or not there is ground to issue a warrant of
arrest; SECOND, PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION PROPER, wherein the accused, after his arrest, is
informed of the complaint filed against him and is given access to the testimonies and evidence presented,
and he is also permitted to introduce evidence in his favor. The purpose of this stage of investigation is to
determine whether or not the accused should be released [and the complaint be dismissed or he should be
held for trial].

A PI is inquisitorial in nature and it is not a trial on the merits of the case and has no purpose except that of
determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the
accused is guilty thereof, and it does not place the person against whom it is taken in jeopardy (as does not
constitute a trial on the merits).

Under the Section 10, Rule 112 (1964 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure), certain crimes require a
different approach in PI. The rationale for this is as follows.

“xxx the withholding of the right of the PI from the accused in cases triable by the inferior courts involving
offenses with lower penalties than those exclusively cognizable by CFIs, could not be termed an unjust or
unfair distinction. The loss of time entailed in the conduct of PIs, with the consequent extension of
deprivation of the accused's liberty, in case he fails to post bail, which at times outlasts the period of the
penalty provided by law for the offense, besides the mental anguish suffered in protracted litigations, are
eliminated with the assurance of a speedy and expeditious trial for the accused, upon his arraignment
(without having to undergo the second stage of the PI), and of a prompt verdict on his guilt or innocence. On
the other hand, the so-called first stage of PI or the preliminary examination, conducted by the duly
authorized officer, as borne out by the examination and sworn written statement of the complainants and
their witnesses, generally suffices to establish the existence of reasonable ground to charge the accused
with having committed the offense complained of.

In the case at bar, the offenses charged against petitioners for "Trespass to Dwelling", "Grave Threats" and
"Physical Injuries" were all within the jurisdiction of the CCSC. Under the circumstances, the complaints
could be filed directly with the City Court which is empowered to conduct a preliminary examination for
purposes of issuance of warrants of arrest, and thereafter to proceed with the trial of the cases on the merits.
The PI proper conducted by the Office of the City Fiscal could have been dispensed with. Neither did the
earlier order of dismissal of the complaints by the investigating fiscal bar the filing of said complaints with the
city court on the ground of double jeopardy.

As long as the offense charged has not prescribed, the city court has the power and authority to conduct a
preliminary examination and proceed with the trial of the case properly within its jurisdiction. The prescriptive
period of a crime depends upon the penalty imposed by law. The prescriptive period of offenses punishable
by arresto mayor is five (5) years, while crimes punishable by correctional penalties prescribe in ten (10)
years.