SANTOS-CONCIO v DoJ to file the appropriate information and prosecute the same.

The
Investigating Panel issued subpoenas direct the respondents to
FACTS: appear at the preliminary investigation.
The Wowowee Ultra Stampede claimed 71 lives (69 were
women) and left hundreds wounded, which necessitated The petitioners orally moved for the inhibition,
emergency medical support and prompted the cancellation of disqualification, or desistance of the Investigating Panel from
the show’s episode. conducting the investigation, but the latter did not formally
resolve the motion. The Investigating Panel found probable
The DILG immediately created an inter-agency fact-finding cause to indict the respondents-herein petitioners.
team to investigate the circumstances. The DoJ Secretary (Raul
Gonzalez) constituted an Evaluating Panel to evaluate the The petitioners assert their right to due process (to have a fair
DILG’s Report and determine whether there is sufficient basis and impartial preliminary investigation), because they allege,
to proceed with a preliminary investigation o the basis of the that the respondents have already prejudged the case, as shown
documents submitted. The Evaluating Panel then submitted a a by the public declarations of Respondent Secretary and the
Report which concurred with the DILG’s Report, but Chief Executive and have, lost their impartiality to conduct
concluding that there was no sufficient basis to proceed with a preliminary investigation and that although the respondents
preliminary investigation (there were no formal complaint/s by may have the power to conduct criminal investigation or
an of the victims/their relatives in pursuance to Rule 110, no preliminary investigation, the repsondents do not have the
documents were submitted to prove the 74 deaths and 687 power to conduct both in the same case.
injuries, the Fact-Finding Report did not indicate the persons
involved and their participation in the Ultra Stampede, and that The petitioners concede that the DoJ can conduct both criminal
most of the victims did not mention, in their sworn statements, investigations and preliminary investigations, but not in their
the names of the persons whom they alleged to be responsible). case, invoking Cojuangco v PCGG, where the reshuffling of
personnel was not considered by this Court. The Court held
The NBI-NCR acting on the Evaluating Panel’s referral to it that the entity which conducted the criminal investigation is
for further investigation, submitted to the DoJ an NBI-NCR disqualified from conducting a preliminary investigation. The
Report, with supporting documents recommending the conduct DoJ cannot circumvent the prohibition by simply creating a
of preliminary investigation (Reckless Imprudence resulting in panel to conduct the first, and another to conduct the second.
Multiple Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries) against the
petitioners and seven others as respondents. The petitioners in the instant case insist on the arbitrariness of
the two Department Orders (which, they claim, paved the way
The DoJ Seretary designated an Investigating Panel to conduct for the DoJ’s dual role). They allege that the basis for the
the preliminary investigation and, if warranted by the evidence, formation of the five-prosecutor Investigating Panel to the
NBI-NCR Report, which was spawned by the supposed investigation cannot be allowed to conduct the preliminary
criminal investigation of the Evaluating Panel (two different investigation of his own complaint.
prosecutors). The petitioners argue that it did not just evaluate
the DILG Report, but went further and conducted its own The measures taken by the Evaluating Panel do not partake of a
criminal investigation (interviewing witnesses, conducting an criminal investigation, they having been done in aid of
ocular inspection, and perusing the evidence). They allege that evaluation to relate the incidents to their proper context.
absent ant act/omission ascribed to them, it would be Petitioners’ own video footage of the ocular inspection
unreasonable to expect them to confirm, deny, or explain their discloses this purpose. Evaluation for determining whether
side. there is sufficient basis to proceed with a preliminary
investigation entails not only reading the report or documents
ISSUE: in isolation, but also includes resorting to reasonably necessary
Whether or not the petitioners were given a fair and impartial means, such as ocular inspection and physical evidence
preliminary investigation in accordance with their right to due examination. Any conclusion on such in/sufficiency needs to
process? rest on some basis or justification.

Whether or not the respondents have the power to conduct Had the Evaluating Panel carried out measures partaking of a
criminal investigations and preliminary investigations at the criminal investigation, it would have gathered the documents
same time? that it enumerated as lacking. The Evaluating Panel dissolved
functus oficio upon rendering its report. The NBI, a
RATIO: constituent unit of the DoJ, is the one who conducted the
The petitioners’ claim does not stand because Cojuangco was criminal investigation. It is foolhardy to inhibit the entire DOJ
borne out of different facts. In Cojuangco, the Court prohibited from conducting a preliminary investigation merely becasuse
the PCGG from conducting a preliminary investigation of the the DoJ’s constituent unit conducted the criminal investigation.
complaints for graft and corruption since it had earlier found a
prima facie case (their basis of sequestration/freeze orders and The Evaluating Panel found no sufficient basis to proceed with
the filing of an ill-gotten wealth case involving the same a preliminary investigation, since their report was not adverse
transactions). It would difficult to imagine how, in the conduct to petitioners, prejudgment may not be attributed vicariously.
of such preliminary investigation, the PCGG would even make
a turn about and a take a position contradictory to its earlier A complaint for conducting a preliminary investigation is
findings of a prima facie case. The Court held that the law different from a complaint for instituting a criminal
enforcer who did the criminal investigation and gathered the prosecution. There is confusion because two complementary
evidence and then filed the complaint for preliminary procedures adopt “the same word” to refer essentially to a
written charge. There hosuld be no confusion about the
objectives since, as intimated during the hearing before the witnessed the fatality, in which case the peace officer/law
appellate court, preliminary investigation is conducted enforcer has to rely chiefly of witnesses’ affidavits.
precisely to elecit further facts/evidence. Generally
inquisitorial, it is often the only means of discovering the The Rules do not preclude the attachment of a
persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime to enable referral/transmittal letter, similar to that of the NBI-NCR. In
the preparation of a complaint/information. Soriano v Casanova, it was held that leters transmitted by the
BSP and PDIC to the DoJ were not intended to be the
Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states complaint envisioned by the Rules, but merely intended to
that the complaint should have the respondent’s address and be transmit the affidavits of the bank employees to the DoJ.
accompanied by the other affidavits of the complainant and Nowhere in the transmittal letters is there any averment of
witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to personal knowledge of the events/transactions constitutive of
establish probable cause. It shall be subscribed and sworn to the criminal violations alleged. The letters stated that what the
before any prosecutor/government official (authorized to OSI of the BSP and the LIS of the PDIC did was to
administer oath) or, in their absence/unavailability, a notary respectfully tansmit to the DoJ, for preliminary investigation,
public (each of whom must certify that he personally examined the affidavits and personal knowledge of the acts ofh te
the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily petitioner. These affidavits were subscribed under oath by the
executed and understood their affidavits). witnesses who executed them before a notary public. Since the
affidavits and not the letters transmitting them were intended to
The complaint is not entirely the affidavit of the complaint initiate the preliminary investigation, Section 3a, Rule 112
because the affidavit is treated as a component of the was substantially complied with.
complaint. The phraseology of the above-quoted rule
recognizes that all necessary allegations need not be contained A complaint for preliminary investigation by the fiscal need not
in a single document. This is unlike a criminal be filed by the offended. Unless the offense subject thereof is
complaint/information, where the averments must be contained one that cannot be prosecuted de oficio, the same may be filed
in one document charging only one offense, non-compliance for preliminary investigation by any competent person.
with which renders it vulnerable to a motion to quash.
Thus, a preliminary investigation can validly proceed on the
The Court is aware of the practice of incorporating all basis of an affidavit of any competent person, without the
alegations in one document as a “complaint-affidavit.” It does referral document, like the NBI-NCR Report, which was sworn
not pronounce strict adherence to only one approach, but there to by the law enforcer as the nominal complainant. To require
are cases where the extent of one’s personal knowledge may otherwise is a needless exercise. Oporto v Monserate does not
not cover the entire gamut of details material to the alleged dent this proposition. What is required is to reduce the evidence
offense. The private offended/relative may not even have into affidavits, for while reports and even raw information may
justify the initiation of an investigation, the preliminary
investigation stage can be held only after sufficient evidence
has been gathered and evaluated, which may warrant the
eventual prosecution of the case.

In the present case, there is no doubt about the existence of

affidavits. The appellate court held that certain complaint-
affidavits were already filed by some of the victims. A
complaint for preliminary investigation is not required to
exhibit the attending structure of a complaint/information in
Rule 110 (the “People” as a party and an “accused” rather than
a respondent, and a court” that shall pronounce judgment).

The investigating officer is allowed to dismiss outright the

complaint only if it is not sufficient in form and substance or
“no ground to continue with the investigation.” He has the
discretion to determine the specificity/adequacy of averments.
It is not his duty to require a more particular statement of the
allegations merely upon the respondents’ motion, and
especially where after an analysis of the complaint and its
supporting statements, finds it sufficiently definite to apprise
the respondents of the offense which they are charged.

Petitioners’ claims of vague allegations or insufficient

imputations are matters that can be properly raised In their
counter-affidavits to negate/belie the existence of probable
cause.