Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ERNESTO J. SAN AGUSTIN v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 212140-41 2015-01-21	SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA v. BERSAMIN CARPIO, J.
This course of action was also taken by the Court in a catena of other cases including Go v. Court of Appeals,[58] Yusop v. Sandiganbayan,[59] Rodis, Sr. v. Sandiganbayan,[60] and Agustin v. People.[61]
	GR No. 199082 2012-09-18	JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PERALTA, J.
It is well settled that the absence [or irregularity] of preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case. Nor does it impair the validity of the criminal information or render it defective. Dismissal is not the remedy.[139] Neither is it a ground to quash the information or nullify the order of arrest issued against the accused or justify the release of the accused from detention.[140] The proper course of action that should be taken is to hold in abeyance the proceedings upon such information and to remand the case for the conduct of preliminary investigation.[141]
	AM No. MTJ-07-1670 2008-07-23	ATTY. RODERICK M. SANTOS v. JUDGE LAURO BERNARDO AZCUNA, J.
There is no merit in respondent's supposition that Grave Coercion is an offense not subject to preliminary investigation because the minimum penalty imposable for the said offense, which is six months and one day, falls short of the minimum penalty of four years, two months and one day required by the Rules. The OCA correctly applied San Agustin v. People. [6] Certainly, the need for a preliminary investigation under Sec. 1 in relation to Sec. 8 of Rule 112 of the Rules depends upon the imposable penalty for the crime charged in the complaint or information filed and not upon the imposable penalty for the offense which may be found to have been committed by the accused after a preliminary investigation. In the case of Grave Coercion, the Revised Penal Code provides a penalty of prision correccional or anywhere between six months and one day to six years; thus, a preliminary investigation must still be held since there is a possibility that the complainants would stand to suffer the maximum penalty imposable for the offense. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to protect the innocent from hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecutions, from an unnecessary open and public accusation of a crime, and from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a trial. It also protects the State from a useless and expensive litigation. Above all, it is a part of the guarantees of freedom and fair play.[7]
	GR NO. 160540 2007-03-22	VICIA D. PASCUAL v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
Notwithstanding the above disquisitions, petitioner ought to know that the absence or defect in the conduct of a preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction over a case.[17] Nor does it impair the validity of the information or render it defective.[18]