Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 110436 June 27, 1994 ROMAN A. CRUZ, JR., petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF T E P !L!PP!NES, T E SAN"!GAN#A$AN %F&'() "&*&(&on+, ,n- OFF!CE OF T E OM#U"SMAN,respondents. Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsianlo for petitioner. The Solicitor Generalfor the People of the Philippines.

REGALA"O, J.: he present ori!inal action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus see"s the reversal of the Orders issued b# respondent Sandi!anba#an in Cri$inal Case No. %&'(', dated )ebruar# %*, %++, 1 and Ma# %', %++,, 2 den#in! petitioner-s O$nibus Motion and Motion for Reconsideration, respectivel#. he facts are su$$ari.ed in the Me$orandu$ of public respondents as follo/s0 %. he 1overn$ent Service Insurance S#ste$ 2the 1SIS, for short3 filed t/o separate cri$inal co$plaints a!ainst petitioner Ro$an 4. Cru., 5r., a for$er public official /ho used to be the President and 1eneral Mana!er of the 1SIS and, also, the President of the Manila 6otel, for violation of Section ,2e3 of Republic 4ct No. ,7%+, as a$ended. he first co$plaint a!ainst petitioner /as filed /ith the Office of the Special Prosecutor 2the OSP, for short3 and doc"eted as OSP89987'7'9 /hile the second, /hich involved the sa$e set of facts, /as filed /ith the Presidential Co$$ission on 1ood 1overn$ent 2the PC11, for short3 but /hich /as later endorsed to the Office of the O$buds$an and doc"eted as OM:878+%87+9;. . . . '. 4 preli$inar# investi!ation /as conducted b# the PC11 /here petitioner dul# sub$itted his counter8affidavit. 4s a conse<uence- of said investi!ation, an Infor$ation /as filed /ith the first Division of the Sandi!anba#an, doc"eted as Cri$inal Case No. %&%,&, char!in! petitioner /ith violation of Section ,2e3 of Republic 4ct No. ,7%+. . . . ,. Durin! the proceedin!s before the OSP, petitioner $oved to dis$iss the co$plaint. he OSP, ho/ever, denied the $otion and filed /ith the hird Division of the Sandi!anba#an an Infor$ation char!in! petitioner /ith Estafa throu!h )alsification of Public Docu$ents 24rticles %*% and ,%( of the Revised Penal Code3,

doc"eted as Cri$inal Case No. %&'('. Petitioner /as dee$ed b# the OSP to have /aived his ri!ht to sub$it a counter8affidavit and supportin! evidence. . . . &. 4s a result of the filin! of t/o infor$ations /ith respondent Sandi!anba#an involvin! the sa$e accused 2herein petitioner3 and the sa$e set of facts, Cri$inal Case No. %&'(' /as consolidated /ith Cri$inal Case No. %&%,& /hich /as pendin! before the )irst Division of respondent Sandi!anba#an. . . . (. Respondent Sandi!anba#an, ho/ever, re$anded the consolidated cases a!ainst petitioner to the Office of the O$buds$an for reinvesti!ation inas$uch as0 a3 the Infor$ation in Cri$inal Case No. %&%,& /as ordered dis$issed in co$pliance /ith the rulin! of the Supre$e Court in Cojuangco, r. !s. PCGG, et al., 1.R. Nos. +',%+8'7, October ', %++7, /hich declared null and void the preli$inar# investi!ations conducted b# the PC11 in all cri$inal cases involvin! $atters /hich /ere the sub=ect $atter of civil cases earlier filed> and b3 the Infor$ation in Cri$inal Case No. %&'(' /as correctl# assailed b# petitioner as havin! been filed /ithout the proper preli$inar# investi!ation. . . . ;. Durin! the preli$inar# investi!ation conducted ane/ b# the Office of the O$buds$an, petitioner sub$itted his counter8affidavit and supportin! docu$ents. 4fter the co$pletion of said investi!ation, Prosecutor ?eonardo P. a$a#o of the Office of the O$buds$an prepared a Resolution dated )ebruar# %%, %++', /hich reco$$ended the /ithdra/al of the Infor$ation in Cri$inal Case No. %&'('. . . . *. Respondent O$buds$an, ho/ever, despite the above reco$$endation of the investi!atin! prosecutor ordered the prosecution to proceed under the e@istin! Infor$ation in Cri$inal Case No. %&'(' on his observation, !i"# ?et us not do the defendin! for the accused. he e@planations offered are too strained to be believed. 4t best the# are $atters of defense for the accused to prove at the trial. he alle!ed character of the funds involved bein! confidential and re<uires no auditin! is totall# i$$aterial. It could even e@plain /h# this ano$al# /as co$$itted. . . . 9. Petitioner thus filed /ith respondent Sandi!anba#an 2)irst Division3 an O$nibus Motion to Auash the Infor$ation, dated Septe$ber %*, %++', /herein he pra#ed B. . . for the production of 2the3 record of the preli$inar# investi!ation3, and that the infor$ation be <uashed outri!ht or the disapproval of the O$buds$an set aside, or in the alternative, that the Office of the O$buds$an be ordered to conduct further proceedin!s, particularl# the hand/ritin! anal#sis pra#ed for b# the petitioner /hich /ould establish /ho co$$itted the alle!ed falsification. . . . On )ebruar# %*, %++,, respondent Sandi!anba#an pro$ul!ated a Resolution dated )ebruar# %(, %++,, the dispositive portion of /hich reads0 C6ERE)ORE, the O$nibus Motion of accused Ro$an 4. Cru., 5r. is DENIED for lac" of $erit. . . .

%7. 4 Motion for Reconsideration, dated 4pril %', %++,, of the afore<uoted Resolution /as filed b# petitioner . . . . %%. On Ma# %', %++,, respondent Sandi!anba#an pro$ul!ated a Resolution, the dispositive portion of /hich reads0 C6ERE)ORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of accused Ro$an 4. Cru., 5r. of this Court-s Resolution dated )ebruar# %*, %++, is DENIED for lac" of $erit. . . .
%'. 6ence, petitioner filed the instant petition.
3

Petitioner contends that respondent Sandi!anba#an co$$itted a !rave abuse of discretion0 %. In not dis$issin! the infor$ation considerin! that the O$buds$an-s approval of the order dis$issin! the co$plaint did not state the factual or le!al basis therefor> '. In not re<uirin! the production of the record of the preli$inar# investi!ation in /anton disre!ard of petitioner-s ri!ht to due process> ,. In not dis$issin! the infor$ation considerin! that, as found b# the investi!atin! prosecutor, the $one# received b# petitioner /as a cash advance> and &. In not re<uirin! the Office of the O$buds$an to conduct further proceedin!s. Ce do not find the instant petition to be i$pressed /ith $erit as to /arrant the e@traordinar# /rits pra#ed for. he infor$ation filed a!ainst herein petitioner char!in! hi$ /ith estafa throu!h falsification of public docu$ents and for /hich he stands to be tried before respondent court alle!es0
hat on or about or durin! the period fro$ March ';, %+9& to Ma# %%, %+9&, or so$eti$e prior or subse<uent thereto, at the Cit# of Manila, Philippines, and /ithin the =urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, Ro$an Cru., 5r., then President and 1eneral Mana!er of the 1overn$ent Service Insurance S#ste$ 21SIS3 and li"e/ise President of the Manila 6otel, hence a public official havin! been dul# appointedDelected and <ualified as such, ta"in! advanta!e of his position, b# $eans of deceit, co$$ittin! an offense in relation to his office, did then and there /ilfull#, unla/full# and feloniousl# falsif# Manila 6otel Invoices, ransportation, Char!e, Cash, :ud!et for )ood and Drin"s vouchers in the a!!re!ate a$ount of P,(7,777.77 and then $a"e it appear that the 1SIS $ana!e$ent and staff had a five8da# coordination $eetin! at the Manila 6otel fro$ March ', to ,7, %+9& at the cost of P,(7,777.77, for /hich reason the 1SIS paidDissued its chec" /ith No. 7,+(%% dated Ma# %%, %+9& in the a$ount of P,(7,777.77 /hich chec" /as deposited to the account of the Manila 6otel, and thereafter cause the Manila 6otel to issue its chec" /ith No. 77*'*' dated Ma# %%, %+9& in the a$ount of P,(7,777.77 pa#able to Ro$an Cru., 5r. or hi$self, /hen in truth and in fact, as the accused /ell "ne/ that there /as no such five8da# 1SIS $ana!e$ent and staff coordination $eetin! conductedDheld at the Manila 6otel> and further thereafter convert and appropriate to his o/n personal use and benefitDdeposit the said chec" to his o/n personal account /ith the )ar East :an" and rust Co. the said chec"Da$ount of P,(7,777.77 to the da$a!e and pre=udice of the 1SIS andDor Manila 6otel andDor the !overn$ent in the said a$ount of P,(7,777.77. 4

I. Petitioner initiall# sub$its that respondent Sandi!anba#an acted /ith !rave abuse of discretion in not dis$issin! the infor$ation considerin! that the O$buds$an-s disapproval of the order dis$issin! the co$plaint did not state the factual or le!al basis therefor, in violation of the cardinal rules set forth in $ng Ti%ay, et al. !s. C&R, et al. . he sub$ission is pre$ised on the theor# that said rules appl# to a preli$inar# investi!ation /hich is to be considered <uasi8=udicial in nature. Petitioner avers that it is the dut# of the O$buds$an to assess the evidence and defenses of the respondent in decidin! a case, a failure /herein constitutes a violation of one-s ri!ht to due process of la/. 6e further clai$s that B/hile the dut# to deliberate does not i$pose the obli!ation to decide ri!ht, it does i$pl# a necessit# /hich cannot be disre!arded, na$el#, that of havin! so$ethin! to support the decision. he O$buds$an in this case not onl# failed to decide ri!ht but has nothin! at all to support his decision.B 6 Respondents, on the other hand, aver that the Office of the O$buds$an is not e@ercisin! <uasi8 =udicial or <uasi8le!islative po/ers because Bit does not act as a courtB /hen it conducts preli$inar# investi!ation of cases fallin! under its =urisdiction. It is settled that the conduct of a preli$inar# investi!ation, /hich is defined as Ban in<uir# or proceedin! for the purpose of deter$inin! /hether there is sufficient !round to en!ender a /ell8 founded belief that a cri$e co!ni.able b# the Re!ional rial Court has been co$$itted and that the respondent is probabl# !uilt# thereof, and should be held for trial,B 7 is, li"e court proceedin!s, sub=ect to the re<uire$ents of both substantive and procedural due process. his is because, a preli$inar# investi!ation is considered as a =udicial proceedin! /herein the prosecutor or investi!atin! officer, b# the nature of his functions, acts as a <uasi8=udicial officer. 4s /e held in Cojuangco, r. !s. PCGG, et al.# / . . . It $ust be underta"en in accordance /ith the procedure provided in Section ,, Rule %%' of the %+9( Rules of Cri$inal Procedure. his procedure is to be observed in order to assure that a person under!oin! such preli$inar# investi!ation /ill be afforded due process. 4s correctl# pointed out b# petitioner, an indispensable re<uisite of due process is that the person /ho presides and decides over a proceedin!, includin! a preli$inar# investi!ation, $ust possess the cold neutralit# of an i$partial =ud!e. 4lthou!h such a preli$inar# investi!ation is not a trial and is not intended to usurp the function of the trial court, it is not a casual affair. he officer conductin! the sa$e investi!ates or in<uires into the facts concernin! the co$$ission of the cri$e /ith the end in vie/ of deter$inin! /hether or not an infor$ation $a# be prepared a!ainst the accused. Indeed, a preli$inar# investi!ation is in effect a realistic =udicial appraisal of the $erits of the case. Sufficient proof of the !uilt of the accused $ust be adduced so that /hen the case is tried, the trial court $a# not be bound as a $atter of la/ to order an ac<uittal. 4 preli$inar# investi!ation has then been called a =udicial in<uir#. It is a =udicial proceedin!. 4n act beco$es =udicial /hen there is opportunit# to be heard and for the production and /ei!hin! of evidence, and a decision is rendered thereon. he authorit# of a prosecutor or investi!atin! officer dul# e$po/ered to preside or to conduct a preli$inar# investi!ation is no less than that of a $unicipal =ud!e or even a re!ional trial court =ud!e. Chile the investi!atin! officer, strictl# spea"in! is not a B=ud!e,B b# the nature of his functions he is and $ust be considered to be a <uasi8 =udicial officer.

In the present case, petitioner asserts that his ri!ht to due process /as violated in that respondent O$buds$an failed to assess and consider the evidence presented b# petitioner in disapprovin! the reco$$endation for dis$issal of the case b# the investi!atin! prosecutor, and his rulin! is not supported b# the evidence on record. he ar!u$ent is specious. 6is sub$ission that he /as deprived of his ri!ht to due process hin!es on the erroneous assu$ption that the order of the O$buds$an for the filin! of the necessar# infor$ation is lac"in! in an# factual or le!al basis. Such a conclusion, ho/ever, ste$s fro$ the fact that said order did not entail a discussion of the rationale for the O$buds$an-s action. It $a# see$ that the ratio decidendi for the O$buds$an-s order $a# be /antin! but this is not a case of a total absence of factual and le!al bases nor a failure to appreciate the evidence presented. Chat is actuall# involved here is $erel# a revie/ of the conclusion arrived at b# the investi!atin! prosecutor as a result of his stud# and anal#sis of the co$plaint, counter8affidavits, and the evidence sub$itted b# the parties durin! the preli$inar# investi!ation. he O$buds$an here is not conductin! ane/ another investi!ation but is $erel# deter$inin! the propriet# and correctness of the reco$$endation !iven b# the investi!atin! prosecutor, that is, /hether probable cause actuall# e@ists or not, on the basis of the findin!s of fact of the latter. Veril#, it is discretionar# upon the O$buds$an if he /ill rel# $ainl# on the findin!s of fact of the investi!atin! prosecutor in $a"in! a revie/ of the latter-s report and reco$$endation, as the O$buds$an can ver# /ell $a"e his o/n findin!s of fact. here is nothin! to prevent hi$ fro$ actin! one /a# or the other. 4s a $atter of fact, Section &, Rule %%' of the Rules of Court provides that B/here the investi!atin! assistant fiscal reco$$ends the dis$issal of the case but his findin!s are reversed b# the provincial or cit# fiscal or the chief state prosecutor on the !round that a probable cause e@ists, the latter $a#, b# hi$self, file the correspondin! infor$ation a!ainst the respondent or direct an# other assistant fiscal or state prosecutor to do so, /ithout conductin! another preli$inar# investi!ation. 9 Cith $ore reason $a# the O$buds$an not be faulted in arrivin! at a conclusion different fro$ that of the investi!atin! prosecutor on the basis of the sa$e set of facts. It cannot be said that the O$buds$an co$$itted a !rave abuse of discretion si$pl# because he opines contraril# to the prosecutor that, under the facts obtainin! in the case, there is probable cause to believe that herein petitioner is !uilt# of the offense char!ed. 4s aptl# pointed out b# respondent court in its resolution den#in! petitioner-s $otion for reconsideration, Bto the O$buds$an, the narration of facts b# Prosecutor a$a#o, . . . de$onstrated ade<uate cause to prosecute the accused Cru..B 10 )urther$ore, public respondents, in their Me$orandu$, correctl# observed that B2f3ro$ the tenor of respondent O$buds$an-s state$ent, it is clear that he agreed /ith the findings of facts of the investi!atin! prosecutor but disagreed /ith the latter-s conclusion on the import and significance of said findin!s. On the basis of the findin!s of facts of the investi!atin! prosecutor, /hich /ere not disputed b# petitioner, respondent O$buds$an believed that there /as sufficient !round to en!ender a /ell8founded belief that a cri$e had been co$$itted and that petitioner is probabl# !uilt# thereof.B 11 Petitioner ar!ues that the indication of disapproval b# the O$buds$an /hich consists $erel# of t/o para!raphs fails to point out the issues and relevant facts and is conse<uentl# /hi$sical, capricious and arbitrar#. Such proposition is fallacious. he $ere fact that the order to file an infor$ation a!ainst petitioner consists onl# of t/o para!raphs is not sufficient to i$pute arbitariness or caprice on the part of the O$buds$an, absent a clear sho/in! that he !ravel# abused his discretion in disapprovin! the reco$$endation of the investi!atin! prosecutor. Neither is it tainted /ith vindictiveness or oppression. 6e disapproved the reco$$endation of the special prosecutor because he sincerel# believed that there is sufficient evidence to indict the accused. his is an

e@ercise of the O$buds$an-s po/er based upon constitutional $andate, and the courts should not interfere in such e@ercise. he rule is based not onl# upon the investi!ator# and prosecutor# po/ers !ranted b# the Constitution to the Office of the O$buds$an but upon practicalit# as /ell. Other/ise, the functions of the courts /ill be !rievousl# ha$pered b# innu$erable petitions assailin! the dis$issal of investi!ator# proceedin!s conducted b# the Office of the O$buds$an /ith re!ard to co$plaints filed before it, in $uch the sa$e /a# that the courts /ould be e@tre$el# s/a$ped if the# could be co$pelled to revie/ the e@ercise of discretion on the part of the prosecutin! attorne#s each ti$e the# decide to file an infor$ation in court or dis$iss a co$plaint b# a private co$plaint. 12 II. Petitioner ne@t avers that the error of respondent court in not re<uirin! the production of the record of the preli$inar# investi!ation is t/o8fold. )irst, it /as in violation of the constitutional ri!ht a!ainst arbitrar# arrests because probable cause /as not Bpersonall# deter$ined b# the =ud!e,B considerin! that the records of the preli$inar# investi!ation /ere not elevated to the =ud!e for e@a$ination. Second, it /as in violation of petitioner-s ri!ht to due process of la/ since he /as deprived of the opportunit# to e@a$ine the evidence a!ainst hi$ and prepare his defense. On the first issue, petitioner relies on the rulin! in 'im, Sr., et al. !s. (eli), et al. 13 /hich held that E If a =ud!e relies entirel# on the certification of the prosecutor as in this case /here all the records of the investi!ation are in Masbate, he or she has not personall# deter$ined probable cause. he deter$ination is $ade b# the Provincial Prosecutor. he constitutional re<uire$ent has not been satisfied. he =ud!e co$$its a !rave abuse of discretion. he conduct of a preli$inar# investi!ation should be distin!uished as to /hether it is an investi!ation for the deter$ination of a sufficient !round for the filin! of the infor$ation or one for the deter$ination of a probable cause for the issuance of a /arrant of arrest. he first aspect of preli$inar# investi!ation is e@ecutive in nature. It is part of the prosecution-s =ob. he second "ind of preli$inar# investi!ation, /hich is $ore properl# called preli$inar# e@a$ination, is =udicial in nature and is lod!ed /ith the =ud!e. 14 )or the latter, in the e@ercise of the e@clusive and personal responsibilit# of the issuin! =ud!e to satisf# hi$self of the e@istence of probable cause for the issuance of a /arrant of arrest, the =ud!e is not re<uired to personall# e@a$ine the co$plainant and his /itnesses. )ollo/in! established doctrine and procedure, he shall0 2%3 personall# evaluate the report and the supportin! docu$ents sub$itted b# the fiscal re!ardin! the e@istence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a /arrant of arrest> or 2'3 if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he $a# disre!ard the fiscal-s report and re<uire the sub$ission of supportin! affidavits of /itnesses to aid hi$ in arrivin! at a conclusion as to the e@istence of probable cause. 1. Co$in! no/ to the case at bar, contrar# to petitioner-s thesis, respondent court, in its resolution pro$ul!ated on )ebruar# %*, %++, den#in! petitioner-s $otion to <uash the infor$ation, found the e@istence of probable cause after $a"in! a deliberate and e@haustive revie/ of the facts obtainin! in the case. hus0 $ll of the a%o!e logical process, *hich is supported %oth %y the finding of fact in the Resolution and %y admissions in the Motion of the accused, lead to the conclusion that pro%a%le cause e)ists against accused Roman Cru", r., for acts descri%ed in the &nformation in the instant case.

he narration of facts culled fro$ the record 2as affir$ed b# both parties3 support the narration of facts in the Infor$ation. he superficial anal#sis of the ad$issions $ade above indicate that the ele$ents of 4rticle ,%( of the Revised Penal Code as /ell as of 4rticles %*% and %*' thereof $a# probabl# be established.

It is true that the Manila 6otel eventuall# treated the P,(7,777.77 as a Bcash advanceB to hi$. 4ccused Cru., ho/ever, does not clai$ that there /ere cash advances $ade b# hi$ as a conse<uence of /hich he received this su$. Nor has accused Ro$an Cru. said that he had obtained a loan or cash advance fro$ the Manila 6otel for a particular purpose for /hich he /as e@pected to subse<uentl# render an accountin!. 4ll that Manila 6otel-s subse<uent description of this a$ount as a Bcash advance,B in fact, sa#s is that /hen it turned out that P,(7,777.77 could not be properl# accounted for, it had to be treated as an a$ount /hich accused Cru. had to pa# bac"> thus, accountin!/ise, a cash advance. )or accused to have received such a lar!e a$ount fro$ a co$pan# of /hich he /as the President re<uired hi$ to si!n a receipt /hich /ould specif# clearl# /hat he /as receivin! it for. If he received the su$ as a cash advance for so$e future e@pense, the Manila 6otel docu$ents /ould clearl# so de$onstrate. If he received it as a cash advance 2a!ainst his salaries or other benefits3, it /ould appear as a loan in Manila 6otel-s boo"s. 4ccused Cru., ho/ever, has said no such thin! in an# of his pleadin!s nor apparentl# has he so stated durin! the preli$inar# investi!ation. In other /ords, accused Cru. as President of the Manila 6otel E and, therefore, in a position of !reat fiduciar# nature E received P,(7,777.77 in %+9& either for a non8 e@istent reason or for a false reason. 6e $a# have an e@planation. $s of this time, ho*e!er, if the e!idence on record is actually presented at trial, enough e!idence *ould e)ist to put accused Roman $. Cru", r. at peril of his li%erty and *ould re+uire him to e)plain his side of the matter.
$ case has, therefore, %een demonstrated in the record and in the a!erment of accused Cru" himself that the crime charged has pro%a%ly %een committed and that the accused is pro%a%ly guilty thereof. 2E$phasis supplied.3 16

Petitioner /ould have respondent court order the production of the records of the preli$inar# investi!ation in its deter$ination of the e@istence of probable cause for the issuance of the /arrant of arrest. )irst and fore$ost, as hereinabove stated, in a preli$inar# e@a$ination for the issuance of a /arrant of arrest, the court is not tas"ed to revie/ in detail the evidence sub$itted durin! the preli$inar# investi!ation. It is sufficient that the =ud!e personall# evaluates the report and supportin! docu$ents sub$itted b# the prosecution in deter$inin! probable cause. 17 his is precisel# /hat respondent court did. In resolvin! the issue of probable cause, respondent court $ade an in8depth anal#sis of the findin!s of fact of Prosecutor a$a#o, as /ell as the O$nibus Motion sub$itted b# petitioner. he correctness of these facts /as not even <uestioned b# herein petitioner but, on the contrar# /as e@pressl# affir$ed in the latter-s O$nibus Motion dated Septe$ber %*, %++' /herein it /as stated that B2t3he Order issued b# the investi!atin! prosecutor . . . contains a lucid narration of the relevant facts.B he case of 'im cited b# petitioner is not applicable to the present case because, in the for$er, a /arrant of arrest /as issued b# the respondent =ud!e therein /ithout conductin! his o/n personal evaluation of the case even if onl# on the basis of the report sub$itted b# the fiscal. Instead, the respondent therein si$pl# declared0 BConsiderin! that both the t/o co$petent officers to /ho$ such

dut# /as entrusted b# la/ have declared the e@istence of probable cause, each infor$ation is co$plete in for$ and substance, and there is no visible defect on its face, this Court finds it =ust and proper to rel# on the prosecutor-s certification in each infor$ation . . . . his is far fro$ /hat actuall# transpired before the Sandi!anba#an as reflected b# the records in this case. 6ence, the rulin! in 'im cannot be properl# invo"ed. 4s to the second issue, petitioner relies on the provisions of Section 9, Rule %%' of the %+9( Rules on Cri$inal Procedure, to /it0 Sec. 9. Record of preliminary in!estigation. E he record of the preli$inar# investi!ation /hether conducted b# a =ud!e or a fiscal, shall not for$ part of the record of the case in the Re!ional rial Court. 6o/ever, the said court, on its o/n initiative or that of an# part#, $a# order the production of the record or an# part thereof /henever the sa$e shall be necessar# in the resolution of the case or an# incident therein, or shall be introduced as evidence b# the part# re<uestin! for its production. Petitioner-s pra#er for the production of the record is intended not onl# for proper observance of the constitutional re<uire$ent that probable cause be deter$ined personall# b# the =ud!e, but also to enable hi$ to e@a$ine the evidence and prepare his defenses and for trial. Public respondents contend that the production of the record of the preli$inar# e@a$ination is not necessar# since petitioner can al/a#s resort to an# of the $odes of discover# available to an accused under the Rules of Court, specificall# citin! Section %% of Rule %%;, /hich provides0 Sec. %%. Production or inspection of material e!idence in possession of prosecution . E On $otion of the accused sho/in! !ood cause and /ith notice to all parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression, or alteration, $a# order the prosecution to produce and per$it the inspection and cop#in! or photo!raphin!, of an# /ritten state$ents !iven b# the co$plainant and other /itnesses in an# investi!ation of the offense conducted b# the prosecution or an# other investi!atin! officers, as /ell as of an# desi!nated docu$ents, papers, boo"s, accounts, letters, photo!raphs, ob=ects or tan!ible thin!s, not other/ise privile!ed, /hich constitute or contain evidence $aterial to an# $atter involved in the case, and /hich are in the possession or under the control of the prosecution, the police, or an# other la/ investi!atin! a!encies. his rule refers to the ri!ht of the accused to $ove for production or inspection of $aterial evidence in the possession of the prosecution. It authori.es the defense to inspect, cop# or photo!raph an# evidence of the prosecution in its possession after obtainin! the per$ission of the court. 4 $otion sho/in! !ood reasons for the !rantin! of the per$ission $ust be filed b# the defense for this purpose, /ith notice to all parties. 1/ It /ill be noted at the outset that precisel#, as su!!ested b# public respondents, herein petitioner, in as"in! for the production of the records of the preli$inar# investi!ation in order to enable hi$ to prepare for his defense and for trial, is actuall# tr#in! to avail of this $ode of discover#. here /as !ood cause sho/n for the $otion to produce the records, that is, so that the# $a# be introduced as evidence b# the part# re<uestin! for their production, /hich is one of the !rounds provided for under Section 9, Rule %%' of the Rules of Court. It is true that the !rantin! of per$ission lies /ithin the discretion of the court. 6o/ever, respondent court in this case has failed to sufficientl# =ustif# its refusal to have the records of the preli$inar#

investi!ation produced before it so that petitioner $a# use the$ for his defense, either in its resolutions den#in! petitioner-s O$nibus Motion and Motion for Reconsideration, or in the pleadin!s and Me$orandu$ filed b# herein respondents before this Court. Conse<uentl#, /e find no reason to den# petitioner the ri!ht to avail of such $ode of discover#. If onl# for the reason that petitioner should be !iven the opportunit# to inspect the evidence presented durin! the preli$inar# investi!ation solel# for the purpose of enablin! hi$ to prepare for his defense and for trial, this <uestioned resolution of respondent Sandi!anba#an should be $odified. III. It is li"e/ise contended that respondent court abused its discretion in not dis$issin! the infor$ation considerin! that, as found b# the investi!atin! prosecutor, the $one# received b# petitioner /as a cash advance for /hich he can onl# be held civill# liable, but /hich civil liabilit# has alread# been e@tin!uished. Citin! the case of ,ong Chan -im !s. People, et al., 19 /hich held that a cash advance is in the for$ of a loan and, therefore, there can be no estafa co$$itted, petitioner ar!ues that he onl# incurred civil liabilit# for the cash advance he obtained fro$ the Manila 6otel. 6o/ever, he contends that such liabilit# had alle!edl# been e@tin!uished /hen his leave credits and other benefits /ere /ithheld, the total of /hich /as $ore than sufficient to li<uidate the advance $ade. 4lso, it is ar!ued that petitioner /as denied due process /hen respondent court failed to re$and the case to the O$buds$an for further proceedin!s for the purpose of deter$inin! the persons /ho actuall# for!ed the <uestioned docu$ents b# conductin! a hand/ritin! anal#sis. his /ould have secured hi$ fro$ hast# and $alicious prosecution, and /ould even have led to the discover# of the true culprit, if indeed docu$ents had been fabricated. It $ust here be stressed that a preli$inar# investi!ation is $erel# in<uisitorial, and it is often the onl# $eans of discoverin! the persons /ho $a# be reasonabl# char!ed /ith a cri$e, to enable the prosecutor to prepare his co$plaint or infor$ation. It is not a trial of the case on the $erits and has no purpose e@cept that of deter$inin! /hether a cri$e has been co$$itted and /hether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is !uilt# thereof, and it does not place the persons a!ainst /ho$ it is ta"en in =eopard#. 20 he established rule is that a preli$inar# investi!ation is not the occasion for the full and e@haustive displa# of the parties- evidence> it is for the presentation of such evidence onl# as $a# en!ender a /ell8!rounded belief that an offense has been co$$itted and that the accused is probabl# !uilt# thereof. 21 Confor$abl# there/ith, the ar!u$ents raised b# herein petitioner that the cash advance is actuall# in the for$ of a loan and therefore no cri$inal liabilit# attaches, and that respondent court should have re$anded the case for further investi!ation to deter$ine the true identit# of the for!ers, are all $atters of defense /hich are best presented durin! the trial before respondent court for its consideration. he $ain function of the !overn$ent prosecutor durin! the preli$inar# investi!ation is $erel# to deter$ine the e@istence of probable cause, and to file the correspondin! infor$ation if he finds it to be so. 4nd, probable cause has been defined as the e@istence of such facts and circu$stances as /ould e@cite the belief, in a reasonable $ind, actin! on the facts /ithin the "no/led!e of the prosecutor, that the person char!ed /as !uilt# of the cri$e for /hich he /as prosecuted. 22 In the case at bar, the O$buds$an found that there /as sufficient !round to believe that petitioner is !uilt# of the cri$e char!ed on the basis of the factual findin!s of Prosecutor a$a#o in the latter-s Order dated )ebruar# %%, %++' /hich /ere arrived at after ta"in! into consideration the evidence presented b# the parties. 4 cursor# perusal of the records of this case /ill sho/ that the findin!s of

fact b# the Office of the O$buds$an are supported b# substantial evidence, hence the sa$e should be considered conclusive. 23 )urther$ore, the O$buds$an-s findin!s are essentiall# factual in nature. 4ccordin!l#, in assailin! said findin!s on the contention that the O$buds$an co$$itted a !rave abuse of discretion in holdin! that petitioner is liable for estafa throu!h falsification of public docu$ents, petitioner is clearl# raisin! <uestions of fact here. 24 6is ar!u$ents are anchored on the propriet# of or error in the O$buds$an-s appreciation of facts. Petitioner cannot be una/are that the Supre$e Court is not a trier of facts, $ore so in the consideration of the e@traordinar# /rit of certiorari /here neither <uestions of fact nor even of la/ are entertained, but onl# <uestions of lac" or e@cess of =urisdiction or !rave abuse of discretion. 2. Insofar as this third issue is concerned, therefore, /e find that no !rave abuse of discretion has been co$$itted b# respondents /hich /ould /arrant the !rantin! of the /rit ofcertiorari. C6ERE)ORE, the resolutions appealed fro$ are hereb# 4))IRMED, /ith the $odification that respondent O$buds$an is DIREC ED to produce the pertinent records of the preli$inar# investi!ation before the Sandi!anba#an at the proper =uncture of the proceedin!s therein and on sufficient =ustification therefor. SO ORDERED. .ar!asa, C. ., Padilla, Puno and Mendo"a, ., concur.