SIERRA V. LOPEZ (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)

Rule 112, Section 3 of the Rules of Court lays down the basic procedure in preliminary investigation, which provision does not require a confrontation between the parties. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION is ordinarily conducted through submission of affidavits and supporting documents, through the exchange of pleadings.

In Rodis v. Sandiganbayan, we ruled that the New Rules on Criminal Procedure do not require as a condition sine qua non to the validity of the proceedings (in the preliminary investigation) the presence of the accused for as long as efforts to reach him were made, and an opportunity to controvert evidence of the complainant is accorded him. The obvious purpose of the rule is to block attempts of unscrupulous respondents to thwart the prosecution of offenses by hiding themselves or by employing dilatory tactics.

Since confrontation between the parties is not imperative, it follows that it is not necessary that the counter-affidavit of respondent be sworn to before the investigating prosecutor himself. It can be sworn to before another prosecutor. In fact, this is specifically provided in par (c) of Section 3, which states that the counter-affidavit shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official or in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public.

Lastly, we hold that the investigating prosecutors did not abuse their discretion when they denied the request of the complainant for the conduct of clarificatory questioning. Under par (e) of Section 3 above, the conduct of clarificatory questioning is discretionary upon the prosecutor. Indeed, we already held in Webb v. De Leon that the decision to call witnesses for clarificatory questions is addressed to the sound discretion of the investigator, and the investigator alone.