Alvizo v.

Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 101689, March 17, 1993

FACTS:
Petitioner was charged with malversation of public funds in 1990 after he was dismissed as Clerk
of Court of the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur when he was found to have incurred a
deficiency in his accounts in the amount of P31,612.50. Prior to the filing of the information, a
preliminary investigation was conducted.
Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information for failure of the same to include a
certification by the investigating fiscal that he conducted a personal examination of the complainant and
his witnesses during the preliminary investigation in contravention of the requirement under Section 4,
Rule 112 of the Rules of Court which provides that if the investigating fiscal finds cause to hold the
respondent for trial he shall prepare the resolution and corresponding information. He shall certify
under oath that he has examined the complainant and his witnesses.
Petitioner also filed a supplemental motion to quash, contending that the filing of the
information in this case is violative of his constitutional rights to due process and the speedy disposition
of the case against him, as enunciated in Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan since it took eleven years after the
criminal investigation for him to be charged.

ISSUE:
1. WON a certification by the investigating fiscal is an essential procedure in the filing of criminal
charge?
2. WON the allegedly belated filing of the information violated petitioners constitutional rights to
due process and speedy trial?
RULING:
1. NO.
Definitely settled is the rule that notwithstanding the absence in the information of a
certification as to the holding of a preliminary investigation, the information is nonetheless considered
valid for the reason that such certification is not an essential part of the information itself and its
absence cannot vitiate it as such. An information is nothing more than an accusation in writing charging
a person with an offense subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the court. What is not allowed is the
filing of the information without a preliminary investigation having been previously conducted, and the
injunction that there should be a certification is only a consequence of the requirement that a
preliminary investigation should first be conducted .
In the case at bar, it is clear that there is a certification to the effect that a preliminary
investigation had been conducted. What is allegedly lacking is the statement that the investigating
prosecutor has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses. The fact alone that the
certification contains a statement that a preliminary investigation had been conducted renders nugatory
petitioner's arguments on the supposed nullity of the indictment.

2. NO.
There was no violation of petitioner's right to speedy trial for the simple reason that a fair and
rational consideration on both counts of the aforestated evidence on records shows that the preliminary
investigation in the present case was begun not in 1979 but only in 1989, and the corresponding
information was in due time filed in 1990.
The affidavit of Prosecutor Quintin E.L. Paredes alleging conducting PI in 1980 is considered
hearsay because he was not presented on the witness stand to be cross-examined by the prosecution
The doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether or not that right has been violated,
the factors that may be considered and balanced are the length of delay, the reasons for such delay, the
assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay.
Considering the confusion and handicaps under which they had to operate and with which they had to
contend under a marital law regime during the parlous period material to this case.