For :

From :
Re :
not
Date :

JSS
JVQ
Case for Motion for Reinvestigation as Remedy when accused did
receive subpoena
3 October 2016

G.R. Nos. 71404-09 October 26, 1988

HERMILO RODIS, SR., petitioner,
vs.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN, SECOND DIVISION, and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Quisimbing & Associates for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondents.

Petitioner filed a Reply to the Opposition controverting the prosecution's

claim that lack of preliminary investigation is not a ground for quashing the
information; but manifesting that he would file a petition for re-investigation
with the Tanodbayan as suggested. 4 This he did, on June 24,1985.
On July 15, 1985, while petitioner's petition for reinvestigation was pending
action by the Tanodbayan, the Sandiganbayan promulgated the assailed
resolution denying petitioner's motion to quash for lack of merit, stating:
... this Court is of the considered opinion that the alleged
absence of preliminary investigation with respect to the accused
movant (herein petitioner) or his inability to participate in the
preliminary investigation for the reason that he was not duly
served with a subpoena is not a proper ground for a motion to
quash. If the accused was not afforded due preliminary
investigation, the proper remedy for him is to file a
Petition for Reinvestigation with the Office of
the Tanodbayan, pursuant to Section (13) of Administrative
Order No. 111 of the Revised Rules of Procedure of
the Tanodbayan, promulgated on December 1, 1979.