G.R. No. 210488 - JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, VS. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN FIFTH DIVISION AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Ruling

Accordingly, "owing to the initiatory nature of preliminary investigations, the technical rules of evidence should not be applied in the course of its proceedings." In this light, and as will be elaborated upon below, this Court has ruled that "probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay," and that even an invocation of the rule on res inter alios acta at this stage of the proceedings is improper. [96] (Citations omitted) A preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is only conducted to aid the prosecutor in preparing the information. It is preparatory to a trial. An accused's right to a preliminary investigation is purely statutory; it is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Even if there are alleged irregularities in an investigation's conduct, this neither renders the information void nor impairs its validity. [97] Here, petitioner questions the evidence used during the preliminary investigation and raises the quantum of evidence required in insisting that there was a misappreciation of evidence. However, the conduct of preliminary investigation is geared only to determine whether or not probable cause exists to hold petitioner for trial. Considering the lower quantum of evidence required in preliminary investigations, this Court does not find grave abuse of discretion in the findings of the Sandiganbayan and the Ombudsman. Probable cause simply implies probability of guilt. It is based merely on opinion and reasonable belief. The preliminary investigation is not the proper venue to rule on petitioner's guilt or innocence. Probable cause is determined in a summary manner. Precisely, there is a trial to allow a full assessment of petitioner's case. In this case, petitioner's arguments are matters of evidence which are better subjected to the scrutiny of this Court after an extensive trial on the merits. Failing to demonstrate that the Sandiganbayan and the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion, this Court will not interfere with their findings of probable cause. Contrary to petitioner's claim, a review of the records of the case shows that the findings of the Ombudsman, as affirmed by the Sandiganbayan, are neither tainted with malice nor are they mere speculations and surmises. Conversely, the findings are sustained by evidence. Mere disagreement with the appreciation of the evidence by the Ombudsman does not translate to jurisdictional error. To be clear, this Court does not make a ruling on petitioner's guilt or innocence. Here, the issue is whether there is grave abuse in the Sandiganbayan and Ombudsman's exercise of their prerogatives. We find that there is none. Hence, their findings must be respected. WHEREFORE , the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED . The Sandiganbayan's August 15, 2013 and November 6, 2013 Resolutions in relation to Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0164 are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED.