Crim Pro Digest: SAMUEL LEE V. KBC BANK

Topic: PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

SAMUEL LEE V. KBC BANK

Facts:

In a complaint-affidavit, Liza M. Pajarillo, manager of the corporate division of KBC Bank, charged Lee and Lim of estafa. In his Resolution, State Prosecutor Josefino A. Subia (State Prosecutor Subia) found the existence of probable cause and recommended that two counts of estafa be filed against Lee and Lim. 

In the Petition for Review filed by Lee and Lim, they claimed that the prosecutor’s resolution merely relied on hearsay evidence (fax message) which cannot be the basis for a finding of probable cause.

Issue:

 If the issue of admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence assailed as hearsay applies during preliminary investigation stage?

Held:

NO. Preliminary investigation  is not the occasion for the exhaustive display of presentation of evidence.

Whether the facsimile message is admissible in evidence and whether the element of deceit in the crime of estafa is present are matters best ventilated in a full-blown trial, not in the preliminary investigation. In Andres v. Justice Secretary Cuevas, the Court held that:

[A preliminary investigation] is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of [the prosecutions] evidence. The presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.

Thus, the validity and merits of a party’s defense or accusation, as well as the admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level.

Preliminary investigation is for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.