6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The DOJ stresses the necessity of the restraint imposed in DOJ Circular No. 41 in that to allow the petitioners, who are under preliminary investigation, to exercise an untrammelled right to travel, especially when the risk of flight is distinctly high will surely impede the efficient and effective operation of the justice system. The absence of the petitioners, it asseverates, would mean that the farthest criminal proceeding they could go would be the filing of the criminal information since they cannot be arraigned in absentia.[105] The predicament of the DOJ is understandable yet untenable for relying on grounds other what is permitted within the confines of its own power and the nature of preliminary investigation itself. The Court, in Paderanga vs. Drilon,[106] made a clarification on the nature of a preliminary investigation, thus: A preliminary investigation is x x x an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well founded belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. x x x A preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence; it 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.[107] It bears emphasizing that the conduct of a preliminary investigation is an implement of due process which essentially benefits the accused as it accords an opportunity for the presentation of his side with regard to the accusation.[108] The accused may, however, opt to waive his presence in the preliminary investigation. In any case, whether the accused responds to a subpoena, the investigating prosecutor shall resolve the complaint within 10 days after the filing of the same. The point is that in the conduct of a preliminary investigation, the presence of the accused is not necessary for the prosecutor to discharge his investigatory duties. If the accused chooses to waive his presence or fails to submit countervailing evidence, that is his own lookout. Ultimately, he shall be bound by the determination of the prosecutor on the presence of probable cause and he cannot claim denial of due process. The DOJ therefore cannot justify the restraint in the liberty of movement imposed by DOJ Circular No. 41 on the ground that it is necessary to ensure presence and attendance in the preliminary investigation of the complaints. There is also no authority of law granting it the power to compel the attendance of the subjects of a preliminary investigation, pursuant to its investigatory powers under E.O. No. 292. Its investigatory power is simply inquisitorial and, unfortunately, not broad enough to embrace the imposition of restraint on the liberty of movement. That there is a risk of flight does not authorize the DOJ to take the situation upon itself and draft an administrative issuance to keep the individual within the Philippine jurisdiction so that he may not be able to evade criminal prosecution and consequent liability. It is an arrogation of power it does not have; it is a usurpation of function that properly belongs to the legislature. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 22/70