VICIA D. PASCUAL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 160540, March 22, 2007
“x x x.
THE DEFECTIVE NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION WAS AN ISSUE BELATEDLY RAISED
We likewise hold that petitioner is now barred from attacking the validity of the notice of preliminary investigation. Petitioner should have raised this issue in the lower courts, particularly during the arraignment. A question never raised in the courts below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal without offending the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.
Moreover, an inquiry into this issue necessitates a review of factual and evidentiary matters which is proscribed in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules.
Notwithstanding the above disquisitions, petitioner ought to know that the absence or defect in the conduct of a preliminary investigation does not affect the court’s jurisdiction over a case. Nor does it impair the validity of the information or render it defective.
X x x.”
 Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals), and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Edgardo F. Sundiam of the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 72-88.
 Id., p. 100.
 Id., pp. 33-34.
 ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). − Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property. xxx
 Decided by Judge Francisco B. Ibay, RTC, Makati City, Branch 135. Rollo, pp. 31-37.
 Id., p. 82.
 Id., pp. 83-88.
 Supra note 2.
 Rollo, pp. 17-18.
 Roxas v. Vasquez, 432 Phil. 148 (2002).
 Dayrit v. Philippine Bank of Communications, 435 Phil. 120 (2002); Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 362 Phil. 1 (1999).
 Sps. Friend, et al. v. Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 165767, 29 November 2005, 476 SCRA 453; Salonga v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 111478, 13 March 1997, 269 SCRA 534; Bacelonia v. Court of Appeals, 445 Phil. 300 (2003).
 Rollo, p. 80.
 Salva v. CA, 364 Phil. 281 (1997); Alabanzas v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 29 November 1991, 204 SCRA 304; Sps. Friend, et al. v. Union Bank of the Philippines, supra.
 Villanueva v. Sps. Alejo and Virginia Salvador, G.R. No. 139436, 25 January 2006; People v. Chua, G.R. No. 128280, 4 April 2001, 356 SCRA 225; Ayson v. Enriquez Vda. De Carpio, G.R. No. 152438, 17 June 2004, 432 SCRA 449; Reburiano v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 294 (1999).
 Velasquez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138480, 25 March 2004, 426 SCRA 309; L.T. Datu & Co., Inc. v. Sy, G.R. No. 143701, 23 March 2004, 426 SCRA 189.
 San Agustin v. People, G.R. No. 158211, 31 August 2004, 437 SCRA 392.
 Id.; Villaflor v. Vivar, 402 Phil. 222 (2001).
 Filadams Pharma, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132422, 30 March 2004, 426 SCRA 460.
 Velasco v. People, G.R. No. 166479, 28 February 2006.