"x x x.
As the MTC and RTC rightly held, the presentation of the medical certificates to prove the duration of the victims’ need for medical attendance or of their incapacity should take place only at the trial, not before or during the preliminary investigation. According to Cinco v. Sandiganbayan,27 the preliminary investigation, which is the occasion for the submission of the parties’ respective affidavits, counter-affidavits and evidence to buttress their separate allegations, is merely inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering whether a person may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the prosecutor to prepare the information.28 It is not yet a trial on the merits, for its only purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof.29 The scope of the investigation does not approximate that of a trial before the court; hence, what is required is only that the evidence be sufficient to establish probable causethat the accused committed the crime charged, not that all reasonable doubtof the guilt of the accused be removed.30
We further agree with the RTC’s observation that "the issues raised in the motion to quash are matters of defense that could only be threshed out in a full blown trial on the merits. Indeed, proof of actual healing period of the alleged injuries of the private complainant could only be established in the trial of the cases filed against herein petitioners by means of competent evidence, and to grant the main prayer of the instant petition for the dismissal of the criminal cases against them for less serious physical injuries is to prevent the trial court to hear and receive evidence in connection with said cases and to render judgments thereon. x x x All things considered, it would be premature to dismiss the subject criminal cases filed against the herein petitioners when the basis thereof could be determined only after trial of the merits."31
x x x."
See:
G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014;
GODOFREDO ENRILE AND DR. FREDERICK ENRILE, Petitioners, vs. HON. DANILO A. MANALASTAS (AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MALOLOS BULACAN, BR. VII), HON. ERANIO G. CEDILLO, SR., (AS PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, BR.1) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
