This  is  an  appeal   from the following  order  of the Court of First Instance of  Capiz  dismissing the present case:

"This is a petition for  a reconsideration  filed by  the  City  Fiscal praying  that tho ease be considered filed  and given  due  course by this Court. , According to the said motion  for  reconsideration,' the City Fiscal alleged that the accused has been given  opportunity to  be heard during the  investigation;

"On the other hand, the  attorney  for the accused alleged that they  were not given  opportunity to  be  heard either  in the preliminary examination  before the issuance of the warrant of  arrest or in the preliminary investigation of  the ease before it was remitted to this Court.

"In order  to  give  opportunity to  the  accused  who alleged that he had also  a complaint  for oral defamation against the offended party of  this case  so   as  to  determine  which case  has  to  be continued  by the City Fiscal,  this Court  ordered  the  case  to be remitted to tho lower  court so as to  perform again  the  preliminary examination  as  well  as  the preliminary investigation, giving  all the opportunities that the accused may  like to interpose in these proceedings.

"On the other hand, the  City Fiscal alleged that there was no need for him to conduct the  preliminary examination because  it is necessary, according to him, that  the, accused has to prove that the case  that he filed is worthless or the  evidence is  insufficient. The  Court is of  the opinion that the  City Fiscal  should investigate and  examine these cases  so as  to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the filing  of the present case. The only way to determine this fact is  to make  a  rigid  and  careful  examination of the witnesses of both  cases  so as to give justice to those who seek justice.  There is nothing  to lose, or somebody-prejudiced by the reinvestigation and  reexamination but, on  the  other  hand, not to give opportunity to the accused  who  has also a complaint filed before the City Fiscal  is far  from  fair.  It  must be understood that in  many decisions  of the Supreme  Court in the  performance of the preliminary  examination before the  issuance of a warrant, the accused  may be present or waive his right  to be  represented and  once the , warrant  of arrest  is issued,  the  accused  is not allowed  to cross-examine in the preliminary investigation  of the witnesses for the  government.  If this is  so, therefore,  there is no opportunity  for the  accused to show  to  the  court  that all witnesses presented in  the  preliminary investigation  are  either  invented and manufactured.  The only remedy that ho has is to present  his  evidence  in  the  preliminary investigation so  as approve to the Court that  he  is innocent and in case found to  be true, the case  is  dismissed.

"In view  of the insistence of the  City Fiscal in' his refusal to make further preliminary examination as well as  to submit the case  to  preliminary investigation,  the Court hereby order the dismissal of  this" case, without cost."

It appears  that on  October 1, 1953, the City Attorney of Roxas  City, upon previous investigation  of the merits of the case at the instance  of  Rosita  de Fernandez, filed with the Municipal  Court of Roxas  City an information for  Grave  Oral  Slander  against  the herein defendant-appellee Lourdes Ramilo.  On the same date, the Municipal Judge  issued the  warrant  for the arrest of the  accused who  immediately filed  a bond  in  the  amount of P1,000 for  her provisional release.

On October  7, 1953,  she was arraigned  before the Municipal  Court, pleaded not guilty and waived her  right to preliminary investigation.  Consequently,  on the  same date the Municipal  Court forwarded  the  record  of the case to  the court of First Instance of Capiz. On October 8, 1953, the City Attorney filed with the latter Court an information worded  in the same manner as that filed in the  Municipal  Court.   On November  9,  1953,  the case was  called  for the arraignment  of  the accused and  on that day  she  appeared but instead   of pleading  guilty or not  guilty  to the  charges  against her,  she, filed  an urgent  motion for  reinvestigation  of the   case on the following  grounds:

"That, while the  complaining  witness in the above-entitled case was allowed  to  be  heard by herself and her witnesses and  even assisted  by  counsel, the  above-named accused was not given  the merest opportunity  to bo present, heard and assisted by counsel at any time previous to the filing of this case by the prosecuting attorney  of  Roxas City;

"That  the  city  prosecuting  attorney  ignored  and  disregarded facts and circumstances  directly related to the above-entitled case which otherwise would have warranted the dismissal of the complaint filed by the complaining witness;

"That  in obvious partiality  towards the above-named  accused, the prosecuting city attorney ignored  and disregarded the complaint filed by the above-named accused presented by her against complainant" even previous  to the complaint filed by the latter."

Acting  upon this  motion,  the Court of  First Instance of Capiz entered the  following order:

"This is an  urgent motion  for reinvestigation alleging among other  things  that  Attorney Francisco  Fuentes,  representing  the accused, was not given opportunity to be present nor the accused was allowed to be  assisted  by  any attorney during the investigation.  In  order to  give  every  opportunity to the accused  and for the sake  of justice,  this Court  believes  that the  urgent motion is  reasonable  and,  therefore, should be given due  course,

"In view of the  foregoing consideration, the Court orders that this Criminal Case  No. 1692 for Grave Oral Defamation be  returned to the municipal court  of  the  City  of  Roxas so that the same may be indorsed to the City  Fiscal for  further investigation  of the case with the request and advice that if the reinvestigation e carried out, the attorney for the accused should  he allowed to  be present and at the same time be heard, and to  admit and receive any evidence that  she may present  if she so desires."

Accordingly, the case was sent back to  the  Municipal Court of  the City  of Roxas and  indorsed by the latter to the City  Attorney  for further investigation.  Complying with the order of the court, the City Attorney  set the case  for reinvestigation on  November 18,  1953,  but on that  date the accused asked  that the witnesses  for the prosecution  be first called  for cross-examination  and  refused to  submit to  the reinvestigation  unless  she  could cross-examine them.   The  City Attorney  did  not  yield to this petition, closed the reinvestigation,  and  on November  19,  1953  returned the record  of  the  case  to the. Court of First Instance and immediately  thereafter filed a  motion praying  that  the case be. given  due course on the  ground   that there  is  sufficient  evidence  to warrant. the  conviction of the accused.   This motion  was  denied by  the Court in  its  order of November 24, 1953,  worded as follows:

"Upon petition of the City Attorney  praying that this  case  be considered, the  Court  hereby  denies  the said  petition inasmuch as the said  case is concerned it  was already  finished in the  Court of First  Instance.

"Therefore,  the  Court  hereby remits this case  to the Justice of the Peace of the City of Roxas."

On  December  5, 1953,  the City  Attorney petitioned the Court that the preceding Order be set aside  and that the ease  be  given  due  course,   among  other  things,  on the ground that:

"That when  this case was  called for  arraignment of "the  accused on November 9,  1953, this Honorable Court set aside the  arraignment of the  said accused and proceeded to hear the urgent motion for  reinvestigation  filed that  same morning by  counsel  of the accused without serving copy of  the same  to  the  undersigned;

"That the undersigned objected to the granting of the petition for reinvestigation  on the following  grounds:

"1. That the accused has  been granted the  opportunity  to be heard  during  the  investigation;

"2. That under Section  II, Rule 108  of  the  Rules  of Court, prior to her arrest she has  not  the absolute right to  participate in the investigation  conducted by the undersigned;

"3. Under  the  same  Rule after her arrest and  delivery to the court  the  only right of  the  accused is to  be informed  of the substance of  the  testimony  and evidence presented against her and if she desires  to testify and to  present witnesses or evidence in her favor; but accused in the above-entitled case waived her  right to the  preliminary investigation, as shown by the records of the case.

"That notwithstanding these objections  of  the undersigned,  this Honorable  Court  granted  the  said motion  for reinvestigation; "That pursuant to this order of this Honorable Court the undersigned  scheduled for  reinvestigation the above  entitled case  on November 18, 1953,  in order to  give opportunity  for the  accused to show those  facts  and circumstances mentioned in her  motion for reinvestigation which would warrant the dismissal of this case and  which were allegedly  ignored by the undersigned;

"That counsel of accused refused  to allow  the accused and her witnesses  to  submit to the reinvestigation  unless  the undersigned produces before said counsel  all  the witnesses of the prosecution so that he can cross-examine them;

"That undersigned refused to accede  to these demands without the  accused and her counsel first showing that the case filed lacks merit;

"That, the merits of the case as filed  not having been disturbed, the  undersigned accordingly filed a motion before  this  Honorable Court  on November 10,  1953, to consider the above entitled case filed and to give  due  course  to  the  same;

"That this Honorable Court in its order of November 24, 1953, denied  this petition of the undersigned alleging  that  tho.  above entitled  case, insofar  as  this Honorable  Court  is  concerned  is already finished;

"That the aforementioned order of  this  Honorable.  Court  is contrary to  law  and  procedure; this   Honorable  Court having disposed of  the above entitled  case by means of the  order for reinvestigation and not upon trial on the merits;  and,

"Granting arguendo that the  accused was deprived of her  right to participate to  the preliminary investigation, such  deprivation will  not warrant the dismissal of the ease as decided  by the Supreme Court in the case  of Gabino Lozada vs. The  Honorable Fernando Hernandez, respondent, G.  R.  No. L-6177 which held:

'It has been said time and again that a preliminary investigation is not properly a trial or any part thereof hut is merely preparatory thereto, its only purpose being to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the accused guilty thereof, (U. S. vs. Yu Tuico,  34 Phil. 209;  People  vs. Badilla,. 48 Phil.  718).  The  right to such investigation is not a fundamental right guaranteed  by the constitution. At most,  it is statutory."

On  December  9,  1953,  the  Court  of First   Instance denied this motion and  dismissed  the case  allegedly "in view of the insistence of  the City Fiscal in  his refusal to make further preliminary examination as  well as  to submit the case  to  preliminary  investigation."

It is contended  that  the  lower  court  erred  "in not giving  due course to  the  information  filed  by  the  City Attorney for  grave  oral defamation against the  accused Lourdes  Ramilo  and  in dismissing the case."   We  find this contention  to be  well taken.   Firstly, because  after the  filing  of the information by  the City Attorney with the  Municipal Court of the City  of Itaas and  after the issuance  of the warrant of  arrest, the  accused filed  a bond for her  temporary  release and   when the  case  was set  for  preliminary  investigation before that  court,  she, assisted by her counsel, having been informed of the  nature of the charge against  her,  pleaded not  guilty and explicitly  waived her  right  to a preliminary investigation.   Secondly,  when  the case was to be reinvestigated by the City Attorney pursuant to the order of the Court of First Instance, the  accused, instead of submitting  her evidence, demanded that the  witnesses for the prosecution be' recalled  for cross, examination  and refused to  continue with  the  reinvestigation  when her demand  was  denied by  the City  Attorney  who  had  to forward  the  record of the case to the: Court of. First  Instance  for trial  on the merits.   It  could  readily  be seen  that  'Ike  accused has been given  all the opportunity to present  her side of the case with the assistance of counsel not only in the preliminary investigation  before the Municipal Court  but also during the  reinvestigation  conducted by the  City Attorney  pursuant  to  the order of the  Court  of First Instance.   She cannot  therefore now claim that  she was deprived  of her  right to preliminary  investigation.  If there has been no such preliminary investigation,  it was because she explicitly waived her right thereto when  she was arraigned for that purpose in the Municipal Court, and when the case was to be reinvestigated  by  the City Attorney, she made an illegal demand instead of submitting her evidence.

Section  11 of Rule  108 of  the Rules  of Court  clearly provides:

"Alter  the arrest of the, defendant  and  his delivery to  the court,  he shall he  informed of the complaint or information  filed against him.  He shall also be informed  oJ the substance of  the testimony and evidence presented against him,  and, if  he  desires to testify or to present witnesses or evidence in his  favor,, he  may be allowed to do so. The  testimony of the witnesses need not be reduced to writing but that  of  the  defendant  shall be taken in writing and  subscribed by him:"

From the aforequoted provision of law, the rights of a defendant after  his arrest are (1)  to be  informed of the complaint or information filed  against  him  and  of the substance of the testimony and evidence presented against him;  and  (2)  to be allowed, if he so desires,  to  testify or to present witnesses of  evidence in his favor.  As of right,  therefore,  in  a preliminary investigation,  an accused is not entitled to cross-examine the witnesses presented  against  him.  Hence,  the  demand of the  herein accused during  the reinvestigation conducted by the City Attorney  that the witnesses  for the prosecution  be recalled  so  that  she  could  cross-examine them  was  not based  on  any provision  of law  and therefore  the  City Attorney of Roxas City has correctly denied such demand. Wherefore, the aforequoted order appealed from is here- by revoked and the Court a quo ordered to proceed with the trial of the case on its merit.

Parás, C. J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angela, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B.  L., JJ., concur.