On June 24, 1954, a complaint for kidnapping was filed with the Justice of the Peace Court of Naic, Cavite, against several   persons,  including  petitioner  herein   Mariano Villanueva.   After conducting the first phase of  the preliminary  investigation provided in the  Rules of Court, the Justice of the  Peace  of  Naic  issued  the  corresponding warrants of arrests, which were duly served.  When the defendants  appeared  before  said court on August  20, 1954, for the second  stage  of the preliminary investigation, they  waived their  right  thereto,  whereupon,  the record of the case was forwarded to  the Court  of  First Instance of Cavite.  Later on, after making a preliminary investigation,  in  the  course of which  several witnesses  gave testimony, under oath, implicating Villanueva's wife,  Consuelo  Papa-Villanueya, in the commission of the crime  charged in said complaint, the provincial fiscal of Cavite  filed the information, Annex D, charging, with kidnapping,  not only  the original defendants, but, also, said Consuelo Papa-Villanueva and one Tomas Panganiban.   At the foot  of said information the following appears: 

"I hereby certify that I have conducted the preliminary investigation of the above-entitled case with respect to accused Tomas Panganiban and  Consuelo Papa-Villanueva, having examined the witnesses  under oath and that  there is reasonable  ground to believe  that the  accused committed the crime charged, and  further certify  that  the  other accused have waived their rights to preliminary investigation  conducted before  the Justice of  the  Peace  of  Naic, Cavite,                                         

	MARIANO V. BENEDICTO
	Provincial Fiscal

"Subscribed and sworn to Defore me this 13th day; of; September, 1954, at Cavite City.

Deputy  Clerk  of Court"

On October 20, 1954, Villanueva filed, with the Court of First Instance  of  Cavite, a petition  praying  "that a  reinvestigation of this case be  ordered so that herein  accused may be afforded of their own right as provided  for  in * * *  Republic  Act No.  732."   This  was followed  on October 29,  1954 by a motion to quash,  upon  the  ground that the  information is  null and  void  for alleged noncompliance with said Republic Act No.  732. This motion, as well as said petition for reinvestigation, were denied in an  order dated January 10, 1955.  A  reconsideration  thereof was sought in a motion  filed by the  Villanuevas  on  February 10, 1955.  Four (4) days later the court issued an order the  dispositive  part  of which reads: 

"However, in the interest of the administration of  Justice, it is| hereby ordered that a preliminary investigation be held before  this  Court with respect to the said accused-spouses wherein the prosecution should present whatever evidence it has against them. This  preliminary investigation is hereby set for February 19, 1955, at 8:30 a.m."

This order was, on motion for reconsideration  filed by the prosecution amended by another dated February  15, 1955,  of the  following  tenor: 

"Considering the petition for  reconsideration of the  Provincial Fiscal  and finding the  same to be well founded,  the  order dated February 14,  1955 is hereby reconsidered in  the  sense  that  the preliminary investigation granted to  the accused-spouses Mariano Villanueva and  Consuelo Papa shall  take  place at the  time with, the trial as against the other accused, and this on March d, 2,  3 and 4, 1955, at two o'clock  in the afternoon, instead of on  February 19, 1955,  as previously scheduled. 

"The said accused-spouses and their counsel are hereby advised to be thorough  in  their cross-examination  of the  prosecution witnesses so that in the event  that the Court finds the evidence of the prosecution  to  be sufficient in establishing a prima  fade case as against them, such evidence  adduced at the preliminary  investigation  with  respect  to  said  accused-spouses may very well be reproduced without the  necessity of presenting all over again such testimonies  of  witnesses who  shall  have  already given evidence in Court."

What transpired on March 1,  1955, when the case was called  for a  second preliminary investigation  and  trial, at the same  time, is  set forth in  the order of the Court of First  Instance of Cavite of March 15, 1955, from  which we quote: 

"* * * when the Court posed to query to the said accused-spouses in the afternoon of March  1st,  1955, as to  whether or not they are willing to have the testimonies  of the witnesses to be presented by the prosecution at such second preliminary  investigation reproduced at the trial of the case  with respect to them in the eventuality that the Court, after such second preliminary investigation, finds prima facie  evidence  against  them, the  said accused-spouses  declined to make their stand known, and even refused to be arraigned on the information as against them unless the second preliminary investigation  be  first conducted by  the Court,  which arraignment was requested by the Fiscal by way of forestalling any future objection on the  part of  the said accused spouses to the reproduction later on at  the  trial  of the  testimonies  to  be given by the  prosecution witnesses in the preliminary investigation sought by the accused spouses. 

"This  attitude on  the part of  accused-spouses,  Villanueva and Papa,  gives  the Court  the  impression that they  are obstructing the objective of the Court towards a  speedy trial, considering that this Court issued  its aforequoted order with a view  to  (1st)  protesting innocent accused from unjustified delays in the proceedings in the meanwhile that they stand accused,  and (2nd) to protecting society at large, by seeing to it that the guilty are convicted at the earliest possible date. In this manner, it occurred to the mind of the  court  that the  paramount  interests  of  the  administration of justice demand that this contemplated second preliminary investigation, as  granted  by the Court to the  accused-spouses,  should now be, as it is hereby, withdrawn  and cancelled. 

"Let it therefore be declared that this case be put in the calendar for the arraignment  of  the  above-named  accused-spouses, Mariano B. Villanueva and  Consuelo  Papa. 

"The petition for reconsideration of the Provincial Fiscal  dated March 1st, 1955 is accordingly granted, with the cancellation and withdrawal of the order of February 15, 1955 granting accused-spouses Villanueva  and Papa the so-called  second preliminary investigation. 

"The Clerk of Court is instructed to set this case for the arraignment  of said) accused-spouses, Villanueva  and Papa, after which another date should be set for the trial of the case  on the merits with regard  to all  the accused.

Thereupon, the Villanuevas instituted the present action for "certiorari,   prohibition  and   iftandamus",  with  the prayer  that: 

"1. Pending hearing of this petition  on the merits,  and upon the filing of a  bond in such amount as this Honorable Court may fix, a writ of  preliminary  injunction be  immediately issued  against the respondent Judge Primitivo Gonzales restraining him from proceeding with the arraignment of the herein petitioners and the  trial of the said criminal case No. 11,867 of the Court of First Instance of Cavite insofar as herein petitioners are  concerned. 

"2.  After hearing, an order be issued annulling and setting aside the order of the respondent Judge dated  March  15, 1955, Annex 'F'  of the  petition, and  giving full force and effect  to the  orders dated  February  14 and  15, 1955, quoted in paragraphs 17  and 18 of the petition in which  orders respondent Judge  directed  the prosecution to  present  its evidence at  a  preliminary investigation to be conducted by respondent  Judge in  the  presence  of petitioners. 

"3. In the alternative an order be issued, after hearing, directing respondent Provincial  Fiscal  Mariano B. Benedicto  to conduct a preliminary investigation of the case with due notice to the herein petitioners of the place, date and  hour  of such investigation and according to petitioners the right  to cross-examine  the witnesses against them. 

"4. Respondents be ordered to answer this  petition, 

"5. The preliminary writ of  injunction be  made final and permanent,  unless  either the  respondent judge  or respondent  fiscal conducts a preliminary investigation of which petitioners should be notified and at which  they  should  be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. 

"6: Petitioners be  awarded such other  remedy and  relief  as may be just and  equitable  in the premises." The writ of preliminary  injunction prayed  for has not been issued.   In  the language of  petitioners herein, the question for determination is: 

* * *'Under the provision of Republic Act No. 752, may a provincial  fiscal file an information without first notifying  the  accused so as to enable the latter to be present at the preliminary investigation to be conducted by him and to cross-examine  the  witnesses of the complainant or the prosecution?'"

Petitioners urge a negative answer, relying, upon section 1687 of the Revised Administrative Code, as  amended by section  2 of Republic Act No. 732,  reading: 

"A provincial fiscal  shall  have authority to conduct investigation into the matter of  any crime or misdemeanor and  have the necessary information  or complaint prepared or made  against persons  charged with  the  commission of  the same.   If the  offense charged  falls within  the original jurisdiction  of  the  Court  of First Instance the defendant shall not be entitled as a matter  of right to preliminary investigation  in any case where the  provincial  fiscal himself after due  investigation of the facts made in the presence of the accused if the latter so requested, 'shall have presented an information against him  in  proper form and certified under oath by the said provincial fiscal that he conducted a proper preliminary investigation.  To this end,  he may,  with due  notice to the  accused,  summon reputed  witnesses and require them  to appear before him and  testify and be  cross-examined under oath by the accused  upon  the tatter's request. The attendance or evidence of absent or  recalcitrant witnesses who may be summoned or whose testimony  may be required by  the provincial fiscal  under the authority herein conferred shall be enforced by proper  process upon application to be made by the  provincial  fiscal to any Judge of First Instance of the Judicial District. But no witness summoned to testify under  this section  shall be  compelled to give testimony to  incriminate himself. 

"The Provincial Fiscal shall also cause to be investigated the cause of sudden deaths  which  have not  been satisfactorily explained and when there is suspicion that the cause arose from the unlawful acts or omissions of other persons, or from foul  play. For that purpose he may cause autopsies  to be made and  shall be entitled  to demand and receive for purposes of such investigations or autopsies, the aid of  the  medico-legal section of the  National Bureau  of Investigation or of the District Health Officer  and the different presidents  of  the sanitary divisions  of  the  province." (Italics  supplied.)

Petitioners contention is untenable.   Said Republic Act No. 732, governs preliminary investigations conducted by provincial fiscals  in  cases originally  instituted by them in courts of first instance. It does not apply to cases begun in justice of the peace courts  and,  thereafter, forwarded to the corresponding court of first instance, either after the  second phase of the preliminary investigation required in the Rules of Court had been conducted before said justice of the peace courts, or after a waiver  by the accused of their right to said  preliminary  investigation. The reason is obvious.   In those cases the provincial fiscal is under no obligation to make such preliminary  investigation.  'He may  rely upon  the evidence  introduced in, and the facts  found by, the justice  of the peace court, at the  preliminary investigation therein  conducted.

With respect to petitioner  Consuelo Papa-Villanueva, who was not included in the complaint filed with the justice of the peace  court of Naic, the legality  of the  preliminary investigation  made by the  provincial fiscal,  as regards said petitioner, is  not  affected by  the lack  of previous notice thereof to her, for said notice is "required only after the  accused has  requested to  be present  at the investigation" Lozada vs. Fernandez,  (92  Phil., 1051), April 29,  1953, and no such request had  been  made  by Mrs. Villanueva prior to said preliminary investigation. In Rodriguez vs. Arellano  (96 Phil.,  954),  decided  on April 30, 1955, we declared: 

" * * *that it is not the duty  of the provincial fiscal conducting  a  preliminary  investigation under the authority of  Republic Act  No.  732, to notify the accused thereof so  that the  latter may exercise  his  right  to request his presence in  the  investigation. We  held, however, that if during an investigation  and  prior  to the filing of the information, the accused requests to be present, the fiscal must conduct the investigation in his presence.  In  the case at bar, we hold that the  respondent judge exceeded  his powers in remanding the  case  for a new investigation  and requiring  the provincial fiscal  to comply with the demand of the respondent  accused that he be notified  thereof,  because the  investigation by  the fiscal had  already been finished and the information filed,  when the demand of the accused was made."

This  view was reiterated in  People  vs.  Napagao  (97 Phil., 785),  decided on October 29,  1955, in the  following language: 

"* * * the legal duty of the provincial fiscal to notify the  accused of the preliminary  investigation, arises  only after the  latter expressly requests  that  said investigation be made in his presence. Counsel for defendants-appellees, in contending otherwise, stresses the fact  that  the above quoted  provision recites that 'to this end, he may,  with  due notice to the accused, summon reputed witnesses and  require them to appear before him and testify and be  cross-examined under oath by  the  accused upon the  latter's  request,' and  'that  the attendance or  evidence of absence or  recalcitrant witnesses who may be  summoned  or whose testimony may be  required by the  provincial fiscal * * * shall be enforced by  the proper process upon application  to be  made by the provincial  fiscal to any Judge of the First Instance  of the Judicial  District Inasmuch,  however, as the  sentences referred to by counsel for  defendants-appellees,  are  introduced by the phrase 'to  this  end', they are  to be  construed in  relation  to the  preceding  provision, namely, that the accused  should make the corresponding request if he desires to  be present  at the investigation.  The clause 'if  the latter so requested', appearing in the  second sentence  of the  above quoted provision of Republic Act  No. 732 would be meaningless, if in all  cases the fiscal is bound to notify and  require the presence of the accused."   (Italics  supplied.)

Wherefore,  the petition must be,  as it is hereby, denied with costs  against the petitioners.   It  is so  ordered.

Paras, C. J.,  Bengzon,  Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ.,  concur.