Crim Pro Transcription

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


Crim pro

Text of Crim Pro Transcription


July 20, 2015Intro: Just make sure that that chair DOES. NOT. BLOCK. THE. DOOR.Maam showing a sample of an Information:This is an Information signed by the prosecutor. If you look at the date, its October 29, 2008. And then the prosecutor sent it to the City Prosecutor (CP). And how long does the City Prosecutor have? 10 days, normal. On November 23, it was approved by the CP. The part below is a certification. So aside from the information itself, the prosecutor has to certify. And this certification must be subscribed and sworn to before another prosecutor. How many signatures do we have here? We have the signature of the investigating prosecutor (IP), CP, and of another prosecutor to whom the IP sworn to. Now we have this case where there was an allegation there that the information was not sworn to. Ito yun ______? But the certification has to be sworn to. But theres also a case which says walang certification, is it a fatal defect? Its not really a fatal defect. It will not invalidate the information. What case was that? [No one answered] Try to know which case is that, bahala kayo dyan.Lets go to the cases:Artillero v. Casimiro: Here, the complainant has no right to file a reply. Its not there in the rule. The complainant is not entitled to a copy of the resolution of the prosecutor but the complainant is entitled to a copy of the counter-affidavit. It is there in Rule 112 Sec. 3.

Callo-Claridad v. Esteban:Issues here are what are the 3 purposes of Preliminary Investigation. Three purposes of a preliminary investigation:(1) to inquire concerning the commission of a crime and the connection of the accused with it, in order that he may be informed of the nature and character of the crime charged against him, and, if there is probable cause for believing him guilty, that the State may take the necessary steps to bring him to trial; (2) to preserve the evidence and keep the witnesses within the control of the State; and (3) to determine the amount of bail, if the offense is bailable. Here, the prosecution will recommend the amount of bail, 500k, 200k, etc. So, (Maam showing the sample information) if you look at this information at the bottom you see, Bail not required because this is a B.P. 22 case. So, it is during PI when the City Prosecutor would determine magkano kaya ang bail nito. Lets go to the issue here (Callo-Caridad case). What if there were affidavits that are unsworn? Diba the affidavits must be subscribed and sworn to before an authorized person. Here, some were not sworn. What is the effect? Can they be appreciated by the court? Kunyari, there were 10 witnesses, then out of this 10, only 7 are sworn. Answer: The lack of the requisite certifications from the affidavits of most of the other witnesses was in violation of Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which pertinently provides thusly:Section 3. Procedure. The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner:(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish probable cause. They shall be in such number of copies as there are respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file. The affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public, each of who must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.The requirement for the certifications under the aforecited rule was designed to avoid self-serving and unreliable evidence from being considered for purposes of the preliminary investigation, the present rules for which do not require a confrontation between the parties and their witnesses; hence, the certifications were mandatory. This is so because the rules on preliminary investigation does not require a confrontation between the parties.Because, di ba, what did we talk about? It is the prosecutor who will make _____? The parties cannot confront each other. Confrontation is done in cross-examination. Here, its only PI no confrontation yet that is why the affidavits is sworn. That what he states in the affidavit is true of his own personal knowledge. Hindi imbento. Preliminary investigation is ordinarily conducted through submission of affidavits and supporting documents, through submission of affidavits and supporting documents, through the exchange of pleadings. Thus, it can be inferred that the rationale for requiring the affidavits of witnesses to be sworn to before a competent officer so as to ensure that the affidavits supporting the factual allegations in the Complaint have been sworn before a competent officer and that the affiant has signed the same in the formers presence declaring on oath the truth of the statement made considering that this becomes part of the bases in finding probable guilt against the respondent.

Arroyo v. DOJ:Gloria Arroyo and Abalos were recommended to be subjected to PI based on the evidences gathered by the fact finding team and was submitted to the Joint Committee of COMELEC and DOJ, which is conducting the PI. This is a criminal case filed pursuant to Ominibus Election Code. Mike Arroyo insists that the DOJ has no right to conduct PI as the right to conduct PI is only when deputized by the COMELEC but DOJ cannot exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the COMELEC. Issue: Can the DOJ acquire jurisdiction in conduction PI in election cases? YESHeld: R.A. 9369 provides the COMELEC and other prosecuting arms of the government of such concurrent jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute election offenses. So in other words, it is the Comelec that has the authority to conduct PI under BP 881 and this amendment by Section 43 of RA No. 9369, amending Section 265 of BP 881, here the Comelec and other prosecuting arms of the govt. such as the DOJ now exercise concurrent jurisdiction in the prosecution and investigation of election offenses.Remember what we discussed yesterday with regard to election cases? The COMELEC according to Margarejo vs. People, in BP 881, prosecutoring arms have a continuing authority. No need of deputization. They have continuing authority until revoked by the Comelec. Under this new law RA 9369, they have concurrent jurisdiction, its not exclusive na for the Comelec. So the joint preliminary investigation also serves to maximize the resources and manpower of both the Comelec and the DOJ for the prompt disposition of the cases.

Now what about Gloria Arroyo, whats the issue with respect to her?Gloria contends she was deprived of her procedural rights in the PI when she was denied 10 day-extension after she received the documents to submit her counter-affidavit. Was she deprived of her right? NO. The Rule says, the respondent submit her counter-affidavit and other contravening evidence within 10 days of receipt of the subpoena. It is settled that the use of the word shall, which is a word of command, underscores the mandatory character. Now what are the instances where the investigator allow or grant motions for request for extension on time? First, when the interest of justice demands that respondent be given reasonable time or sufficient opportunity to engage the services of counsel. Sabi ng SC may lawyer na si Arroyo. Second, examine voluminous records submitted in support of the complaint or undertake research on novel, complicated or technical questions or issues of law and facts of the case. In other words, it is discretionary on the part of the Prosecution whether or not to allow the extension. So here, the Joint Committee, they refused. According to the SC it is discretionary because the rules says, shall. 10 days lang. Jinggoy Estrada vs. Bersamin (Jan. 21, 2015) report on this tomorrow. Lets go to Sec. 4 cases. Webb vs. Judge De Leon:NBI filed a complaint before DOJ charging Hubert Webb and 8 of rape with homicide. The DOJ panel of prosecutors found probable cause and recommended the filing of information. Webb assails the validity of the resolution contending that the DOJ panel of prosecutors did not clarificatory hearings in relation to the inconsistencies in the witnesses of NBI. Issue: WON DOJ panel of prosecutors committed an error in finding prob. cause without conducting clarificatory hearingHeld: Probable cause is a reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt. Considering this low quantum of evidence, the DOJ panel of prosecutors did not commit an error. It is in the sound discretion of the investigator WON he will conduct a clarificatory hearing. Suarez Commentary: Why is it discretionary? Where in the rule says it is discretionary, with respect of the clarificatory hearing? Kanina, were talking about the extension of time, now, the clarificatory hearing. Answer: Sec. 3 (e) of Rule 112 states: If the investigating officer believes that there are matters to be clarified, he may set a hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses x x xThe parties are not the ones who have to clarify, its the investigating officer. In this case, it was the panel of prosecutors. They did not have to clarify anything as they already found probable cause. Thus, no violation to the right of the respondent. Kasi nga, may ang nakalagay.

Dumlao vs. Judge Ponferada:Atty. Molina here was charged of multiple murder. They sought the review of the resolution of the prosecution before the DOJ. The Sec. of Justice reversed the resolution of the prosecutor and ordered him to move for the dismissal of the complaint. As a consequence thereof, J. Ponferrada dismissed the comp