Click here to load reader

Crim Pro Transcription

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Crim pro

Citation preview

Page1

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 complaint. Dumlao et.al insist that the Sec. of Justice no longer has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for review once the case has already been filed before the court citing the case of Crespo v. Mogul. Issue: WON the Sec. of Justice has jurisdictionHeld: Yes. Under RA 5180, in connection with Rule 112, Section 4 of the Rules of Court,the Justice Secretary is vested with the power to review resolutions of the provincial, city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor. He has the power to re-evaluate the position taken by his subordinates in a case. Corollary to this power, he may also direct the public prosecutor to dismiss or cause the dismissal of the complaint or information.The filing of a complaint or information in court does not prevent the Justice Secretary from exercising his review power. Neither can such complaint or information deter him from ordering the withdrawal of the case. As a matter of fact, inCrespo, we declared that the public prosecutor (as the Justice Secretarys subordinate) may still opt to withdraw the Information either upon instruction of the Justice Secretary or for purposes of reinvestigation. What was the issue in relation to Crespo case? Did the Judge rightfully dismiss the information upon motion of the prosection?Answer: In relation to this, Crespomerely laid down the rule that, while the Secretary of Justice has the power to alter or modify the resolution of his subordinate and thereafter direct the withdrawal of a case,he cannot, however, impose his will on the court. The determination of the case is within [the courts] exclusive jurisdiction and competence.The records without doubt reveal that before the motion was granted, Judge Ponferrada required petitioners and private respondents to file their respective memoranda or comments. He made his own assessment and evaluation of the evidence on record. Thus, it is not correct to say that Judge Ponferrada had absolutely nothing before him or that he blindly adopted the position of the Justice Secretary.Suarez Commentary: Here, the prosecutor found probable cause. What goes with the finding of prob cause? The issuance of a resolution and the information. Now, there are times, the information will stand by because there is a petition filed before the SOJ. So sabi ng prosecutor, ay mamaya na tayo magfile ng information kasi baka ma-reverse tayo ni boss. But there are times, syempre the pressure coming from the complainant. So the information is already filed in court and that was exactly what happened here. There was a pending information filed in court and then after the info was filed in court, saka pa lang nag petition for review. Can this be done by the accused? Yes! Because the Sec. of Justice (SOJ) can review the findings of the prosecution. Pwede! That is the right given to the SOJ as the superior. However, because the information is already in court, the landmark Crespo case says it is under now the courts authority. In other words, the prosecutor cannot withdraw. Prosecutor cannot say, excuse me Your Honor, bawiin namin kasi sabi ni SOJ. No! The prosecution has to file this motion, and when you file the motion, it is discretionary. The motion can be granted or denied. The court has options. It is not obliged to grant. Because it is now under the courts authority, no, the SC emphasized that judges should already exercise their discretion before dismissing the information based on a motion. Citing Crespo: [O]nce a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests [on] the sound discretion of the CourtFirst Womens Credit v. BaybayTayao et al was charged for falsification of private document and grave coercion. The investigating prosecutor found probable cause issued in his resolution which was approved by the City Prosecutor. However, the findings of the City Pros was reversed by the Sec of Justice. Due to this, Tayao et al now filed a motion to withdraw the case. The MeTC granted. The First Credit questioned the decision alleging that the lower court failed to comply with its judicial mandate to make an independent evaluation and assessment of the evidence on record.ISSUE: WON lower court committed and errorHELD: No. SC said the trial court should no rely merely on the findings of the Sec of Justice. Instead, it must conduct its own evaluation. In this case, the MeTC was able to do so. The trial judge need not state with specificity or make a lengthy exposition of the factual and legal foundation relied upon by him to arrive at his decision. It suffices that upon his own personal evaluation of the evidence and the law involved in the case, he is convinced that there is no probable cause to indict the accused.Suarez Commentary: The judge doesnt have to explain specifically. The judge, HE is convinced himself that there is no probable cause. Hindi yung ah, the Sec of Justice is convinced, convinced na rin ako. He must take his own personal evaluation.

Cruz vs. Cruz:Wilfredo Cruz filed a complaint of BP 22 against his aunt for issuing a worthless check. He filed the case before the office of the prosecutor. PI was conducted. It turned out from the PI that there was already payment of the check. So the Assistant City Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the case which was affirmed and adopted by the City Prosecutor. Then, Amanda Cruz filed a petition for review but the Sec of Justice adopted the dismissal of the case. Amanda Cruz again filed an appeal before CA. The CA found that an information must be filed, so it directed the Sec of Justice to file the information. Issue: WON the CA committed an error in ordering the Sec of Justice in filing the informationHeld: Yes. Here, the prosecutors were one in concluding that petitioner did not commit the offense charged. Thus, there is no reason for filing the information. Suarez Commentary: What I want to come out of here in this case is that PI is done by the executive department the prosecution or the Sec. of Justice. If the SOJ, after reviewing all the documents, determines there is no probable cause, pakialam ng CA dyan. Can the CA order the Sec. of Justice?! Its not there in Section 4!! Wala! (sorry lang gud Maam kung wala. Way sukoay. :3)It is the SOJ who has the last say. Yung sinabi mo na appeal, you cannot appeal! We already talked about that, YOU CANNOT APPEAL the SOJs decision or motion. You have to file a petition for certiorari invoking grave abuse of discretion. But in this case, the SC said there was no reversal within the executive [branch]. How come the CA can set orders?

Tolentino vs. Paqueo:State Prosecutor Tolentino filed an Information charging private respondent Benedict Dy Tecklo, for violation of Sec. 22 (a) in relation to Sec. 28 (e) of Republic Act No. 8282(Social Security Act of 1997) for failing to remit the premiums due for his employee to the Social Security System despite demand. The information contained the certification of State Pros Tolentino alleging among others that the filing of the information was with the prior authority and approval of the Regional State Pros. Tecklo filed a motion to quash on the ground that Tolentino does not have the authority to prosecute as he is not clothed to file the information to commence the prosecution. According to Tolentino, he has been designated by the Regional State Pros as a special prosecutor SSS cases. RTC found that Tolentino has no prior written authority issued by the City Pros, which is a violation of Section 4 Rule 112Issue: WON Tolentino has the authority to file informationHeld: No. Both the old and the new rules of criminal procedure couched the procedure in negative terms making it mandatory importing that the act shall not be done otherwise than designated. No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutorwithout the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutoror the Ombudsman or his deputy. The functions of the Regional State Prosecutor showed that they do not include that of approving the Information filed or dismissed by the investigating prosecutor. He is not among those officers that is allowed to do so. And since Tolentino failed to comply with Sec. 4, Rule 112, it is a ground for the ground of quashal Suarez Commentary: It is one thing to be authorized to conduct the investigation. Does the Chief State Pros can authorize [Tolentino to investigate]? Wala mang problema yaaaannn. It is the filing. You cannot file without the approval of the head of the office. Even if you are the Regional State Pros, and you are answerable to the Chief State Pros, but if you are in a city, the head of the office is the City State Prosecutor. Sinong nagbigay ng approval? The regional state pros who is not head of the office. If you look at Section 4, who are the head of office? The provincial, city, chief state prosecutors, the Ombudsman in relation..Walang nakalagay na regional. What should have been done is to get the approval of the City Pros of Naga [the place of the Tolentino case], before filing the information in court. Okay?The designation of State Prosecutor Tolentino to investigate,file this information if the evidence warrants, and to prosecute SSS cases in court does not exempt him from complying with the provision of the third paragraph of [Sec. 4 of] Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, that no complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or approval of the Provincial or City Prosecutor or Chief State Prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy Thats procedure! You have to follow..

Summerville vs. EugenioSummerville filed a complaint for unfair competition against Co before the City Prosecutor of Manila. The latter issued a resolution recommending the prosecution of Co, then filed an information. The arraignment was set but Co filed a petition for review before the SOJ. The SOJ upheld the resolution of the City Pros. But Co filed Motion for Reconsideration. The SOJ filed a resolution without any ruling saying that the case would be further reviewed. Arraignment pushed through. One year after, SOJ filed a resolution dismissing both the complaint of Summerville and counter claim by Co. In relation to this, City Prosecutor filed a motion for withdrawal before the RTC. As a result, judge issued an order granting withdrawal. This order was contested by Summerville. Suarez: After the dismissal of Judge Eugenio of RTC, what happened to SOJ? Reporter: After the dismissal, Summerville filed a motion for reconsideration with the DOJ. This time, there was a new Sec of Justice. The new Secretary reversed the earlier decision of the old Sec. Now, there was a motion again by the prosecutor reinstating the information for unfair completion. Now Judge Eugenio denied on the ground of double jeopardy. Issue: WON the order of withdrawal by Judge Eugenio is valid. Held: NO. Citing the Crespo case, once the information is filed in court, the discretion lies in the court. However, it is not without restriction. The trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Sec. of Justice since it is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case. Reliance alone on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice would be an abdication of the trial courts duty and jurisdiction to determine aprima faciecase. The SC said that Judge E. merely adopted the resolution of the Sec. of Justice. Suarez Commentary: So this is an example of a case where the Judge blindly followed the recommendation of the Sec. of Justice. Judge granted the motion to withdraw, that knowing na may motion for reconsideration filed before the Sec. of Justice. And the Secretary reversed! What happened? There is a reinstatement. But Judge E said no more, double jeopardy! Was there a double jeopardy? No! Because the dismissal was a nullity. This failure of Judge Eugenio to independently evaluate and assess the merits of the case against the accused violates the complainants right to due process

Soriano vs MarceloAssistant City Prosecutor Balasbas issued a Resolution recommending that Mely Palad bank examiner of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, be charged in court with Falsification of Public Documents. City Prosecutor approved. Palad filed a Motion to Re-Open Case on the ground that she was not given a copy of the subpoena or any notice regarding the complaint filed against her. City Pros approved Palads motion so Balasbas issued a subpoena setting the case for investigation. Because of this, Soriano the complainant, filed a criminal case against Balasbas alleging that he committed gross inexcusable negligence and bad faith for re-opening the case. Issue: WON an investigating prosecutor can re-open the case. Held: Balasbas, as investigating prosecutor, had no power or control over the final disposition of Palads motion to reopen the case. Conducting a preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining whether there exists probable cause to prosecute a person for the commission of a crime, including the determination of whether to conclude, reopen or dismiss the criminal complaint subject of the preliminary investigation, is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the provincial or city prosecutor.This is clear from the provision of Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which specifically states that no complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating fiscal without the prior written authority of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.In this case, because the motion of reopening the case was approved by his superior, he did not commit inexcusable negligence. Suarez Commentary: When the investigating prosecutor submits his findings to the City Prosecutor, the latter does not have to approve it. The City Pros can say your investigation is not enough! Re-open it, re-investigate it. Thats exactly what was ordered and Balasbas just followed it. No violation of any of the laws. July 21, 2015Rule 112SECTION 4If the accused questions the finding of probable cause by the prosecutor, he may file a Petition for review before the Secretary of justice. Once the secretary of justice is reviewing the resolution of the prosecutor being questioned by the accused, the court proceedings may continue.Adasa vs. Abalos GR No. 168617Abalos filed a complaint for estafa against Adasa. The office of the city prosecutor issued a resolution finding probable cause. Upon the motion of Adasa, a reinvestigation was conducted but still, the office of the city prosecutor appealed the resolution. Subsequently, Adasa was arraigned where he pleaded not guilty. She filed a petition for review before the DOJ. DOJ reversed and set aside the resolution of the City Prosecutor and direct the latter to withdraw the resolution filed before the court.Issue: WoN the DOJ may take cognizance of a petition for review after the arraignment?Rulling: No. there are two conflicting provisions in this case. One is that of Section 7 of DOJ Circular 70 and Section 12 of said circular. Section 7 uses the word shall in stating that the Secretary of Justice may shall not give due course to petitions for review when the accused has already been arraigned. However, in Section 12 the provisions uses the word may in enumerating the grounds which the DOJ may dismiss the petition. One of the most important is the fact of arraignment.Section 12 bolsters the mandatory application of Section 7. Section 7 is clear and categorical when it stated that the DOJ shall not give due course to the petition for review when the accused has already been arraigned. Section 12 is an enumeration of actions of which the Secretary of justice may take considering the petition for review. He may affirm, reverse, modify or dismiss motu proprio or by reason of several grounds the petition. The court also noted that if it would be given directory application, then Section 12 would be contrary to the legislative intent of the circular itself which is the speedy disposition of cases.Take note: if the accused has already been arraigned, the DOJ under its own rules cannot and should not take cognizance of the petition for review.If you are the accused, make sure that you file the petition for review before you are arraigned.What happens if you are arraigned later? It does not matter. The case will continue. The important thing is the petition is filed before arraignment.Plopinio vs. Cario AM P-08-2458Plopinio filed administrative and criminal charges against Atty. Carino. In the meantime, Atty. Carino applied for clerk of court of the RTC. She filled up an application sheet with a question Have you ever been formally charged? she answered No. It was because of this that Plopinio filed an admininstrative case against Carino alleging that Carino did not disclose the previeous charges that were already filed against him.Issue: What does the term formally charge mean? Won Carino has been formally charged?No.In criminal cases, the determination of whether a person deemed to have been formally charged is found in section 4 Rule 112 of the RROCP. Under this section, if the investigating officer finds probable cause to hold the accused liable, then he will be prepared a resolution and an information. The officer should submit a report to his superior officer which may be the provincial or city prosecutor, the chief state prosecutor, the ombudsman or his deputy. 3rd par. Of Section 4 also expressly states that no complaint or information may be filed by investigation officer without the prior written approval of the city or prov. Prosecutor, the chief state prosecutor, the ombudsman or his deputy.Therefore, it is only upon the issuance of the resolution finding probable cause by the investigating officer and the subsequent filing of the information that the respondent will be considered formally charged and will be held as an accused.That is why during PI, the person that is charged with the complaint is not called the accused but merely a respondent. That is why the respondent is not required to take mugshots.SECTION 5Under Sec. 5, we meet the 2nd kind of probable cause. This is determined by the judge.(The phrase which makes this provision confusing is He (the judge) may immediately dismiss the case if he fails to find probable cause. Totally against the rule that it is for the prosecutor to determine probable cause to hold the accused for trial. This is supposed to be probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest. By giving the judge the power to dismiss, it is like giving him the authority to determine probable cause to hold the accused for trial)Procedure:1. the information is filed before the judge2. he shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence within 10 days.3. The court will determine whether to issue aa. Warrant of arrest; orb. Commitment order

4. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest or commitment orderThe judge has a 10 day period to either dismiss, or issue a warrant or commitment order. If the judge orders the prosecutor to present additional evidence, then the issue must be resolved within 30 days.This provision was Section 6 of the old rule.In Brion v. Ruiz, it involves the old section 5 when judges were allowed to conduct PI. Just pretend that it was the prosecutor who conducted the PI.Brion v. RuizAn information was filed against Brion for grave threats. He questions the issuance of warrant of arrest by the judge of MCTC before judge conducted the preliminary investigation. He said that he only received the subpoena after the issuance of warrant of arrest.Ruling. According to Section 6, of the old Rules of Criminal Procedure, the judge may still issue a warrant of arrest without waiting for the completion of the PI so as not to frustrate the ends of justice.Here, it was the MTC judge who conducted the PI. So what is probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest? It is to determine Jinggoy caseOmbudsman filed complaint against Senator Estrada and 18 other people involved in the crime of Plunder and violation of RA 3019. Jinggoy requested that he be furnished a copy of the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents invoking Section 3, Rule 112 of the RRoCP. The Ombudsman denied his request.Issue: WoN Jinggoy Estrada is entitled to be furnished a copy of his co-respondents counter affidavit?No. Section 3(b) Rule 112 of RRoCP did not entitle the respondent to have a copy of the counter affidavits of his corespondents. Neither was it stated in Rules of Proceedings of the office of the Ombudman. Section 3(b) of Rule 112 only provides that he is entitled to examine the affidavits submitted by the complainant and his witness xxxxxxx If you look at Section 3, the respondent is supposed to file his counter-affidavit with the court and furnish the complainant of a copy of his counter-affidavit. It does not say there that he must furnish his co-respondents. It does not entitle him to be given a copy of the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents. But, if he is given a copy by his ci-respondents, there is nothing wrong with that.In this case, the SC also gave us the 4 instances where probable cause is needed to be established:1. Under Section 1 and 3 of Rule 112, by the investigating officer to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty of the offense and should be held for trial.2. Under Section 5 (previously Section 6 and 9) of Rule 112, by the judge to determine whether a warrant of arrest or commitment order shall be issued.(wala na niya giingon ang 3rd ug fourth, hehe)De Joya vs Jugde MarquezProbable cause to issue to a warrant of arrest- pertains to the facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrestedIn determining this kind of probable cause, what should the court do? Does the judge have to conduct a trial? No.The judge personally examines and reviews the resolution of the prosecutor in order to issue a warrant of arrest. In case of doubt, the judge can order the prosecutor to present additional evidence.The SC tried to define probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest.Teotimo Redulla vs. SBAn information was filed against Redulla for violating RA 3019. Redulla filed with the office of the Special Prosecutor a motion for reinvestigation. After the reinvestigation, the OSP founf that there was no probable cause and recommended the withdrawal of the information. Ombudsman Disierto accepted the findings of the OSP and granted the motion to withdraw the information with the SB.After a year, the new Ombudsman ordered the review of the original complaint against Redulla that was filed by COA. Acting on the order, they reviewed the complaint and found that there was sufficient evidence to charge Redulla of violation of RA 3019. A new information was filed with the SB.Issue: w/n the filing and refiling of the information which was based on the same facts and transaction should be allowed. Yes.There was nothing irregular in the review of original complaint and the filing of the information. It is discretionary upon the Ombudsman if he will deny all the findings of the prosecutor in making a review of the latters report and recommendations. As matter of fact, as provided under section 4, Rule 112 of the RRoCP, when the investigating prosecutor recommends the dismissal of the complaint, but his recommendation was disapproved by the Ombudsman or his deputy on the ground that probable cause exists, the Ombudsman may file an information against the respondent or order another assisting prosecutor to do so without conducting another PI. It is the Ombudmsman who has the authority to approve or disapprove the recommendation of the Investigating prosecutor.w/n the dismissal by the SB of the Judicial Determination of Probable Cause was proper? Yes. This is in line with the courts policy of non-interference with the Ombudsmans constitutionally mandated powers. This rule is based not only upon the respect towards the investigating and prosecutor powers of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the court will be extremely swamped every time they will be compelled to review the exercise of discretion of the prosecuting attorneys.The SC in many cases does not agree that the court can dismiss the case on the ground that there was no probable cause based on the records. The probable cause that the court has to determine is only w/n to issue a warrant of arrest.Why was a Judicial Determination of Probable Cause filed by Redulla? Because there is no more avenue. You cannot question the finding of the Ombudsman before the Secretary of Justice. It is the prosecutor that is under the SoJ, not the Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman is an independent body.AAA vs. Judge CarbonellAzardon filed for Judicial Determination of Probable cause for the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest which was granted by Judge Carbonell. The judge ordered AAA, the alleged rape victim, and her witnesses to take the witness stand. Because of AAAs failure to take the witness stand in 4 settings, the judge dismissed the case.w/n the case can be dismissed on the ground of lack of probable cause for the purpose of issuing the warrant of arrest because of the complainants failure to take the witness stand?No. based on established doctrine and principles, the judge can:1. Evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the fiscal, and on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or2. If on the basis thereof, he finds no probable cause, he can order the complainant and his witnesses to submit supporting affidavits and on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest.The judge dismissed the case without giving credence to the resolution of the Assistant provincial Prosecutor, the panel of prosecutors and the resolution of the Department of Justice, all of which agree as to the existence of probable cause. Therefore, it was unnecessary for the judge to take the further step of requiring AAA to take the witness stand. PRELIMINARY INQUIRYPRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

The function of the judgeThe function of the investigating prosecutor

What is determined is the existence of probable cause for the purpose of issuing the warrant of arrestPurpose is to determine whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is probably guilty of the offense charged and should be held for trial

It is the function of the investigating prosecutor to determine probable cause. Thus, a dismissal would negate the entire process of PI.

July 23, 2015Case: Ong vs. GenioFacts: Elvira Ong filed a criminal complaint against Jose Genio for Robbery which was dismissed by the City Prosecutor. However, pursuant to the Resolutions of the DOJ, Genio was charged with the crime of Robbery in an Information. Genio filed a Motion to Dismiss the Case for Lack of PC pursuant to Sec. 6(a), Rule 112. Ong filed an Opposition to Genio's Motion to Dismiss.Ong filed her MR, claiming that the RTC erred in relying on Sec. 6(a), Rule 112, since the said provision relates to the issuance of a warrant of arrest, and it does not cover the determination of probable cause for the filing of the Information against Genio, which is executive in nature, a power primarily vested in the Public Prosecutor.RTC denied Ongs MR, holding that Rule 112, Sec. 6[a] authorizes the RTC to evaluate not only the resolution of the prosecutor who conducted the PI and eventually filed the Information in court, but also the evidence upon which the resolution was based. In the event that the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause, the RTC may dismiss the case.Issue: Did the RTC have the authority to dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause?

Held: Yes. Pursuant to Rule 112, Sec. 6[a], the RTC judge, upon the filing of an Information, has the following options:1. dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable cause;2. if he finds probable cause, issue a warrant of arrest; and3. in case of doubt as to the existence of probable cause, order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within 5 days from notice, the issue to be resolved by the court within 30 days from the filing of the information.

It bears stressing that the judge is required to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. This, the RTC judge clearly complied with in this case.Atty Suarez: So there are still cases wherein Section 5 is applied, although not many and this is one of those cases. So RTC dismissed the case on the ground that there was no PC in the work done by the prosecutor.Case: Borlongan vs. PenaSC: Judged blindly followed the certification of the City Prosecutor. He must have to go over the reports of the affidavits personally. Benjamin Lim here was not even intended by Pena as one of the accused, therefore the warrant of arrest was not valid.Atty. Suarez: So Ben Lim, lets talk about Pende, was he included in the list of the accused in the information?Answer: Yes maam.Atty. Suarez: But who allegedly committed the crime?Answer: Only those members of the board. Atty. Suarez: So there is a conflict between the people who committed the crime and those people listed in the information. If you are the judge you will have to properly read the information, what is the crime, who are the accused. If this was committed by the board of directors then the accused should be the members of the board, because PC to issue a WOA pertains that the person to be issued have been found a well-founded belief that he committed it. Ben Lim here was not one of the Board of Directors, a warrant of arrest should not have been issued against him.So, it is not automatic that if the information enumerates the people who are considered accused, doesnt automatically mean that a WOA should be issue against all of them because it ispossible that one of themor some of tem are not included in the category who allegedly committed the crime as what happened in this case. That is why even in the issuance of WOA, PC needs to be ascertained.

Case: Delos Santos vs. CAFacts: An information against Desmond was filed in the RTC. Desmond argued that there is no PC. Desmond filed a motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause in the RTC. Issue: Does RTC have the authority to resolve a motion for Judicial Determination of PC? Does it have the authority to grant or deny?Held: Yes. Under Sec 5 or Rule 112.Atty. Suarez: If a judge were to dismiss upon studying the case because he finds there is no PC, what should be the basis of such dismissal? There should ba a clear-cut showing that upon reading, there is blatant showing that there is no PC talaga to hold the accused for trial. In this case, was the Dismissal by the RTC proper? No, despite the fact that a judge may dismiss the case under section 5, such is appropriate only when no PC can be clearly inferred from the evidence presented and not when its existence is simply doubtful. After all, it cannot be expected that upon the filing of the information in court, the prosecutor would have already presented all the evidences necessary for the conviction of the accused, the objective of a previously conducted PI being merely to determine PC. Here, there is no clear showing that the elements of estafa presented were doubtful. Meaning, the elements were uncontroverted in the information.So, let us go now to a very important provision which is Section 6, that is what we call inquest., when accused lawfully arrested without warrant. Ordinarily, when PI is conducted, where is the respondent? In his house, he is not detained, therefore the PI can last even for 45 days or 60 days, 1 year, because he is in his house or wherever. Section 6 talks about a person who was already detained because he was lawfully arrested without a warrant.Now, when is a warrant issue? It is issued after an information has been filed in court, diba?So, here he was lawfully arrested without a warrant, example By-Bust. He is now detained, and then the arrest offense requires P, now the problem is how long is the PI? 45 days minimum diba? What will happen? The ones who arrested him will be charged under article 125 of the RPC, delay of delivery of detained persons. So, instead of a full blown PI, since he was already detained, hindi pa xa accused, detainee lang, an Inquest investigation is conducted.There is no need for a full blown PI, this is only an investigation based only on the affidavit of the offended party, the police and the arresting officers. The accused is not required to submit his counter affidavits. Who will conduct the inquest? An inquest investigator , he is also an investigating prosecutor, but because he is conducting an inquest, he is called an inquest investigator. The provision is saying, the complaint may be filed by the prosecutor withiur need of such investigation. So parang he is implying na wala na siyang approval from the City prosecutor, kasi pagilagay pa yan sa table ng city prosecutor, abutin pa yan ng siyam siyam. So, the inquest prosecutor can file.Who else can file? In the absence or unavailability of the investigating prosecutor, let us say this detainee is andun na sa far flung area one of the municipal complaint? It can be filed by the offended party or the peace officer directly to the proper court of the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or the arresting officer.So here, you dont have to file it in the prosecutor, because if you do, then he will conduct PI. It can be filed directly with the proper court.So, if it the inquest investigator who conducts the inquest, he files an information with the proper court. But if it is the complainant or the peace officer, baka yung police no, they are not authorized to make an information, hanggang complaint lang sila. So the complaint filed again with the court. So that the police no who arrested the person willnot be charged with art. 125 of the RPC.However, if this accused wanted to file a counter affidavit kay feeling niya lugi siya, if they had an inquest, and the accused is not allowed to file a counter affidavit, then there is a high probability that an information will be filed against him. So he now decides na magpapa PI nalang xa, full blown, just conduct a regular PI.Can he do that? YES, before the complaint or information is filed, he can stop the complainant, the peace officer, he can stop the inquest investigator. He may ask for a PI in accordance with Rule 112, but he must sign a waiver of the provision of Article 125 in the presence of counsel. Does he have to stay in jail the whole time until the PI is finished? NO. If his crime is bailable, he can apply for bail despite the waiver.Can this PI take 45 days or longer? NO. The maximum is 15 days. At least he will be given the chance to file his counter affidavit, and that the case will not go to court na if ever no PC is found. Now, what if the person detained had no idea on what was going on, that an inquest was conducted, an information was filed tapos biglang nakausap niya yung kasama niya sa prison cell and asked him if he underwent Inquest, and so he learned na he had this opportunity pala to file his counter affidavit but it was still after the complaint or information was filed. Can he still ask for PI? Yes. He may ask for PI within 5 days after learning that the complaint has been filed. Is this 5 days after filing of the complaint or information? No. 5 days after learning.Even if he learns about it for like 5 months later, which is impossible no, then he can ask for regular PI, otherwise his right to Pi is deemed waived.So, if he does not question it or doesnt ask for Pi after 5 days of learning then parang tinanggap niya na yung causes filed against him. So, if allowed, he has the right to adduce evidence during PI, he may file his counter affidavit and this has to be done before he is arraigned. Ayun! The 5 days after learning must be before he is arraigned. Pag na arraign na siya, wala na. If he enters his plea he is deemed to have waived his right to PI.So that is Inquest. Let us go to De Castro vs. Judge Fernandez FactsOn the evening of 11 June 2002, barangay tanods invited Reynaldo De Castro to the barangay hall in connection with a complaint for sexual assault filed by AAA, on behalf of her daughter BBB. De Castro accepted the invitation without any resistance. Chronology of Events1. 12 Jun 2002 barangay officials turned over De Castro to the Las Pias City Police Station2. 13 Jun 2002 the police indorsed the complaint to the city prosecutor of Las Pias City for inquest proceedings.3. Later, the state prosecutor issued a commitment order for De Castros detention.4. 18 Jun2002 State Prosecutor Napoleon Monsod filed an Information againstDe Castro for the crime of rape.5. 1 July2002 - De Castro filed a Motion for Reinvestigation praying that the RTC issue an order directing the Office of the Prosecutor of Las Pias City to conduct a PI 6. 5 Aug 2002 the RTC denied De Castros Motion for Reinvestigation7. 22 Aug 2002 De Castro filed a Motion for Reconsideration8. 28 Aug 2002 the RTC denied the motion Issue: Is De Castro entitled to a PI?Held: No. De Castro is deemed to have waived his right to PI. Under Sec. 6 of Rule 112, if an information is filed in court without a PI, the accused may, within five days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a PI.De Castros failure to request for a PI within the specified period is deemed a waiver of his right to a preliminary investigation. In this case, the information against De Castro was filed with the RTC on 18 June 2002. On 20 June 2002, one Atty. Villena, requested for copies of the pertinent documents on De Castros case.On 25 June 2002, Atty. Villena entered his appearance as counsel for De Castro.Yet, De Castro only asked for a reinvestigation on 1 July 2002 or more than five [5] days from the time De Castro learned of the filing of the information. Therefore, De Castro is deemed to have waived his right to ask for a PI.Atty. Suarez: You mentioned commitment order, what is that? You relate it to Section 5. Why not a warrant of arrest? Because why issue a warrant of arrest if the accused is already detained??! A commitment order is just to affirm that the accused is there, being detained.Has an information already filed against him while the commitment was already filed? Yes meron na. The judge cannot issue a commitment order if there is no information diba? Upon the filing of the information the judge would determine whether there is PC to arrest the person, now the accused who is in his house or somewhere else, yun ang WOA whether or not a PI was conducted. If an inquest has been conducted, that means the accused is detained, then the judge has to determine whether or not a commitment order should be issued that is to continue his detention.According to Section 6, after the information is filed, he can ask for PI, where should he do that? Where should he file for the regular PI? What should he file? He should file it in court via Motion for Reinvestigation. If the information has not been filed and he learns about the inquest proceeding, where should he file to ask for a regular PI? In the office of the office of the Prosecutor. So, now you know what a commitment order is. Leviste vs. Alameda.Leviste was arrested without a warrant. An inquest was conducted. He did not ask for a regular PI, he applied for bail. An information was filed against him. It was his heirs who filed for the reinvestigation.What kind of PI was conducted here? An Inquest.Issue: w/n the heirs of de los alas can ask for reinvestigation even if the information has been filed in court.Held: Yes, Section 6 is silent as to who can ask for reinvestigation, so even the heirs can ask for reinvestigation. What did Leviste do on the information filed against him? Did he agree with the inquest? If you are the accused and probable cause was filed against you, what will you do? He questioned the inquest against him and appealed to the DOJ Secretary. Can that be done? Can you question an inquest before the DOJ? Can Leviste go straight to the SOJ to review the result of the inquest finding PC against him? The SC said No. Such remedy is not immediately available in cases subject of inquest because under Sec 6, the accused has 2 options. What is that? 1. To ask for a regular PI before the information is filed 2. Ask for reinvestigation after the information is filed in court.Those are the 2 options. It is only after the Pi or reinvestigation that one can go to the SOJ. The SOJ can only review a regular PI. If you were just given an inquest, you can ask for a regular PI. And if you are still not happy with the regular PI because PC was found against you,then you go the SOJ. So the SC said, in cases, subject of inquest, the accused should first avail of a PI or a reinvestigation, if any, before elevating the matter to the SOJ. In case the inquest proceeding yield no probable cause, kunyari dinismiss yung proceeding, what can the private complainant do? He may pursue the case for a regular courts for the PI. Pwedeng huminge ng PI ang private complainant with the prosecutor. If in the information was filed in court, the private complainant can also ask for a reinvestigation. Ofcourse, what else did Leviste do? He filed a motion for Judicial determination of Probable cause. DInismiss. Sabi ni Leviste, how come the judge did not conduct a hearing? Well, according to the SC here, to move the court to conduct a judicial determination of Probable cause is a mere superfluity, for even without such motion the judge is duty bound to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and the supporting evidence.So in the earlier case, the SC differentiated Preliminary investigation from Preliminary examination. What the judge does after the information is filed to issue a warrant after probable cause is found, that is what you call Preliminary examination.What if the accused was illegally arrested, if he was unlawfully arrested, can the prosecutor conduct an inquest? No. The prosecutor should immediately schedule a PI to determine whether or not there is PC, in such situation, the person arrested is also entitled to be released? Why? Because he has been illegally arrested.Now, if the accused is illegally arrested but thereafter the office of the prosecutor conducts an inquest instead of a regular PI, and an information was filed against him, what should the trial court do? It was only determined afterwards na unlawful pala yung arrest niya, pero tapos na yung inquest, an information has been filed, what should the court do? According to San Agustin vs. People, the court should suspend the proceedings and order the PI. The inquest investigation conducted by the prosecutor should be considered null and void. Because inquest is only applicable when the accused was unlawfully arrested without the warrant. If he was unlawfully arrested, the PI should be a regular PI and he should be released. Where the accused was unlawfully arrested without a warrant or where he was arrested by virtue of an invalid warrant but subsequently a valid warrant is issued against him, can he question the validity of his continued detention?Kunyare, he was arrested without a warrant, inquest was conducted and an information was filed against him, and he cannot be released because inquest diba? And he did not apply for bail and then the court issued a lawful warrant, instead of a commitment order kasi unlawful yung arrest niya, can he question the invalidity of his arrest? No. But he can ask for a regular PI.So let us go to Section 7.Self explanatory.Now, section 8 talks about cases not requiring PI or cases not covered by the Summary Rule?What are those cases that do not require PI? Those cases having a penalty of 4 years, 2 months, 1 day and below, up to 6 months and 1 day. (minimum maximum) Why 6 months and 1 day? Kasi 6 months and below is covered by the Summary Rule. We are in Davao city, where do you file your complaint if you are the complainant? You file it in the Prosecutor.Now, the prosecutor will not conduct PI because it is not required. So what will the prosecutor do? He shall act on the complaint based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant within 10 days from its filing. No need to ask for the counter affidavit of the respondent.Now, there are complaints filed directly with the MTC if there is no prosecutor then refer to section 8b. this section also refers to section 3A of the same rule with the requirements of the complaint. July 27, 2015We are on the last provision of Preliminary Investigation (PI) Section 8 Cases not requiring a Preliminary Investigation nor covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure.The last provision talks about cases that do not require PI, and not covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. 1. So, if the complaint is filed with the prosecutor, that procedure in the PI is followed in a sense that the complaint affidavit must be subscribed and sworn to before the prosecutor, you must submit or attach the affidavits of the witnesses and other supporting documents but the prosecutor shall act on the complaint based only on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant within 10 days from its filing, no need for any counter affidavits from the respondent. Is there a possibility that the prosecutor will dismiss the complaint? Yes. Just because there is no requirement of PI doesnt mean that your complaint will right away turn into an information, and this happens all the time in BP 22 cases.In BP 22 cases, there is this requirement of Notice of Dishonor, that this must be personally received by the respondent. But because of that ruling, that People vs. Baca or Baca vs. CA, because of that ruling, a lot of people know about it. And what do these people who issued unfunded checks do? They do not receive. Kahit na 1 month na yung demand letter mo, hindi daw talaga nila nareceive. So, the private complainants , try to find ways and means to serve. I know for some who opts for courier service, meron pang ibang who goes for the certification of the Barangay Captain. Meron pang minutes of the meeting in the prosecutors office, noh? In front of the fiscal ayaw pa ring tanggapin. So what happens, when you file a BP 22 case and you dont have the signature of the respondent in the Notice of dishonour, you know what the prosecutor will do? Dismiss. Because BP 22 cases do not require PI. But nowadays, BP 22 cases is under the Summary Rule. So here, Section 8 no? Section 8 refers to those cases not covered by the Rules on Summary Procedures, paano na yun yung Summary Rule noh? Anyway, just ah.. for your information.2. Now, there are cases that are filed directly to the MTC if there is no prosecutors office in that place like it is a Municipality, alangan naman punta ka pa ng City, you dont have to. You can file directly with the MTC. Now, according to Section 8, the judge may dismiss the complaint within 10 days after filing of the complaint or information complaint anyway if it is an information from the prosecutor ganun din then the Section 5. He may dismiss or require the submission of additional evidence. If the judge finds no probable cause, again, just like Section 5 he shall dismiss despite additional evidence no, he can dismiss.What if he finds probable cause? Then he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or commitment orders. Or he may issue summons, okay, ayun, so this is the part that we have to discuss. The rest, we already know that. He may issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest if the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the accused under custody. Compare that to the old rule that we will find here in the cases. Let us go to Adriano vs. Judge Bercades. Facts: This is an administrative case filed by Manolo Adriano and Reynaldo Austral against Judge Bercades of the MTC, for abuse of authority. A&A stated that, pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by Judge B, they were arrested for cutting down coconut trees without a permit, in violation of RA 8048. A&A alleged that Judge B's order of arrest did not show the necessity of placing A&A under custody so as "not to frustrate the ends of justice. Judge B explained that the warrant of arrest was issued in accordance with Sec. 6(b), Rule 112Judge B justified the issuance of a warrant of arrest on the following ground:After conducting a summary examination under oath of the prosecution witnesses by means of searching questions adopted by the undersigned Judge, the Court finds that there is reasonable ground to believe that the offense of VIOLATION OF RA 8048 cognizable by the MTC, has been committed and that the accused, A&A are probably guilty, thus a warrant for the arrest of the accused be issued.Issue:Did Judge B act accordingly in issuing the warrant of arrest?Held: No. In issuing warrants of arrest in PI, the investigating judge must:1. have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching questions and answers;2. be satisfied that probable cause exists; and3. that there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.

It is clear that Judge B ordered the issuance of the warrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable cause and failed to consider that there must be a need to place the accused under immediate custody "in order not to frustrate the ends of justice." Judge B's hasty issuance of the warrant of arrest constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

Question: This case, Violation of RA 8048, does this require PI? Answer: Yes maam. The penalty is 1-6 years. Question: Does it? 1 year to 6 years, does it require? So did the judge here conduct Pi or not?Answer: In this case, he was the one who conducted the PI maam. Atty. Suarez: So, this is a case which requires PI? So if you compare, Section 6-b pala, I was talking about Section 6-b, when the MTC judges conducted PI, and here we have 1 filed with the MTC directly.What is the requirement under Section 6-b? when should the judge issue a warrant of arrest? We are talking about a warrant of arrest here. Under section 6-b, if he finds after an examination, under oath and in writing in the form of searching questions that probable cause exist, and there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If PI is required to issue a warrant, the judge is required to go through the 3 steps. If PI is not required, he shall issue a warrant of arrest after going through the procedure under section 8, or he may issue summons if he is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing accuse under custody.So the procedure is different no? where PI is required, and when PI is not required. In this case, the penalty is up to 6 years and PI is required. The judge has to go through the 3 steps before issuing a warrant and what happened here? The SC said, it is clear that the judge ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest solely on his finding of the probable cause and failed to consider that there is a need to place the accused under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice, noh?Unlike under section 5, there is no requirement dito, in Section 5 of Rule 112 after PI is done by the prosecutor.Let us compare that to Tabuhara vs. People.(Interrupts reporter)Atty. Suarez: Before you say all those things, you didnt even tell the class or me that this case requires PI or not? Answer: No need for PI maam. The penalty for this case maam is only arresto Menor maam.Atty. Suarez: So this is a case that does not require PI. So did the judge follow section 8 or section 9 for that matter?Answer: No maam. When conducting the examination maam the judge must personally examine the witness and proceed with searching questions under the rule. Judge here did not personally examine De Lara and he did not personally sign the statement that he provided maam, and also that judge failed to propound searching questions. The court here ruled maam that the statement of De Lara could not be used to find probable cause against Tabuhara and Dayrit maam.

It is stated here, that if you file directly with the MTC and no PI is required, it says here, if within 10 days after the filing of the complaint or information and the judge finds no probable cause after personally evaluating the evidence, or after personally examine in writing the complainant or under oath his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers, he shall dismiss the same.So according to the SC in this case, the judge abused his discretion in issuing the order of finding probable cause to hold the accused liable for trial and issued a warrant of arrest because it was based solely on the statement of De Lara, whom the judge did not personally examine under oath. Neither did he propound searching questions. He merely stated that he overlooked the statement of De Lara, nevertheless, without conducting personal examination or propounding searching questions. So the judge relied solely on the affidavit of the statement of De Lara which was not sworn to before him, so he failed to examine. Therefore he deprived the accused the opportunity to test the veracity of the (atty. Suarez stopped reading because it was more on factual matters already)So, the requirement here to issue a warrant under Sec. 8, according to the SC that it is necessary that the judge be satisfied that PC exist through an examination under oath of the complainant and his witnesses which the examination should be in the form of searching questions and answers.

It seems that theres PI in a sense that the judge has to call the complainant and his witnesses and examine them under oath no? that is what the SC said here in the Tabuhara case.But that is not all, what else did the SC say? Naku eto pa, the issuance of a warrant of arrest is not mandatory. The investigating judge must find that there is a necessity of placing the accused under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. Ano yun, Section 6! The need!? In other words, hinalo ng SC. Ano ba talaga. PI? Was the judge here conducting PI or no PI. Sabi ng SC, no PI, then ano ito? Diba? Why is that provision being applied. Your mixing. Make up your mind. Section 8 daw o section 6. It is very confusing no kung ano ba talaga ang procedure.You should notice these things no while you are reporting. Not just cut and paste report. Do you really absorb what the SC is saying? Did you not even ask for your opinion as to whether or not the rules are being played around with, noh? Okay, let us go to the case of Carandang vs. Base. Student: Under the Rules, the clerk of court has no authority to issue warrant of arrest or a commitment order. It is a judicial function and not an administrative one. They may only order such upon the direction of the judge; under no circumstances should they make it appear that the judge signed the order when in fact they did not. Atty Suarez: So, who can order a commitment order?Answer: Only the judge maam.Going back to this, if the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity of placing the accused in custody, he may issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest. Okay? So, what is the situation here, there is no PI. And therefore nobody issued summons to the respondent. Since the complaint was filed directly into the court or the information was filed in court after the prosecutor filed it without conducting PI. There is still this determination that should be made by the judge as to whether or not the accused should be arrested. There are crimes that do not have a penalty of imprisonment, no?The judge must first satisfy himself that there is a need to place the accused under custody, which was done in Tabuhara, pero itong in order not to frustrate the ends of justice is not found here in Section 8, it is found in Section 6-b. Dito sa Section 8 if you dont feel the need to put the accused in custody because, maybe the crime is just minor, it doesnt require PI, you just issue summons. The problem is, ano yung nakalagay sa summons? What do you order him to what? (Atty. Suarez being sarcastic with the rules kay vague pa rin daw) unlike dito sa Section 3, issue the summons, order the respondent to file his counter affidavit, dito wala. So, just take note of what the provision is saying. This rules will be amended soon, hopefully they will look at these vague portions. Now, Borlongan vs. Pena.Warrant of arrest not valid. The judge did not personally evaluate the information and complaint affidavit and other supporting documents. The judge did not personally examine complainants and the witnesses under oath with probing questions. Judged blindly followed the one filed by the prosecutor.Atty. Suarez: But we already discussed that, what about the other issue?Answer: In relation to Section 8 maam, since the offense carries an imposable penalty of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day, it no longer requires PI. Only the complaint affidavits and other supporting documents may be used to determine PC maam.Atty. Suarez: So, is there a violation to the rules, when he was not required to submit his counter affidavit?Answer: No maam. Atty. Suarez: Can he file a motion for reinvestigation.Answer: Yes maam. Atty. Suarez: Where is reinvestigation filed? Where, Donde? Answer: In the office of the prosecutor maam. Atty. Suarez: So, he can file for reinvestigation? Are you sure? This case, you mentioned, does it require PI or not? (needs no PI maam) So what will you reinvestigate? What will the prosecutor reinvestigate? If PI is not required, is there a need to determine PC in the prosecutors office?If the accused who is already an accused because an information was already filed in court, entitled to a reinvestigation? NO! Diba? If there is no PI required, you cannot go to the judge and say that there is already an information filed against me and say, can you please remand this case back to the prosecutor. Kasi I was not allowed to file my counter affidavit. Ano to? This does not require PI. So it is enough that the prosecutor studied the affidavit complaint, affidavit of the witnesses and the complainant without getting the side of the respondent. So there is no reinvestigation if a case does not require PI. Because a reinvestigation is another PI. How will you reinvestigate if there is no PI from the beginning, diba?Lets go to Mondilla vs. Judge Pangilinan.This case is a nullification of the old rule no? when judges were still authorized to conduct PI. Now, what I wanted you to see in this particular case is who reviews the PI. Who reviews the resolution of a judge? Its the city prosecutor! In other words, the judge while conducting PI should take the role of an investigating prosecutor and be subject to the review of the city prosecutor, but on the other hand, despite that, a judge can issue a warrant of arrest while conducting PI if he personally examine the witnesses in the form of searching questions. So it was really really confusing no during those times for judges, prosecutors, law students and even the SC. So eventually in 2005 October 3, the MTC judges are no longer authorized to conduct PI. We are no longer worry about that. Hopefully, the SC would not focus anymore on the old Section 6b and just focus on section a which is also vague no with respect to the summons.Just to let you know in advance, section 6b which is now section 8b is in conflict with what we are going to learn under Rule 113. You remember your Consti 2, before a judge issues a warrant of arrest? Basically no that is Rule 112, now let us compare that with Rule 113 Arrest. This is something that you already know about in your Consti 2. This topic is already included in our Crimpro.What is Arrest, according to Section 1 of rule 113? It is a taking of the person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. So, it is the judge who can cause the arrest of the person by issuing a WOA. So we have here under Rule 113 the procedure in making the arrest. However, let us review no what you took up.This is based in Section 2 Article 3 of 1987 Constitution. The right of the people to be secured in their persons, house, papers effects etc. against unreasonable searches shall be inviolable and no search warrant or WOA shall issue except upon PC to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath by the complainant and other witnesses that he may produce and particularly describing the place to be searched and the object to be seized.So in other words, if you look at section 2, it really refers to search warrant, meron lang nasingit dito na WOA.What is the procedure in issuing WOA? It is under section b. if you look at the wording of the rule, it says, after personally evaluating the evidence or after personally examining in writing or under oath the complainant. So if you are the judge, you can personally examine the evidence or the complainant or his witnesses. In the old case of Lim vs. Felix, which I hope you took up in Consti, the procedure is after PI the prosecutor will certify that he has personally taken the evidence and he has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses. So it is the prosecutor who will certify, diba in an information there is a certification? So the judge does not have to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. The prosecutor performs the State function as commissioner for taking of the evidence, however there should be a report and necessary documents supporting the prosecutors bear certification, all these should be brought before the judge. If in doubt, or when necessary, the judge can go beyond the prosecutors certification and investigation report. He can call the complainant and the witness to answer the courts probing questions, if the circumstances of the case so require.So in the case of Lim vs. Felix, the SC said, the court may just personally examine the evidence and if the judge is not satisfied then he can call the witnesses and the complainant. Also in Soliven vs. Makasiar 187 S 393, what are the steps? The judge must personally evaluate the report the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of PC, and on the basis issue a WOA. Or, if on a basis thereof, he finds no PC, he may disregard the prosecutors report and require the submission of supporting affidavits by the witnesses to aid him in arriving on a conclusion as to the existence of PC. So, here in Soliven vs. Makasiar, the judge need not even personally examine the witnesses, he can ask for supporting affidavits, so my question to you is this: In your Consti, what did your teacher teach you? Is it the procedure here in Soliven or is it the procedure here in Section 8b? Who can answer? Do you remember or not? Iba ang search warrants ha. The reason for this is there is so many WOA to be issued for every case you submit the court, does the judge have to personally examine each and every ano , if 20 yun? unlike search warrant hindi ganun karami. So that is the explanation here in the cases of Felix and Makasiar and in the cases that we took up, te 2008 case? Anyway.Let me confirm with Atty. Montejo, it is either personal examination of the evidence or personal examination of the witness or the complainant. It is either of the 2. Its just that this last case that we discussed, what was that again, anyway.. I will just confirm this with atty. Montejo with what is existing no. if this is just only for judges who are conducting PI, but as far as the provision is concerned there is no stringent requirement to personally examine the complainant and the witnesses.

July 28, 2015To issue a Warrant of Arrest, apparently from what you remember, the judge needs to personally examine the witnesses and the complainant. Actually no, I taught consti 8 years ago, and what I know is what I taught you yesterday, the case of Lim vs. Felix and Soliven vs. Makasiar.Let us compare the 2 provisions that we already took up on what the judge must do. It depends: If PI is required, we apply Section 5. If PI is not required, we apply Section 8.

And it is very clear in Section 5 on what should the judge personally evaluate: the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting documents. There is nothing is Sec 5 that the judge has to personally examine the complainant and the witnesses. So, if he is not satisfied, he may order the prosecutor to provide additional evidence, that is what section 5 says.

But Section 8 says the judge must personally examine the complainant and the witnesses in the form of searching questions.

Why? Because there was no PI, this was not done by the prosecutor. If the judge is not satisfied with what is submitted to him he can examine the complainant and the witnesses. In Section 5 there is no need because there are so many documents already submitted for the PI. So the judge can refer to those documents.

That is the procedure and this has already been affirmed in the cases that we discussed already in the case of Borlongan vs. Pena (section 5 digests ni maam):The SC said that personal determination does not mean that judges are ----- to conduct the personal examination of the complainant and the witnesses, to require thus would be to unduly laiden them with Preliminary examinations and investigations of the criminal complaints instead of concentrating on the hearing and deciding cases filed before them. Rather, what is emphasized merely is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself as to the existence of probable cause. To this end, he may personally evaluate the report and supporting document of the prosecutor or require the submission of supporting evidence to aid him in determining its existence.

But this is not saying that the judge is prohibited from examining the complainant or the witnesses. This is saying that the judge is not obliged to look for the complainant and the witnesses and iexamine sila.

And we did not discuss People vs. Judge Yadao where the SC said the same thing no. The judge only needs to personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding probable cause and see if it has support of substantial evidence.

So, I hope this is already settled issue no as to whether or not the judge has to personally examine the complainant and the witnesses in the form of searching questions. Just take note of the provisions under both sections.

When is a WOA not necessary. Diba, the first thing that a judge should do is to determine whether or not there is probable cause to issue a WOA. Even if there is PC, when should a judge not issue a WOA?1. When the accused is already under detention pursuant to a warrant issued by the MTC during PI. This is when the MTC judges were authorized.2. When the complaint or information were filed pursuant to Rule 112 section 6. What is that? Inquest. Because the judge has to issue a commitment order not an arrest anymore.3. When the accused is charged with an offense punishable by fine only like BP 22. In the case of Baca, the SC said for the first offense of BP 22, fine lang, pero of course, if you look at the law itself there is imprisonment.4. When the case is covered under the Rules on Summary Procedure. There is no WOA. So BP 22 cases, no WOA because it is covered on the Rules of Summary Procedure. Okay so let us go to Rule 113. What is the procedure once a WOA has been issued? What is the purpose of issuing a WOA? It is for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused because jurisdiction is acquired by voluntary surrender of the accused or when he is arrested.A WOA is an order of the judge in writing directed to an arresting officer commanding him to arrest a particular person for the commission of a particular crime.What are the requisites of a valid warrant? It must be issued by the judge in writing. Not oral or verbal. It must be issued based on PC. The judge has to comply with section 5 or 8 as the case may be. Specifically describes the person to be arrested. It is not valid if it only says arrest that person oh? Sino yun?What about John Doe warrants? Because it is required that warrants should specifically describe the person to be arrested. John Doe warrants are void. But information against John Does are not void. Pwde, if you dont know the name just put John Doe, but if warrant.. what comes first the information or the WOA? The information. WOA is normally after the information is filed in court.What is the exception that John Doe warrants are void? If the warrant describes a particular person to be arrested like arrest the Chief of Police of Davao City, yun na un, there is Only one. Or arrest the vice mayor of Kapalong.Who can issue a warrant? Only a judge. There is 1 exception: The President or his authorized representative. Who is his authorized representative? Yung kanyang mga Alter Ego for the purpose of carrying out a finding of a violation of the law such as an order of deportation or contempt but not for the sole purpose of investigation or prosecution. If for the purpose of investigation or prosecution only a judge can issue a WOA. So let us go to Section 2, how is an arrest made. So you have a warrant, you are the arresting officer.Section 2 says, by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by the submission of the person to the custody of the person making the arrest. Remember when there was a WOA against Ping LAcson and this big issue if kaliangan ba siyang posasan? Umabot ata sa CA. If you look at the provision, actual restraint. That is a very general provision, how do you restrain that person? You hold that person, you tie him up, whatever. If that person who is to be arrested submits himself to the person making the arrest, there is no more actual restraint necessary no? Why will you have to actually restrain that person if he is already submitting himself to the arresting officer.Now, according to Sec 2, violence or unnecessary force may not be used in making the arrest. You dont have to kick the person, ipapadapa and all those things na nakikita natin sa TV.And the person arrested should not be subjected to a greater restraint than that necessary for his detention. In other words, when you arrest you can restrain a person but not one greater than what is actually necessary.So, the duty of the arresting officer under Sec 3. He must arrest the accused, after the arrest he must deliver him to the Nearest police station or jail without unnecessary delay. He must be brought to a police station with a cell so that he may be restrained, not to a police station with no jail or cells, otherwise he would just be sitting down there the chair and he would not be considered arrested.We dont have to discuss here what youve learned in Consti, the Miranda warning. That is already included. The officer must inform the person arrested of his rights.When should a warrant be executed? According to Section 4, within 10 days from its receipt. What should the officer assigned do? According to section 4, 10 days from the expiration of the period, so 10 days from the expiration of the 10 days, he shall make a report to the judge who issued the warrant. And state the reasons for failure to execute the warrant. How long does the arresting officer have? Even though Section 4 says you have to report within 10 days after the 10 days, in the case of Magalona vs. CA, the SC said that in our jurisdiction no period is provided for the enforceability of the WOA. Although within 10 days of the delivery of the warrant of arrest for executing a return thereon to the issuing judge, said warrant does not become ---- de officio but is enforceable indefinitely until the same is recalled.So the WOA just sits there. Yung WOA nga namin 3 years na yun. You know what the police are waiting for? The reality of life, the police is waiting for something that you can give to them.Now what is an Alias warrant? It another warrant of the same warrant. In Peole vs. Rivera, if the arrest warrant is not served within 10 days, must the court issue an alias warrant in order to justify the arrest of an accused? NO. If you are not able to execute the warrant within the 10 day period, you can still use it even for 1 year, 2 years until that person is arrested.The next provision is used in Consti as well on Warrantless Arrest. Section 6 of Rule 112 talks about an accused who was lawfully arrested without warrant. If he is lawfully arrested, he can be detained for a certain period and the inquest investigation instead of PI will be conducted. What are the instances of a lawful warrantless arrest?The general rule is All arrest must be made by virtue of a valid warrant, if the arrest is warrantless, that is Illegal. But there are 3 exception. When? Section 5. (reads Section 5)1. This is the Flagrante Delicto exception. 2. Freshly Committed Doctrine Hot Pursuit Arrest.3. Person to be arrested has escaped from a Penal establishment or place where he is serving judgment. In Flagrante Delicto Arrest : People vs. Dela CruzHe was arrested without warrant for Illegal possession of drugs, by virtue of flagrante delicto. Since it was not shown that his arrest was valid, he was acquitted. It enumerated the 2 requisites of Flagrante Delicto rule:1) Person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime2) Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officerAtty Suarez: It is sufficient that the person to be arrested executes an Overt act. What is an Overt act? Example: Running into the toilet flushing something, which indicates that he has just committed, or attending to commit a crime. Or paypay-paypay, para mawala ang amoy ng drugs, things like that ba that would indicate. If the requirement for the In flagrante delicto is the actual commission of the crime, then no one will be arrested in flagrante delicto, except yung mga buy bust, pero this case buy bust nga ito pero De la Cruz was just sitting there making kwento. Is that an overt act? NO. diba in your cases in Consti, riding a tricycle, is that an overt act? NO. That overt act must be seen or done within the view or presence of the arresting officer.Let us say, you see somebody lying dead on the street and there is someone running away? Is that an overt act? YES. Did you see the crime? NO. If he did not kill the man, tatakbo ka ba? That is an overt act, that is enough to arrest him in flagrante delicto. Those 2 requisites must be present.

Freshly Committed Doctrine Hot Pursuit Arrest This is the 3rd kind of Probable Cause. The first one is to be determined by the prosecutor. The second is determined by the judge. This is the 3rd kind which is determined by the Arresting Officer based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed the crime. Now, this is 1 of the reasons why I dont like to teach Consti. If you remember the cases, you will go crazy. What do you mean by Freshly commited? Kasi iba-iba yung decisions ng Supreme Court. Mas problematic yung PC. What is personal knowledge? Is it the knowledge of the arresting officer or the knowledge of somebody, that is also unclear. The SC has different decisions are regards this. So, what do you have to know in my class, since this is procedure, then follow the requisites:First, the offense has just been committed. Now, how long? That is not our problem anymore, bahala na yung korte jan to determine what is freshly committed.Second, that the arresting officer has PC to believe based on Personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. This is different from in flagrante delicto, do not mix them. Do not make it Chopsuey.

Person to be arrested has escaped from a Penal establishment or place where he is serving judgment. We are talking about a Convict Dapicol penal establishments. He escapes. Do you need a warrant of arrest to arrest him? NO. Any arrest to that person is valid. Or when the person to be arrested is temporarily confined while his case is pending. Ma-a Jail who are these persons in Ma-a Jail? Yung mga may kaso jan sa hall of justice. They are not yet convicts, they are there because maybe the crime is non bailable or cannot afford bail, if anyone escapes, then any arrest without a warrant is valid.Or has escaped while being transferred from 1 confinement to another, lets say, somebody was arrested and he was placed in Sta. Ana police station now he is being transported to Ma-a City Jail for him to stay temporarily. But during the trip, he escaped, do you need a warrant to arrest him? NO. he was already arrested.So those are the exceptions under Section 5.There are other instances from other provisions where a warrantless arrest is valid. If when a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued under Section 13. Under Rule 114 section 23 for the purpose of surrendering an accused while on bail. If he did not appear in court when required to do so, he can be arrested without a warrant. Under Rule 114 section 23 0 accused attempts to fly out of the country without the permission of the court where the case is pending. You can only be prevented from leaving if there is a Hold departure order which is only be issued by RTC and if there is a pending Criminal Case. So, the last part of Section 5.The person arrested without a warrant should be delivered in the nearest police station or jail and should be proceeded against in accordance with Section 6 Inquest. So connect the rules. Under Section 4 Vyudes vs. CATo simplify, even though there is a pending petition for review before the Secretary of Justice, the proceedings before the court no, that is the business of the court. No department circulars of the DOJ can dictate the court on what to do about the case before it. So the procedure is for the court to determine whether there is PC to issue a warrant, then issue and continue on with the proceedings. Separately, if there is something going on with the department of justice then they should resolve whatever it is, but the court should not hold the proceedings in abeyance and just wait and wait and wait for the SOJ to give his resolution on the issue. But this is very very common, lawyers ask for the suspension. Even though we have this case, it is still being done. So let us go to: Lad-lad caseIf a person is lawfully arrested for committing a particular crime, then his arrest in flagrante delicto is valid. In this case he was arrested without warrant in flagrante delicto for inciting to Sedition so an Inquest may be conducted. But he was again subjected to another inquest for rebellion. Can this be done? No. Because he was not lawfully arrested for rebellion, only for sedition. For the rebellion case filed against him there must be a proper regular way. Okay, so take note of that. We will c