Withdrawal of Information | Preliminary Investigation (RULE 112) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

DISCLAIMER: The following discussion is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For specific concerns about any actual case or situation, it is best to consult a qualified attorney.

---

WITHDRAWAL OF INFORMATION UNDER RULE 112

(Preliminary Investigation in Philippine Criminal Procedure)

This topic focuses on the principles, rules, and procedures governing the withdrawal of an information in Philippine criminal procedure, specifically under Rule 112 of the Rules of Court (on Preliminary Investigation). Here is a meticulous, step-by-step exploration of all relevant considerations.

---

1. OVERVIEW OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

1. Definition and Purpose

   • A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
   • The findings in preliminary investigation form the basis for the filing (or non-filing) of an information in court.

2. Authority to Conduct

   • Under Section 2, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, the following officials have authority to conduct preliminary investigations:
     1. Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
     2. National and Regional State Prosecutors;
     3. Other officers authorized by law (e.g., the Ombudsman in certain cases).

3. Filing of Information

   • If the investigating prosecutor finds probable cause (i.e., that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof), they prepare the corresponding information and file it in the appropriate court.
   • The act of filing an information in court effectively commences the criminal action against the accused.

---

2. DISCRETION OF THE PROSECUTOR VERSUS THE CONTROL OF THE COURT

1. Nature of Prosecutorial Discretion

   • The determination of whether to file an information generally falls within the executive function of the prosecutor (or the prosecution arm of the government).
   • Once the information is filed, however, the case falls under the jurisdiction and control of the trial court.

2. Court Approval for Withdrawal

   • The prosecutor cannot unilaterally withdraw an information once it has been filed, because the court already acquires jurisdiction over the case.
   • Therefore, withdrawal of the information requires leave (or approval) of the court. The prosecutor must file a Motion to Withdraw Information stating the grounds for such withdrawal.

3. Grounds for Withdrawal

   • Lack of probable cause or evidence uncovered after filing;
   • Mistakes in the preliminary investigation process (such as lack of due process for the accused);
   • Procedural errors in the filing or in the drafting of charges;
   • Other justifiable grounds, including newly discovered evidence which shows that the accused is not probably guilty, or a supervening event that renders prosecution infeasible.

---

3. MOTION TO WITHDRAW INFORMATION: PROCEDURE AND REQUIREMENTS

1. Filing the Motion

   • The prosecutor files a written Motion to Withdraw Information or Motion to Dismiss the case before the trial court where the information is pending.
   • The motion must clearly state the grounds on which it is based and include the supporting documents or evidence, if necessary.

2. Court’s Duty Upon Receipt

   • The trial court must evaluate the reasons given by the prosecution.
   • The court cannot automatically deny or grant the motion. It must determine whether there is a prima facie basis to continue with the prosecution or whether the withdrawal is justified.
   • If the court finds probable cause from the existing record of preliminary investigation, it may deny the motion, effectively compelling the prosecution to proceed with the trial.
   • If the court is satisfied that there is no probable cause or that there is a serious defect in the preliminary investigation or the basis for the prosecution, it may grant the withdrawal.

3. Hearing (If Necessary)

   • In some instances, the court may conduct a hearing to allow both prosecution and defense to present arguments on the motion to withdraw. This is especially true if the grounds are contested or the factual issues are complex.

4. Effect of Court Approval

   • If the court grants the withdrawal, the information is effectively withdrawn or dismissed.
   • The effect on double jeopardy depends on the timing and nature of the dismissal:
     • If no arraignment has yet occurred (and no valid waiver of arraignment), generally, there is no double jeopardy impediment. The case can be refiled for the same offense if future evidence warrants.
     • If arraignment has already taken place and the case is dismissed without the accused’s express consent, it could trigger double jeopardy if the dismissal is made on the merits or is tantamount to an acquittal. However, if the dismissal is based on a defect that bars re-filing (e.g., no probable cause), the effect may also be an acquittal-type dismissal. Each scenario is highly fact-specific.

5. Effect of Court Denial

   • If the court denies the motion, the prosecution must proceed unless a successful legal remedy is pursued (e.g., certiorari under Rule 65 in extreme cases).
   • The court’s denial indicates it believes that probable cause exists or that the prosecution’s ground for withdrawal is not meritorious.

---

4. JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDELINES

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has laid down guidelines in several cases on how courts should deal with motions to withdraw information, stressing the interplay between:

1. Prosecutorial Discretion

   • Courts generally respect the wide latitude accorded to prosecutors in determining who to prosecute, what charges to file, and how to proceed in a criminal action.
   • A court should avoid compelling the prosecutor to proceed if there is evidently no case.

2. Judicial Power

   • Once the information is filed, the court is vested with the authority to protect the rights of the accused, the interests of the State, and the integrity of the judicial process.
   • The court may refuse withdrawal if it finds substantial basis that probable cause actually exists.

3. Protection of the Accused and Society

   • A motion to withdraw might serve the interest of an innocent accused who deserves an end to baseless prosecution.
   • On the other hand, a refusal to allow withdrawal might be essential if there is suspicion of any impropriety or collusion (e.g., if the accused is politically influential or if there is undue pressure to drop the case).

Illustrative Supreme Court decisions frequently cited include:

• Crespo v. Mogul (G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987) – Emphasized that once a case is filed in court, any disposition of the case (including withdrawal or dismissal) rests on the sound discretion of the court, although it must primarily weigh the prosecutor’s grounds.
• Martinez v. Court of Appeals – Reiterated the guidelines that a court should make an independent assessment of the merits of the motion and not act mechanically on the prosecutor’s recommendation.
• People v. Pineda – Clarified instances when the court may inquire further into the basis of the prosecutor’s motion and the interplay of double jeopardy rules.

---

5. LEGAL ETHICS CONSIDERATIONS

1. Duty of Candor and Good Faith

   • Prosecutors must act with candor and good faith in informing the court about reasons for withdrawing the information.
   • The duty to protect the innocent is as strong as the duty to prosecute the guilty.

2. Duty to the Court

   • A prosecutor, as an officer of the court, owes full disclosure of material facts supporting the motion to withdraw.
   • Lawyers (both private practitioners and government prosecutors) must not mislead the court by withholding relevant information or by presenting spurious grounds.

3. Avoidance of Improper Influence

   • Any suggestion of corruption, bribery, or improper political influence in seeking withdrawal can subject the prosecutor to administrative, civil, or criminal liability, as well as professional disciplinary action under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

4. Balancing Interests

   • The lawyer or prosecutor must weigh the pursuit of justice against the individual rights of both the complainant and the accused. If after thorough review it is clear there is no probable cause, the prosecutor has the ethical obligation to move for withdrawal to prevent unjust prosecution.

---

6. IMPACT ON THE PARTIES

1. Accused

   • If the motion to withdraw is granted before arraignment, the accused is generally freed from the threat of that particular criminal prosecution. However, the information may be re-filed if new or additional evidence arises that establishes probable cause.
   • If the motion is granted after arraignment on the ground of lack of probable cause, it may operate as a dismissal equivalent to an acquittal, potentially triggering double jeopardy protections.

2. Private Complainant or Offended Party

   • They may oppose the withdrawal by presenting arguments or evidence indicating probable cause.
   • Their remedy, if the motion is granted, may include filing a petition for review with the Department of Justice (if the resolution to withdraw came from a prosecutor’s determination) or seeking other legal remedies.
   • In certain cases, the offended party can file a motion for reconsideration or challenge the prosecutor’s resolution before the Secretary of Justice (administrative appeal).

3. Prosecution (Office of the Prosecutor)

   • Must defend its recommendation with clarity. If the trial court denies the motion to withdraw, the prosecutor is still duty-bound to prosecute the case unless a higher court grants a special writ (e.g., certiorari).

4. Court

   • Exercises discretion with the aim of upholding justice.
   • Must ensure that there is no grave abuse of discretion, especially if the prosecutor’s recommendation to withdraw is well-founded.

---

7. KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. Court Approval is Essential

   • Once an information is filed, the case is under the court’s control. Withdrawal or dismissal requires judicial approval.

2. Prosecutorial Discretion vs. Judicial Discretion

   • Both the prosecutor and the court have crucial roles. The prosecutor decides whether to initiate or pursue charges; the court decides whether to allow withdrawal after the case is filed.

3. Probable Cause as the Linchpin

   • The central question in allowing or denying withdrawal is the existence (or absence) of probable cause.

4. Double Jeopardy Concerns

   • Timing of withdrawal (before or after arraignment) is critical. A dismissal before arraignment generally does not attach double jeopardy. Once arraignment has occurred, withdrawal can be tantamount to an acquittal if it is based on a finding of lack of probable cause or the merits of the case.

5. Legal Ethics

   • The prosecutor must act with the highest level of integrity and candor, as the primary objective is to protect innocent persons from wrongful prosecution and to ensure accountability for actual offenders.

6. Remedies

   • If the court denies the motion to withdraw, the prosecution may either comply or, in exceptional cases of grave abuse of discretion, resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the appellate courts.
   • If the court grants the withdrawal, an aggrieved offended party may challenge the prosecutor’s resolution administratively (e.g., Department of Justice review) or, if there is grave abuse of discretion, seek recourse via certiorari.

---

8. SAMPLE FORM: MOTION TO WITHDRAW INFORMATION

Below is a general form. Actual wording and format may vary depending on local court requirements and specific case details.

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
[Branch No.], [City/Province]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,            CRIM. CASE NO. [________]
    Plaintiff,

               -versus-

[NAME OF ACCUSED],
    Accused.
____________________________________/

          MOTION TO WITHDRAW INFORMATION

COMES NOW the Prosecution, through the undersigned Prosecutor, and respectfully states:

1. That on [Date], an Information for [Offense] was filed before this Honorable Court against the accused [Name of Accused].

2. That upon further investigation/review of the evidence [explain the developments leading to the motion], the undersigned Prosecutor has determined that [e.g., no probable cause exists, newly discovered evidence exculpates the accused, or any other valid ground].

3. That in view of these findings, and in the interest of justice, the Prosecution deems it proper to withdraw the Information against the accused as there is no more basis for the prosecution to proceed.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court allow the withdrawal of the Information against the accused in the above-captioned case.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

[Date and Place]

                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                    [Signature]
                                    [Name of Prosecutor]
                                    [Title/Position]

Note: Always adapt this template to the specific facts, grounds, and jurisdiction. Attach or cite all supporting evidence and jurisprudence as necessary.

---

FINAL WORD

The withdrawal of an information under Rule 112 is a balancing act of protecting the accused against baseless prosecution, upholding the rights of the offended party, and preserving the integrity of the judicial system. While the prosecutor has the discretion to move for withdrawal based on newly discovered evidence or a reassessment of probable cause, the trial court retains ultimate control over the case once it has been filed. Courts must carefully evaluate the prosecutor’s grounds, mindful of double jeopardy considerations and the overarching goal of administering justice.

Always consult with a competent counsel or prosecutor for guidance on the nuances of procedure, substantive rights, and ethical obligations in any specific matter involving the withdrawal of information in criminal proceedings.

Effect of absence of preliminary investigation | Preliminary Investigation (RULE 112) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive discussion of the effect of absence of preliminary investigation under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure in the Philippines, including key principles, remedies, and relevant jurisprudence. This write-up integrates statutory provisions, Supreme Court decisions, and procedural rules that govern preliminary investigation and the consequences of its absence or irregularity.

---

I. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

1. Definition

   • Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. (See Rule 112, Section 1, Rules of Court).

2. Statutory Right, Not Constitutional

   • The right to a preliminary investigation is statutory rather than constitutional in nature. It is granted by the Rules of Court and other procedural laws. While the Constitution recognizes the right of persons to due process, the conduct of a preliminary investigation in criminal proceedings is specifically governed by procedural rules.

3. Purpose

   • The main purpose is to protect the innocent from the embarrassment, expense, and anxiety of a public trial, and to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution.
   • It also ensures that the State does not expend resources in a futile prosecution of a case that has no probable cause.

---

II. GENERAL RULE ON THE REQUIREMENT OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

1. Offenses Requiring Preliminary Investigation

   • Under Rule 112, Section 1, a preliminary investigation is generally required when the offense charged carries a penalty of at least four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day (imprisonment) without regard to the fine.
   • For offenses with lower penalties, there may be a different procedure (i.e., summary procedure or direct filing in court).

2. Conduct of Preliminary Investigation

   • Sections 2 to 6 of Rule 112 outline the procedure for preliminary investigation:
     a. Filing of the Complaint
     b. Counter-Affidavit and Supporting Evidence
     c. Clarificatory Hearing (if necessary)
     d. Resolution and Filing of Information (if probable cause is found)

---

III. ABSENCE OR IRREGULARITY OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

1. Not a Jurisdictional Defect

   • The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the jurisdiction of the trial court over the case. It does not render the information void or deprive the court of its power to hear and decide the criminal action.
   • Hence, a claim that no preliminary investigation was conducted will not ipso facto invalidate the criminal information or result in the automatic dismissal of the case.

2. Remedial Nature

   • Since the right is statutory, the failure to conduct a preliminary investigation, or the incomplete or irregular conduct thereof, is considered a reversible error but not a ground to oust the trial court of jurisdiction.
   • The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the remedy in case of absence or irregularity in the preliminary investigation process is to remedy the defect—not automatically dismiss the case.

3. Waiver of the Right

   • The right to preliminary investigation may be waived explicitly (e.g., by opting not to ask for one) or impliedly (e.g., by failing to timely invoke it or by participating in the trial without objection).
   • If the accused goes to trial without questioning the lack of a preliminary investigation, such omission is deemed a waiver of that right.

---

IV. REMEDIES WHEN PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS NOT CONDUCTED

1. Motion for Reinvestigation or Motion to Suspend Arraignment

   • If a case is already filed in court without a proper preliminary investigation, the accused may file a motion requesting (a) the suspension of arraignment and/or (b) the conduct of a preliminary investigation or reinvestigation by the prosecutor’s office.
   • Under Rule 116, Section 11(a) of the Rules of Court, the accused may move for a bill of particulars or for suspension of arraignment if there was no preliminary investigation or there was an irregularity in the conduct thereof. The court may grant said motion and direct the prosecutor to conduct the required preliminary investigation.

2. No Automatic Dismissal; Conduct of New or Supplemental Preliminary Investigation

   • The court will not dismiss the information solely for lack of a preliminary investigation. Instead, it may order the case returned to the Office of the Prosecutor for a new or supplemental preliminary investigation.
   • Proceedings before the court are often held in abeyance until the prosecution finishes the reinvestigation and submits the corresponding resolution and/or amended information.

3. Motion to Quash

   • Technically, the lack of preliminary investigation is not one of the grounds for a motion to quash under Rule 117, Section 3, Rules of Court. However, in some instances, defense counsel may include it as part of a broader due process argument or as a prayer for the case’s dismissal or reinvestigation.
   • The better remedy, however, is usually a motion to suspend proceedings and to refer the case back to the Prosecutor’s Office for preliminary investigation.

---

V. JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDELINES

1. Absence of PI Does Not Nullify Information

   • The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the absence or irregularity of preliminary investigation does not nullify the criminal information, nor does it impair the validity of subsequent proceedings if the court has otherwise valid jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person of the accused.
   • In PEOPLE v. LAGMAN, PEOPLE v. GOMEZ, and other cases, the Court stressed that preliminary investigation is not a jurisdictional requirement and that the lack thereof only violates a statutory right.

2. Remedy is to Conduct/Complete Preliminary Investigation

   • In cases such as PEOPLE v. LABARIA, the Supreme Court stated that the proper remedy for lack of preliminary investigation is not to dismiss the case but rather to hold it in abeyance and direct the public prosecutor to conduct or complete the preliminary investigation.

3. Waiver by Failure to Timely Object

   • In PEOPLE v. DEUNIDA and other rulings, the Supreme Court emphasized that an accused who fails to object to the alleged absence or irregularity of a preliminary investigation before entering a plea is deemed to have waived that right.

---

VI. EFFECT ON THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND THE PROSECUTION

1. Accused’s Right to Due Process

   • While the right to a preliminary investigation is statutory, the conduct of a fair and proper preliminary investigation fosters due process by ensuring that there is probable cause to hold the accused for trial.
   • The accused who is not accorded a preliminary investigation (where required) can move for a reinvestigation or to suspend the arraignment and trial until a proper determination of probable cause is made.

2. State’s Interest in Prosecution

   • The prosecution is likewise interested in ensuring that a valid preliminary investigation is conducted to strengthen its case, to avoid potential defenses based on denial of procedural rights, and to ensure that the case rests on a solid finding of probable cause.

3. No Double Jeopardy

   • The absence or irregularity in preliminary investigation will not give rise to double jeopardy concerns because it does not involve an acquittal or conviction—rather, it involves a procedural step prior to trial.

---

VII. PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR COUNSEL

1. Check the Existence and Regularity of PI

   • Defense counsel should verify whether a proper preliminary investigation was conducted. If the case was filed directly in court without the mandatory PI, or if there was an obvious irregularity (no chance to submit counter-affidavits, no clarificatory hearing when required, etc.), counsel should promptly file the necessary motion before arraignment.

2. Timely Assertion is Key

   • The accused (through counsel) must promptly move for the suspension of arraignment or for reinvestigation before entering a plea. A failure to invoke the lack of PI before arraignment generally amounts to a waiver of that right.

3. Utilize the Remedy of Reinvestigation

   • Instead of seeking immediate dismissal, which courts seldom grant on that basis alone, a more prudent approach is to ask the court to refer the case back to the prosecution for a new or supplemental preliminary investigation.

---

VIII. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

1. Preliminary Investigation is a statutory right meant to protect individuals from baseless charges.
2. Absence or Irregularity in the preliminary investigation does not affect the trial court’s jurisdiction and does not nullify the information.
3. Remedy for lack of preliminary investigation is to request a reinvestigation or move for suspension of arraignment, rather than an outright dismissal of the case.
4. Waiver occurs when the accused fails to timely raise the absence of a preliminary investigation before arraignment or proceeds to trial without objection.
5. Court’s Power is to either direct the Prosecutor to conduct the omitted (or deficient) preliminary investigation or proceed with trial if the accused has waived the right.

---

CONCLUSION

The absence of a preliminary investigation under Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure does not automatically vitiate the entire criminal proceeding. While such an omission violates a statutory right, it is not a jurisdictional defect. The proper remedy is typically to move for reinvestigation or to suspend the arraignment until a proper preliminary investigation can be conducted. The accused’s failure to promptly and timely invoke this right amounts to a waiver. Courts will generally allow a belated preliminary investigation to cure any defect, rather than dismissing the case outright.

Inquest proceedings | Preliminary Investigation (RULE 112) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive discussion on inquest proceedings under Philippine criminal procedure (Rule 112, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure), with reference to the pertinent rules, DOJ issuances, and relevant jurisprudence. As requested, I will go straight into the substance, striving for meticulous detail while retaining clarity.

---

I. OVERVIEW OF INQUEST PROCEEDINGS

A. Definition and Purpose

1. Inquest Proceeding – An inquest is an informal and summary investigation conducted by a public prosecutor (often called the “Inquest Prosecutor”) to determine whether there is probable cause to hold the arrested person for further criminal action.
2. Legal Basis – Primarily governed by Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (specifically Section 6 and related provisions), various Department of Justice (DOJ) circulars/guidelines (e.g., DOJ Circular No. 61, s. 2002 and subsequent issuances), and jurisprudential doctrines.
3. Applicability – Inquest applies when a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant (e.g., pursuant to a warrantless arrest allowed by Rule 113, Sec. 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). The goal is to expeditiously determine if probable cause exists to justify the filing of an information in court.

B. Distinction from Preliminary Investigation

• Preliminary Investigation is a more formal, thorough, and extended process governed by Rule 112, Sec. 1-5, requiring affidavits, counter-affidavits, and possibly clarificatory hearings.
• Inquest is far more summary in nature, triggered by an arrest without a warrant. Because the accused is already under custody and the constitutional right against prolonged detention (Article 125, Revised Penal Code) is implicated, the process is expedited.

---

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Constitutional Groundwork

1. Right to Due Process (Art. III, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution) – Even if summary, an inquest must still uphold basic due process.
2. Right to Counsel (Art. III, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution) – The arrested person is entitled to legal assistance during custodial investigation and the inquest proceeding.
3. Right to be Informed of Charges (Art. III, Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution) – The suspect must be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against them.

B. Statutory and Procedural Rules

1. Rule 112 (Preliminary Investigation) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure –
   • Sec. 5 deals with the procedure upon a lawful warrantless arrest and triggers the inquest process.
   • Sec. 6 discusses the conduct of the inquest.
2. Article 125, Revised Penal Code – Limits the time an individual may be detained without formal charge (12, 18, or 36 hours, depending on the penalty of the offense). The inquest must happen within these time constraints unless the suspect executes a waiver for a more thorough preliminary investigation.
3. DOJ Circulars – Provide specific guidelines for prosecutors in conducting inquest proceedings, including documentary requirements, forms, and standardized procedures.

C. Relevant Jurisprudence

• People v. Doria (361 Phil. 595 [1999]), among others, clarifies valid warrantless arrests and underscores the necessity of promptly bringing a person before the inquest prosecutor.
• Go vs. Court of Appeals (206 SCRA 138 [1992]) touches on the significance of probable cause findings by prosecutors and the necessity of fairness in summary investigations.

---

III. WHEN AND HOW AN INQUEST PROCEEDING IS CONDUCTED

A. Trigger: Lawful Warrantless Arrest

An inquest is conducted only if the suspect is arrested without the benefit of a warrant and remains in custody. The recognized instances of lawful warrantless arrests under Rule 113, Sec. 5, are:

1. In Flagrante Delicto – The person is caught in the act of committing, attempting to commit, or having just committed an offense.
2. Hot Pursuit – The arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the suspect committed the offense recently.
3. Escapee – A prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place of detention.

If any of these instances apply and the person is in custody, an inquest is required to promptly determine probable cause.

B. Inquest Prosecutor’s Role

1. Review of Arrest
   • The inquest prosecutor first examines if the warrantless arrest was lawfully effected. If found unlawful, the prosecutor recommends the immediate release of the respondent.
   • If lawful, the inquest prosecutor proceeds to determine probable cause that a crime was committed and the arrested person is likely culpable.
2. Assessment of Evidence
   • The inquest prosecutor reviews the affidavits of the arresting officers, the complainant, and any other supporting evidence (e.g., statements, physical evidence).
   • Involves a truncated or summary form of “preliminary investigation,” focusing on whether probable cause exists.

C. Timeline and Procedure

1. Article 125 Compliance – A crucial consideration. The inquest must be completed, and the Information filed in court within the reglementary period provided by Article 125, RPC (12/18/36 hours) unless:
   • The respondent opts to sign a waiver under Article 125 to avail of a regular preliminary investigation.
   • No waiver means the inquest prosecutor should file the corresponding charge if probable cause is found, or recommend release if none.
2. Rights of Respondent During Inquest –
   • Right to Counsel: The respondent may be assisted by counsel during the inquest.
   • Right to Know the Charge: The inquest prosecutor must inform the respondent of the allegations.
   • Right to Request a Preliminary Investigation: The respondent can ask for a formal preliminary investigation. However, the suspect must execute a waiver of Article 125 (i.e., waiving the right to be charged within the statutory periods), allowing the prosecutor more time to conduct a regular preliminary investigation.
3. Waiver of Detention –
   • If the respondent decides to avail of a full preliminary investigation, they typically sign a waiver allowing the prosecution to retain custody until the more thorough investigation is concluded (or they may be granted bail if bailable).
   • The waiver should be in writing and executed in the presence of counsel.

D. Possible Outcomes of an Inquest

1. Filing of Information – If the inquest prosecutor finds probable cause, the information is filed in court forthwith.
2. Referral for Further Preliminary Investigation – If the respondent executes a valid waiver under Article 125 and requests a full-blown preliminary investigation, the inquest is converted into (or referred to) regular preliminary investigation.
3. Immediate Release – If the inquest prosecutor finds the arrest unlawful or no probable cause, they will order the release of the respondent. However, the prosecutor may still commence a regular preliminary investigation if the complainant so desires, but the respondent is no longer under detention.

---

IV. PROCEDURAL STEPS IN DETAIL

1. Turnover of Suspect and Evidence
   • After the arrest, law enforcement officers must present the arrested person, together with the complaint (often called the “Referral Complaint”) and supporting evidence (sworn statements, physical/chemical evidence, etc.), to the inquest prosecutor.
2. Examination of the Legality of Arrest
   • The inquest prosecutor initially scrutinizes the circumstances of the arrest. If found unlawful, the respondent must be released. If lawful, proceed.
3. Conference with Respondent
   • The respondent is informed of the alleged offense, their constitutional rights, and the option to request a preliminary investigation with an Article 125 waiver.
4. Determination of Probable Cause
   • The inquest prosecutor reviews documentary evidence, sworn statements, and might pose clarificatory questions. Typically, no extended hearing or direct/cross-examination is held; it is summary.
5. Decision Point
   a. Probable Cause Found → File the corresponding information in court or wait for the respondent’s decision to either proceed with inquest or sign a waiver.
   b. No Probable Cause → Release the respondent and dismiss the inquest proceeding.
   c. Waiver by the Respondent → Convert to a full preliminary investigation (the respondent remains or is released on bail if permissible and if bail is granted).

---

V. RIGHTS OF THE RESPONDENT AND COUNSEL

1. Right to Counsel – The respondent may request the assistance of counsel. If the respondent cannot afford or cannot secure counsel, the State must provide a lawyer (often a public attorney from the Public Attorney’s Office, PAO).
2. Right to be Informed – The respondent must be informed of the allegations, the evidence against them, and the possibility of undergoing regular preliminary investigation via waiver.
3. Right against Self-Incrimination – At no point may the respondent be compelled to testify or provide information that is self-incriminatory.
4. Right to Bail – Depending on the nature of the offense (if it is bailable and the evidence of guilt is not strong), the respondent may apply for bail even during inquest or after an Information is filed.

---

VI. IMPACT OF INQUEST FINDINGS

1. Filing of the Information and Arraignment – If probable cause is determined and the information is promptly filed, the court will issue the necessary processes, including a commitment order or release on bail, and schedule arraignment.
2. Regular Preliminary Investigation Despite Inquest – A respondent who did not initially sign a waiver may still move for a preliminary investigation if the court grants it, but generally, once an information is filed without a waiver, the prosecution proceeds, and any motion for preliminary investigation is subject to the court’s sound discretion.
3. Double Jeopardy Considerations – If charges are filed and the case proceeds to arraignment, it triggers constitutional protections against double jeopardy. Thus, if a motion for re-investigation or preliminary investigation is allowed by the court, it usually happens before arraignment.

---

VII. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. Time Constraints – The biggest challenge in inquest is the tight timeline under Article 125. The prosecutor’s promptness is essential to avoid the risk of illegal detention claims.
2. Cooperation Between Police and Prosecutor – Effective inquest proceedings hinge on the completeness and accuracy of the police’s referral documents. Incomplete documentation can lead to the prosecutor’s inability to find probable cause, thus requiring release of the respondent or further investigation.
3. Inquest of Minor Offenses – Even for less serious offenses, if the respondent is lawfully arrested without a warrant, inquest is required for probable cause determination. The advantage is a quick disposition (either charging in court or release) to avoid undue detention.
4. High-Profile or Sensitive Cases – In complex or sensitive offenses, prosecutors and law enforcement must still comply with the summary nature of inquest. Media attention or political pressure does not enlarge the prosecutor’s timeline under Article 125. If the case needs further scrutiny, the suspect must sign a waiver.
5. Electronic Inquest or Videoconferencing – In certain jurisdictions or under extraordinary circumstances (e.g., pandemic restrictions), the DOJ introduced guidelines to conduct inquest proceedings via electronic means to ensure compliance with time limits and health protocols.

---

VIII. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. What if the respondent refuses to sign the waiver for a full PI?
   • The inquest prosecutor must decide based on the existing evidence whether to file charges immediately or release the respondent.
2. Can a respondent request a regular preliminary investigation after the Information is already filed due to an inquest?
   • Yes, the respondent may file a motion for re-investigation before arraignment. The court has discretion to grant or deny.
3. Are there sanctions if the inquest prosecutor fails to comply with time limits?
   • Prolonged detention without charges can give rise to administrative and/or criminal liability (unlawful detention) for the responsible officers.
4. What if the arrest is found unlawful but there is strong evidence of guilt?
   • The respondent must be released immediately, as the continued detention would be illegal. However, the prosecutor may initiate a regular preliminary investigation if warranted by the evidence, and a corresponding warrant of arrest can later be sought.

---

IX. CONCLUSION

Inquest proceedings are a critical part of Philippine criminal procedure, designed to balance the State’s interest in swiftly charging a suspect caught without a warrant and the individual’s constitutional rights against unreasonable and prolonged detention. By providing a swift determination of probable cause, inquest protects both society and the rights of the accused. Nonetheless, it remains an exceptional, summary process distinct from the more thorough preliminary investigation. Understanding the nuances—from the strict time frames of Article 125 to the respondent’s options for waiver—ensures the integrity of the criminal justice system while safeguarding fundamental liberties.

---

DISCLAIMER:

This discussion is a broad overview of inquest proceedings based on the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, DOJ circulars, and prevailing jurisprudence. It is not legal advice. For specific cases or legal strategy, consultation with a qualified Philippine attorney or the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) is strongly recommended.

Right to bail pending preliminary investigation | Preliminary Investigation (RULE 112) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Right to Bail Pending Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112, Section 5)

1. Constitutional Foundation

The right to bail is enshrined in Article III, Section 13 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides that:

"All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required."

This guarantees the right to bail as a fundamental right, ensuring that an accused enjoys temporary liberty while ensuring their presence during trial.

---

2. Preliminary Investigation in Criminal Procedure

Under Rule 112, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, a preliminary investigation is defined as an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient ground to:

1. Engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed; and
2. The respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.

While a preliminary investigation is not a trial, it is part of due process in criminal prosecution, providing the accused with the opportunity to rebut evidence against them. Since the accused has not yet been charged in court, their right to bail remains intact and is governed by applicable procedural and constitutional safeguards.

---

3. Nature of Bail Pending Preliminary Investigation

Bail pending preliminary investigation refers to the right of a respondent to post bail for their temporary release while the preliminary investigation is ongoing. This occurs when the accused is:

• Arrested without a warrant;
• Detained pending the resolution of the investigation; and
• Entitled to provisional liberty under the law.

The rules on bail pending preliminary investigation balance the constitutional right to liberty with the state’s interest in prosecuting crimes effectively.

---

4. Application of Bail During Preliminary Investigation

Rule 112, Section 5 of the Rules of Court governs bail during preliminary investigation. It provides the following procedural safeguards:

1. Arrest Without Warrant During Preliminary Investigation

   • If a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant for an offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day, the arresting officer must deliver the accused to the proper judicial authority within the period prescribed by law.
   • Pending the resolution of the preliminary investigation, the accused has the right to apply for bail.

2. Filing of the Information

   • After the preliminary investigation, if probable cause is found, the prosecutor files an information in court.
   • The right to bail is re-examined based on the evidence of guilt presented during the preliminary investigation.

3. Provisional Bail

   • If the accused is detained but no information has been filed, the detained person may post provisional bail during the pendency of the investigation.
   • Provisional bail is granted subject to the court's discretion, ensuring compliance with the law.

---

5. Key Principles Regarding Bail Pending Preliminary Investigation

1. Bailable as a Matter of Right

   • If the offense charged is not punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the respondent has an absolute right to bail while the preliminary investigation is ongoing.

2. When Evidence of Guilt Is Strong

   • For offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher, bail may be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. The determination of whether the evidence of guilt is strong lies within the discretion of the court, based on the prosecutor’s evidence.

3. Habeas Corpus

   • If bail is denied or delayed without proper justification, the respondent may file a petition for habeas corpus to protect their right to liberty.

4. Custodial Investigation

   • Bail during custodial investigation differs from preliminary investigation. During preliminary investigation, the accused is already within the judicial process, and their right to bail is more clearly defined.

5. Discretion of the Investigating Prosecutor

   • Prosecutors do not have the authority to grant or deny bail; they only recommend whether bail is necessary. The final determination lies with the court.

---

6. Procedure for Applying Bail Pending Preliminary Investigation

1. Filing of Application for Bail

   • The respondent must file a motion for bail before the court or judicial authority that has custody of their person.
   • If the investigating prosecutor has not yet filed the information, the application for bail is filed with the court where the complaint is pending.

2. Issuance of Bail

   • If the offense is bailable as a matter of right, the court grants bail immediately upon the filing of the application and posting of the required bond.
   • For non-bailable offenses, the court conducts a bail hearing to determine if the evidence of guilt is strong.

3. Conditions for Bail

   • The court imposes conditions on bail to ensure the respondent’s presence during trial and compliance with legal processes. These may include travel restrictions, periodic check-ins, or surrender of passports.

4. Hearing on Bail

   • If the offense is non-bailable, the court conducts a summary hearing to assess the strength of evidence.
   • The prosecutor has the burden to prove that evidence of guilt is strong.

---

7. Case Law on Bail Pending Preliminary Investigation

1. People v. Hernandez (G.R. No. L-15421, 1954)

   • The Supreme Court held that the determination of probable cause in preliminary investigation is not equivalent to the finding of strong evidence of guilt. Therefore, even if an information is filed, the right to bail remains until the court determines the strength of the evidence.

2. In Re: Petitions for Habeas Corpus of Hernandez (2006)

   • Bail pending preliminary investigation can be filed when detention has already occurred. If no probable cause is found, the detention becomes unlawful, and bail must be granted.

3. Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (2015)

   • The Supreme Court emphasized humanitarian considerations in granting bail, even when preliminary investigation has not yet been resolved. The presumption of innocence should guide the process.

---

8. Limitations and Exceptions

1. Non-Bailable Offenses

   • The respondent does not have an absolute right to bail if the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of guilt is strong.

2. Preventive Detention

   • A person lawfully detained for a non-bailable offense during preliminary investigation may remain in detention until a proper motion for bail is filed and resolved.

3. Excessive Bail

   • The Constitution prohibits excessive bail. The court must ensure that the amount set is reasonable, proportional to the offense, and within the financial capacity of the respondent.

---

9. Practical Considerations

• Preparation of Legal Forms: The motion for bail must contain:
  1. The name of the respondent.
  2. Details of the offense charged.
  3. Grounds for the motion.
  4. Proposed surety or bail bond amount.
• Strategic Timing: Filing for bail early during preliminary investigation may expedite the release of the respondent.

---

Conclusion

The right to bail pending preliminary investigation is a critical safeguard of the constitutional right to liberty and due process. Courts must weigh the presumption of innocence against public interest in prosecuting crimes, ensuring that respondents are not unduly deprived of their freedom while the justice process unfolds. This balance underscores the principle that liberty is the rule, and detention is the exception.

Non-interference of the court in finding probable cause by prosecutor; exceptions | Preliminary Investigation (RULE 112) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Topic: Non-Interference of the Court in Finding Probable Cause by Prosecutor; Exceptions

(Preliminary Investigation - Rule 112, Criminal Procedure)

---

1. General Rule: Prosecutorial Discretion in Finding Probable Cause

Under the Philippine criminal justice system, the determination of probable cause during the preliminary investigation is an executive function vested in the public prosecutor or investigating officer. Courts generally cannot interfere in the prosecutor’s discretion to determine probable cause. This is rooted in the doctrine of the separation of powers, where the courts respect the executive department’s prerogative in prosecuting crimes.

The prosecutor’s authority includes:

• Determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and
• Identifying whether the accused is likely guilty thereof, justifying the filing of an information.

This principle is enshrined in Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and supported by jurisprudence.

---

2. Exceptions: Instances When the Court May Interfere

Despite the general rule, there are recognized exceptions where the courts may intervene in the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause. These exceptions arise when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the prosecutor. The courts may step in under the following circumstances:

1. To Correct Grave Abuse of Discretion by the Prosecutor
   Grave abuse of discretion occurs when the prosecutor acts in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical, or when the decision is not based on law or evidence. In such cases, the aggrieved party may seek judicial relief through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

   • Example: Ilusorio v. Ilusorio-Bildner (G.R. No. 139789, 2001)
     The Supreme Court ruled that courts may review the prosecutor’s findings when there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion in the determination of probable cause.

2. To Prevent Manifest Injustice
   The court may interfere if the prosecutor’s decision would result in a miscarriage of justice, such as where a blatantly frivolous charge is filed or where a patently meritorious case is dismissed.

   • Example: People v. Ligon (G.R. No. 215656, 2017)
     The court stepped in to prevent injustice when the prosecutor’s dismissal of the case lacked substantial basis and was arbitrary.

3. When the Prosecutor Fails to Observe Due Process
   If the prosecutor fails to follow the proper procedures during the preliminary investigation (e.g., denying the respondent a chance to submit a counter-affidavit or evidence), the court may intervene.

   • Due process violations undermine the integrity of the finding of probable cause and allow judicial interference.

4. In Cases of Political Harassment or Bad Faith
   If the prosecutor’s action is motivated by political harassment, malice, or bad faith, the courts can step in to safeguard the rights of the accused.

   • Example: Guerrero v. CA (G.R. No. 107211, 1997)
     The Supreme Court nullified the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause after finding that the charges were filed to harass the accused.

5. When There is a Clear Lack of Evidence
   The courts can intervene if the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause is patently unsupported by evidence.

   • Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman (G.R. No. 210903, 2016)
     The Supreme Court nullified the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause due to an evident lack of factual basis.

6. Interference by Special Law or Jurisdiction
   Certain laws or rules give the courts specific authority to review findings of probable cause. For example:

   • In cases involving public officials investigated by the Ombudsman, the court may review findings of probable cause under RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989).
   • Judicial Review under the Constitution, in conjunction with the Bill of Rights, when constitutional rights are violated.

---

3. Nature and Scope of Judicial Review

Judicial review of the prosecutor’s findings of probable cause is limited to determining whether there was grave abuse of discretion. The courts do not substitute their judgment for that of the prosecutor. The review focuses on procedural and jurisdictional errors, not on the merits of the case.

Key distinctions:

• Probable Cause for Filing an Information (Executive): Determined by the prosecutor based on evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation.
• Probable Cause for Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest (Judicial): Determined exclusively by the judge after the filing of the information.

---

4. Limitations on Court Intervention

Even in exceptional circumstances, courts must observe the following limitations:

1. Presumption of Regularity: Prosecutorial findings are presumed valid and regular unless there is clear proof of grave abuse of discretion.
2. Non-Intrusion into the Merits: The court cannot weigh the evidence as if conducting its own preliminary investigation.
3. Prompt Action: Interventions must be timely to avoid undue delay in criminal proceedings.

---

5. Remedies Available to the Aggrieved Party

If the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the aggrieved party may avail the following legal remedies:

1. Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65): Filed with the proper court to annul the prosecutor’s resolution.
2. Motion for Reconsideration: Filed before the prosecutor to reconsider the finding of probable cause.
3. Petition for Review: Filed with the Secretary of Justice or the Office of the Ombudsman, depending on jurisdiction.
4. Injunction or Prohibition: Filed to prevent enforcement of the prosecutor’s resolution.

---

6. Relevant Jurisprudence

1. Ledesma v. CA (G.R. No. 166780, 2006)
   The Supreme Court reiterated that courts should not supplant the prosecutor’s findings of probable cause unless there is grave abuse of discretion.

2. Estrada v. Ombudsman (G.R. Nos. 212140-41, 2015)
   The Court emphasized that judicial review of prosecutorial discretion is limited to instances of grave abuse of discretion.

3. Uy v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 105965, 1999)
   The Court ruled that judicial interference is justified when the prosecutor’s actions amount to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment.

4. People v. CA and Espinosa (G.R. No. 126005, 1997)
   It was held that courts may review the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause if it is manifestly erroneous or unsupported by evidence.

---

Conclusion

The doctrine of non-interference by the courts in the prosecutor’s determination of probable cause ensures that the executive branch can fulfill its duty to prosecute crimes without undue judicial encroachment. However, exceptions exist to correct grave abuse of discretion, prevent injustice, and ensure adherence to due process. Courts are cautious in exercising their power of judicial review to maintain the balance of powers and respect the prosecutor’s mandate.

Resolution of investigating prosecutor | Preliminary Investigation (RULE 112) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Resolution of Investigating Prosecutor Under Rule 112, Section D. Preliminary Investigation

The resolution of the investigating prosecutor under Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure pertains to the final determination by the investigating officer on whether there is probable cause to hold the respondent for trial or dismiss the complaint. This is a critical step in criminal prosecution because it determines whether a criminal charge proceeds to court or is dismissed outright. Below is an exhaustive discussion of this topic:

---

Legal Framework

Under Rule 112, Section 4, the investigating prosecutor’s duty is to determine whether probable cause exists based on the evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation. The resolution is part of the due process accorded to the respondent in criminal cases.

1. Nature of Preliminary Investigation

   • It is not a trial on the merits but an inquiry to determine probable cause.
   • Probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.

2. Role of the Investigating Prosecutor

   • The investigating prosecutor acts as a quasi-judicial officer with the duty to evaluate evidence, resolve legal issues, and recommend whether the case should be filed in court or dismissed.
   • The resolution must be supported by facts and law and must reflect impartiality and fairness.

---

Key Steps in the Resolution Process

1. Submission of Evidence

• After the parties submit their affidavits, counter-affidavits, and other evidence during the preliminary investigation, the prosecutor reviews all submissions.
• The evidence is examined to determine sufficiency and relevance in establishing probable cause.

2. Evaluation of Probable Cause

• The prosecutor must assess:
  • Whether a crime has been committed (criminal act or omission)
  • Whether the respondent is probably guilty and should be held for trial
• Mere suspicion is not enough to establish probable cause. There must be clear, credible evidence pointing to the commission of the crime and the respondent's involvement.

3. Preparation of the Resolution

• If probable cause exists:
  • The prosecutor issues a resolution recommending the filing of an Information in court.
  • The resolution must clearly state:
    • The facts constituting the offense
    • The legal basis for filing the case
    • A finding of probable cause
• If probable cause does not exist:
  • The prosecutor issues a resolution dismissing the complaint and stating the reasons for the dismissal.

4. Drafting of the Information

• The Information is a formal criminal charge filed in court. It must include:
  • The name of the accused
  • The designation of the offense
  • A brief statement of the acts or omissions constituting the offense
  • The approximate time and place of the offense

5. Endorsement to the Office of the Prosecutor General

• In cases involving crimes covered by special laws or special prosecutorial jurisdictions (e.g., Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Cybercrime Act), the resolution may require review by higher prosecutorial authorities.

---

Form and Content of the Prosecutor's Resolution

A resolution must adhere to the following principles:

1. Written Form: The resolution must be in writing, signed by the investigating prosecutor, and issued in clear, unequivocal language.
2. Factual Findings: The resolution must set forth the facts based on the evidence presented.
3. Legal Basis: The legal grounds and applicable provisions of law must be cited to support the findings.
4. Disposition: A clear pronouncement on whether the complaint is dismissed or an Information will be filed.

---

Action on the Resolution

1. Review by the Approving Authority

• The resolution is subject to approval by the Provincial Prosecutor, City Prosecutor, or Chief State Prosecutor, depending on the case’s jurisdiction.
• In cases where the complaint is dismissed, the dismissal must be reviewed and approved before it becomes final.

2. Filing of the Information in Court

• If the resolution finds probable cause, the Information is filed in court to formally commence the criminal prosecution.
• The court then conducts its own determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

---

Remedies Available to Parties

1. Motion for Reconsideration

• The aggrieved party (complainant or respondent) may file a motion for reconsideration with the investigating prosecutor or the approving authority.
• This motion must specifically point out errors in the resolution and cite evidence overlooked or misappreciated.

2. Petition for Review

• If the motion for reconsideration is denied, the party may file a petition for review before the Secretary of Justice (SOJ).
• The SOJ has the power to reverse, affirm, or modify the resolution of the prosecutor.

3. Certiorari (Rule 65)

• If there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the proper court.

---

Special Considerations

1. Highly Publicized Cases
   • In controversial cases, the DOJ may create a special panel of prosecutors to handle the preliminary investigation and resolution.
2. Conflict of Interest
   • Prosecutors must inhibit themselves if there is a conflict of interest or bias to ensure impartiality.
3. Delay in Resolution
   • Failure to resolve the complaint within the prescribed period may result in administrative liability for the prosecutor.
4. Private Prosecutors
   • While private prosecutors may assist in the preparation of the complaint, only the public prosecutor has the authority to resolve and file the case.

---

Relevant Jurisprudence

1. Uy v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 105965, March 20, 2001)

   • Emphasized that preliminary investigation is a substantive right and the resolution must be based on facts and applicable law.

2. Cruz v. Judge Areola (G.R. No. 164749, November 12, 2004)

   • Held that the resolution of the prosecutor is not binding upon the court, which conducts its own determination of probable cause.

3. People v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 126005, January 21, 1999)

   • Clarified that the absence of probable cause in the prosecutor’s resolution can be a ground for the dismissal of the Information.

---

Timelines for Resolution

• Preliminary Investigation must be completed within:
  • 10 days for filing counter-affidavits
  • 10 days for clarificatory hearings, if any
  • 10 days for resolution after submission of the case
• Extensions may be granted for justifiable reasons, but delays must not impair the rights of the parties.

---

Conclusion

The resolution of the investigating prosecutor in a preliminary investigation under Rule 112 is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system. It ensures that charges filed in court are based on credible evidence and a proper legal foundation. The process must comply with due process, procedural rules, and jurisprudence to prevent unwarranted harassment of the accused or the miscarriage of justice for the complainant.

Determination of existence of probable cause | Preliminary Investigation (RULE 112) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Preliminary Investigation under Rule 112, Section 2 – Determination of Existence of Probable Cause

Preliminary investigation is a crucial stage in criminal procedure that serves to protect an individual from the inconvenience, expense, and stigma of an unjust criminal prosecution. This process determines whether there exists probable cause to hold the respondent for trial. Below is an exhaustive discussion of the rules, jurisprudence, and principles governing the determination of probable cause in a preliminary investigation under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

---

I. Definition and Purpose of Preliminary Investigation

• Preliminary Investigation is defined as an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. (Rule 112, Sec. 1, Rules of Court)
• It is not a trial on the merits, and its purpose is merely probable cause, not guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• It is a right granted to an individual under the 1987 Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 14(2)), considered part of due process and a substantive right.

---

II. What is Probable Cause?

Probable cause refers to such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. It is based on:

1. Actual facts and circumstances, not mere conjecture or speculation.
2. A reasonable belief that the accused is linked to the crime.

Case law definitions:

• In People v. Castillo (G.R. No. 206698, April 20, 2015), the Supreme Court explained that probable cause does not require absolute certainty but only enough reason to believe that the respondent committed the offense.
• In Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Gonzales (G.R. No. 180974, October 13, 2010), it was held that probable cause does not mean proof beyond reasonable doubt but only the probability of guilt.

---

III. Nature of Determination of Probable Cause

There are two types of probable cause:

1. Executive Determination of Probable Cause: Done by prosecutors during preliminary investigation to decide whether to file a case in court.
2. Judicial Determination of Probable Cause: Done by judges to determine whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.

Focus of this discussion: Executive determination of probable cause under Rule 112.

---

IV. Procedure for Determination of Probable Cause in Preliminary Investigation

1. Filing of Complaint or Information (Sec. 3(a))

• A preliminary investigation is initiated by filing a complaint with the prosecutor's office, accompanied by the affidavits of witnesses, other supporting evidence, and certification of non-forum shopping.
• The respondent is notified and afforded the right to submit a counter-affidavit.

2. Five-Day Period to Decide (Sec. 3(b))

• Upon receipt of the complaint and counter-affidavits, the investigating prosecutor must resolve whether there is probable cause within ten (10) days from submission of the case.

3. Submissions of Evidence (Sec. 3(c))

• The parties are allowed to present supporting evidence. The prosecutor evaluates whether there is a sufficient basis to proceed with criminal charges.

4. Resolution of the Prosecutor (Sec. 4)

• If probable cause is found, the prosecutor files the Information with the appropriate court.
• If no probable cause is found, the case is dismissed.

---

V. Role of the Prosecutor in Determining Probable Cause

The determination of probable cause is an executive function exclusively vested in the prosecutor or investigating officer. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized this principle:

• In Albay Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Gutierrez (G.R. No. 198973, June 27, 2018), the Court clarified that courts cannot interfere with the prosecutor's determination of probable cause unless there is clear evidence of grave abuse of discretion.

The prosecutor's discretion includes:

1. Examining affidavits and evidence.
2. Weighing facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Deciding whether to file the case in court.

---

VI. Key Principles in Determining Probable Cause

1. Well-Founded Belief:
   • Probable cause requires a reasonable belief that the respondent committed the crime. It does not require certainty or proof beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Ex Parte Nature:
   • Preliminary investigation can be conducted even if the respondent fails to submit a counter-affidavit or participate in the proceedings.
3. No Right to Cross-Examination:
   • The respondent has no right to confront witnesses during the investigation. The proceedings are summary in nature.
4. No Control Over Prosecutor’s Discretion:
   • Courts cannot interfere in the prosecutor’s determination unless there is grave abuse of discretion.

---

VII. Remedies Against Determination of Probable Cause

1. Motion for Reconsideration:
   • A respondent may file a motion for reconsideration with the prosecutor if dissatisfied with the resolution.
2. Petition for Review:
   • If the motion for reconsideration is denied, the respondent may elevate the case to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
3. Certiorari:
   • If the prosecutor's finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed with the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.

---

VIII. Jurisprudence on Probable Cause in Preliminary Investigation

1. Lack of Probable Cause:
   • In Allado v. Diokno (G.R. No. 113630, May 5, 1994), the Supreme Court ruled that the filing of an Information without probable cause violates due process.
2. Sufficiency of Evidence:
   • In Burgos v. Chief of Staff (G.R. No. L-64261, December 26, 1984), the Court stressed that mere suspicion is not enough to establish probable cause.
3. Grave Abuse of Discretion:
   • In Drilon v. CA (G.R. No. 109087, January 11, 1999), the Court emphasized that certiorari is warranted if the prosecutor gravely abuses discretion in finding probable cause.

---

IX. Conclusion

The determination of probable cause in preliminary investigation under Rule 112 is a delicate balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring justice is served. Prosecutors must base their findings on facts, evidence, and the law, while courts must respect their discretion unless there is grave abuse. This process serves as a safeguard against unwarranted and baseless prosecutions while ensuring offenders are held accountable.

Nature and purpose | Preliminary Investigation (RULE 112) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Preliminary Investigation under Rule 112: Nature and Purpose

1. Nature of Preliminary Investigation

Preliminary Investigation (PI) is a crucial procedural safeguard in the criminal justice system, designed to ensure that an accused is not subjected to the rigors of a trial without a prior determination of probable cause. It is a summary, inquisitorial proceeding conducted by competent officers to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, thereby warranting the filing of an information in court.

Key Characteristics:

1. Right of the Accused:

   • PI is a substantive right, though not a constitutional right, as clarified in jurisprudence (e.g., Go v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas).
   • It is part of due process as guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

2. Judicial Nature:

   • Although inquisitorial and non-litigious in nature, it is quasi-judicial, as it involves the exercise of discretion by investigating officers.
   • It is not a part of the trial but a preparatory step.

3. Summary Character:

   • A PI is not a full-blown trial. It does not involve examining evidence to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but only to establish probable cause.

4. Not a Jurisdictional Requirement:

   • A defect or absence of PI does not affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case, but it can be questioned as a violation of the right to due process (People v. Court of Appeals).

---

2. Purpose of Preliminary Investigation

The primary purposes of PI are:

1. Protection Against Hasty Prosecution:

   • It shields the accused from the inconvenience, expense, and trauma of an unnecessary trial by determining the existence of probable cause.

2. Avoidance of Unwarranted Litigation:

   • It acts as a filter to prevent frivolous and baseless cases from reaching the courts, reducing the burden on the judiciary.

3. Safeguarding Due Process Rights:

   • It ensures that no person is prosecuted without adequate evidence, upholding the constitutional guarantee of fairness.

4. Preparation for Trial:

   • It aids in clarifying the facts and legal issues, thereby streamlining the prosecution’s case.

5. Probable Cause Standard:

   • It establishes whether there is a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty, sufficient for filing a case in court.

---

3. Governing Provisions and Jurisprudence

Under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the following key provisions govern preliminary investigation:

Section 1: Definition and Cases Requiring PI

• A preliminary investigation is required in offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day, without regard to the fine.

Section 2: Officers Authorized to Conduct PI

The following officers have the authority to conduct PI:

• Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
• National and Regional State Prosecutors;
• Other officers authorized by law (e.g., Ombudsman, COMELEC in election cases).

Section 3: Procedure of Preliminary Investigation

1. Filing of Complaint:

   • The complaint is filed with the officer authorized to conduct PI.
   • It must be supported by the affidavit of the complainant and witnesses, along with supporting evidence.

2. Issuance of Subpoena:

   • The investigating officer issues a subpoena to the respondent, attaching copies of the complaint and affidavits, giving the respondent a chance to submit a counter-affidavit.

3. Counter-Affidavit of Respondent:

   • The respondent submits a counter-affidavit and supporting documents. Failure to submit without valid cause constitutes a waiver of the right to present evidence.

4. Clarificatory Hearing:

   • If necessary, a clarificatory hearing may be conducted. However, this is not mandatory.

5. Resolution of the Investigating Officer:

   • The officer determines whether there is probable cause to hold the respondent for trial.
   • A resolution either recommending the filing of an information or dismissal of the case is issued.

6. Approval of Resolution:

   • The resolution must be approved by the proper authority (e.g., Provincial Prosecutor or City Prosecutor).

Section 4: Review of Resolution

• The resolution of the investigating prosecutor may be subject to review by the Secretary of Justice in cases involving grave abuse of discretion or manifest error.

Section 5: Inquest Proceedings

• For persons lawfully arrested without a warrant involving cases requiring PI, an inquest proceeding may take the place of a formal PI.

---

4. Remedies in Preliminary Investigation

1. Motion for Reconsideration:

   • The aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration with the investigating officer.

2. Petition for Review:

   • A petition for review may be filed with the Secretary of Justice for errors of judgment or abuse of discretion.

3. Certiorari under Rule 65:

   • If there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may elevate the case to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.

---

5. Jurisprudence on Preliminary Investigation

1. Due Process in PI:

   • In Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, the Court emphasized that due process entails the opportunity to be heard. The absence of PI violates the respondent’s right to due process (Cruz v. People).

2. Probable Cause vs. Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt:

   • In Salonga v. Paño, the Court clarified that the determination of probable cause is distinct from the trial court’s finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Absence of Preliminary Investigation:

   • In Rodis v. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court ruled that the absence of PI does not invalidate a criminal case but entitles the accused to request one before trial.

4. Role of Prosecutors:

   • Prosecutors have the discretion to determine probable cause. Courts cannot interfere unless there is grave abuse of discretion (Ledesma v. Court of Appeals).

---

6. Special Considerations

1. Preliminary Investigation in Special Cases:

   • In cases involving special laws (e.g., Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Dangerous Drugs Act), specialized procedures for PI may apply.

2. Preliminary Investigation for Juveniles:

   • The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act ensures special safeguards for minors undergoing PI.

3. Public Interest Cases:

   • Expediency and the gravity of the case may sometimes justify deviation from the usual PI process, subject to judicial scrutiny.

---

This framework encapsulates the nature, purpose, and procedural requirements of Preliminary Investigation, ensuring adherence to the due process rights of both the complainant and the respondent while facilitating the fair administration of justice.

Preliminary Investigation (RULE 112) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Preliminary Investigation under Rule 112 of the Rules of Court

Preliminary investigation is a critical procedural step in the Philippine criminal justice system. It is governed by Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which provides the framework for determining whether there exists probable cause to charge a person with a criminal offense. Below is a meticulous breakdown of all significant aspects of preliminary investigation under Rule 112.

---

I. Nature and Purpose of Preliminary Investigation

• Definition: A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding conducted by a prosecutor to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.

• Purpose:

  1. To protect the respondent from the inconvenience, expense, and burden of a public trial unless there is prima facie evidence of guilt.
  2. To safeguard the State from prosecuting a case that lacks merit.

• Nature: Preliminary investigation is not a trial. It is not meant to establish the guilt or innocence of the respondent but only the probability of guilt.

---

II. Who May Conduct Preliminary Investigation

Under Section 2, Rule 112, the following officials have authority to conduct preliminary investigations:

1. Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants.
2. State Prosecutors.
3. Other officers authorized by law, such as the Ombudsman in cases of graft and corruption, and the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) in cases under its jurisdiction.

Note: Municipal Trial Court Judges may conduct a preliminary examination in cases where arrest warrants are needed, but this does not constitute a full preliminary investigation.

---

III. Cases Subject to Preliminary Investigation

1. Threshold Amount of Penalty:

   • A preliminary investigation is required for offenses punishable by at least four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day without regard to fine.
   • For offenses punishable by lower penalties, the filing of a complaint or information may proceed without a preliminary investigation.

2. Exceptions: When the penalty is less than the threshold but a preliminary investigation is mandated by specific laws or regulations, this procedure applies.

---

IV. Procedure in Preliminary Investigation

The process of preliminary investigation is outlined in Sections 3 to 5 of Rule 112. It involves the following steps:

1. Filing of the Complaint (Section 3)

• Where to File: The complaint is filed with the Office of the Prosecutor or the officer authorized to conduct a preliminary investigation.
• Form and Contents:
  • The complaint must be in writing, under oath, and supported by the complainant's affidavit and the affidavits of witnesses.
  • Copies of other supporting documents should also be attached to establish probable cause.

2. Issuance of Subpoena (Section 3)

• If the prosecutor finds that the complaint and supporting documents establish probable cause, a subpoena is issued to the respondent.
• The subpoena requires the respondent to submit a counter-affidavit and supporting evidence within a period of ten (10) days from receipt.

3. Submission of Counter-Affidavits and Evidence (Section 3)

• The respondent must:
  • File a counter-affidavit, under oath, responding to the allegations.
  • Attach affidavits of witnesses and supporting documents.
• Failure to submit a counter-affidavit is considered a waiver of the respondent’s right to present evidence, and the investigation proceeds based on the evidence of the complainant.

4. Clarificatory Hearing (Optional, Section 3)

• The investigating officer may conduct clarificatory hearings to ask questions and gather additional information.
• Both parties may be present during the hearing but cannot cross-examine each other.

5. Resolution of the Prosecutor (Section 4)

• After reviewing the affidavits and evidence, the investigating prosecutor resolves whether:
  1. Probable cause exists to file an information in court.
  2. The complaint should be dismissed.
• The resolution must be in writing and state the findings and reasons for the decision.

---

V. Review and Appeals

1. Review by the Provincial or City Prosecutor (Section 4):

   • The resolution of an investigating prosecutor is subject to review by the Provincial Prosecutor or City Prosecutor.

2. Appeal to the Secretary of Justice:

   • If dissatisfied with the prosecutor’s decision, a party may file a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution.
   • The decision of the Secretary of Justice is final and executory in criminal cases but can still be questioned in court.

3. Judicial Review:

   • The resolution may be subject to certiorari under Rule 65 if there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

---

VI. Exceptions to Preliminary Investigation

Certain cases do not require a preliminary investigation:

1. Inquest Proceedings:

   • When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant, an inquest proceeding is conducted to determine the existence of probable cause for filing an information.
   • The detained person may opt to undergo a full preliminary investigation by signing a waiver of detention under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

2. Direct Filing of Complaint:

   • In cases punishable by less than four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day.

---

VII. Rights of the Respondent in Preliminary Investigation

The respondent enjoys several rights during a preliminary investigation:

1. Right to be informed of the complaint against them.
2. Right to submit counter-affidavits and evidence.
3. Right to counsel.
4. Right to be notified of all proceedings.
5. Right to an impartial and objective investigation.

---

VIII. Remedies Against Prosecutor’s Findings

The respondent or complainant may avail the following remedies:

1. Motion for Reconsideration:
   • File with the investigating prosecutor or reviewing authority.
2. Appeal to the Secretary of Justice:
   • Elevate the matter to the Secretary of Justice within the prescribed period.
3. Filing a Petition for Certiorari:
   • If there is grave abuse of discretion, file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the appropriate court.

---

IX. Relation to Legal Ethics

• Prosecutors must conduct preliminary investigations in strict observance of the principles of due process and impartiality.
• Canon 6, Rule 6.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility emphasizes that prosecutors should not initiate charges when there is no probable cause.
• Rule 10.03: Lawyers must not knowingly use false evidence or induce witnesses to lie.

---

X. Forms Used in Preliminary Investigation

1. Complaint-Affidavit: Sworn statement of the complainant outlining the facts constituting the offense.
2. Subpoena: Official notice issued by the investigating prosecutor.
3. Counter-Affidavit: Respondent's sworn reply to the allegations.
4. Resolution: Prosecutor's written finding on the existence or absence of probable cause.

---

XI. Jurisprudential Updates

Courts have consistently emphasized the discretionary power of prosecutors in preliminary investigations. Significant rulings include:

1. Bernardo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 119010): Preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right but a statutory privilege.
2. Cruz v. People (G.R. No. 164238): The absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the proceedings if the accused fails to raise the issue at the earliest opportunity.

---

This exhaustive treatment of Rule 112 ensures compliance with legal and ethical standards in preliminary investigations, preserving the balance between prosecutorial discretion and individual rights.