Withdrawal of Information

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.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login