PART FOUR

I. DEFINITION, NATURE AND PURPOSEA. NATURE AND VIEWS

PCGG VS DESIERTOFacts:

On October 8, 1992, then President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 13 creating the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans (Committee) which was tasked to inventory all behest loans, determine the parties involved and recommend whatever appropriate actions to be pursued thereby.

On November 9, 1992, President Ramos issued Memorandum Order No. 61 expanding the functions of the Committee to include the inventory and review of all non-performing loans, whether behest or non-behest.

The Memorandum set the following criteria to show the earmarks of a "behest loan," to wit: "a) it is undercollaterized; b) the borrower corporation is undercapitalized; c) a direct or indirect endorsement by high government officials like presence of marginal notes; d) the stockholders, officers or agents of the borrower corporation are identified as cronies; e) a deviation of use of loan proceeds from the purpose intended; f) the use of corporate layering; g) the non-feasibility of the project for which financing is being sought; and, h) the extraordinary speed in which the loan release was made."

Among the accounts referred to the Committee's Technical Working Group (TWG) were the loan transactions between NOCOSII and PNB.

After it had examined and studied all the documents relative to the said loan transactions, the Committee classified the loans obtained by NOCOSII from PNB as behest because of NOCOSII's insufficient capital and inadequate collaterals. Specifically, the Committee's investigation revealed that in 1975, NOCOSII obtained loans by way of Stand-By Letters of Credit from the PNB; that NOCOSII was able to get 155% loan value from the offered collateral or an excess of 85% from the required percentage limit; that the plant site offered as one of the collaterals was a public land contrary to the General Banking Act; that by virtue of the marginal note of then President Marcos in the letter of Cajelo, NOCOSII was allowed to use the public land as plant site and to dispense with the mortgage requirement of PNB; that NOCOSII's paid-up capital at the time of the approval of the guaranty was only P2,500,000.00 or only about 6% of its obligation.

Based on the Sworn Statement of PCGG consultant Orlando Salvador, petitioner filed with the Office of the Ombudsman the criminal complaint against respondents. Petitioner alleges that respondents violated the following provisions of Section 3 (e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019.

The respondents failed to submit any responsive pleading before the Ombudsman, prompting Graft Investigator Officer (GIO) I Melinda S. Diaz-Salcedo to resolve the case based on the available evidence. In a Resolution dated January 12, 1998 in OMB-0-95-0890, GIO Diaz-Salcedo recommended the dismissal of the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence or lack of probable cause against the respondents and for prescription of the offense. Ombudsman Desierto approved the recommendation on May 21, 1999. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied by GIO Diaz-Salcedo in the Order dated July 9, 1999, which was approved by Ombudsman Desierto on July 23, 1999.

Issue:

Whether respondents violated the following provisions of Sec 3 (e) and (g), specifically corrupt practices of public official, of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?

Held:

On the issue of whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that no probable cause exists against respondents, it must be stressed that the Ombudsman is empowered to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts. Settled is the rule that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers without good and compelling reasons to indicate otherwise. Said exercise of powers is based upon his constitutional mandate and the courts will not interfere in its exercise. The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman, but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, innumerable petitions seeking dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Ombudsman will grievously hamper the functions of the office and the courts, in much the same way that courts will be swamped if they had to review the exercise of discretion on the part of public prosecutors each time they decided to file an information or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.

While there are certain instances when this Court may intervene in the prosecution of cases, such as, (1) when necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; (2) when necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; (3) when there is a prejudicial question which is sub-judice; (4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; (5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; (6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent; (7) where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense; (8) where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; (9) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and (10) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied, none apply here.

After examination of the records and the evidence presented by petitioner, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the Ombudsman.

No grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the Ombudsman. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.

The herein assailed Orders being supported by substantial evidence, there is no basis for the Court to exercise its supervisory powers over the ruling of the Ombudsman. As long as substantial evidence supports the Ombudsman's ruling, that decision will not be overturned.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Except as to prescription, the assailed Resolution dated May 21, 1999 and Order dated July 2

BAYATAN V COMELECFacts: Reynato Baytan registered as a voter in two precincts and the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the recommendation of its Law Department to file information of double registration in violation of the Election Code. Baytan filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari on the grounds, among others, that there was no probable cause and that election cases must first be heard and decided by a Division before the COMELEC En Banc can assume jurisdiction.

Held: 1. It is well- settled that the finding of probable cause in the prosecution of election offenses rests in the sound discretion of the COMELEC. Generally, the Court will not interfere with such finding of the COMELEC, absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. This principle emanates from the exclusive power of the COMELEC to conduct preliminary investigation of all election investigation of all election offenses and to prosecute the same.2. Under Sec. 2, Art. IX-C of the Constitution, the COMELEC exercises both administrative and quasi-judicial powers. The administrative powers are found in Sec 2. (1), (3) to (9) of Art IX-C. The Constitution does not provide on whether these administrative powers shall be exercised by the COMELEC en banc or in division. The COMELEC en banc therefore can act on administrative matters, and this had been the practice under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. The prosecution by the COMELEC of violations of election laws is an administrative power.3. The exercise by the COMELEC of its quasi-judicial powers is subject to Sec.3, Art.IX-C which expressly requires that all election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, shall be decided by the COMELEC in division, and the motion for reconsid

DOJ-NPS MANUAL PART III SECTION 1. Concept of preliminary investigation - A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well founded belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.

A preliminary investigation is essentially a judicial inquiry since there is the opportunity to be heard, the production and weighing of evidence, and a decision rendered on the basis of such evidence. In this sense, the investigating prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer.

SEC. 2. Purpose of preliminary investigation. - A preliminary investigation is intended:

a)to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution and to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime and from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial andb)to protect the State from having to conduct useless and expensive trials.\SEC. 3. Nature of preliminary investigation. - The conduct of a preliminary investigation is a substantive right which the accused may invoke prior to or at least at the time of plea, the deprivation of which would be a denial of his right to due process.

SEC. 4. Effect of amendment of information. - In case an information is amended, a new preliminary investigation shall be conducted if the amended charge is not related to the crime originally charged; if there is a change in the nature of the crime charged; or if the information on its face is null and void for lack of authority to file the same.

SEC. 5. where right of preliminary investigation may he invoked. - The right to a preliminary investigation may be invoked only in cases cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. The right is not available in cases triable by inferior courts.

SEC. 6. Officers Authorized to Conduct Preliminary Investigation. - The following may conduct a preliminary investigation;

a)Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;b)Judges of Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;c) National and Regional State Prosecutors; andd) Other officers as may be authorized by law.

Their authority to conduct preliminary investigation shall include all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their respective territorial jurisdiction.

SEC. 7. Commencement of Preliminary Investigation.- A preliminary investigation proceeding is commenced:

a)by the filing of a complaint by the offended party or any competent person8 directly with the Office of the Investigating Prosecutor or Judge;b)by referral from or upon request of the law enforcement agency that investigated a criminal incident;c)upon request of a person arrested or detained pursuant to a warrantless arrest who executes a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;d)by order or upon directive of the court or other competent authority; ore)for election offenses, upon the initiative of the Commission on Elections, or upon written complaint by any citizen, candidate, registered political party, coalition of registered parties or any accredited citizen arm of the Commission on Elections.

SEC. 8. Complaint. - For purposes of preliminary investigation, the complaint filed with the prosecutor's office shall, as far as practicable, be accompanied or covered by an Information Sheet and shall state, among others -

a)the full and complete names and exact home, office or postal addresses of the complainant and his witnesses;b)The full and complete name and exact home, office or postal address of the respondent;c)The offense charged and the place and exact date and time of its commission; andd)Whether or not there exists a related case and, if so, the docket number of said case and the name of the Investigating Prosecutor thereof.

SEC. 9. Supporting affidavits.- The complaint shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting proofs or documents, if any. The affidavits shall be sworn to before a Provincial, City or State Prosecutor, or other government official authorized to administer oaths or, in their absence or unavailability, a notary public, who must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.

When the preliminary investigation is commenced by referral from or upon request of the law enforcement agency that investigated the incident, the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses to be submitted by the said agency shall consist of the original or duplicate original or certified machine copies thereof.

SEC. 10. Number of copies of affidavits. - The complaint and supporting affidavits shall be in such number of copies as there are respondents, plus four (4) copies for the court/official file.

Where a complaint charges multiple offenses which cannot be the subject of one indictment or information, the complainant may be required to submit such additional copies of the complaint and supporting affidavits as there are offenses charged in the complaint.

SEC. 11. Barangay certification . - If the offense charged is punishable by imprisonment not exceeding one (1) year or a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Pesos (5,000.00) and the parties to the case are all residents of the same city or municipality, the complaint shall be accompanied by the certification required under Section 412 (a) of R.A. Act No.7160, "The Local Government Code of 1991.

SEC. 12. Lack of harangay certification.- The absence of a barangay certification shall not be organizations under the party-list system or a ground for the dismissal of the complaint. The Investigating Prosecutor shall, however, make the corresponding referral of the complaint to the proper Lupong Tagapamayapa for appropriate action pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 7, Book III of R.A. No.7160. In connection therewith, the complainant may be summoned for the purpose of delivering the referral to the Chairman of the appropriate barangay and to secure the necessary certification within thirty (30) days.

In any of the following cases. the Investigating Prosecutor shall proceed to take cognizance of the complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation even if there is no Barangay Certification:

a)where the respondent is under detention; orb)where the respondent has been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings; orc)where the case may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.

SEC. 13. Initial/ action on the Complaint.- Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the Investigating Prosecutor shall either dismiss the same if he finds no ground to continue with the inquiry, or issue a subpoena to the respondent, attaching thereto a copy of the complaint together with the affidavits of witnesses and other supporting documents. 9

SEC. 14. Dismissal of complaint. - The following, among others, shall constitute sufficient basis for the outright dismissal of a complaint:

a)that the offense charged in the complaint was committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Office of the Investigating Officer;b)that, at the time of the filing of the complaint, the offense charged therein had already prescribed;c)that the complainant is not authorized under the provisions of pertinent laws to file the complaint;d)that the acts and/or omissions alleged in the complaint and/or the supporting affidavits do not sufficiently show that a criminal offense or violation of a penal law has been committed; ore)that the complaint and the supporting affidavits are unsigned and/or have not been duly subscribed and sworn to as prescribed under the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

SEC. 15. Personal service of documents by investigating prosecutor. -Whenever circumstances warrant and to prevent the loss of documents in the course of the service of a subpoena through ordinary modes, the Investigating Prosecutor may require the respondent or other parties to appear before him on a designated date, time and place and then and there personally furnish them with copies of the complaint, supporting affidavits and other documents.

At the said or any other setting, the respondent shall have the right to examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant.

Failure on the part of the respondent or his counsel/representative to appear before the Investigating Prosecutor to obtain copies of the complaint, supporting affidavits and other documents despite receipt of notice or subpoena shall be considered a waiver or forfeiture of respondent9s right to be furnished copies of the complaint, supporting affidavits and other documents, as well as to examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant.

For the purposes specified in the first paragraph hereof, the Investigating Prosecutor shall not require the appearance before him of the respondent or other parties who are residing in distant places. In such cases, the Investigating Prosecutor shall issue and send the subpoena, together with copies of the complaint, supporting affidavit and other documents, by registered special delivery mail with return card.

SEC. 16. Service of subpoena in preliminary investigation. - To expedite the conduct of a preliminary investigation, the following guidelines shall be observed in the service of subpoenas-

a)Service of subpoena and all papers/documents required to be attached athereto shall be b'~- personal service by regular process servers. In theirAbsence, the cooperation of the Provincial City/Municipal Station Commanders of the Philippine National Police (PNP) may be requested for the purpose.b)Under other circumstances, where personal service cannot be effected but the respondent cannot be considered as incapable of being subpoenaed as when he continues to reside at his known address but the return states that he "has left his residence and his return is uncertain" or words of similar import, service of subpoena and its attachments shall be effected by registered mail with return card at respondent's known home/office address. On the face of the envelope shall be indicatedI. the name and return address of the sender1 and theTypewritten/printed phrase "First Notice Made on______________", thus instructing the postmaster/postalemployee of the necessity of informing the sender of the date the first notice was made on the addressee; and

ii.the typewritten/printed request: "If not claimed withinfive (5) days from first notice, please return to sender."

c)Upon receipt of the unclaimed/returned envelope, the Investigating Prosecutor may then proceed to resolve the complaint on the basis of the evidence presented by the complainant.SEC. 17. where Respondent cannot he subpoenaed - If a respondent cannot be subpoenaed, as, for instance, he transferred residence without leaving any forwarding address, the Investigating Prosecutor shall base his resolution on the evidence presented by the complainant.

SEC. 18. Counter-Affidavits.- In cases where the respondent is subpoenaed, he shall within ten (10) days from receipt of the complaint and other documents, submit his counter-affidavit and other supporting documents which shall be sworn to and certified as prescribed in the second sentence of par. 1 of Section 9 this Part, copies of which shall be furnished by the respondent to the complainant.

Only a counter-affidavit subscribed and sworn to by the respondent before the Public Prosecutor can dispute or put at issue the allegations in the complaint. A memorandum, manifestation or motion to dismiss signed by the counsel cannot take the place of a counter-affidavit. Thus, a respondent relying on the manifestation, memorandum or motion to dismiss of his counsel is deemed to have not controverted complainant's evidence.

However, if such memorandum, manifestation or motion to dismiss is verified by the respondent himself, the same may be considered a counter-affidavit.

SEC. 19. Motion for dismissal of bill of particulars.-The filing of a motion for the dismissal of the complaint or for the submission of a bill of particulars shall not suspend or interrupt the running of the period for the submission of counter-affidavits and other supporting documents.

All the grounds for the dismissal of the complaint, as well as objections to the sufficiency thereof, shall be alleged or incorporated in the counter-affidavit and shall be resolved by the Investigating Prosecutor jointly on the merits of the case.

The Investigating Prosecutor may grant a motion to dismiss filed by a respondent who is yet to file or has not filed his counter-affidavit if the said motion is verified and satisfactorily establishes, among others:

a)the circumstances specified in sub-paragraphs (a), (b)9 (c) and (d) and (e) of Section 14 of this Part;b)the fact that the complaint, or one similar thereto or identical therewith, has previously been filed with the Office and has been fully adjudicated upon on the merits after due preliminary investigation proceedings; orc)the extinction of respondentts criminal liability by reason of death, pardon, amnesty, repeal of the law under which prosecution is sought, or other legal causes.

SEC. 20. Consolidation.- The following cases shall, as far as practicable, be consolidated for preliminary investigation purposes and assigned to and jointly heard by one Investigating Officer:

a)charges and counter-charges;b)cases arising from one and the same incident or transaction or series of incident or transactions; andc)cases involving common parties and founded on factual and/or legal issues of the same or similar character.

SEC. 21. Extension of time. - No motion or request for extension of time to submit counter-affidavits shall be allowed or granted by the Investigating Prosecutor except when the interest of justice demands that the respondent be given reasonable time or sufficient opportunity to:

a)engage the services of counsel to assist him in the preliminary investigation proceedings;b)examine or verify the existence, authenticity or accuracy of voluminous records, files, accounts or other papers or documents presented or submitted in support of the complaint; or

c)undertake studies or research on novel, complicated or technical questions or issues of law and of facts attendant to the case under investigation.

Extensions of time to submit a counter-affidavit for any of the reasons stated above shall not exceed ten (10) days. Additional extensions may be authorized by the Provincial/City Prosecutor concerned.

SEC. 22. Suspension of proceedings.- Upon motion of a party, or when raised in a counter-affidavit, the Investigating Prosecutor may suspend the preliminary investigation proceedings if the existence of a prejudicial question is satisfactorily established.

The existence of a prejudicial question shall, however, not be a ground for the dismissal of the complaint.

SEC. 23. Concept of prejudicial question.- A prejudicial question is one the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in a case and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime charged but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. To suspend the criminal action, it must not only appear that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.SEC. 24. Elements of prejudicial question. - The essential elements of a prejudicial question are:

a)the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action;b)the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed ; andc)the cognizance of the said issue pertains to another tribunal.

SEC. 25. Issuance of orders of suspension of proceedings.- No resolution or order suspending the preliminary investigation based on the existence of a prejudicial question shall be issued by the Investigating Prosecutor without the written approval of the Provincial/City Prosecutor concerned or his duly designated assistant.

SEC. 26. Reply-affidavits and rejoinders.- The Investigating Prosecutor shall not require or allow the filing or submission of reply-affidavits and/or rejoinders, except where new issues of fact or questions of law which are material and substantial in nature are raised or invoked in the counter-affidavit or subsequent pleadings and there exists a need for said issues or questions to be controverted or rebutted, clarified or explained to enable the Investigating Prosecutor to arrive at a fair and judicious resolution of the case. In such a case, the period for the submission of reply affidavits or rejoinders shall in no case exceed five (5) days unless a longer period is authorized by the Provincial/City Prosecutor concerned.

SEC. 27. Clanficatory questions. - The Investigating Prosecutor may set a hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses if he believes that there are matters which need to be inquired into personally by him. In said hearing, the parties shall be afforded the opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or cross-examine. If they so desire, they may submit written questions to the Investigating Prosecutor who may propound such questions to the parties or witnesses concerned.

The Investigating Prosecutor shall make a record of the questions asked and answers given during the clarificatory questioning which shall be signed by the parties concerned and/or their respective counsel. Said notes shall form part of the official records of the case. Parties who desire to file a petition for review of the Investigating Officer's resolution may, at their option, cite specific portions of the oral testimony by reference to the transcript of stenographic notes. Said notes shall only be transcribed in cases of appeal and shall be obtained at the expense of the interested party.

28. Submission of case for resolution. - The Investigating Prosecutor shall case submitted for resolution:

a) when the respondent cannot be subpoenaed or, if subpoenaed, does not submit his counter-affidavit within the reglementary period. In such a case, the Investigating Prosecutor shall base his resolution on the evidence presented by the complainant; or

b) upon submission by the parties of their respective affidavits and supporting proof or documents, in which event, he shall, upon the evidence thus adduced, determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial

SEC. 29. Lack of probable cause.- If the Investigating Prosecutor does not find sufficient basis for the prosecution of the respondent, he shall prepare the resolution recommending the dismissal of the complaint.

SEC. 30. Finding of probable cause. - If the Investigating Prosecutor finds that probable cause exists, he shall prepare the resolution and the corresponding information or complaint in the appropriate cases.

Where the respondent is a public officer or employee or a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Investigating Prosecutor shall also determine whether or not the offense with which he is charged was committed in relation to his office and, if so committed, such fact should be alleged in the information to be filed with the Sandiganbayan through the Ombudsman

SEC. 31. Reopening of investigation.- After a case under preliminary investigation has been submitted for resolution under the provisions of the preceding Section but before promulgation of the resolution, the preliminary investigation may be reopened for the purpose of receiving new and/or additional evidence upon the prior authorization given by the Provincial/City Prosecutor concerned or upon motion of the interested party, Provided, That in the latter case, it shall be subject to the following conditions:

a)the motion is verified and a copy thereof furnished the opposing party;b)the motion is accompanied with the new and/or additional evidence; andc)the motion sufficiently and satisfactorily shows valid and justifiable reason for the failure of the movant to submit the new and/or additional evidence during the preliminary investigation proceedings.

SEC. 32. Cases Transmitted by the Municipal Trial Judge. - Upon receipt of the records of the case from the Municipal Trial Court or Municipal Circuit Trial Court which conducted the Preliminary Investigation, the Prosecution Office shall review the case based on the existing records, without requesting the parties to submit memorandum of authorities, and may affirm, modify or reverse the finding of the Municipal Trial Court judge. However, if the interest of justice so requires, the prosecutor may conduct a full blown reinvestigation giving the parties the opportunity to submit additional evidence, and thereafter, resolve the case on the basis of the totality of the evidence thus adduced.

SEC. 33. Memoranda. - The Investigating Prosecutor shall not require nor allow the filing or submission by the parties of memoranda unless the case involves difficult or complicated questions of law or of fact. In any event, the filing of memoranda by the parties shall be done simultaneously and the period therefore shall not exceed ten (10) days, unless a longer period is authorized by the Provincial/City Prosecutor concerned.

SEC. 34. Period for resolving a case. - The Investigating Prosecutor shall resolve the case within ten (10) days from the time the case is deemed submitted for resolution,[footnoteRef:1] unless otherwise provided herein or a longer period is authorized by the Provincial/City Prosecutor concerned. [1: ]

SEC. 35. Form of resolution and number of copies.- The resolution shall be written in the official language, personally and directly prepared and signed by the Investigating Prosecutor. It shall be prepared in as many copies as there are parties, plus three (3) additional copies.SEC. 36. Contents of the resolution. - A resolution shall contain a caption and a body.SEC. 37. Caption of resolution. - The caption of the resolution shall indicate the:

a)names of all the complainants and all of the respondents;b)Case Number, otherwise known as the Investigation Slip Number or 1.8. No.;c)the offense charged;d)the date of the filing of the complaint with the office;e)the date of the assignment of the case to or receipt of the case record by the Investigating Officer; andf)the date the case was submitted for resolution.

SEC. 38. Names of parties. - The complete names of all the complainants and respondents in the case shall be set out in the caption of the resolution. It is not proper to use the phrase "et. al." to refer to other complainants and respondents.

The name of the victim or injured party, not their representative, shall appear in the caption. In cases referred to the prosecution by the police where there is no identified victim, as in prohibited drugs cases, the complainant shall be the police station involved, followed by the name and designation of the police officer representing the police station. In homicide or murder cases, the name of the victim or of the complainant shall be in the caption. The heirs or relatives of the slain victim shall be indicated as "Legal heirs of deceased (name or person killed)", represented by "(either the surviving spouse, father or mother)".

In the case of a corporation or judicial entity, its corporate name or identity shall be indicated and written as follows. " 'X' Corporation, represented by its (position title), (name of corporate officer)".

SEC. 39. Case number. - The number of a case shall indicate the year and month; it was filed and its entry number in the log book of the office, e.g. 97 (year)A(month)-024(entry number).

SEC. 40. Designation of offense charged. - For offenses that are punishable under the Revised Penal Code, the caption shall set forth the denomination of the offense and the specific article and paragraph of the statute violated.

Where there is another charge or countercharge in the same case having one case number or in case of a consolidated resolution involving two or more criminal cases with two or more docket numbers, the caption shall also contain said information.

SEC. 41. Contents of body of resolution. - In general, the body of resolution should contain:

a)a brief summary of the facts of the case;b)a concise statement of the issues involved; andc)the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Prosecutor.

All material details that should be found in the information prepared by the Investigating Prosecutor shall be stated in the resolution.

SEC. 42. Parts of a resolution. - As a rule, the body of a resolution is made up of four parts, namely:

a)Part 1 shall state the nature of the case as disclosed in the evidence presented by the complainant such as his affidavit-complaint, the affidavit of witnesses and documentary and physical evidence. The affidavits shall be numbered in the order of the presentation of the prosecution witnesses as disclosed in the list of witnesses appearing in the information. As for the documentary evidence, they shall be alphabetically marked as they would be marked during the pre-trial and trial stages of the case.b)Part 2 shall contain the version of complainant of the incident. The presentation of the complainant's case should be concise and shall not be cluttered with details that are not necessary to show the elements of the offense.c)Part 3 shall allege the respondent1s version of the incident. This must also be concise.d)Part 4 shall contain the discussion, analysis and evaluation by the prosecutor of the evidence presented by the complainant and the respondent, without relying on the weakness of the defense of the respondent. It shall also contain the conclusion of the prosecutor. The complainant's and respondent's versions of the incident need not be repeated in this part except to point out excerpts relating to the existence or absence of the elements of the crime. Citations of pertinent laws and jurisprudence should support the conclusions reached. Where numerical values are important, the number shall be written in words and figures.

SEC. 43. How recommended hail is written. - The bail recommended in the resolution shall be written in words and figures.

SEC. 44. Recommended bail. - The bail recommended in the resolution shall be stated in the information, written in words and figures, and initialed by the investigating prosecutor.

SEC. 45. Parties to be furnished with a copy of the resolution. - The complete names and addresses of the complainant and the respondent shall be set out at the end of the resolution after the signature of the investigating prosecutor and the head of the Prosecutor's Office concerned under the phrase: "Copy furnished:".

If the parties are represented by counsel and the latter's appearance is entered formally in the record, the counsel, not the party, shall be given a copy of the resolution.

SEC. 46. Signature and initials of investigating prosecutor. - The investigating prosecutor shall sign the resolution and if the resolution consists of two or more pages, the prosecutor shall initial all of said pages, excluding the signature page.

SEC. 47. Records of the case. - The investigating fiscal shall forward his resolution, together with the complete records of the case, to the Provincial or City Prosecutor or Chief State Prosecutor concerned within five (5) days from the date of his resolution.

SEC. 48. Action of the Provincial or City Prosecutor or Chief State Prosecutor on resolution. - The Provincial or City Prosecutor or Chief State Prosecutor concerned shall act on all resolutions within ten (10) days from receipt thereof by either approving or disapproving the resolution or returning the same to the investigating prosecutor for further appropriate action. immediately after approving or disapproving the resolution, the Provincial or City Prosecutor or Chief State Prosecutor concerned shall transmit a copy of the resolution to the parties.

SEC. 49. Reversal by the Provincial or City Prosecutor or Chief State Prosecutor of resolution of investigating prosecutor. - If the Provincial or City Prosecutor or Chief State Prosecutor reverses the recommendation in the resolution of the investigating prosecutor, the former may, by himself, file the corresponding information or direct any other assistant prosecutor or state prosecutor, as the case may be, to do so without need of conducting another preliminary investigation.

SEC. 50. Approval of pleading by head of prosecution office. - A pleading prepared by the trial prosecutor, including exparte motions, shall not be filed in court without the prior written approval by the Provincial or City Prosecutor or Chief State Prosecutor, as the case may be, of said pleading.

SEC. 51. Motion for reinvestigation, where filed. - Before the arraignment of the accused, a motion for reinvestigation of the case may be filed with the City/Provincial Prosecutor, Provided, That when the case has been appealed to the Regional State Prosecutor or the Department of Justice, such motion may be filed, respectively, with the said offices. After arraignment, said motion may only be filed with the judge hearing the case.

SEC. 52. Confidentiality of resolutions. - All resolutions prepared by an Investigating Prosecutor after preliminary investigation, whether his recommendation be for the filing or dismissal of the case, shall be held in strict confidence and shall not be made known to the parties, their counsel and/or to any unauthorized person until the same shall have been finally acted upon by the Provincial/City Prosecutor or his duly authorized assistant and approved for promulgation and release to the parties.

Violation of the foregoing shall subject the Investigating Prosecutor or the employee of the office concerned to severe disciplinary action.

SEC. 53. Information/Complaint.- The information/complaint shall be personally and directly prepared by the Investigating Prosecutor or such other prosecutor designated for the purpose and signed by him or the complainant, as the case may be. It shall state and contain, in addition to the requirements of the Rules of Court on the sufficiency of the allegations in an information or complaint, the following:

a)the full name and aliases, if any, and address of the accused;b)the age and date of birth of the complainant or the accused, if eighteen (18) years of age or below;c)the full names and addresses of the parents, custodian or guardian of the minor complainant or accused, as the case may be;d)the place where the accused is actually detained;e)the full names and addresses of the complainant and witnesses;f)a detailed description of the recovered items, if any;g)the full name and address of the evidence custodian; andh)the bail recommended, if the charge is bailable.

The Investigating Prosecutor shall certify under oath that he or, as shown by the record, an authorized officer, had personally examined the complainant and his witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence; and that he is filing the complaint or information with the prior authority and approval of the Provincial/City Prosecutor concerned.

SEC. 54. Documents to be attached to information/complaint. - An information/complaint that is filed in court shall, as far as practicable, be accompanied by a copy of the resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor, the complainant's affidavit, the sworn statements of the prosecution's witnesses, the respondent's counter-affidavit and the sworn statements of his witnesses and such other evidence as may have been taken into account in arriving at a determination of the existence of probable cause.

SEC. 55. Promulgation of resolution.- The result of the preliminary investigation shall be promulgated by furnishing the parties or their counsel a copy of the resolution by:

a)personal service;b)registered mail with return card to the complainant, and by ordinary mail to the respondent, if the resolution is for the dismissal of the complaint; orc)registered mail with return card to the respondent, and by ordinary mail to the complainant, if the resolution is for the indictment of the respondent.

SEC. 56. Motion for reconsideration. - A motion for reconsideration may be filed within ten (10) days from receipt of the resolution. The motion shall be verified, addressed to the Provincial/City Prosecutor or the Chief State Prosecutor, and accompanied by proof of service of a copy thereof on the opposing party and must state clearly and distinctly the grounds relied upon in support of the motion.

A motion for reconsideration is still part of due process in the preliminary investigation. The denial thereof is a reversible error as it constitutes a deprivation of the respondent's right to a full preliminary investigation preparatory to the filing of the information against him. The court therefore may not proceed with the arraignment and trial pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration.

SEC. 57. Inhibition. - A Prosecutor shall inhibit himself from conducting a preliminary investigation in a case wherein -

a)he or his wife or child is interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise; orb)he is related to either affinity or to counselc)he has been named counsel. party within the 6th degree of consanguinity or within the 4th degree; or executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or

A motion to disqualify or inhibit the Investigating Prosecutor may be filed with the City/Provincial or Chief State Prosecutor concerned for just or valid reasonsother than those mentioned above.

SEC. 58. Period to resolve cases under preliminary investigation. - The following periods shall be observed in the resolution of cases under preliminary investigation:

a)The preliminary investigation of complaints charging a capital offense shall be terminated and resolved within ninety (90) days from the date of assignment to the Investigating Prosecutor.b)The preliminary investigation of all other complaints involving crimes cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts shall be terminated and resolved within sixty (60) days from the date of assignment.c)In cases of complaints involving crimes cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, the preliminary investigation - should the same be warranted by the circumstances - shall be terminated and resolved within sixty(60)days from the date of assignment to the Investigating Prosecutor.

In all instances, the total period (from the date of assignment to the time of actual resolution) that may be consumed in the conduct of the formal preliminary investigation shall not exceed the periods prescribed herein.

(PRELIMININARY INVESTIGATION), PART II (INQUEST)SECTION 1. Concept. - Inquest is an informal and summary investigation conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether or not said persons should remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court.

SEC. 2. Designation of In quest Officer. The City or Provincial Prosecutor shall designate the Prosecutors assigned to inquest duties and shall furnish the Philippine National Police (PNP) a list of their names and their schedule of assignments. If, however, there is only one Prosecutor in the area, all inquest eases shall be referred to him for appropriate action.

Unless otherwise directed by the City or Provincial Prosecutor, those assigned to inquest duties shall discharge their functions during the hours of their designated assignments and only at the police stations/headquarters of the PNP in order to expedite and facilitate the disposition of inquest eases.

SEC. 3. Commencement and termination of inquest.- The inquest proceedings shall be considered commenced upon receipt by the Inquest Officer from the law enforcement authorities of the complaint/referral documents which should include:

a) the affidavit of arrest;b) the investigation report;c) the statement of the complainant and witnesses; andd) other supporting evidence gathered by the police in the course of the latter's investigation of the criminal incident involving the arrested or detained person.

The Inquest Officer shall, as far as practicable, cause the affidavit of arrest and statements/affidavits of the complainant and the witnesses to be subscribed and sworn to before him by the arresting officer and the affiants.

The inquest proceedings must be terminated within the period prescribed under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

SEC. 4. Documents required in specific cases. - The Inquest Officer shall, as far as practicable, require the submission/presentation of the documents listed below, to wit:

Murder, Homicide and Parricide

a)certified true/machine copy of the certificate of death of the victim; andb)necropsy report and the certificate of post-mortem examination, if readily available.

Frustrated or Attempted Homicide, Murder, Parricide and Physical Injuries

a)medical certificate of the complaining witness showing the nature or extent of the injury;b)certification or statement as to duration of the treatment or medical attendance; andc)certificate or statement as to duration of incapacity for work.

Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law (R.A. No.6425, as amended)

a)chemistry report or certificate of laboratory examination duly signed by the forensic chemist or other duly authorized officer. If the foregoing documents are not available, the Inquest Officer may temporarily rely on the field test results on the seized drug, as attested to by a PNP Narcotics Command operative or other competent person, in which event, the Inquest Officer shall direct the arresting officer to immediately forward the seized drug to the crime laboratory for expert testing and to submit to the prosecutor's office the final forensic chemistry report within five (5) days from the date of the inquest;b)machine copy or photograph of the buy-bust money; andc)affidavit of the poseur-buyer, if any.

Theft and Robbery, Violation of the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law (P.D. No.532) and Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No.1612)

a) a list/inventory of the articles and items subject of the offense; and b) statement of their respective values.

Rape, Seduction and Forcible Abduction with Rape

a) the medico-legal report (living case report), if the victim submitted herself for medical or physical examination.

Violation of the Anti-Carnapping Law (R.A. No.6539)

a)machine copy of the certificate of motor vehicle registration;b) machine copy of the current official receipt of payment of theregistration fees of the subject motor vehicle; andc)other evidence of ownership.

Violation of the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law (P.D. No.533)

a)machine copy of the cattle certificate of registration; andb)photograph of the cattle, if readily available.

Violation of Illegal Gambling Law (P.D. No.1602)

a)gambling paraphernalia; andb)cash money, if any.

Illegal Possession of Explosives (P.D. No.1866)

a)chemistry report duly signed by the forensic chemist; andb)photograph of the explosives, if readily available.

Violation of the Fisheries Law (P.9. No.704)

a)photograph of the confiscated fish, if readily available; andb)certification of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.

Violation of the Forestry Law (P.9. No.705)

a)scale sheets containing the volume and species of the forest products confiscated, number of pieces and other important details such as estimated value of the products confiscated;b)certification of Department of Environment and Natural Resources/Bureau of Forest Management; andc)seizure receipt.

The submission of the foregoing documents shall not be absolutely required if there are other forms of evidence submitted which will sufficiently establish the facts sought to be proved by the foregoing documents.

SEC. 5. Incomplete documents. - When the documents presented are not complete to establish probable cause, the Inquest Officer shall direct the law enforcement agency to submit the required evidence within the period prescribed under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Otherwise, the Inquest Officer shall order the release of the detained person and, where the inquest is conducted outside of office hours, direct the law enforcement agency concerned to file the case with the City or Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action. SEC. 6. Presence of detained person. - The presence of the detained person who is under custody shall be ensured during the proceedings.

However, the production of the detained person before the Inquest Officer may be dispensed with in the following cases:

a)if he is confined in a hospital;b)if he is detained in a place under maximum security;c)if production of the detained person will involve security risks; ord)if the presence of the detained person is not feasible by reason of age, health, sex and other similar factors.

The absence of the detained person by reason of any of the foregoing factors shall be noted by the Inquest Officer and reflected in the record of the case.

SEC. 7. Charges and counter-charges.- All charges and counter-charges arising from the same incident shall, as far as practicable, be consolidated and inquested jointly to avoid contradictory or inconsistent dispositions.

SEC. 8. Initial duty of Inquest Officer. - The Inquest Officer shall first determine if the arrest of the detained person was made in accordance with paragraphs(a)and (b) of Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, which provide that arrests without a warrant may be effected:

a) when, in the presence of the arresting officer, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; orb)when an offense has in fact just been committed, and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.

For this purpose, the Inquest Officer may summarily examine the arresting officers on the circumstances surrounding the arrest or apprehension of the detained person.

SEC. 9. where arrest not properly effected. - Should the Inquest Officer find that the arrest was not made in accordance with the Rules, he shall;

a)recommend the release of the person arrested or detained;b)note down the disposition on the referral document;c)prepare a brief memorandum indicating the reasons for the action taken; andd)forward the same, together with the record of the case, to the City or Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.

Where the recommendation for the release of the detained person is approved by the City or Provincial Prosecutor but the evidence on hand warrants the conduct of a regular preliminary investigation, the order of release shall be served on the officer having custody of said detainee and shall direct the said officer to serve upon the detainee the subpoena or notice of preliminary investigation, together with the copies of the charge sheet or complaint, affidavits or sworn statements of the complainant and his witnesses and other supporting evidence.

SEC. 10. where arrest properly effected. - Should the inquest Officer find that the arrest was properly effected, the detained person shall be asked if he desires to avail himself of a preliminary investigation and, if he does, he shall be made to execute a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with the assistance of a lawyer and, in case of non-availability of a lawyer, a responsible person of his choice. The preliminary investigation may be conducted by the Inquest Officer himself or by any other Assistant Prosecutor to whom the case may be assigned by the City or Provincial Prosecutor, which investigation shall be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.9

SEC. 11. Inquest preliminary investigation Inquest Officer shall statements/affidavits of evidence submitted to him.

proper.- Where the detained person does not opt for a or otherwise refuses to execute the required waiver, the proceed with the inquest by examining the sworn the complainant and the witnesses and other supporting

If necessary, the Inquest Officer shall require the presence of the complaining witnesses and subject them to an informal and summary investigation or examination for purposes of determining the existence of probable cause.

SEC. 12. Meaning of probable cause.- Probable cause exists when the evidence submitted to the Inquest Officer engenders a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the arrested Or detained person is probably guilty thereof.

SEC. 13. Presence of probable cause.- If the Inquest Officer finds that probable cause exists, he shall forthwith prepare the corresponding complaint/information with the recommendation that the same be filed in court. The complaint/information shall indicate the offense committed and the amount of bail recommended, if bailable.

Thereafter, the record of the case, together with the prepared complaint/information, shall be forwarded to the City or Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.

The complaint/information may be filed by the Inquest Officer himself or by any other Assistant Prosecutor to whom the case may be assigned by the City or Provincial Prosecutor.

SEC. 14. Contents of Information.- The information shall, among others,contain:

a)a certification by the filing Prosecutor that he is filing the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 7, Rule 112, Rules on Criminal Procedure, in cases cognizable by the Regional Trial Court;b)the full name and aliases, if any, and address of the accused;c)the place where the accused is actually detained;d)the full names and addresses of the complainant and witnesses;e)a detailed description of the recovered items, if any;f)the full name and address of the evidence custodian;g)the age and date of birth of the complainant or the accused, if eighteen (18) years of age or below; andh)the full names and addresses of the parents, custodians or guardians of the minor complainant or accused, as the case may be.

SEC. 15. Absence of probable cause.- If the Inquest Officer finds no probable cause, he shall:

a)recommend the release of the arrested or detained person;b)note down his disposition on the referral document;c)prepare a brief memorandum indicating the reasons for the action taken; andd)forthwith forward the record of the case to the City or Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.

If the recommendation of the Inquest Officer for the release of the arrested or detained person is approved, the order of release shall be served on the officer having custody of the said detainee.

Should the City or Provincial Prosecutor disapprove the recommendation of release, the arrested or detained person shall remain under custody, and the corresponding complaint/information shall be filed by the City or Provincial Prosecutor or by any Assistant Prosecutor to whom the case may be assigned.

SEC. 16. Presence at crime scene. - Whenever a dead body is found and there is reason to believe that the death resulted from foul play, or from the unlawful acts or omissions of other persons and such fact has been brought to his attention, the Inquest Officer shall:

a)forthwith proceed to the crime scene or place of discovery of the dead person;b)cause an immediate autopsy to be conducted by the appropriate medico-legal officer in the locality or the PNP medico-legal division or the NBI medico-legal office, as the case may be;c)direct the police investigator to cause the taking of photographs of the crime scene or place of discovery of the dead body;d)supervise the investigation to be conducted by the police authorities as well as the recovery of all articles and pieces of evidence found thereat and see to it that the same are safeguarded and the chain of the custody thereof properly recorded; ande)submit a written report of his finding to the City or Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.

SEC. 17. Sandiganbayan cases.- Should any complaint cognizable by the Sandiganbayan be referred to an Inquest Officer for investigation, the latter shall, after conducting the corresponding inquest proceeding, forthwith forward the complete record to the City or Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.

SEC. 18. Recovered articles.- The Inquest Officer shall see to it that all articles recovered by the police at the time of the arrest or apprehension of the detained person are physically inventoried, checked and accounted for with the issuance of corresponding receipts by the police officer/investigator concerned.

The said articles must be properly deposited with the police evidence custodian and not with the police investigator.

The Inquest Officer shall ensure that the items recovered are duly safeguarded and the chain of custody is properly recorded.

SEC. 19. Release of recovered articles.- The Inquest Officer shall, with the prior approval of the City or Provincial Prosecutor or his duly authorized representative, order the release of recovered articles to their lawful owner or possessor, subject to the conditions that:

a)there is a written request for their release;b)the person requesting the release of said articles is shown to be the lawful owner or possessor thereof;c)the requesting party undertakes under oath to produce said articles before the court when so required;d)the requesting party, if he is a material witness to the case, affirms or reaffirms his statement concerning the case and undertakes under oath to appear and testify before the court when so required;e)the said articles are not the instruments, or tools in the commission of the offense charged nor the proceeds thereof; andf)photographs of said articles are first taken and duly certified to by thepolice evidence custodian as accurately representing the evidence in his custody.

B. DEFINITION; WHEN REQUIRED

RULE 112, Section 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required. 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 the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.Except as provided in section 7 of this Rule, a preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine. (1a)

DOJ NPS MANUAL PART IIISECTION 1. Concept of preliminary investigation - A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well founded belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.

A preliminary investigation is essentially a judicial inquiry since there is the opportunity to be heard, the production and weighing of evidence, and a decision rendered on the basis of such evidence. In this sense, the investigating prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer.

SEC. 2. Purpose of preliminary investigation. - A preliminary investigation is intended:

a)to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution and to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime and from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial; andb)to protect the State from having to conduct useless and expensive trials.SEC. 3. Nature of preliminary investigation. - The conduct of a preliminary investigation is a substantive right which the accused may invoke prior to or at least at the time of plea, the deprivation of which would be a denial of his right to due process.

RJCL

Section 8. Procedure for Handling Children Exempted from Criminal Liability. - If it is determined at the initial contact that the child is 15 years of age or below, the procedure provided in Section 20, Republic Act No. 9344 shall be observed as follows:(a) The authority who had the initial contact with the child shall immediately release the child to the custody of the mother or father, or the appropriate guardian or custodian, or in their absence, the nearest relative.(b) The authority shall immediately notify the local social welfare and development officer of the taking of the child into custody.(c) The local social welfare and development officer shall, with the consent of the child and the person having custody over the child, determine the appropriate intervention programs for the child.(d) If the child's parents, guardians or nearest relatives cannot be located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to any of the following: a duly registered nongovernmental or religious organization; a barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children; a local social welfare and development officer; or, when and where appropriate, the Department of Social Welfare and Development.(e) If the child has been found by the local social welfare and development office to be abandoned, neglected or abused by the parents, or if the parents and the child do not consent to or do not comply with the prevention program, the Department of Social Welfare and Development or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office shall file before the court a petition for involuntary commitment pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as "The Child and Youth Welfare Code."Section 13. Taking Custody of a Child Without a Warrant. - The law enforcement officer or a private person taking into custody a child in conflict with the law without a warrant shall observe the provisions in Sections 5, 8 and 9 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and shall forthwith deliver the child to the nearest police station. The child shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

HASHIM V BONCANNature: Petition for certiorari and mandamusFacts:Hashim was caught red handed in possession of counterfeit treasury certificates. A criminal action was filed against him. A warrant for his arrest was issued on the strength of the fiscals sworn statement that he had conducted a preliminary investigation and that he had examined the witnesses under oath. Prior to his arraignment, his counsel filed a motion asking that the fiscal furnish the clerk of court with the testimony of the witnesses who testified at the preliminary investigation, or an extract thereof, as well as the alleged 560 counterfeit treasury certificate or in the alternative, that the courtimmediately conduct an investigation.Fiscals Position: There is no necessity for the court to conduct another preliminary investigation because the office of the fiscal has already conducted one in accordance with the law.Supreme Court: No need for another preliminary Investigation.The right to PI is statutory and not constitutional. Its purpose is to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecutions, and to protect him from open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of public trial, and also to protect the State from useless and expensive prosecutions.The new rules on PI were drafted in light of the courts experience where PIs drag on for weeks and even months, so now rules were promulgated to make it as simple and speedy as is consistent with the rights of the accused. As the name implies, the proceedings are only preliminary, the investigation judge or prosecutor acts upon probable cause and reasonable belief and not upon proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not an occasion for full and exhaustive display of the parties evidence but only for the presentation of such evidence as may engender a well- grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.In this case, a PI was already conducted by the fiscal, the result of which became the basis of an information which in turn was the basis for the courts decision to issue a warrant. To ask for an abstract testimony of such proceedings for no other purpose than to scrutinize the evidence which convinced the Fiscal and the Judge that there was reasonable ground to proceed against the petitioner, is contrary the nature of PIs as a brief investigation.

TANDOC VS RESULTAN FACTS: This controversy arose from a heated altercation and physical assaults amongst neighbors. Based on the collated complaints of both parties, in October 1980, at the house of Pacita Tandoc, respondents Cancino, Arnulfo Payopay, Conrado Payopay, Sr. and several others intruded the sari-sari store and house of the former and an altercation ensued. In the middle of the verbal joust, Arnulfo and Beda Acosta picked up stones and hurled them unto Pacita, though, the projectiles instead hit the latters helpers who sustained physical injuries. Thereafter, Tandocs party filed complaints against the intruders with the City Fiscal of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, which sometime November 1980 found probable cause that all the respondents committed trespass to dwelling, Arnulfo serious physical injuries and Acosta slight physical injuries. Four days later, respondents filed complaints against Tandocs party with the same fiscals office, however, the latter found them merely as belated countercharges meriting dismissal, except the trespass to dwelling charged against Pedro Tandoc. Displeased with the fiscals resolution, in July 1981, Payopays party directly lodged their complaints with City Court San Carlos (CCSC), where the criminal cases initiated by the Tandocs against them are pending. Subsequently, the CCSC issued several Orders which are the subject of this Petition for Certiorari, whereby the said court, after conducting preliminary examination of Payopays complaints found reasonable ground to believe that the offenses charged may have been committed by the accused, herein petitioners. The Tandocs moved for reconsideration and re-investigation of the complaints by the city fiscal, insisting that the latter had already evaluated the same and found no prima facie case. ISSUE: W/N the CCSC had the power and authority to conduct anew a preliminary examination of charges, which already went thru a preliminary investigation (PI) by the city fiscal who ordered their dismissal. HELD: Petition is denied, re-investigation is not allowed in this instance. RATIO: The policy objective for the conduct of a PI is to protect the accused from the inconvenience, expense and burden of defending himself in a formal trial unless reasonable probability of his guilt shall have been first ascertained in a fairly summary proceeding by a competent officer. It is also intended to protect the state from having to conduct useless and expensive trials. There are TWO (2) STAGES in a PI; FIRST, the PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION of the complainant and his witnesses prior to the arrest of the accused to determine whether or not there is ground to issue a warrant of arrest; SECOND, PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION PROPER, wherein the accused, after his arrest, is informed of the complaint filed against him and is given access to the testimonies and evidence presented, and he is also permitted to introduce evidence in his favor. The purpose of this stage of investigation is to determine whether or not the accused should be released [and the complaint be dismissed or he should be held for trial]. A PI is inquisitorial in nature and it is not a trial on the merits of the case and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it does not place the person against whom it is taken in jeopardy (as does not constitute a trial on the merits). Under the Section 9, Rule 112, certain crimes require a different approach in PI. The rationale for this is as follows. xxx the withholding of the right of the PI from the accused in cases triable by the inferior courts involving offenses with lower penalties than those exclusively cognizable by CFIs, could not be termed an unjust or unfair distinction. The loss of time entailed in the conduct of PIs, with the consequent extension of deprivation of the accused's liberty, in case he fails to post bail, which at times outlasts the period of the penalty provided by law for the offense, besides the mental anguish suffered in protracted litigations, are eliminated with the assurance of a speedy and expeditious trial for the accused, upon his arraignment (without having to undergo the second stage of the PI), and of a prompt verdict on his guilt or innocence. On the other hand, the so-called first stage of PI or the preliminary examination, conducted by the duly authorized officer, as borne out by the examination and sworn written statement of the complainants and their witnesses, generally suffices to establish the existence of reasonable ground to charge the accused with having committed the offense complained of. In the case at bar, the offenses charged against petitioners for "Trespass to Dwelling", "Grave Threats" and "Physical Injuries" were all within the jurisdiction of the CCSC. Under the circumstances, the complaints could be filed directly with the City Court which is empowered to conduct a preliminary examination for purposes of issuance of warrants of arrest, and thereafter to proceed with the trial of the cases on the merits. The PI proper conducted by the Office of the City Fiscal could have been dispensed with. Neither did the earlier order of dismissal of the complaints by the investigating fiscal bar the filing of said complaints with the city court on the ground of double jeopardy. As long as the offense charged has not prescribed, the city court has the power and authority to conduct a preliminary examination and proceed with the trial of the case properly within its jurisdiction. The prescriptive period of a crime depends upon the penalty imposed by law. The prescriptive period of offenses punishable by arresto mayor is five (5) years, while crimes punishable by correctional penalties prescribe in ten (10) years.

DOROMAL VS SANDIGANBAYANFACTS: Quintin S. Doromal, a former Commissioner of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), Sec. 3(h), in connection with his shareholdings and position as president and director of the Doromal International Trading Corporation (DITC) which submitted bids to supply P61 million worth of electronic, electrical, automotive, mechanical and airconditioning equipment to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (or DECS) and the National Manpower and Youth Council (or NMYC). An information was then filed by the Tanodbayan against Doromal for the said violation and a preliminary investigation was conducted. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition questioning the jurisdiction of the Tanodbayan to file the information without the approval of the Ombudsman. The Supreme Court held that the incumbent Tanodbayan (called Special Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution and who is supposed to retain powers and duties NOT GIVEN to the Ombudsman) is clearly without authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan, except upon orders of the Ombudsman. Subsequently annulling the information filed by the Tanodbayan. A new information, duly approved by the Ombudsman, was filed in the Sandiganbayan, alleging that the Doromal, a public officer, being then a Commissioner of the Presidential Commission on Good Government, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully, participate in a business through the Doromal International Trading Corporation, a family corporation of which he is the President, and which company participated in the biddings conducted by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and the National Manpower & Youth Council, which act or participation is prohibited by law and the constitution. The petitioner filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that it was invalid since there had been no preliminary investigation for the new information that was filed against him. The motion was denied by Sandiganbayan claiming that another preliminary investigation is unnecessary because both old and new informations involve the same subject matter.ISSUES:Whether or not the act of Doromal would constitute a violation of the Constitution.Whether or not preliminary investigation is necessary even if both informations involve the same subject matter.Whether or not the information shall be effected as invalid due to the absence of preliminary investigation.HELD:Yes, as to the first and second issuses. No, as to the third issue. Petition was granted by the Supreme Court.RATIO: (1) The presence of a signed document bearing the signature of Doromal as part of the application to bid shows that he can rightfully be charged with having participated in a business which act is absolutely prohibited by Section 13 of Article VII of the Constitution" because "the DITC remained a family corporation in which Doromal has at least an indirect interest." Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that "the President, Vice-President, the members of the Cabinet and their deputies or assistants shall not... during (their) tenure, ...directly or indirectly... participate in any business. (2) The right of the accused to a preliminary investigation is "a substantial one." Its denial over his opposition is a "prejudicial error, in that it subjects the accused to the loss of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" provided by the Constitution. Since the first information was annulled, the preliminary investigation conducted at that time shall also be considered as void. Due to that fact, a new preliminary investigation must be conducted. (3) The absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case. Nor do they impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective; but, if there were no preliminary investigations and the defendants, before entering their plea, invite the attention of the court to their absence, the court, instead of dismissing the information should conduct such investigation, order the fiscal to conduct it or remand the case to the inferior court so that the preliminary investigation may be conducted. WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is granted. The Sandiganbayan shall immediately remand Criminal Case No. 12893 to the Office of the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation and shall hold in abeyance the proceedings before it pending the result of such investigation.

COJUANGCO VS SANDIGANBAYANFACTS: The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed before the Sandiganbayan a "Complaint for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting, Restitution and Damages," of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses which have been invested in the Philippine Long Distance Telecommunication Corporation (PLDT). Ramon and Imelda Cojuangco (Spouses Cojuangco) were subsequently impleaded. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the complaint with respect to the recovery of the PLDT shares. The Republic appealed to the Supreme Court, and the same issued a favorable ruling.

The Republic thereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution, praying for the cancellation of the shares of stock registered in the name of Prime Holdings and the annotation of the change of ownership on PTICs Stock and Transfer Book. The Republic further prayed for the issuance of an order for PTIC to account for all cash and stock dividends declared by PLDT in favor of PTIC from 1986 up to the present including compounded interests. The Sandiganbayan granted the same, except its prayer for accounting of dividends.

The Republic moved for reconsideration with respect to the denial of accounting of dividends, which the Sandiganbayan granted. The Cojuangcos protested, alleging that the SCs decision did not include in its dispositive portion the grant of dividends and interests accruing to the shares adjudicated in favor of the Republic.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Republic is entitled to the dividends and interests accruing to the shares despite its non-inclusion in the dispositive portion of the decision

HELD: The Cojuangcos insist on a literal reading of the dispositive portion of the SCs Decision, excluding the dividends, interests, and earnings accruing to the shares of stock from being accounted for and remitted.

The SC, in directing the reconveyance to the Republic of the 111,415 shares of PLDT stock owned by PTIC in the name of Prime Holdings, declared the Republic as the owner of said shares and, necessarily, the dividends and interests accruing thereto.

Ownership is a relation in law by virtue of which a thing pertaining to one person is completely subjected to his will in everything not prohibited by law or the concurrence with the rights of another. Its traditional elements or attributes include jus utendi or the right to receive from the thing that it produces.

Contrary to the Cojuangcos contention, while the general rule is that the portion of a decision that becomes the subject of execution is that ordained or decreed in the dispositive part thereof, there are recognized exceptions to this rule, viz: (a) where there is ambiguity or uncertainty, the body of the opinion may be referred to for purposes of construing the judgment, because the dispositive part of a decision must find support from the decisions ratio decidendi; and (b) where extensive and explicit discussion and settlement of the issue is found in the body of the decision.

In the Decision, although the inclusion of the dividends, interests, and earnings of the 111,415 PTIC shares as belonging to the Republic was not mentioned in the dispositive portion of the Courts Decision, it is clear from its body that what was being adjudicated in favor of the Republic was the whole block of shares and the fruits thereof, said shares having been found to be part of the Marcoses illgotten wealth, and therefore, public money.

WEBB VS DELEONFACTS:

On June 19, 1994, the National Bureau of Investigation filed with the DOJ a letter-complaint charging petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian, Antonio J. Lejano and 6 other persons with the crime of Rape and Homicide of Carmela N. Vizconde, her mother Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde, and her sister Anne Marie Jennifer in their home at Number 80 W. Vinzons, St., BF Homes, Paranaque, Metro Manila on June 30, 1991.

Forthwith, the DOJ formed a panel of prosecutors headed by Asst Chief State Prosecutor Jovencio R. Zuno to conduct the preliminary investigation.

Petitioners: fault the DOJ Panel for its finding of probable cause. They assail the credibility of Jessica Alfaro as inherently weak and uncorroborated due to her inconsistencies between her April 28, 1995 and May 22, 1995 sown statements. They criticize the procedure followed by the DOJ Panel when it did not examine witnesses to clarify the alleged inconsistencies.

charge that respondent Judge Raul de Leon and respondent Judge Amelita Tolentino issued warrants of arrest against them without conducting the required preliminary examination.

Complain about the denial of their constitutional right to due process and violation of their right to an impartial investigation. They also assail the prejudicial publicity that attended their preliminary investigation.

ISSUES:

(1) Did the DOJ Panel gravely abuse its discretion in holding that there is probable cause to charge accused with crime of rape and homicide?

(2) Did respondent judges de Leon and Tolentino gravely abuse their discretion when they failed to conduct a preliminary examination before issuing warrants of arrest against the accused?

(3) Did the DOJ Panel deny them their constitutional right to due process during their preliminary investigation?

(4) Did the DOJ Panel unlawfully intrude into judicial prerogative when it failed to charge Jessica Alfaro in the information as an accused?

HELD:

(1) NO. Valid determination -- A probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.

(2) NO. Valid arrest -- In arrest cases, there must be a probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the person arrested committed it.

Section 6 of Rule 112 provides that upon filing of an information, the RTC may issue a warrant for the accused.

Clearly then, our laws repudiate the submission that respondent judges should have conducted searching examination of witnesses before issuing warrants of arrest against them.

(3) NO. There is no merit in this contention because petitioners were given all the opportunities to be heard.

The DOJ Panel precisely requested the parties to adduce more evidence in their behalf and for the panel to study the evidence submitted more fully.

(4) NO.

Petitioner's argument lacks appeal for it lies on the faulty assumption that the decision whom to prosecute is a judicial function, the sole prerogative of courts and beyond executive and legislative interference.

In truth, the prosecution of crimes appertains to the executive department whose principal power and responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully executed. A necessary component of this right is to prosecute their violators.

C. PERSON AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT

RULE 112 Section 2. Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations. The following may conduct preliminary investigations:(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;(b) Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;(c) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and(d) Other officers as may be authorized by law.Their authority to conduct preliminary investigations shall include all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their respective territorial jurisdictions.SEC. 6. Officers Authorized to Conduct Preliminary Investigation. - The following may conduct a preliminary investigation;[footnoteRef:2] [2: Par. 1, Sec. 2, Rule 112, supra.]

a)Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;b)Judges of Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;c) National and Regional State Prosecutors; andd) Other officers as may be authorized by law.[footnoteRef:3] [3: The Special Prosecution Officers and Graft Investigation Officers incases cognizable by the Office of the Ombudsman and the COMELEC officials in cases involving violations of the Election Code, PCGG Officers]

Their authority to conduct preliminary investigation shall include all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their respective territorial jurisdiction.

VELASCO VS CASACLANGBefore the court is a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition to annul the Order dated June 29, 1993 of the Deputy Ombudsman for AFP in OMB Case No. 0-90-0296, denying petitioners motion to quash, and the Order dated July 13, 1993, denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration, both of which Orders are attacked for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.The antecedent facts that matter can be culled, as follows:By virtue of Assignment Order No. 89-846 dated June 5, 1989 of the Commission on Audit, COA Audit Examiners Priscilla G. Cruz and Virginia G. Pantoja conducted a special audit of selected transactions of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Logistics Command, covering the period from January 1988 to May 1989.In their Memorandum Report, dated March 13, 1990, to the Chairman of the Commission on Audit, the said COA audit examiners reported their findings, as follows:x x x6. The propriety of the procurement of 28,432 pieces of meat can (stainless steel) amounting to P3,502,432 were [sic] of doubtful validity. The transaction cycle from preparation of purchase orders to acceptance of delivered items were [sic] all completed in just one day - December 29, 1988 and the three winning bidders have [sic] common incorporators. Furthermore, while stainless can are [sic] for distribution to CAFGU at P126 per unit, previous orders of P5 million were for aluminum can at P89/can intended to regular military units. Under the case, CAFGU expense was more than P1 million.On December 15, 1989, the approved Procurement Directive No. QM-0156-88 was issued for the purchase of 28,432 pieces of Meat Can, Austenitic Steel (Stainless Steel), local manufacture and brand new for the use of CAFGU. On December 27, 1988, the public bidding was held at Camp Aguinaldo with nine participating bidders. The sequence of events cast doubt on the propriety of the claim. Consider:a) December 21, 1988 - the bids were opened.b) December 27, 1988 - the date the Bidder Tender Sheets were submitted by the participating bidders.The stamped date showed that the bids were opened six days before the submission of the bids.The result of the bidding showed that four suppliers had the same lowest bid for P126 per unit of meat can, hence the required 28,432 pieces of meat can were divided between the four winning bidders at P895,608 per supplier.c) The transaction cycle of procuring meat cans from four suppliers were completed in just one day - December 29, 1988, the last working day of the year.The fourth meat can supplier, Michelle-V Mgf. and Trading is not registered with the SEC.Tabulation also show that the capital of Mitrick is only P500,000 whereas the PO issued to it amounted to P895,800.While the foregoing data showed that the procurement of 28,432 pieces of stainless steel meat can was urgently needed as indicated in the speedy processing of documents, records however, showed that 24,640 meat cans were issued to various Military Support Points (MSPs) only on May 9, 1989 or four months after delivery, thus belying its urgency.Analysis also shows that two more Purchase Orders were issued to Trojan Manufacturing and Marketing Inc. for the procurement of 51,568 and 7,485 meat cans on October 7, 1988 and December 16, 1987, respectively. Both Pos were for aluminum meat cans with AFP marking at P89 per unit totaling to P4,589,552 and P666,165, respectively. The provision of stainless meat cans for CAGFU instead of aluminum meat cans intended for regular military service units resulted to additional expenses of P1 million arrived as follows:Unit Cost - Stainless Can - P 126Unit Cost - Aluminum Can - 89Price Difference 37Quantity Ordered [x] 28,432Total Additional Expenses for AFP - P 1,051,984 On May 6, 1993, the same audit examiners filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a Joint Affidavit-Complaint deploring the aforesaid transactions dubbed as anomalous and highly irregular.On May 27, 1993, respondent Deputy Ombudsman for the Military issued an Order in OMB Case No. 0-90-0296, entitled Commission on Audit, et al.