Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cassy Rule 112
Cassy Rule 112
INVESTIGATION
Preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of
the parties evidence. It is for the presentation of such evidence only as may
engender a well-founded belief that an offense has been committed and that the
accused is probably guilty thereof. The validity and merits of a partys accusation
or defense, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better
ventilated during the trial proper. (Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee
on Behest Loans vs Desierto, G.R. No. 135703, April 15, 2009)
Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion
but less than evidence to justify a conviction. (Manebo vs Acosta, G.R. No.
169554, October 28, 2009)
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and
circumstances as would excite belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts
within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of
the crime for which he was prosecuted. A finding of probable cause merely binds
over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt. (Spouses
Balanguan vs CA, G.R. No. 174350, August 13, 2008)
The fact that neither the 1935 nor the 1973 Constitution requires the holding of
a preliminary investigation. lt is settled doctrine that the right hereto is of
statutory character and may be invoked only when specifically created by
statute. (Marinas vs Siochi, 104 SCRA 423)
They waived the right to a preliminary investigation when they failed to invoke it
prior to, or at least at, the time of the entry of their plea in the Court of First
Instance. (People vs Gomez, 117 SCRA 73)
It has been held that after a plea of not guilty to the information, an accused is
deemed to have foregone the right of preliminary investigation and to have
abandoned the right to question any irregularity that surrounds it (People vs
Bulosan, 160 SCRA 492)
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as
such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and that respondents are probably guilty thereof. The
determination of its existence lies within the discretion of the prosecuting
officers after conducting a preliminary investigation upon complaint of an
offended party. Probable cause is meant such set of facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the
offense charged in the Information, or any offense included therein, has been
committed by the person sought to be arrested. (Roberto Kalalo vs Office of the
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 158189, April 23, 2010)
The complainant need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt.
A preliminary investigation does not require a full and exhaustive presentation of
the parties evidence. It is enough that in the absence of a clear showing of
arbitrariness, credence is given to the finding and determination of probable
cause by the Secretary of Justice in a preliminary investigation. (Ricaforte vs
Jurado, G.R. No. 154438, September 5, 2007)
In order that probable cause to file a criminal case may be arrived at, or in order
to engender the well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, the
elements of the crime charged should be present. This is based on the principle
that every crime is defined by its elements, without which there should beat the
mostno criminal offense. (Sy Thiong Siou vs Sy Chim, G.R. No. 174168, March 30,
2009)
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. (Heirs of Jose Sy Bang vs
Sy, G.R. No. 114217, October 13, 2009)
The test should be whether sufficient facts exist which show that, in bringing the
criminal action, complainant acted without probable cause, defined as the
existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a
reasonable mind that the person charged and prosecuted in a criminal case is
probably guilty of the crime or wrongdoing. (Limanch-O Hotel and Leasing
Corporation, et al. vs City of Olongapo, G.R. No. 185121, January 18, 2010)
Thus, absent a finding that an information is invalid on its face or that the prosecutor committed
manifest error or grave abuse of discretion, a judges determination of probable cause is limited only
to the judicial kind or for the purpose of deciding whether the arrest warrants should be issued
against the accused.
Probable cause to warrant an arrest which is made by the judge refers to facts
and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.
Other jurisdictions utilize the term man of reasonable caution or the term
ordinarily prudent and cautious man. (Webb vs De Leon, 247 SCRA 652)
For cases where the penalty prescribed by law is lower than 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, a
criminal complaint may be filed directly with the prosecutor or with the Municipal Trial
court but must still adhere to certain procedures for the determination of probable case and
the issuance of warrant of arrest
Inquest proceedings are valid only when the accused has been lawfully arrested without a
warrant.
Section 3a of Rule 112 provides that the complaint must be accompanied by the affidavits of
the complainant and his witnesses, subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or
government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability,
before a notary public. Section 3(b) of Rule 112 also mandates that the prosecutor, after
receiving the complaint, must determine if there are grounds to continue with the
investigation. If there is none, he shall dismiss the case, otherwise he shall issue a
subpoena to the respondents.(Ladlad v. Velasco, 523 SCRA 218)
A person lawfully arrested and detained and not yet formally charged may apply for bail.
The application, however, must be filed in the province, city or municipality where the
person arrested is held. (Ruiz v. Beldia, Jr., 451 SCRA 402)
The absence of preliminary investigations does not affect the courts 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 it or remand the case to the inferior court so that the
preliminary investigation may be conducted. (Larranaga v. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 581)
The inquest conducted must be for the offense of which the detainee was arrested. Beltran
was arrested without a warrant for Inciting to Sedition but was subjected to a second
inquest proceeding for Rebellion. None of Beltrans arresting officers saw Beltran commit, in
their presence, the crime of Rebellion. Nor did they have personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances that Beltran had just committed Rebellion, sufficient to form probable cause
to believe that he had committed the said offense. Hence the second inquest for Rebellion
was void for he was validly arrested for another offense and not for Rebellion. There was no
valid warrantless arrest for the charge of Rebellion and so, it only follows that he cannot be
subjected to inquest proceeding for such.(Crispin Beltran v. People and Secretary Gonzales,
G.R. No. 175013, June 1, 2007)
Judges of first level courts are no longer authorized to conduct preliminary investigation.
This is pursuant to the amendment made by this Court on August 30, 2005 in A.M. No. 05-8-
26-SC Re: Amendment of Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by
Removing the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation from Judges of the First Level Courts,
which took effect on October 3, 2005 (Sibulo v. Toledo-Mupas, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1686, June
12, 2008)
The Constitution, particularly Article IX, Section 20, empowers the COMELEC to investigate
and, when appropriate, prosecute election cases. (Bienvenido Dino and Renato Comparativo
v. Pablo Olivarez, G.R. No. 170447, December 4, 2009)
In the appropriate case, the Office of the Ombudsman has full authority to issue subpoenas,
including subpoena duces tecum, for compulsory attendance of witnesses and the production of
documents and information relating to matters under its investigation. The Ombudsman must
necessarily observe and abide by the terms of the Constitution and our laws, the Rules of Court and
the applicable jurisprudence on the issuance, service, validity and efficacy of subpoenas. It must
operate under the requirements of reasonableness and relevance. For the production of documents
to be reasonable and for the documents themselves to be relevant, the matter under inquiry should,
in the first place, be one that the Ombudsman can legitimately entertain, investigate and rule upon.
( Re: Subpeona Duces Tecum dated January 11, 2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C
Office of the Ombudsman, A.M. No. 10-1-12-SC, March 2, 2010 )
A complaint filed for the purpose of preliminary investigation differs from the complaint
filed for the purpose of instituting a criminal prosecution. Complaint for instituting a
criminal prosecution is in the name of the People of the Philippines and involves a court that
shall pronounce a judgment. That is not the case in a complaint for the purpose of
preliminary investigation. (Santos-Concio v. Department of Justice, 543 SCRA 70)
Certification as to the holding of preliminary investigation is not an essential part of the information
itself and its absence cannot vitiate it as such. True, as already stated, Section 14 of Rule 112 enjoin
that no information shall be filed, without first giving the accused a chance to be heard in a
preliminary investigation, but, as can be seen, the injunction refers to the non-holding certification.
In other words, what is not allowed is the filing of the information without a preliminary
investigation having been previously conducted, and the injunction that there should be a
certification is only a consequence of the requirement that a preliminary investigation should first
be conducted. (People v. Marquez, 27 SCRA 808)
The secretary of justice, who has the power of supervision and control over prosecuting
officers, is the ultimate authority who decides which of the conflicting theories of the
complainants and the respondents should be believed. The provincial or city prosecutor has
neither the personality nor the legal authority to review or overrule the decision of the
secretary. ( Community Rural Bank of Guimba (N.E.), Inc. v. Talavera, 455 SCRA 34)
It is only where the decision of the Justice Secretary is tainted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction that the Court of Appeals may take cognizance of
the case in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The
Court of Appeals decision may then be appealed to the Supreme Court by way of a petition
for review on certiorari. (Asetre v. Asetre, G.R. No. 171536, April 7, 2009)
The resolution of the Secretary of Justice determining probable cause during preliminary
investigation is final. The only remedy is to file a petition for certiorari under rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, not under Rule 43. The Court of Appeals may review the resolution of the
Secretary of Justice solely on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or
lack of jurisdiction. Courts are not empowered to substitute their own judgment for that of
the executive branch. (Alcaraz v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 164715, September 20, 2006)
As provided under Memorandum Circular No. 58, no appeal from or petition for review of
decisions/orders/resolutions of the Secretary of Justice on preliminary investigations of criminal
cases shall be entertained by the Office of the President, except those involving offenses punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death. (Angeles v. Gaite, G.R. No. 176596, March 23, 2011)
The RTC judge, upon the filing of an Information, has the following options: (1) dismiss the
case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable cause; (2) if he or she finds
probable cause, issue a warrant of arrest; and (3) in case of doubt as to the existence of
probable cause, order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days from
notice, the issue to be resolved by the court within thirty days from the filing of the
information. It bears stressing that the judge is required to personally evaluate the
resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the
case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. (Elvira O. Ong v. Jose
Casim Genio, G.R. No. 182336, December 23, 2009)
If the judge finds probable cause, then he is mandated by law to issue a warrant of arrest.
While before, it was mandatory for the investigating Judge to issue a warrant for the arrest
of the accused if he found probable cause, the rule now is that the investigating Judges
power to order the arrest of the accused is limited to instances in which there is a necessity
for placing him in custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. (Pangan v. Ganay, 445
SCRA 574)
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court
any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests
in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of
the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose
his opinion on the trial court. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be
addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if
this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after
a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records
of the investigation. (Crespo v. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462)
The trial court must make an independent evaluation or assessment of the merits of the
case and the evidence on record of the prosecution. The trial court may make an
independent assessment based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or
evidence appended to the Information; the records of the public prosecutor which the court
may order the latter to produce before the court; or any evidence already adduced before
the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor. It should
not rely solely and merely on the findings of the Public Prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice
that no crime was committed. The trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the
Secretary of Justice since it is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of
the case and it may either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of
Justice. Reliance alone on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice would be an abdication
of the trial courts duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. (Santos v. Orda, Jr.
437 SCRA 504)
While the Secretary of Justice has the power to alter or modify the resolution of his
subordinate and thereafter direct the withdrawal of a case, he cannot, however, impose his
will on the court. (Dumalo v. Ponferrada, 508 SCRA 426)
Crespo v. Mogul did not foreclose the power or authority of the secretary of justice to
review resolutions of his subordinates in criminal cases. The justice secretary's power of
review may still be availed of despite the filing of an information in court. (Filemon Verzano,
Jr. v. Francis Victor D. Paro, G.R. No. 171643, August 8, 2010)
Rule 112 does not require a confrontation between the parties. Since confrontation
between the parties is not imperative, it follows that it is not necessary that the counter-
affidavit of respondent be sworn to before the investigating prosecutor himself. It can be
sworn to before another prosecutor. Paragraph (c) of Sec. 3 states that the affidavits shall
be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official or in their absence
or unavailability, before a notary public. Also, under paragraph (e) of Section 3, the conduct
of clarificatory questioning is discretionary upon the prosecutor. (Sierra v. Lopez, A.C. 7549,
August 29, 2008)
By filing his counter-affidavit and answering the charges against him, the petitioner is
deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Having allowed
the proceedings to go on until the preliminary investigation was terminated and the
Information filed at the Sandiganbayan, petitioner is deemed to have waived whatever right
he may otherwise have to assail the manner in which the preliminary investigation was
conducted. Consequently, petitioner is likewise estopped from questioning the validity of
the Information filed before the Sandiganbayan. (Bautista v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
136082, May 12, 2000)