You are on page 1of 2

Inquest: 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 said persons should remain under custody and correspondingly
charged in court. (Sec. 1, New Rules on Inquest, DOJ Department Circular No. 61)

What is a decoy solicitation? (Topic: Arrest without warrant)

A police officers act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust operation. It is not prohibited
by law and does not render invalid the buy-bust operations. (People vs. Bartolome, G.R 191726,
February 6, 2013)

Duplicity of the offense charged

Failure of information to allege falsification did not violate petitioners right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation.

Since the information charges accused only of misappropriation pursuant to Art. 315, par. (1b) of the
Revised Penal Code, the Court holds that there is no necessity of alleging the falsification in the
Information as it is not an element of the crime charged.

Distinction should be made as to when the crimes of Estafa and Falsification will constitute as one
complex crime and when they are considered as two separate offenses. The complex crime of Estafa
Through Falsification of Documents is committed when one has to falsify certain documents to be able to
obtain money or goods from another person. In other words, the falsification is a necessary means of
committing estafa. However, if the falsification is committed to conceal the misappropriation, two separate
offenses of estafa and falsification are committed.

In the instant case, when accused collected payments from the customers, said collection which was in
her possession was at her disposal. The falsified or erroneous entries which she made on the duplicate
copies of the receipts were contrived to conceal some amount of her collection which she did not remit to
the company. There is no necessity of alleging falsification as it is not an element of estafa. (Patula v.
People, G.R. 164457, April 11, 2012) (Bersamin)

Prejudicial Question

The rescission of a contract of sale is not a prejudicial question that will warrant the suspension of the
criminal proceedings commenced to prosecute the buyer for violations of the Bouncing Checks
Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22) arising from the dishonor of the checks the buyer issued in connection
with the sale.

The issue in the criminal actions upon the violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is, therefore, whether or
not Reyes issued the dishonoured checks knowing them to be without funds upon presentment. On the
other hand, the issue in the civil action for rescission is whether or not the breach in the fulfilment of
Advanced Foundations obligation warranted the rescission of the conditional sale.

If, after trial on the merits in the civil action, Advanced Foundation would be found to have committed
material breach as to warrant the rescission of the contract, such result would not necessarily mean that
Reyes would be absolved of the criminal responsibility for issuing the dishonored checks because, as the
elements of B.P. 22 show, he already committed the violations upon the dishonor of the checks that he
had issued at a time when the conditional sale was still fully binding upon the parties. (Reyes v. Rossi,
G.R. 159823, February 18, 2013) (Bersamin)
What are the four (4) instances in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure where probable cause
is needed to be established?

(Hindi pa daw ito tinatanong, baka daw lumabas, as per justice magdangal)

(1) In Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 112: By the investigating officer, to determine whether there is sufficient
ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is
probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. A preliminary investigation is required before the filing
of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two
months and one day without regard to the fine;

(2) In Sections 6 and 9 of Rule 112: By the judge, to determine whether a warrant of arrest or a
commitment order, if the accused has already been arrested, shall be issued and that there is a necessity
of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice;

(3) In Section 5(b) of Rule 113: By a peace officer or a private person making a warrantless arrest when
an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(4) In Section 4 of Rule 126: By the judge, to determine whether a search warrant shall be issued, and
only upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere
in the Philippines.

In all these instances, the evidence necessary to establish probable cause is based only on the likelihood,
or probability, of guilt. (Estrada vs. Ombudsman, G.R Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015)

Does the accused in a preliminary investigation have the right to cross-examine the witnesses
whom the complainant may present?

No. It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary investigation has no right to cross-
examine the witnesses which the complainant may present. Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court
expressly provides that the respondent shall only have the right to submit a counter-affidavit, to examine
all other evidence submitted by the complainant and, where the fiscal sets a hearing to propound
clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses, to be afforded an opportunity to be present but
without the right to examine or cross-examine. (Estrada vs. Ombudsman, G.R Nos. 212140-41, January
21, 2015)


Even where there is no petition for bail, and even if the public prosecutor had recommended bail, a
hearing should still be held. This hearing is separate and distinct from the initial hearing to determine the
existence of probable cause. (Gacal v. Infante, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1845, October 5, 2011) (Bersamin)