Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

11th Judicial Region
BRANCH 1
Davao City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff

-versus- CRIM. CASE NO: 18-14344

FOR: FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE
DOCUMENTS

JUAN REYES DELA CRUZ

Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - - - - x

OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR

REINVESTIGATION AND SUSPEND
PROCEEDINGS

The Prosecution, through the undersigned Prosecutor, and unto

this Honorable Court most respectfully files its Opposition to the Motion
for Reinvestigation and states that:

1. The City Prosecutor’s Office received a complaint against the

accused on February 6, 2018.

2. Upon receipt of the complaint, a subpoena was issued ordering

the accused to submit his counter-affidavit and supporting documents
within ten days from receipt thereof.

1
3. As accused was temporarily outside of the country, substituted
service of the subpoena was duly effected and deemed served on
February 7, 2018 to his wife, Maria Reyes Dela Cruz.

4. After the lapse of ten days from the receipt of the subpoena, the
Investigating Prosecutor resolved the complaint on the basis of the
evidence presented by the complaint.

5. Said action is in keeping with the Rule 112 Section 3 (d) of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure which states that:

“(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed,

or if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-
affidavits within the ten (10) day period, the
investigating officer shall resolve the complaint
based on the evidence presented by the
complainant.”

6. Upon resolution of the complaint in accordance with the Rules, an

Information was thereafter issued and filed by the Investigating
Prosecutor on February 17, 2018.

7. The accused was not deprived of his right to due process. He was
given an opportunity to be heard but he failed to submit his counter
affidavit and other countervailing evidence within the prescribed
period.

8. In the case of ATTY. EDWARD SERAPIO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, et.

al., G.R. No. 148468, January 28, 2003, the Supreme Court held that:

“It bears stressing that the right to a

preliminary investigation is not a
constitutional right, but is merely a right
conferred by statute. The absence of a
2
preliminary investigation does not impair the
validity of the Information or otherwise render
the same defective and neither does it affect
the jurisdiction of the court over the case or
constitute a ground for quashing the
Information. If the lack of a preliminary
investigation does not render the Information
invalid nor affect the jurisdiction of the court
over the case, with more reason can it be said
that the denial of a motion for reinvestigation
cannot invalidate the Information or oust the
court of its jurisdiction over the case. Neither
can it be said that petitioner had been deprived
of due process. He was afforded the
opportunity to refute the charges against him
during the preliminary investigation.

The purpose of a preliminary investigation is

merely to determine whether a crime has been
committed and whether there is probable
cause to believe that the person accused of the
crime is probably guilty thereof and should be
held for trial. As the Court held in Webb vs. De
Leon, “[a] finding of probable cause needs only
to rest on evidence showing that more likely
than not a crime has been committed and was
committed by the suspect. 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.”

3
 Absent any showing of arbitrariness on the
part of the prosecutor or any other officer
authorized to conduct preliminary
investigation, courts as a rule must defer to
said officer’s finding and determination of
probable cause, since the determination of the
existence of probable cause is the function of
the prosecutor.”

9. The accused in filing the Motion for Reinvestigation and for the
Suspension of the Proceedings merely seeks to delay the resolution of
the case. Every day of delay is a denial of justice sought. Therefore, it is
in the best interest of the State that the proceedings continue.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

that the instant motion for reinvestigation and suspension of
proceedings be DENIED for lack of merit.

Davao City, February 22, 2018.

4
5