Part III. EC. 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.

Part III. 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.

A petition from the resolution of a Provincial/City Prosecutor where the penalty prescribed for the offense charged
does not exceed prision correccional, regardless of the imposable fine, shall be made to the Regional State
Prosecutor who shall resolve the petitions with finality. Such petitions shall also be governed by these rules.

Part IV. SEC. 10. Effect of filing of petition. - A petition for review, motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation from
a resolution finding probable cause shall not hold the filing of the information in court.

Pending resolution of the Petition for review, the accused is entitled to a suspension of the proceedings, to the
holding in abeyance of the issuance of warrant of arrest, and deferment of the arraignment.

Notwithstanding the ruling in Crespo vs. Mogul (151 SCRA 463 [1987]), the Court may not proceed with the
criminal proceedings until after the resolution of the Regional Prosecutor or of the Secretary of Justice shall have
become final, and the corresponding motion has been filed in Court by the trial prosecutor to withdraw or
dismiss the information or to proceed with the trial as the case may be, per findings in the petition for review.
(See Roberts; Jr. et al. vs. C.A. et al., 254 SCRA 307 [1996]).

\
Plea Barganing

People vs Mancera 1960

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE; WHEN CONSIDERED

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE. — Where the accused merely made an offer to plead
guilty to a lesser offense, plea of guilty is not mitigating (People v. Noble, 77 Phil., 93;
People v. Saturnino, 96 Phil., 868); but where the accused signified his intention to
plead guilty to a lesser offense than that charged, after which the information is
accordingly amended, and thereafter the accused enters a plea of guilty to the
amended information, then such plea is properly a mitigating circumstance

The refusal of the court a quo to give appellant the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance of plea of guilty appears to be based on our ruling in People v. Noble (77
Phil. 93; 43 Off. Gaz. No. 6, 2010, and People v. Saturnino 96 Phil., 868) that an offer
to plead guilty to a lesser offense than that charged cannot be considered a mitigating
circumstance. Upon the other hand, the Solicitor-General, who shares the view of
appellant that this circumstance should be appreciated in his favor in mitigation of his
penalty, cites the case of People v. Calma, G.R. No. L-7565, June 16, 1955, wherein
this Court considered a plea of guilty by the accused to the lesser crime of homicide as
a mitigating circumstance, inspite of the fact that he had previously entered a plea of
not guilty to the charge of murder.

We agree with appellant and the Solicitor General that the former should be given the
benefit of the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. In the recent case of People v.
Intal, 101 Phil., 306; 57 Off. Gaz., (8) 1398, we drew the distinction between the
doctrine of the Noble and Saturnino cases on one hand, and the Calma case on the
other. We said that the first doctrine applies where the accused merely made an offer
to plead guilty to a lesser offense; while the second doctrine governs where the
accused having signified his intention to plead guilty to a lesser offense than that
charged, the information is accordingly amended and the accused enters a plea of
guilty to the amended information.