QUIZ

1. Are the People of the Philippines the complainants in a

criminal complaint?
2. Who prepares and files the Information before the
court?
3. What does the MTC stand for? RTC?
4. What is the fundamental law of the land?
5. What are the 3 kinds of evidence?
6. What are the 3 time periods necessary to remember
when you want to file a complaint for inquest? Bonus:
what is the fourth time period if this particular law is
violated?
7. Can a police officer arrest a person suspected of
murder without a warrant even if he did not see the
actual killing?
8. True or False. A tip that Pedro was hiding a sachet of
shabu in the pocket of his pants would be sufficient to
conduct a warrantless search against him.
9. True or False. An investigator of MPS Coron must
strictly comply with the reglementary period when he
files a complaint for inquest.
10. True or False. A complaint for use of compressor in
fishing can be filed directly in court.
 FILING OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

Procedure in the conduct of Preliminary Investigation

1. The complaint shall:

- state the address of the respondent
- with the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well
as other supporting documents to establish probable cause.
- in such number of copies as there are respondents, plus two (2)
copies for the official file.
- The affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to before any
prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their
absence or unavailability, before a notary public, each of whom must certify
that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they
voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.
 FILING OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
2. Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the
investigating officer shall either dismiss it if he finds no ground to continue with the
investigation, or issue a subpoena to the respondent attaching to it a copy of the
complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents.
The respondent shall have the right to examine the evidence
submitted by the complainant which he may not have been furnished and to copy
them at his expense. If the evidence is voluminous, the complainant may be
required to specify those which he intends to present against the respondent, and
these shall be made available for examination or copying by the respondent at his
expense.
Objects as evidence need not be furnished a party but shall be made
available for examination, copying, or photographing at the expense of the
requesting party.
 FILING OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

3. Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the
complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, the respondent shall
submit his counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting
documents relied upon for his defense. The counter-affidavits shall be
subscribed and sworn to and certified as provided in paragraph (1), with
copies thereof furnished by him to the complainant. The respondent shall
not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit.
4. If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed,
does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period, the
investigation officer shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence
presented by the complainant.
 FILING OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

5. The investigation officer may set a hearing if there are facts

and issues to clarify from a party or a witness. The parties can be present
at the hearing but without the right to examine or cross-examine. They
may, however, submit to the investigating officer questions which may be
asked to the party or witness concerned. (CLARIFICATORY HEARING)
The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from the
submission of the counter-affidavits and other documents or from the
expiration of the period for their submission. It shall be terminated within
five (5) days.
6. Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating
officer shall determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the
respondent for trial.
 FILING OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
Inquest Proceeding
a. Inquest proceeding, defined. - It 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 person should remain under the custody and correspondingly be
charged in court.
b. Purpose; Duty of Inquest Officer - The initial duty of the
inquest officer is to determine whether or not the arrest of the detained
person was made in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5,
Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides that an
arrest may be effected without the benefit of warrant issued by a
competent court.
 FILING OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

c. How inquest proceedings commenced - The inquest

proceedings are commenced upon receipt by the Inquest Officer from the
law enforcement authorities of the complaint or referral documents to
include the following:
 Affidavit of Arrest;
 Investigation Report;
 Statement of the complainant and witnesses;
 Other supporting evidence gathered in the course
of the investigation (e.g. Certifications, photos,
object or real evidence);
 Criminal Incident involving the arrested or detained
person.
 FILING OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

Inquest Proper
If the detention prisoner does not invoke his
right to a preliminary investigation or if the detainee
refuses to execute a waiver of the provisions of
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
the inquest officer shall then proceed with the inquest
by:

 Examining the affidavits/sworn statement of the

complainant and his witnesses as well as other
supporting evidence to determine the existence
of probable cause;
 FILING OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
 If probable cause is established, the inquest officer shall then proceed to
prepare his resolution on inquest/recommendation as well as the
corresponding information in order that the same may be filed in court; the
records of the case are then forwarded to the Chief State
Prosecutor/Provincial/City Prosecutor for his appropriate action;
 If however, the inquest officer finds no probable cause, he/she will then
recommend in writing to the Chief State Prosecutor/Provincial/City Prosecutor
for the release of the detained person. If the same is approved, then the order
of release shall be served upon the officer having custody of said detained
person. If on the other hand, his/her recommendation for release is denied, the
Chief State Prosecutor/Provincial/City Prosecutor shall file the information or
cause the filing by any assistant prosecutor to whom the case may be
assigned. In the meantime, the respondent shall remain under detention.
Time Periods to remember in inquest cases

Article 125 Delay in Delivery

• 12 hours – crimes with light penalties or equivalent:
a. arresto menor (1 day to 30 days)
• 18 hours – with correctional penalties or equivalent :
a. Arresto mayor (1 month & 1 day to 6 mos.)
b. Prision correctional (6 mos. & 1 day to 6 yrs)
• 36 hours – with afflictive penalties or equivalent:
a. Prision Mayor (6 yrs & 1 day to 12 yrs)
b. Reclusion temporal (12 yrs & 1 day to 20 yrs)
c. Reclusion perpetua (20 yrs & 1 day to 40 yrs)
• In cases of violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act (R.A. No. 11479):
- within 14 days; may be extended for 10 days
 Latest Jurisprudence on
Warrantless Arrest/Hot Pursuit
PEOPLE VS. GERRJAN MANAGO [ G.R. No. 212340. August 17,
2016 ]

• In this case, records reveal that at around 9:30 in the evening of March 15, 2007,
PO3 Din personally witnessed a robbery incident while he was waiting for his turn
to have a haircut at Jonas Borces Beauty Parlor. After his brief shootout with the
armed robbers, the latter fled using a motorcycle and a red Toyota Corolla.
Through an investigation and verification made by the police officers headed by
PO3 Din and S/Insp. Ylanan, they were able to: (a) find out that the armed robbers
were staying in Barangay Del Rio Pit-os; and (b) trace the getaway vehicles to
Manago. The next day, or on March 16, 2007, the police officers set up a
checkpoint in Sitio Panagdait where, at around 9:30 in the evening, the red Toyota
Corolla being driven by Manago passed by and was intercepted by the police
officers. The police officers then ordered Manago to disembark the car, and from
there, proceeded to search the vehicle and the body of Manago, which search
yielded the plastic sachet containing shabu. Thereupon, they effected Manago's
arrest.
• Thus, even though the police officer has not seen someone actually
fleeing, he could still make a warrantless arrest if, based on his
personal evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the crime, he
could determine the existence of probable cause that the person sought
to be arrested has committed the crime. However, the determination of
probable cause and the gathering of facts or circumstances should be
made immediately after the commission of the crime in order to
comply with the element of immediacy.
• The reason for the element of the immediacy is this - as the time gap
from the commission of the crime to the arrest widens, the pieces of
information gathered are prone to become contaminated and subjected
to external factors, interpretations and hearsay.
• It is well to clarify, however, that routine inspections do not give
police officers carte blanche discretion to conduct warrantless
searches in the absence of probable cause. When a vehicle is stopped
and subjected to an extensive search - as opposed to a mere routine
inspection - such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as
long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable
cause to believe before the search that they will find the
instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be
searched.
• In the case at bar, it should be reiterated that the police officers had already
conducted a thorough investigation and verification proceedings, which
yielded, among others: (a) the identities of the robbery suspects; (b) the
place where they reside; and (c) the ownership of the getaway vehicles used
in the robbery, i.e., the motorcycle and the red Toyota Corolla. As adverted
to earlier, these pieces of information were already enough for said police
officers to secure the necessary warrants to accost the robbery suspects.
Consequently, there was no longer any exigent circumstance that would have
justified the necessity of setting up the checkpoint in this case for the
purpose of searching the subject vehicle. In addition, it is well to point out
that the checkpoint was arranged for the targeted arrest of Manago, who was
already identified as the culprit of the robbery incident. In this regard, it
cannot, therefore, be said that the checkpoint was meant to conduct a
routinary and indiscriminate search of moving vehicles.
PEOPLE VS. ABDILLAH PANGCATAN [ G.R. No. 245921. October
05, 2020 ]

• Pangcatan was arrested two days after the murder incident while he
was at the police station following an invitation from PSI Tirador.
Upon arrival at the police station, he was made to participate in a
police lineup with two other persons and was positively identified by
Renante. After he was identified during the police lineup, he was
arrested for killing Richelle and the body search yielded the following
confiscated items: one (1) piece of hand grenade; one (1) unit
caliber .45 Norinco pistol with serial no. BA02493, its magazine
loaded with 7 rounds of ammunition contained inside a leather
magazine pouch belt; and an olive green sling bag containing four (4)
pieces of magazine each loaded with five (5) pieces of ammunitions.
• Here, it took two days for the police officers to arrest him, a lapse of
time which is inconsistent with the immediacy requirement
in hot pursuit arrests. Since Renante positively identified Pangcatan
from the photos shown to him on January 9, 2015, the police officers
had sufficient time to secure a warrant. Instead of applying for a
warrant, the police officers lured Pangcatan into placing him into their
custody under the guise of an invitation. Consequently, Pangcatan's
arrest was unlawful.
PEOPLE VS. ROMEO CARCUEVA TOGON, JR. [ G.R. No. 247501. October 11,
2021 ]

• In the case, the police officers conducted a hot pursuit follow-up

operation immediately after Depeña reported the robbery at their
police station at 9:00 a.m. of August 8, 2014. Depeña complained of a
robbery that occurred an hour earlier and was able to identify the
perpetrator through an array of pictures of suspects. Although the
police officers only spotted accused-appellant at 9:00 p.m. of the same
day, they clearly had personal knowledge that a crime was just
committed and had probable cause to believe, based on personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances, that the person to be arrested
had committed it. The police officers knew that a crime had just been
committed about 13 hours beforehand per complainant Depeña.
Hence, accused-appellant's warrantless arrest was valid.
IAN AGRAVANTE VS. PEOPLE [ G.R. No. 257450. July 11, 2022 ]

• In the case at bench, the facts tellingly reveal that the PNP-MPG was informed of
the incident as early as 3:10 a.m. of 14 July 2012. After recording the incident in
the police blotter, PO1 Teodorico and his team proceeded to the scene of the crime
to conduct an investigation and interview the people frequenting the area. In the
course of their investigation, they learned from Tabigne that: (1) he witnessed
petitioner committing the crime; and (2) petitioner was staying in a house located
at Purok Kagaykay, Barangay 2, Bacolod City. At two o'clock in the afternoon of
that same day, more than 11 hours after the crime was reported to them, the police
officers proceeded to the house Tabigne brought them to and saw petitioner
sleeping inside. Their subsequent entry to the house led to the discovery that
petitioner was sleeping beside two bags, including one similar to the description
provided by Genova. The police officers searched the bags, the contents of which
were several firearms and ammunitions. Petitioner's failure to present any license
or authority to possess these items eventuated to his arrest.
• notwithstanding the possession of such information and the passing of
11 hours from the report of the crime, the police officers opted to
conduct a "hot pursuit" operation that, unfortunately, failed to meet the
legal requirements therefor.

• The foregoing circumstances distinctly demonstrate that petitioner's

arrest failed to meet the required elements of a valid warrantless arrest
under Sec. 5 (b) of Rule 113 as one, the police officers did not have
personal knowledge of any fact or circumstance indicating that
petitioner had just committed an offense; and two, petitioner's
warrantless arrest was not attended by the element of immediacy.
 Rules sa
Paggamit ng
Body-Worn
Camera sa
Pagsilbi ng
Warrant
 SECTION 2. Scope and Applicability. —
Ang mga Rules sa paggamit ng body-
worn camera ay susundin sa pagsisilbi
ng search warrant at warrant of arrest.
Ito rin ay susundin sa mga pagkakataon
nang pag-aresto ng walang warrant.