PRELIMINARIES 1.

Jurisdiction is determined by the extent of the penalty which the law imposes, on the basis of the facts as recited in the complaint or information constitutive of the offense charged. Not determined by: what may be meted out to the offender after trial the result of the evidence that would be presented during the trial Jurisdiction is retained regardless of: whether the evidence proves a lesser offense than that charged in the information, the subsequent happening of events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance.

2. General Rule: Jurisdiction of a court to try criminal action is to be determined by the law at the time of the institution of the action. Exception: where the statute expressly provides, or is construed that it is intended to operate to actions pending before its enactment, in which case, the court where the criminal action is pending is ousted of jurisdiction and the pending action will have to be transferred to the other tribunal which will continue the proceeding.

3. Venue is jurisdictional. Thus: Action must be instituted and tried in the municipality or territory where the offense has been committed or where any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place. 4. General Rule: the question of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Exception: may not be raised for the first time on appeal, where there has been estoppel and laches on the party who raises the question.

RULE 110 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

Institution of Criminal Actions 1. For offenses which require preliminary investigation: By filing the complaint with the proper officer for preliminary investigation. Refers to a complaint-affidavit, and is different from the complaint defined in Section 3 of Rule 110. These offenses are those where the penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of imprisonment without regard to the fine.

2. For all other offenses, or for offenses which are penalized by law with lower than at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day without regard to the fine: Instituted directly with the MTC and MCTC, or the complaint is filed with the Office of the Prosecutor. In Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be filed with the Office of the Prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charters.

3. Take Note: A complaint for offenses cognizable by the RTC is NOT filed directly with the RTC either for purposes of preliminary investigation or for commencement of the criminal prosecution. 4. The institution of the criminal action interrupts the running of the period of prescription of the offense charged Unless: otherwise provided in special laws. Act No. 3323 governs the prescriptive periods of violations of special laws, or offenses other than those penalized under the Revised Penal Code.

5. The filing of a complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation starts the prosecution process. The complaint or information 1. Requisites: in writing in the name of the People of the Philippines Against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved. 2. Who is the real offended party? The People of the Philippines, but since the crime is also an outrage against the offended party, he is entitled to intervene in its prosecution in cases where the civil action is impliedly instituted therein. Complaint 1. Definition: A complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated. 2. The complaint as defined under Section 3 is different from the complaint filed with the Prosecutors Office. 3. The complaint filed with the Prosecutors Office, from which the latter may initiate a preliminary investigation, refers to: any written complaint filed by an offended party or not not necessarily under oath, except in 2 instances:

 complaint for commission of an offense which cannot be prosecuted de officio or is private in nature where the law requires that it is to be started by a complaint sworn to by the offended party, or when it pertains to those which need to be enforced by specified public officers. 4. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure: a complaint may be directly filed in the MTC, provided that in Metro Manila and in chartered cities, the criminal action may only be commenced by the filing of information, which means by the prosecutor, except when the offense cannot be prosecuted de officio as in private crimes. Information 1. Definition: An accusation in writing a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. 2. How is an Information different from a Complaint? Unlike a complaint, which requires that it be under oath and is filed either in the MTC or with the provincial/city prosecutors office, the information does not have to be under oath and is always filed in court. All that is required is that it be subscribed or signed by the fiscal or prosecutor, which is an indispensable requirement. Who must prosecute criminal actions 1. May a criminal prosecution be restrained by injunction? General Rule: No. Reason: Public interest requires that criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of society. Exceptions: where injunction is justified by the necessity to afford protection to the constitutional rights of the accused when necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation when double jeopardy is clearly apparent where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution

 where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and the motion to quash on that ground has been denied preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners. 2. Prior to the filing of the information in court , the prosecutor has full control of the case. He decides who should be charged in court and who should be excluded from the information. However: His decision on the matter is subject to review by: the Secretary of Justice who exercises supervision and control over his actions and who may sustain, modify or set aside his resolution on the matter in appropriate cases, by the courts when he acts with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

3. Private Prosecutor Participation: May a public prosecutor allow a private prosecutor to actively handle the conduct of the trial? Yes, where the civil action arising from the crime is deemed instituted in the criminal action. Public Prosecutor must be present during the proceedings and must take over the conduct of the trial from the private prosecutor at any time the cause of the prosecution may be adversely affected. Thus, where the prosecutor has turned over the active conduct of the trial to the private prosecutor who presented testimonial evidence even when the public prosecutor was absent during the trial, the evidence presented could not be considered valid evidence of the People. However: this rule applies only to courts which are provided by law with prosecutors, and not to municipal courts which have no trial prosecutors, in which case the evidence presented by the private prosecutor can be considered as evidence for the People. *However, under an amendment made by the SC effective May 1, 2002, Rule 110 Section 5 now provides that All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to the end even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn."

4. General Rule: In appeals, the Sol. Gen. has control. He may abandon or discontinue the prosecution of the case in the exercise of his sound discretion and may even recommend the acquittal of an accused when he believes that the evidence does not warrant his conviction. Exception: provided for in RA 8249 which states in part that in all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the SB to the SC, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

5. When it is said that the requirement of Art. 344 of RPC is jurisdictional, what is meant is that it is the complaint that starts the prosecutory proceeding. It is not the complaint which confers jurisdiction on the court to try the case. 6. Once the complaint is filed, does death of the complainant in a crime of adultery extinguish the criminal liability of the accused? No. The participation of the offended party in private crimes is essential not for the maintenance of the criminal action but solely for the initiation thereof. Any pardon given by the complainant or her death after the filing of the complaint would not deprive the court of the jurisdiction to try the case. 7. The desistance of complainant: Does not bar the People from prosecuting the criminal action But: it does operate as a waiver of the right to pursue civil indemnity.

Sufficiency of complaint or information 1. A complaint is sufficient if it states: the name of the accused the designation of the offense by a statute the acts or omission complained of as constituting the offense the name of the offended party the approximate time of the commission of the offense the place where the offense was committed. 2. Purpose: to safeguard the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Name of the accused 1. If name is known: the name and surname of the accused or any appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known. 2. If name cannot be ascertained: a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is unknown.

If true name thereafter disclosed: such true name shall be inserted in the complaint or information and record.

3. While one or more persons, along with specified and named accused, may be sued as John Does, an information against all accused described as John Does is void, and an arrest warrant against them is also void. Designation of the offense 1. In case of a conflict between the designation of the crime and the recital of facts constituting the offense, the latter prevails over the former. 2. The real question is not, did he commit a crime given in the law some technical and specific name, but did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the information. If he did, it is of no consequence to him, either as a matter of procedure or of substantive right, how the law denominates the crime. Cause of accusation 1. If one or more elements of the offense have not been alleged in the information , the accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged, even if the missing elements have been proved during the trial. Even the accuseds entering a plea of guilty to such defective information will not cure the defect, nor justify his conviction of the offense charged. 2. Important: The new rule requires that the qualifying and aggravating circumstances be alleged in the information. 3. Where the law alleged to have been violated: prohibits generally acts therein defined is intended to apply to all persons indiscriminately, but prescribes certain limitations or exceptions from its violation the information is sufficient if it alleges facts which the offender did as constituting a violation of law, without explicitly negating the exception, as the exception is a matter of defense which the accused has to prove. 4. Where the law alleged to have been violated applies only to specific classes of persons and special conditions the exemptions from its violation are so incorporated in the language defining the crime that the ingredients of the offense cannot be accurately and clearly set forth if the exemption is omitted, the information must show that the accused does not fall within the exemptions. 5. Where what is alleged in the information is a complex crime and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the component offenses, the defendant can only be convicted of the offense proven. Place of commission of the offense

May conviction be had even if it appears that the crime was committed not at the place alleged in the information? Yes, provided the place of actual commission was within the jurisdiction of the court. Unless: the particular place of commission is an essential element of the offense charged. Date of the commission of the offense What is the determinative factor in the resolution of the question involving a variance between the allegation and proof in respect of the date of the crime? The element of surprise on the part of the accused and his inability to defend himself properly. Name of the offended party To constitute larceny, robbery, embezzlement, obtaining money by false pretenses, malicious mischief, etc., the property obtained must be that of another person, and indictment for such offense must name the owner and a variance in this respect between the indictment and the proof will be fatal. Duplicity of the offense 1. Waiver: When the accused fails, before arraignment, to move for the quashal of the information which charges 2 or more offenses, he thereby waives the objection and may be found guilty of as many offenses as those charged and proved during the trial. 2. Where the law with respect to an offense may be committed in any of the different modes provided by law, the indictment in the information is sufficient if the offense is alleged to have been committed in one, two or more modes specified therein. The various ways of committing the offense should be considered as a description of only one offense and the information cannot be dismissed on the ground of multifariousness. 3. Exceptions to the rule on duplicity: continuous crimes and complex crimes Amendment or substitution 1. Before the accused enters his plea, the prosecutor may: upgrade the offense allege qualifying and aggravating circumstances or change the offense charged without leave of court, provided there is evidence thereon which has been presented during the preliminary investigation. 2. However, prosecutor cannot: downgrade the offense charged exclude from the information a co-accused

without filing a motion to that effect, with notice to the offended party, and subject to the approval of the court. The court shall state the reasons in resolving the motion and copies thereof furnished all parties, especially the offended party. 3. Technically, paragraph 2 of Section 14 does not refer to amendment, but to substitution of the complaint or information by a new one . If the substitution is made before the accused enters his plea, the question of double jeopardy does not arise. If the filing of new information is done after the plea and before judgment on the ground that there has been a mistake in charging the proper offense, the filing thereof may only be allowed if it will not place the accused twice in jeopardy. 4. Test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by an amendment: whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the new form as in the other.

5. General Rule: after arraignment, the prosecutor may no longer amend the information which changes the nature of the crime, as it will prejudice the substantial rights of the accused. Exception: when a fact supervenes which changes the nature of the crime charged in the information or upgrades it to a higher crime, the prosecutor, with leave of court, may amend the information to allege such supervening fact and upgrade the crime charged to the higher crime brought about by such supervening fact. However: if the supervening event which changes the nature of the crime to a more serious one occurred after the accused has been convicted, which makes the amendment of the information no longer the remedy of the prosecution, the prosecution can and should charge the accused for such more serious crime, without placing the accused in double jeopardy, there being no identity of the offense charged in the first information and in the second one.

6. Section 14 applies only to original case and not to appealed case. Place where action is to be instituted 1. Venue in criminal case is jurisdictional, being an essential element of jurisdiction. 2. General Rule: Penal laws are territorial; hence Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over crimes committed outside the Philippines. Exceptions: those provided in Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code. Those who commit any of the crimes contemplated therein can be tried by Philippine courts.

Intervention of the offended party in criminal action

1. Where the offended party withdrew a reservation to file a separate civil action , the private prosecutor may still intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case, by conducting the examination of witnesses under the control of the prosecutor. However: once the offended party has filed a separate civil action arising from the crime, he may not withdraw such civil case in order to intervene in the criminal prosecution. He loses the right to intervene. He no longer has any standing in the criminal case, except to be a prosecution witness.

2. Where a criminal action has been provisionally dismissed upon motion of the prosecutor, can the case be revived upon motion of the offended party? No, because the offended party or complaining witness cannot act for the prosecutor.

RULE 111 PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

Institution of criminal and civil actions 1. General Rule: the institution or filing of the criminal action includes the institution therein of the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged. Except in the following instances:

the offended party waives the civil action; he reserves his right to institute the civil action separately; or he institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. 2. The employer may not be held civilly liable for quasi-delict in the criminal action as ruled in Maniago v. Court of Appeals since quasi-delict is not deemed instituted with the criminal. If at all, the only civil liability of the employer in the criminal action would be his subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal Code. 3. Two instances where no reservation shall be allowed: a criminal action for violation of BP 22 unless a separate civil action has been filed before the institution of the criminal action, no such civil action can be instituted after the criminal action has been filed as the same has been included therein. A claim arising from an offense which is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. a civil action filed prior to the criminal action has to be transferred to the subsequently filed criminal action for joint hearing (Sec. 4 of PD1606 as amended by RA 8249)

4. When the reservation of the right to institute the separate civil actions shall be made: before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such a reservation. 5. The rule requiring reservation to file a separate civil action does not apply to civil actions which can be filed and prosecuted independently of the criminal action , namely, those provided in Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code.

6. Although the criminal and civil actions may be joined in the criminal case, they are distinct from each other. The plaintiffs in the two actions are different. Thus: even if the accused started serving his sentence within the 15-day period from the promulgation of the judgment of conviction by the lower court, thereby making the judgment against him final, the complainant may, within the 15-day reglementary period, still ask that the civil liability be fixed by the court, if the judgment does not adjudicate any civil liability, as the judgment regarding civil liability has not become final and the court still has jurisdiction to adjudge the civil liability.

7. Rules on Filing Fees: No filing fees are required for amounts of actual damages. Exception: criminal action for violation of BP 22 which is deemed to include the corresponding civil action. The offended party shall, upon the filing of the criminal and civil actions, pay in full the filing fees based on the face value of the check as the actual damages. Purpose of Exception: to prevent the offended party from using the prosecutors office and the court as vehicles for recovery of the face value of the check, without paying the corresponding filing fees therefor. With respect to damages other than actual, if these damages are specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees should be paid, otherwise, the trial court will not acquire jurisdiction over such other damages. Where moral, exemplary and other damages are not specified in the complaint or information, the grant and amount thereof are left to the sound discretion of the trial court, the corresponding filing fees need not be paid and shall simply constitute a first lien on the judgment.

8. In an appeal of a criminal case: The appellate court may impose additional damages or increase or decrease the amounts of damages upon the accused-appellant. However, additional penalties cannot be imposed upon a co-accused who did not appeal, but modifications of the judgment beneficial to him are considered in his favor. 9. The offended party in a criminal case may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused. Where the trial court convicted the accused, but dismissed the civil action instituted therein, the offended party may appeal the dismissal to the CA. 10. Compromise on civil aspect: The offended party may compromise the civil aspect of a crime , provided that it must be entered before or during the litigation, and not after final judgment. A

compromise on the civil aspect is valid even if it turns out to be unsatisfactory either to one or both of the parties. 11. Important!: Section 1, Rule 111 now expressly provides that no counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action. Reasons: the counterclaim of the accused will unnecessarily complicate and confuse the criminal proceedings; the trial court should confine itself to the criminal aspect and the possible civil liability of the accused arising out of the crime. When separate civil action is suspended Take Note: Article 29 of the Civil Code merely emphasizes that a civil action for damages is not precluded by the acquittal of an accused for the same criminal act or omission. It does not state that the remedy can be availed of only in a separate civil action. When civil action may proceed independently 1. Prior reservation is not necessary to file separate civil action under Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code. The phrase which has been reserved that has caused conflicting rulings in the past has now been deleted. 2. Actions based on quasi-delict may be filed independently of the criminal action regardless of the result of the criminal action , except that a plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. Effect of death of the accused on civil actions 1. After arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action: General Rule: death extinguishes the civil liability arising from delict or the offense Except: where civil liability is predicated on other sources of obligations such as law, contract, quasi-contract and quasi-delict. If such civil action which survives is impliedly instituted in the criminal action, the legal representative or heir of the deceased shall be substituted for the deceased. The criminal case is reduced to a civil action. However, if the civil action has been reserved and subsequently filed or such civil action has been instituted, when the accused died, then such civil action will proceed and substitution of parties shall be ordered by the court pursuant to Sec.16 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

2. Before arraignment: The civil action impliedly instituted in the criminal action shall be dismissed without prejudice to the offended partys filing a civil action against the administrator of the estate of the deceased. 3. Pending appeal of his conviction: extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. 4. Prior to final judgment: terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed. Judgment in civil action not a bar The judgment in civil actions based on Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 absolving the defendant from civil liability does not bar the criminal action. Prejudicial question 1. The prejudicial question may be raised during the preliminary investigation of the offense or in court before the prosecution rests its case. 2. The suspension of the criminal case due to a prejudicial question is only a procedural matter, and is subject to a waiver by virtue of prior acts of the accused. 3. There is no prejudicial question where one case is administrative and the other is civil.

RULE 112 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

Preliminary investigation defined; when required 1. Preliminary investigation is: not part of the trial of the criminal action in court. Nor is its record part of the record of the case in the RTC. subject to the requirements of both substantive and procedural due process. The right of an accused to a preliminary investigation is not a constitutional but merely a statutory right. Nonetheless, it is a component part of due process in criminal justice and is a substantive right. a personal right and may be waived expressly or by implication. Lack of PI is not a ground to quash or dismiss a complaint or information, nor does it affect the courts jurisdiction. When there is no preliminary investigation, the accused must invoke it at the first opportunity and the court should hold in abeyance or suspend proceedings and remand the case to the office of the prosecutor for him to conduct PI.

2. The refusal of the court to remand the case for PI can be controlled by certiorari and prohibition to prevent trial. Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigation 1. No longer authorized to conduct PI: By implication, MTC judges in Manila and in chartered cities have not been granted the authority to conduct PI, as the officers authorized to do so are the prosecutors. Judges of RTCs 2. Two types of offenses may be filed in the MTC for preliminary investigation: a case cognizable by the RTC may be filed with the MTC for PI; even if it is cognizable by the MTC because it is an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years 2 months and 1 day.

3. Regarding offenses falling within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan: Prosecutors or municipal trial court judges conducting PI of offenses falling within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan shall, after their conclusion, transmit the records and their resolutions to the Ombudsman or his deputy for appropriate action. Moreover, the prosecutor or judge cannot dismiss the complaint without the prior written authority of the Ombudsman or his deputy, nor can the prosecutor file an information with the Sandiganbayan without being deputized by, and without prior written authority of, the Ombudsman or his deputy.

4. Regarding election offenses: The exclusive jurisdiction of the Comelec to investigate and prosecute election offenses inheres even if the offender is a private individual or public officer or employee, and in the latter instance, irrespective of whether the offense is committed in relation to his official duties or not. In other words, it is the nature of the offense, namely, an election offense as defined in the Omnibus Election Code and in other election laws, and not the personality of the offender that matters. 5. Regarding the Ombudsman: The power of the Ombudsman to make investigation extends to any illegal act or omission of any public official, whether or not the same is committed in relation to his office. Preliminary investigation by the Ombudsman is limited to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and must be conducted pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman.

Section 4(d) of Administrative Order No. 07 disallows the filing of a motion to quash or dismiss a complaint filed with the Ombudsman, except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Which remedy may an aggrieved party avail of against resolutions of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases? The law is silent. Hence, appeal is not available as a remedy because the right to appeal is a statutory privilege and may be availed of only if there is a statute to that effect. However, an aggrieved party is not without remedy, as he can resort to the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. The Ombudsman does not have the power: to prosecute before the Sandiganbayan any impeachable officers with any offense which carries with it the penalty of removal from office, or any penalty service of which would amount to removal from office because by constitutional mandate, they can only be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust to prosecute public officers or employees who have committed election offenses. to file an information for an offense cognizable by the regular courts.

6. Effect of an incomplete PI: does not warrant the quashal of the information does not affect the courts jurisdiction or the validity of the information.

Procedure 1. By reason of the abbreviated nature of PI, a dismissal of the charges as a result thereof is not equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of acquittal. 2. The accused or respondent in a criminal prosecution may avail himself of discovery remedies either during preliminary investigation or when the information has already been filed in court. 3. A motion to dismiss is now a prohibited pleading during preliminary investigation. 4. The respondent is now required to submit counter-affidavits and other supporting documents relied upon by him for his defense. 5. The respondent now has the right to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant of which he may not have been furnished and to obtain copies thereof at his expense. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review

1. After having filed the information, the prosecutor is called upon to prosecute the case in court. It has been said that at this stage, unlike judges who are mandated to display cold neutrality in hearing cases, the prosecutors are not required to divest themselves of their personal convictions and refrain from exhibiting partiality. But while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. 2. Effect of exclusion of other persons from the information: If during the trial, evidence is shown that such persons should have been charged, the fact that they were not included in the information does not relieve them of criminal liability, and they can be subsequently prosecuted. The accused who has been charged with the offense is not allowed to escape punishment merely because it develops in the course of the trial that there were other guilty participants in the crime. It does not vitiate the validity of the information. Neither is the same a ground for a motion to quash.

3. Role of Secretary of Justice: The Secretary of Justice is not prevented from entertaining an appeal from the accused or from the offended party even after the information has been filed and the trial court has arraigned the accused. Section 4 of DOJ 223 should be construed as merely enjoining the Secretary of Justice to refrain, as far as practicable, from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action of the prosecutor once the complaint or information is filed in court. If the Secretary reverses the ruling of the prosecutor, the latter has to file the necessary motion to dismiss the complaint or information, the grant or denial of which is subject to the discretion of the trial court.

4. Effect if the information is filed by someone not authorized by law: The court does not acquire jurisdiction. The accuseds failure to assert lack of authority on the part of the prosecutor in filing the information does not constitute a waiver thereof. 5. The prosecutor is required to resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant in the event that the respondent cannot be subpoenaed or the respondent, if subpoenaed, does not submit a counter-affidavit within the 10-day period. Resolution of investigating judge and its review Non-judicial function: When a municipal judge conducts PI, he performs a non-judicial function. Consequently, the findings of the investigating judge are subject to review by the provincial prosecutor whose findings in turn may also be reviewed by the Secretary of Justice in appropriate cases.

When warrant of arrest may issue

1. Invalid: A warrant issued by the judge solely on the basis of the report and recommendation of the investigating prosecutor, without personally determining the existence of probable cause by independently examining sufficient evidence submitted by the parties during the PI 2. Effect of a finding of probable cause: merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt. 3. What the accused who believes that there is no probable cause to hold him for trial may do: to file with the trial court a motion to dismiss on such ground or for the determination of probable cause. if the warrant of arrest has been issued , the accused may file a motion to quash the arrest warrant or to recall the same on the ground of lack of probable cause.

4. Where an information has already been filed in court, and the Secretary of Justice reversed the prosecutors finding of probable cause, what should the trial court do upon the prosecutors motion to dismiss ? He must make his own assessment of the evidence and not just rely on the conclusion of the prosecutor, otherwise the court becomes a mere rubber stamp. 5. Regarding reinvestigation: Once the complaint or information is filed in court, any motion for reinvestigation is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. While the trial court judge has the power to order the reinvestigation of the case by the prosecutor, he may not, before the prosecutor concluded the reinvestigation, recall said order, set the case for arraignment and trial, without gravely abusing his discretion.

6. Municipal judge may issue arrest warrant before conclusion of preliminary investigation if: he finds that probable cause exists and there is a necessity of placing respondent under immediate custody.

7. Important: The rule is now 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. Thus, even if the judge finds probable cause, he cannot, on such ground alone, issue a warrant of arrest. He must further find there is a necessity of placing the accused under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. 8. The investigating judge has no power to reduce or change the crime charged in order to justify the grant of bail to the accused. The power belongs to the prosecutor.

9. After the conclusion of his PI, the judge has to transmit to the provincial prosecutor his resolution and entire records of the case, regardless of whether he finds a probable cause or sufficient ground to issue a warrant of arrest. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant 1. General Rule: No complaint or information shall be filed for an offense which is penalized by imprisonment of not less than 4 years, 2 months and 1 day without PI. Exception: when the accused has been lawfully arrested without warrant, in which case, an inquest must be conducted by an inquest prosecutor who will determine whether his arrest without warrant is lawful. The inquest prosecutor may order the release of the arrested person if he finds no sufficient ground to hold him without prejudice to conducting further investigation, or file complaint or information within the period specified in Art. 125 of the RPC.

2. In case a person is arrested without a warrant, a complaint or information may only be filed after an inquest conducted in accordance with existing rules. Provided: that in the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor , the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.

3. Before the filing of a complaint or information , the person arrested without a warrant may ask for a preliminary investigation by a proper officer, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Art. 125 of the RPC. 4. If the accused allows himself to be arraigned without asking for a preliminary investigation, he is deemed to have waived the right to such PI. Cases not requiring preliminary investigation nor covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure The respondent or accused is not entitled to preliminary investigation in the following cases: cases governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure; cases where the punishment does not exceed 4 years 2 months and 1 day.