MTC

As of 2005, cannot anymore conduct preliminary investigation

Purpose for conducting preliminary investigation

To determine existence of probable cause for purposes of indictment
It is an executive function
Performed now only by the prosecutor

Determination of probable cause for the purpose of issuance of warrant of arrest

Is a judicial function

Once information is filed in court,

it does not go up to the DOJ

Motion for judicial determination of probable cause which seeks the reversal of the decision of
the fiscal does not find any basis under the rules.

The judicial determination of probable cause by the court is only for the purposes of issuance
of warrant of arrest, not for purposes of indictment

The existence of probable cause as determined by the prosecutor will not be disturbed by the court.
Unless, there is a patent finding of grave abuse of discretion

The court will not interfere with the prosecutors jurisdiction for purposes of determination of probable
cause

Once an information has been filed in court,

the authority of the prosecutor ends there.

It is already the court that will call the shots on what to do with the case
Once information has already been filed in court, the fiscal will just have to file motion

The fiscal cannot withdraw the information

Because the case is already submitted to the jurisdiction of the court
It is now the court that will call the shots

Before the information is filed, the fiscal still has a say. But once it is already filed in court,
it is court that will take the shots with respect to any dispositions with respect to the case

Before arraignment, a petition for review may still be filed with respect to the resolution of
the investigating prosecutor.
It may be filed before the DOJ

Once a petition for review is filed before DOJ after information has already been filed in court, the
party can only file a motion for suspension of the proceedings in view of the pendency of the petition
for review before the DOJ,
and this has to be done before arraignment.

One ground for suspension of the proceedings is the pendency of a petition for review filed before the
DOJ

The suspension of the proceedings before the court will only last for 60 days reckoned from
the date of filing of petition for review

The running of the 60 day period for purposes of suspension begins to run upon the filing of
the petition for review before the DOJ
It is a ground for the suspension of the arraignment and further proceedings
It can be filed before the DOJ or office of the President

The fiscal cannot do anything about the case once an information is already filed in the
court
Even if the accused secures a reversal in the DOJ of the resolution of the investigating
prosecutor,
it does not follow that the case pending before the court will be dismissed

An appropriate action that may be taken by the prosecutor,

been filed in court, is a motion to withdraw the information
Since it is only a motion,

after an information has

it is subject to approval or denial of the court

DOJ cannot order the court to dismiss the case

Because the information has already been filed in court
What can be done is to pray that the court dismiss the case via motion to withdraw the
information or motion to dismiss the case
because of the dismissal by the DOJ of the
decision of the prosecutor to file the case.
The court can either grant or deny the motion

Preliminary investigation is conducted in two ways

(1) Regular PI
(2) Inquest proceedings

Regular PI
It is conducted based on a complaint filed before the prosecutors office for purposes of
preliminary investigation without any arrest.

Inquest Proceeding
If there is already an arrest,

inquest proceedings must be observed

Regular Proceedings
Counter affidavit and controverting evidence maybe admitted.
Fiscal can propound clarificatory questions
Counsels cannot participate
If parties would want to propound questions, they have to furnish the fiscal the questions
and it is the fiscal who shall propound the questions.

Since it is not a judicial proceeding

MR is denied, and information is filed in court, the party may go to the DOJ
DOJ will evaluate

May move for the continuation of proceedings

May move to withdraw the information

Motion is a written application for relief

It has to be applied before the court
The court has the authority to grant or deny the application
It is not an order from the DOJ

Inquest Proceedings
A person is lawfully arrested without a warrant of arrest
Apply Sec 7, Rule 112
Lawful, warrantless arrest

What would effectuate an arrest is a valid warrant of arrest

Without warrant of arrest, the officer cannot arrest

Cases of warrantless arrest

I-H-A

(1) In flagante delicto

(2) Hot pursuit
(3) Accused has escaped from penal establishment

In flagante delicto
When in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is
attempting to commit an offence

About to commit

not correct

It is attempting commit
If it is about to commit,

it is simply acting upon a suspicion

In attempting to commit,
committed

there is already an overt act of the crime intended to be

Suspicion no matter how strong, no matter how contrived can never amount to
evidentiary proof

Where an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to
believe based on his personal knowledge of facts and circumstances
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed the crime

He has probable cause to believe based on his personal knowledge of facts

indicating that a crime has been committed and the person to be arrested
has committed it

Hot Pursuit
Escaped from penal establishment

Inquest proceeding
Has been lawfully arrested without warrant of arrest

before the filing of information

The respondent may request for a preliminary investigation provided he waives Art
125,
that is delay in the delivery of detained prisoners to the proper
judicial authority

What constitutes the delivery of persons to the proper judicial authority is not the fact
that the person is physically brought in the fiscal;
it is the filing of the information
in court.
The information must be filed within 12, 24 or 48 hours as the case may be.
Since he is asking for a PI, he has to sign a waiver of Art 125

The reason for the waiver is that

Once preliminary investigation is granted in inquest,
days

it must be completed in 15

It will exceed the 12, 24, 48 hours

If there is a signed waiver, it will stop the counting of the hours under the provision of
Art 125

If an information has already been filed in court against the person who has been lawfully
arrested without warrant of arrest, can he still ask for preliminary investigation?
Yes,
but after a preliminary investigation within a period of 5 days reckoned from
the time he learned of the filing of the information
The 5 day period within which to ask for PI when an information has already been filed
in the court, against a person who has been lawfully arrested without a warrant of
arrest, is mandatory.

The 5 day period must be complied with.

In practice,
if preliminary investigation is asked after the 5 day period has expired,
the court will still grant in the interest of justice.

If preliminary investigation is conducted, there will be a record

But it does not form part of the record of the case

of the court expendiente

They may only be made as references

The RTC may look upon all the records of the proceedings before the fiscal
of preliminary investigation

in the course

The RTC need not propound questions to the complainant

It must be the totality of the record
In other words, the RTC should not rely only on the certification of the fiscal that he
found probable cause
The RTC has the obligation to read the entire record
probable cause

for purposes of determining

After going over the record and finding probable cause, then the court may issue
warrant of arrest

If the judge does not find probable cause, he may order that prosecution to submit
additional evidence in order to aid it
in determining probable cause to issue a
warrant of arrest

Problem
Case of Allado
There is no basis for determining probable cause even for the purposes of indictment
The judge should have considered the record of the case, and not merely rely on the
certification of the prosecutor.

The judge was reprimanded

This is an exceptional case

If the court is in doubt as to the probable cause, it may order the prosecution to submit
additional evidence in order to aid it
in determining probable cause to issue a warrant
of arrest

When it comes to the MTC, in the issuance of the warrant of arrest,

the MTC would have
to question to determine probable cause. Based on that, MTC will determine if there is
need to take the accused in immediate custody in order to not frustrate the ends of justice.

RTC would have to read the entire record before issuing a warrant of arrest

Arrest

- Art 113
Generally,

it is only by virtue of a warrant of arrest that an arrest is lawful

A lawful arrest may only be effected through the circumstance in Section 5, Rule 113

A warrant of arrest is different from a search warrant

Search warrant has a lifetime of only 10 days from the date of its issuance
In warrant of arrest,
the 10 days to execute upon the issuance of the warrant of arrest, and
10 days to make a return,
which makes it a total of 20 days
does not refer to the
lifetime of the warrant of arrest

The 20 days period does not refer to the lifetime of the warrant of arrest
For as long as the warrant of arrest has not been served,

that subsists.

Cases:
Lifetime of the warrant of arrest
Rebellion
Why did you not serve it
Person is always there is Congress

Distinction between warrant of arrest and search warrant

1. The lifetime of the warrant of arrest subsists for as long as it has not been served.
Search warrant has a lifetime of only 10 days from the date of its issuance.
Thereafter, it is void.
2.

A warrant of arrest may be served on any day, at any time of the day and night.
A search warrant can only be served at day time, as a general rule.
It can be served at night time, when the authority to serve it at night time is expressly
indicated on the face of the warrant itself, and there must be good reason for the authority to
serve it at night time, to be determined by the judge
A good reason is that if the articles sought to be seized or searched is only there during there
at night time.

Bail
It is the security given for the release of a person in the custody of the law.

Example
Somebody who appeared to have committed the crime disappeared from the crime seen
Complaint was filed against him
Information was filed in court
Court issued warrant of arrest
When the accused learned about it,

he through his counsel posts for bail

Question:
Can the application for bail be given due course,
arrest has been issued?

No.
law

if warrant of

Because bail is the security given for the release of the person in the custody of the

The person in this case is not in the custody of law.

Therefore, he has to submit himself first in the custody of courts before he can post bail.

If the person is not there when application for bail is submitted,

it is denied.

It is premature.
A person cannot be release if he is not yet in the custody of law.

Conditions of the bail

2004 admin circular of Supreme Court

Extension of bail
Look for a bonding company

The old rule is that the bail shall remain in all stages of the case until promulgation of the
judgment of the RTC, irrespective whether the case was originally filed in the RTC or it was
appealed therewith.
But this is no longer applicable

There is a new circular which states that

The bail will remain in all stages of the case until after the final resolution
It is valid all stages of the proceedings,

up to the Supreme Court

It is already incorporated or stated in the undertaking of the surety

Trial in absencia

When there is failure of the accused to appear at the trial,

the case against him can proceed in absencia

without any justifiable reason,

It means that there is already arraignment, since it is already in the stage of trial
There is failure to appear since
(1) the accused jumped bail
(2) detained but failed to post bail

On the date set for trial,

he jumped bail. The accused has been arraigned, so the court
can proceed in trial which is known as trial in absencia.

On the date set for arraignment,

the accused jumped bail.

He already posted bail, but he did not appear in the arraignment without any justifiable cause
The court cannot proceed to try the case in absencia.

Answer:
No, since there is no arraignment
By posting a bail, the court effectively acquired jurisdiction over his person
But he has not yet been arraigned.

If he fails to appear, the bail will be confiscated.

A warrant of arrest will be issued
The court loses its jurisdiction over the person of the accused since the bail has been
confiscated

The court will issue a warrant of arrest since it needs to acquire jurisdiction again
Since there is no jurisdiction over the person of the accused, the court cannot proceed in
absencia

Can the court dismiss the case?

NO.
The information is already filed in the court already acquired jurisdiction

over the case

But there is no jurisdiction over the person of the accussed

The case will simply be sent to the archive without prejudice to the refilling of the case later
upon the apprehension of the accused

When is bail a matter of right (on the part of the accused)?

(1) Before and after conviction by the MTC
(2) Before conviction by the RTC for an offense which is not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment

When is bail a matter of discretion (on the part of the court)?

(1) After conviction by the RTC for an offense which is penalized by death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment
(2) If the imposable penalty is 6 years or more under any of the circumstances
4 types of repetition
Recidivist
Quasi recidivist
Habitual delinquent
Committed a crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteracion

When is bail neither a matter of right nor discretion?

If the offense is penalized with death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment

Reason is in this case there is need to file petition for bail and it will be granted or denied
depending on the weight of evidence, whether the evidence of guilt is strong or not

If the evidence of guilt is strong,

bail will be denied

If the evidence of guilt is strong,

then bail will be denied

If the evidence of guilt is not strong,

bail will be granted

But the burden of proof in the application of bail is with the prosecution to prove the evidence
of guilt is strong, and that the petition of bail would have to be denied

Application for bail would always have to be set for hearing

Because the prosecution has the burden of proving that the evidence of guilt is strong, and
therefore bail should not be granted
It is not enough that the prosecution simply manifests that it interposes no objection to the
accuseds application for bail.
The judge may be fined if he does not anymore allow prosecution to admit evidence in the
hearing,
but just granted bail

Even if the prosecution interposes no objection for the application of bail,

for hearing

it has to be set

Forms of bail
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Cash
Surety
Property bond
Recognizance

Forfeiture or confiscation of the bail

if the accused jumps bail or disappears for no valid reason

Cancellation of bail
a.
b.

Regular cancellation
Automatic cancellation

Automatic cancellation of bail

Upon acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case or execution of judgment
No need to file a motion
In execution of judgment there is no need for provisional remedy, since it is being executed.
There is no right to be released anymore.
Ordinary Cancellation
Upon surrender of the accused or proof of death of the accused

Where do you post bail?

In the court of the place where your case is pending or in the court of the place where the
person is detained