0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
214 Ansichten2 Seiten
1. This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the quantum of evidence needed for probable cause in a preliminary investigation.
2. The Court held that the quantum of evidence required in a preliminary investigation is evidence sufficient to "engender a well founded belief" that a crime was committed and the accused is probably guilty. A preliminary investigation is not a trial on the merits and only requires enough evidence to justify filing a complaint.
3. The Court also held that an accused does not have the right to cross-examine witnesses during a preliminary investigation.
1. This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the quantum of evidence needed for probable cause in a preliminary investigation.
2. The Court held that the quantum of evidence required in a preliminary investigation is evidence sufficient to "engender a well founded belief" that a crime was committed and the accused is probably guilty. A preliminary investigation is not a trial on the merits and only requires enough evidence to justify filing a complaint.
3. The Court also held that an accused does not have the right to cross-examine witnesses during a preliminary investigation.
1. This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the quantum of evidence needed for probable cause in a preliminary investigation.
2. The Court held that the quantum of evidence required in a preliminary investigation is evidence sufficient to "engender a well founded belief" that a crime was committed and the accused is probably guilty. A preliminary investigation is not a trial on the merits and only requires enough evidence to justify filing a complaint.
3. The Court also held that an accused does not have the right to cross-examine witnesses during a preliminary investigation.
Paderanga v Drilon (1991) said petition for review.
His motion for reconsideration having been
likewise denied, Paderanga then filed the petition for mandamus and 1. On 16 October 1986, an information for multiple murder was filed in the prohibition before the Supreme Court Regional Trial Court, Gingoog City, against Felipe Galarion, Manuel Sabit, Cesar Sabit, Julito Ampo, Eddie Torion, John Doe, Peter Doe and Richard ISSUE: What is the quantum of evidence needed for probable in preliminary Doe, for the deaths on 1 May 1984 of Renato Bucag, his wife Melchora investigation? (I think #2 under held is the one relevant in this case) Bucag, and theirson Renato Bucag II. Venue was, however, transferred to Cagayan de Oro City per Administrative Matter 87-2-244. HELD: 2. Only Felipe Galarion was tried and found guilty as charged. The rest of the accused remained at large. Felipe Galarion, however, escaped from 1. Petitioner avers that he was deprived of full preliminary investigation because detention and has not been apprehended since then. In an amended when the resolution was issued there were still incidents pending such as the validity information filed on 6 October 1988, Felizardo Roxas, alias "Ely Roxas," of testimonies and affidavits of Roxas, Hanpol as bases for preliminary investigation, "Fely Roxas" and "Lolong Roxas," was included as a co-accused. Roxas the polygraph test of Roxas which he failed, the clarifactory question that were retained Atty. Miguel P. Paderanga as his counsel. supposed to be propounded by petitioners counsel to Roxas and Hanapol. He also 3. As counsel for Roxas, Paderanga filed an Omnibus Motion to dismiss, to claims he was deprived of the opportunity to file his counter-affidavit to the Quash the Warrant of Arrest and to Nullify the Arraignment on 14 October subpoena of April 25 - BUT THESE CONTENTIONS ARE WITHOUT MERIT 1988. The trial court denied the omnibus motion but directed the City Prosecutor "to conduct another preliminary investigation or reinvestigation a. He already filed his counter-affidavit pursuant to the subpoena issued to him in order to grant the accused all the opportunity to adduce whatever where he controverted the charge against him and dismissed it saying it was evidence he has in support of his defense." malicious design of his political opponents. He also failed to to show the 4. In the course of the preliminary investigation, through a signed affidavit, subpoena issued involved a separate complaint charging an offense different Felizardo Roxas implicated Atty. Paderanga in the commission of the crime from that charged in the complaint attached in the 1st subpoena charged. The City Prosecutor of Cagayan de Oro City inhibited himself b. The credibility of witness and their testimonies are matters of defense best from further conducting the preliminary investigation against Paderanga at addressed trial court for evaluation the instance of the latter's counsel, per his resolution dated 7 July 1989. c. Right to ask clarifactory question is not absolute. Fiscal has discretion if he 5. In his first indorsement to the Department of Justice, dated 24July 1989, will propound these questions to the parties or witnesses concerned. said city prosecutor requested the Department of Justice to designate a state d. Proper forum before which absence of preliminary investigation should be prosecutor to continue the preliminary investigation against Paderanga. In a ventilated is the Court of First Instance, not this Court.. Absence of a resolution dated 6 September 1989, the State Prosecutor Henrick F. preliminary investigation does not go to the jurisdiction of the court but Gingoyon, who was designated to continue with the conduct of the merely to the regularity of the proceedings. It could even be waived. Indeed, preliminary investigation against Paderanga, directed the amendment of the it is frequently waived. These are matters to be inquired into by the trial previously amended information to include and implead Paderanga as one court of the accused therein. Paderanga moved for reconsideration, contending that the preliminary investigation was not yet completed when said 2. Petitioner also alleged that there is no prima facie evidence, or probable cause, or resolution was promulgated, and that he was deprived of his right to present sufficient justification to hold him to a tedious and prolonged public trial, on the a corresponding counter-affidavit and additional evidence crucial to the basis of the following grounds: determination of his alleged "linkage" to the crime charged. 6. The motion was, however, denied by Gingoyon in his order dated 29 a. the questioned resolution of respondent Gingoyon is full of factual January 1990. From the aforesaid resolution and order, Paderanga filed a misrepresentations or misapprehensions; Petition for Review with the Department of Justice. Thereafter, he submitted b. respondents reliance on the decision of the Regional Trial Court against a Supplemental Petition with Memorandum, and then a Supplemental Felipe Galarion suffers from constitutional and procedural infirmities Memorandum with Additional Exculpatory/Exonerating Evidence Annexed, considering that petitioner was not a party thereto, much less was he given attaching thereto an affidavit of Roxas dated 20 June 1990 and purporting to any opportunity to comment on or rebut the prosecution evidence; be a retraction of his affidavit of 30 March 1990 wherein he implicated c. reliance on Rogelio Hanopols testimony is likewise contemptible, it Paderanga. On 10 August 1990, the Department of Justice, through being merely hearsay in addition to the fact that petitioner was never given Undersecretary Silvestre H. Bello III, issued Resolution 648 dismissing the the opportunity to cross-examine Hanopol at the time he testified in court; d. the affidavit of Roxas dated March 30, 1989, which is the only evidence c. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub judice; against petitioner, has been rendered nugatory by his affidavit of retraction d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; dated June 20, 1990. e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent; Preliminary investigation is generally inquisitorial, and it is often the only g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense; means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; crime, to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information. It is i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of vengeance; and determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it does not to quash on that ground has been denied. place the person against whom it is taken in jeopardy. - In this case, the circumstances of the case do not fall in any of the exceptions. The quantum of evidence now required in preliminary investigation is such evidence sufficient to engender a well founded belief as to the 3. As to petitioners contention that he was not granted the opportunity of cross- fact of the commission of a crime and the respondents probable guilt examination: thereof. A preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties evidence; it is for the presentation of It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary such evidence only as may engender a well grounded belief that an investigation has no right to cross-examine the witnesses which the offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty complainant may present. thereof. Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that the We are in accord with the state prosecutors findings in the case at bar that respondent shall only have the right to submit a counter-affidavit, to there exists prima facie evidence of petitioners involvement in the examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant and, where the commission of the crime, it being sufficiently supported by the evidence fiscal sets a hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the parties or presented and the facts obtaining therein. their witnesses, to be afforded an opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or cross-examine. GR: Theinstitutionofacriminalactiondependsuponthesounddiscretionofthe Thus, even if petitioner was not given the opportunity to cross-examine fiscal.Hehasthequasijudicialdiscretiontodeterminewhetherornotacriminal Galarion and Hanopol at the time they were presented to testify during the caseshouldbefiledincourt.Hence,thegeneralruleisthat aninjunctionwillnot separate trial of the case against Galarion and Roxas, he cannot assert any begrantedtorestrainacriminalprosecution legal right to cross-examine them at the preliminary investigation precisely because such right was never available to him. The admissibility or inadmissibility of said testimonies should be ventilated XPN: Citing the case of Brocka et al vs Enrile before the trial court during the trial proper and not in the preliminary a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; investigation. b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;