SANTOS-CONCIO V.

DOJ
GR. NO. 175057, JAN. 29, 2008
CARPIO-MORALES, J.
Note: very descriptive yung story telling ni Justice, if may time ka, read the opening
 Feb. 4, 2006- people started to gather in throngs at the Philsports Arena formerly Ultra in Pasig City
o this was the venue for the anniversary show of Wowowee aired by ABS-CBN
 hours before the show and minutes after the people were allowed to enter 2 ENTRY POINTS
o the mad rush of the unruly mob generated much force, triggering a horde to surge trampled upon by the
approaching waves of people right after the gate opened
o the fatal stampede claimed 71 lives and 69 wounded
 DILG through Sec. Angelo Reyes, immediately created the inter-agency fact finding team to investigate the
circumstances
o This report was submitted to the DOJ on Feb. 7, 2006
 The DOJ (DO. No. 90) through Sec. Raul Gonzales, then directed an Evaluating Panel, to evaluate the DILG report
and determine whether there is sufficient basis to proceed with the conduct of a preliminary investigation on the
basis of the documents submitted
o The Panel then submitted to Gonzales the report with the conclusion that there was no sufficient basis to
proceed with the conduct of a preliminary investigation in view of the following considerations:
 No formal complaint/s had been filed by victims or relatives
 No documents were submitted to substantiate the alleged casualties
 The Report did not indicate the names of the persons involved and their specific participation
 There was no allegation from the victims of who they think were responsible for the incident
 NBI-NCR then submitted an investigation report recommending the conduct of preliminary investigation for
Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries against Petitioners and seven
other respondents
 Acting on the recommendation of NBI-NCR, Gonzales, designated a panel of state prosecutors (DO No. 165) to
conduct the preliminary investigation of the case this is the Investigating Panel
o And if warranted, to file the appropriate information and prosecute the same before the court
 The following day, the Investigating Panel issued subpoenas directing the petitioners to appear at the Preliminary
Investigation
 At the preliminary investigation, petitioners sought clarification and orally moved for the inhibition,
disqualification or desistance of the Investigating Panel from conducting the investigation
 Petitioners then applied for a certiorari and prohibition with the CA
o This was granted thus, the issuance of a TRO
 The investigating panel then found probable cause to indict the petitioners for Reckless Imprudence resulting in
Multiple Homicide and Physical Injuries
o There was also the recommendation of the conduct of a separate preliminary investigation against certain
public officials
 Petitioners now assert their right to due process
o They assert their right to a fair and impartial investigation
o Contends that the respodnents have already prejudged the case as shown by the public declarations of
the Respondent Secretary and the President herself
o Also contends that due to the haste of the proceedings, reflect their prejudgement
o The alleged complaint-affidavits were also not made under oath
o The supposed complaint-affidavits filed against Petitioners failed to state the acts or ommissions
constituting the crime
o Respondents may have the power to conduct the criminal investigation or PI, respondents do not have
the power to conduct both in the same case
RULING:
Issue Petitioner’s contention Respondent’s SC Ruling
contention
1. WON the 1. Petitioners concede that the DOJ 1. No contention 1. The petitioners cannot use the
DOJ has has the power to conduct both But the petitioners Conjaunco ruling since it had a
investigat criminal investigations and are pertaining to different factual milieu
ory preliminary investigations but not the: The measures taken by the Evaluating
powers in in their case. That the mere Panel do not partake of a criminal
this case? creation of a new entity cannot be  Evaluating investigation
YES made to circumvent the Panel (DO No.
jurisprudential rule (below). 90) Evaluation for purposes of determining
 Investigating whether there is sufficient basis to
BASIS OF POSITION: Cojuanco v. Panel (DO No. proceed with the conduct of a
PCGG- that the entity which 165) preliminary investigation entails not only
conducted the criminal investigation reading the report or documents in
is disqualified from conducting the PI isolation, but also deems to include
in the same case resorting to reasonably necessary means
such as ocular inspection and physical
evidence examination

The Evaluating Panel also found no

sufficient basis to proceed with the
conduct of preliminary investigation
2. WON 2. Petitioners claim GADLEJ in 2. Preliminary investigation purposes:
there proceeding with the prelim  Generally inquisitorial
were investigation  Conducted to elicit further facts or
defects in evidence
the Petitioners point out that they cannot  Only means of discovering the
complaint be compelled to submit their counter- persons who may be charged with
? NO affidavits because the NBI-NCR Report the crime
was not under oath See Rule 112, Sec. 3- important!

The Affidavits also does not qualify as
a complaint within the scope of Rule
110 of the ROC as the allegations
therein are insufficient to initiate a PI
there being no statement of specific
and individual acts or omissions
constituting Reckless Imprudence
Petitioners contend that absent any
act or omission ascribed to them, it is
unreasonable to expect them to
confirm, deny or explain their side
The Affidavit is treated as a component
of the complaint
The averments not contained in one
document does not make the case able
to be quashed, vis-à-vis a complaint or
information. Meaning there is no need to
follow the format of Rule 110
A PI can validly proceed on the basis of an
affidavit of any competent person,
without the referral document . What is
only require is to reduce the evidence
into affidavits

In this case, there is no doubt that there

were affidavits
3. WON 3. Petitioners charge the respondents 3. Respondents This was mere speculations and cannot
there was to have lost impartiality to conduct maintain that the per se be instantly attributed to an
bias and the PI since they prejudged the incident is of injudicious performance of functions
prejudgme case nature and
nt on the magnitude as to
part of the They base this on the haste in the
responden conduct of the criminal investigation
ts? NO within 24 working days and issuance
of subpoenas immediately after the
creation of the investigating panel
There was also a reflection on the
statements made by the President
and the Sec. Gonzales (see p. 87)
warrant a natural The presumption of regularity stands
interference that here and this petitioners failed to
it would not have discharge
happened if there
were sufficient Neither was there a showing of undue
preparations pressure to subordinates to tailor their
decision with his public declarations
The Evaluating Panel even found no
sufficient basis and this conclusion is
incongruent with that of the petitioner’s
TOLENTINO V. PAQUEO, JR.
GR. NO. 150606, JUNE 7, 2007
AZCUNA, J.
Facts:
 Petitioner State Prosecutor (SP) Romulo SJ Tolentino filed an Information charging PR Benedict Dy Tecklo, owner
proprietor of Qualistronic Builders, of violation of Sec. 22(a) of RA 8282
o for failure to remit premiums due for his employee to the SSS despite demand
 The Information contains the certification that the filing of the same was with the prior authority and approval of
the Regional State Prosecutor
 It was then raffled to a branch and set for arraignment
o The counsel for PR moved to defer arraignment and requested time to file a motion to quash the
Information
 This was granted
 On PR’s motion to quash, there was an allegation that SP Tolentino has no legal personality nor is he clothed with
authority to commence prosecution by the filing of the Information and prosecute the case
o BASIS: he is not the City not the Provincial Prosecutor
 SP Tolentino opposed the same stating that:
o He is authorized to investigate, filed the necessary information and prosecute the SSS cases since he was
designated as SP for SSS cases by the Regional SP
o The Chief State Prosecutor confirmed such authority
o As per Administrative Code of 1987, the Regional State Prosecutor, as alter ego of the SOJ, is vested
authority to designate a Special Prosecutor
o The City Prosec has been inhibited by the complainant from investigating SSS Cases
 RTC Quashed the information and dismissed the case (FOR Private Resp)
o BASIS: Lack of Legal personality
Issue:
 WON SP Tolentino had the authority to file the said Information without the approval of the City Prosecutor?
Ruling:
 No. Sec. 4, Rule 112 provides:
o No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without prior
written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the
Ombudsman or his deputy
 The 2000 revised rule is couched in negative terms importing that the act shall not be done otherwise that
designated, it is mandatory
 It is a rule in statcon that the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implied the exclusion of all
others
o An examination of the functions of the Regional State Prosecutor does not include that of approving the
Information filed or dismissed by the investigating prosecutor
 As for the contention that the accused must move to quash at any time before entry of plea
o The SC found that there is substantial compliance with the Rule 117, Sec. 1
 There is also no need to submit any evidence to support ground for quashing the Information, since it was
apparent and within judicial notice that petitioner was not the City or Provincial Prosecutor
VILLAFLOR V. VIVAR
GR. NO. 134744, JAN. 16, 2001
PANGANIBAN, J.
Facts:
 An information for slight physical injuries was filed against respondent Dindo Vivar
 This case stemmed from the mauling of petitioner Gian Paulo Villaflor by the respondent
o This was around 1 AM in Ayala Alabang Muntinlupa
o Outside the Fat Tuesday Bar (know the small things daw) 😊
 After the severe beating, petitioner left together with his friend (who was at the CR at the time of the incident)
 While on the way out, petitioner again met the respondent who said “sa susunod gagamitin ko na itong baril ko”
 Due to intervening circumstances, the charge of slight physical injuries was withdrawn and and Information for
serious physical injuries was filed
 Another information for grave threats was also filed against respondent
 Respondent then posted a cash bond
o Instead of filing a counter-affidavit, he made a motion to quash
o Contending that the threat was included in the serious physical injuries case
o MTC DENIED MOTION TO QUASH
 RTC held that the motion to quash filed by the PR is prohibited under the rules on summary procedure
o This is because Sec. 51, par 3(a) of RA 7926 converting the municipality of Muntinlupa to the city of
Muntinlupa requires that the city prosecutor shall conduct preliminary investigations of all crimes, even
violations of city ordinances
Issue:
 WON there can be a dismissal of 2 criminal cases for serious physical injuries and grave threats on the ground that
the public prosecutor failed to conduct a PI?
Ruling:
 Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender
a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should
be held for trial.
 A component part of due process in criminal justice, preliminary investigation is a statutory and substantive right
accorded to the accused before trial. To deny their claim to a preliminary investigation would be to deprive them
of the full measure of their right to due process.
 However, the absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information or otherwise
render it defective.
o Neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court or constitute a ground for quashing the information.
o The trial court, instead of dismissing the information, should hold in abeyance the proceedings and order
the public prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation.
 Hence, the RTC in this case erred when it dismissed the two criminal cases for serious physical injuries (Criminal
Case No. 23787) and grave threats (Criminal Case No. 23728) on the ground that the public prosecutor had failed
to conduct a preliminary investigation.
 Furthermore, we do not agree that a preliminary investigation was not conducted.
o a preliminary investigation for slight physical injuries was made by the assistant city prosecutor of
Muntinlupa City.
o The said Information was, however, amended when petitioners injuries turned out to be more serious
and did not heal within the period specified in the Revised Penal Code.
 We believe that a new preliminary investigation cannot be demanded by respondent.
 This is because the change made by the public prosecutor was only a formal amendment.
 The filing of the Amended Information, without a new preliminary investigation, did not violate the right of
respondent to be protected from a hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution; an open and public accusation
of a crime; or from the trouble, the expenses and the anxiety of a public trial.
 The Amended Information could not have come as a surprise to him for the simple and obvious reason that it
charged essentially the same offense as that under the original Information.
 Moreover, if the original charge was related to the amended one, such that an inquiry would elicit substantially
the same facts, then a new preliminary investigation was not necessary.