REMEDIAL LAW
requested. Here since the budget officer’s testimony
is merely corroborative, there is no absolute
necessity for it. Necessity is not there when the
testimony would simply corroborate or otherwise
strengthen the prosecution’s evidence (Jimenez v
People, 17 September 2014). Hence, the Special
Prosecutor cannot move for the discharge of the
budget officer.
WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED TO RESTRAIN
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION (1999 Bar)
GR: The long-standing doctrine that writs of injunction
or prohibition will not lie to restrain a criminal
prosecution for the reason that public interest requires
that criminal acts be immediately investigated and
prosecuted for the protection of society (Domingo v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 109376, January 20, 2000).
XPNs:
1. To prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an
oppressive and vindictive manner (Ibid.);
2. To afford adequate protection to constitutional
rights (Ibid.);
3. For the orderly administration of justice (Hernandez
v. Albano, G.R. No. 19272,
January 25, 1967);
4. To avoid multiplicity of actions (Ibid.);
5. In proper cases, because the statute relied upon is
unconstitutional, or was held invalid (Ibid.);
6. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess
of authority (Planas v. Gil, G.R. No. L-46440, January
18, 1939);
7. When the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
(Lopez v. City Judge, G.R. No. L-25795, October 29,
1966);
8. When there is a prejudicial question which is sub
judice (before a court or judge for consideration);
9. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law,
ordinance or regulation;
10. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
11. Where it is a case of persecution rather than
prosecution;
12. Where the charges are manifestly false and
motivated by lust for vengeance; and
13. Where there is clearly no prima facie case against
the accused and a motion to quash on that ground
has been denied.
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
RULE 110
CRIMINAL ACTIONS, HOW INSTITUTED
Criminal action
One by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or
omission punishable by law.
Criminal actions are instituted by:
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTE S
1. Where preliminary investigation is required - filing
the complaint with the proper officer for the
purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary
investigation; or
2. For all other offenses - filing the complaint or
information directly with the MTC and MCTC, or the
complaint with the office of the prosecutor (Sec. 1,
Rule 110).
NOTE: There is no direct filing of an information or
complaint with the RTC because its jurisdiction covers
offenses which require preliminary investigation.
There is likewise no direct filing with the MeTC because
in Manila, including other chartered cities, the complaint
shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor, unless
otherwise provided by their charters. In case of conflict
between a city charter and a provision of the Rules of
Court, the former, being substantive law, prevails.
Effect of institution of a criminal action
GR: It interrupts the running of the period of
prescription of the offense charged (Sec. 1, Rule 110).
NOTE: Art. 91 of the RPC, in declaring that the
prescriptive period “shall be interrupted by the filing
of the complaint or information,” does not distinguish
whether the complaint is filed for preliminary
examination or investigation only or for an action on
the merits (Reodica v. CA, G.R. No. 125066, July 8,
1998).
XPN: When a different rule is provided for in special
laws.
Prescriptive periods of violations of special laws and
municipal ordinances governed by Act 3326 (An Act to
Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized
by Special Laws and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide
When Prescription shall Begin to Run) shall only be
interrupted by the filing of a complaint or information
in court.
There is no more disctinction between cases under
the RPC and those covered by special laws
In cases involving special laws, the Court has held that
the institution of proceedings for preliminary
investigation against the accused interrupts the period of
prescription (People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, June
13, 2012).
The prevailing rule is, therefore, that irrespective of
whether the offense charged is punishable by the RPC or
by a special penal law, it is the filing of the complaint or
information in the office of the public prosecutor for
purposes of preliminary investigation that interrupts the
perios of prescription (Riano, 2016 citing Disini v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos 169823-24, September 11, 2013).
WHO MAY FILE THEM, CRIMES THAT CANNOT BE
PROSECUTED DE OFFICIO
294
 REMEDIAL LAW

Determination of the Existence of Probable Cause

Within 10 days from the filing of

the complaint or information, the
judge shall personally evaluate the
resolution of the prosecutor and
its supporting evidence.

In case of doubt on the existence of

He may immediately dismiss the
case if the evidence on record
clearly fails to establish probable
cause.
probable cause, the judge may order the
prosecutor to present additional evidence
within 5 days from notice and the issue
must be resolved by the court within 30
days from the filing of the complaint or
information.
If he finds probable cause, he shall
issue a warrant of arrest, or a
commitment order (Sec. 6, Rule
112).

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 370

2018 GOLDEN NOTE S