ASYNCHRONOUS

ACTIVITY September 23, 2023

RULE 112
Instructions:

 Write/type your answers on the provided space – after the

line “Answer” provided for each question.
 Explain your answers.
 A mere “yes” or “no” answer will get no credit.
 Cut-off time of submission: 12 midnight
Review Question: Saturnino filed a criminal action
against Alex for the latter’s bouncing check. On the
date of the hearing after his arraignment, Saturnino
manifested to the court that he is reserving his right to
file a separate civil action. The Court allowed
Saturnino to file a civil action separately and
proceeded to hear the criminal case. Alex filed a
motion for reconsideration contending that the civil
action is deemed included in the criminal case. The
court granted the motion.
Is the court correct in granting the motion for
reconsideration? (2001 Bar)
Answer:
Yes. The court’s decision to grant Alex’s motion for
reconsideration is in order. In Rule 110 Sec. 1 para (a)of the
Revised Rules of Court, it was clearly expressed that the
reservation for institution of civil case has to be done before the
presentation of evidence. Hence, in this case, the arraignment
was already done therefore the opportunity to file separate civil
action already lapsed.
1. Explain briefly the nature of preliminary investigation.
Answer: Preliminary investigations are conducted in cases where
penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and one
day regardless of the fine imposed. It is conducted by a proper
investigating authority and a requisite to those cases mentioned above
if it has sufficient grounds to be tried in the court.
2. What are the purposes of preliminary investigation?
Answer: The aim of preliminary investigation is to properly establish if
the complaint being charged of has probable cause or that it properly
meets the requisites of the offense being charged of. The case cannot be
forwarded to the court without the resolution of the prosecutor.
3. During the preliminary investigation, what is the duty of the
investigating prosecutor?
Answer: The primary duty of the investigating prosecutor is to find
sufficient cause to hold the respondent for trial in court. Therefore, the
investigating prosecutor need to properly examine and assess all the
evidences, affidavits and witnesses to be presented by all parties and
make a resolution that without which, the complaint cannot proceed for
trial in court.
4. Is the right to preliminary investigation formal or substantive right?
Explain
Answer: Since preliminary investigation is a required procedure to establish if
the offense being charged of to the respondent and the totality of all elements
present really qualifies to constitute criminal or civil liability, then it can be
concluded that preliminary investigation is a substantive right. In the sense
that if there will be no proper procedure in the determination of the probable
cause of a complaint to be filed in the court, there will be a denial of either to
the victim of his right to file an action against another for an offense
committed or to the respondent to be cleared from an accusation which may
cause him undue damages and denying him due process of law if not
determined properly whether there is a sufficient basis to prove his guilt.
5. Explain the quantum of evidence required to prove probable cause in
a preliminary investigation.
Answer: In preliminary investigation, the evidences must be sufficient
“to engender a well-founded belief that there is a crime committed and
the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.”
It is not yet necessary for the parties to present an exhibition of
evidences for the investigating officer to find a probable cause.
6. Does the rule on double jeopardy apply in preliminary investigation?
Answer: Preliminary investigation does not in itself amount to trial in
court nor impose a punishment to the respondent. It is merely a
procedure to challenge the validity of a complaint before it can be tried
in the court. Therefore, there being no prejudice to the constitutional
rights of the respondent, there is no double jeopardy arising from a
preliminary investigation.
7. What is/are the effect/s of lack of preliminary investigation?
Answer: Lack of preliminary investigation will cause injustice to the
petitioner or victim, as such is prejudicial to his right to obtain justice
since preliminary investigation is required for the investigating
prosecutor to derive into a resolution proving that the complaint has a
sufficient ground to be forwarded into the court for trial.
8. A criminal information is filed in court
charging Antonio with murder. Antonio
files a motion to quash the information on
the ground that no preliminary
investigation was conducted. Resolve the
motion.
Answer: The motion to quash filed by Antonio should be granted
considering that the same was based on a valid premise. Murder is a
crime with a penalty of imprisonment more than 4 years 2 months and 1
day which qualifies it for a preliminary investigation before an
information is filed to the court. Lack of preliminary investigation
constitutes a violation of the procedure duly established by the law thus
denying the respondent of his right for due process.
9. May the right to preliminary investigation be waived?
Answer: Yes. The right to preliminary investigation can be waived in
instances where the accused was lawfully arrested without warrant.
Given that the accused sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of
the revised penal code as amended in the presence of his counsel.
10. Distinguish preliminary investigation from custodial investigation.
Answer: Custodial investigation directly refers to the questioning or
obtaining of pertinent facts by the investigating authority from an
accused who is under the custody of the law. The purpose is for the
investigating officer to know what is the appropriate offense to be
charged on the accused. Meanwhile, preliminary investigation is a
required procedure, for a complaint which is believed to have qualified
the requisites of a conduct of preliminary investigation as part of the
substantive rights of the respondents for due process of law, before an
information is filed in the court.
11. When is preliminary investigation required?
Answer: It is required when the offense stated in the complaint filed
against an accused is punishable with a penalty of not less than four
years, two months and one day.
12. When is preliminary investigation not required?
Answer: When the offense stated in the complaint filed against an
accused is punishable of a penalty less than four years, two months and
one day.
13. During preliminary investigation, is it required for the accused to
be represented by a counsel?
Answer: Yes. Representation is needed because of the legal
requirements that needs the legal knowledge and skills of a counsel,
which will be demanded from the accused in the process.
Representation will also be required when there are clarificatory
hearings of issues and facts in question.
14. Who are authorized to conduct preliminary investigation?
Answer: Preliminary investigation is conducted by Provincial and City
Prosecutors and their assistants. National and Regional State
Prosecutors and other Officers that may be authorized by law.
15. Are judges of municipal trial courts and municipal circuit trial
courts authorized to conduct preliminary investigation? How about
RTC judges?
Answer: No. Judges are officers of the court tasked to decide on cases
or answer questions on legalities.
16. Pedrito and Tomas, Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of the
Municipality of San Miguel, Leyte, are charged before the
Sandiganbayan for violation of Sec. 3e, RA No. 3019. The information
alleges, among others, that the two conspired in the purchase of several
units of computer through personal canvass instead of a public bidding,
causing undue injury to the municipality.
Before arraignment, the accused moved for reinvestigation of the charge,
which the court granted. After reinvestigation, the Office of the Special
Prosecutor filed an amended information duly signed and approved by
the Special Prosecutor, alleging the same delictual facts, but with an
additional allegation that the accused gave unwarranted benefits to SB
Enterprises owned by Samuel. Samuel was also indicted under the
amended Information.
Before Samuel was arraigned, he moved to quash the amended
information on the ground that the officer who filed the same had no
Answer:
17. What are required of the complainant before the investigating
prosecutor can compel the suspect/respondent to submit his/her
counter-affidavit?
Answer:
18. Under what circumstance/s may the investigating prosecutor/officer
dismiss the complaint outright (without requiring the
suspect/respondent to submit a counter-affidavit)?
Answer:
19. In the preliminary investigation, what is required of the
suspect/respondent to submit to the investigating prosecutor? What
would happen if the suspect/respondent filed a comment? What if he/she
did not answer at all, what would happen?
Answer:
20. May the suspect/respondent file a motion to dismiss instead of a
counter-affidavit?
Answer:
21. After the suspect/respondent has filed his/her Counter-Affidavit, is
the investigating prosecutor required to conduct a clarificatory
hearing?
Answer:
22. When is the preliminary investigation terminated?
Answer:
23. When is reinvestigation proper?
Answer:
24. Explain the concept of probable cause.
Answer:
25. Can the information be filed in court with only the signature of the
investigating prosecutor?
Answer:
26. Is filing of criminal action mandatory?
Answer:
27. Explain the process of appeal to the Secretary of Justice?
Answer:
28. What is the doctrine enunciated in Marcelo vs. Court of Appeals?
Answer:
29. What is the doctrine enunciated in Martinez vs. Court of Appeals?
Answer:
30. Explain the judicial policy of non-interference.
Answer:
31. If the information is already filed in court, does the prosecutor have
the power to dismiss the case, motu proprio (on its own)?
Answer:
32: You are the defense counsel of Angela Bituin who has
been charged under R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan. While Angela
has posted bail, she has yet to be arraigned. Angela
revealed to you that she has not been investigated for any
offense and that it was only when police officers showed up
at her residence with a warrant of arrest that she learned
of the pending case against her. She wonders why she has
been charged before the Sandiganbayan when she is not in
government service.
What “before-trial” remedy would you invoke in Angela’s
behalf to address the fact that she had not been
investigated at all, and how would you avail of this
Answer:
33. Define warrant of arrest.
Answer:
34. In case the judge is on official leave or business, may the clerk of
court issue warrants of arrest?.
Answer:
35. What are the two kinds of determination of probable cause?
Answer:
36. Explain probable cause for issuance of warrant.
Answer:
37. What is the procedure for the issuance of warrant?
Answer:
38. What are the courses of action that a judge may take upon the filing
of the information after preliminary investigation?
Answer:
39. Can the judge in determining probable cause to issue a warrant of
arrest rely on the prosecutor’s certification?
Answer:
40. What are the instances when it is not necessary for the judge to
issue a warrant of arrest?
Answer:
41. Explain the concept of inquest proceeding.
Answer:
42. Distinguish inquest from preliminary investigation
Answer:
43. What is the procedure in inquest proceeding?
Answer:
44. When is filing of complaint directly in court without conducting
investigation, preliminary or inquest, allowed?
Answer:
45. May a person arrested without warrant ask for a preliminary
investigation? What are the requisite before he/she could ask for
preliminary investigation?
Answer:
46. Explain summary investigation.
Answer:
47. What are offenses covered by summary procedure?
Answer:
48. What are the courses of action of the prosecutor when a complaint
involving a “direct filing case” is filed with him?
Answer:
49. What is the procedure when complaint or information is filed with
Municipal Trial Court judge?
Answer:
50: In Dec. 2012, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City (OCP-
Makati) issued a Resolution finding probable cause against petitioner for
violation of Section 10 of R.A. No. 7610. Consequently, an Information
was filed before the RTC charging petitioner of such crime. Petitioner
moved for the quashal of the Information against her on the ground of
lack of authority of the person who filed the same before the RTC. In
support of her motion, petitioner pointed out that the Information was
penned by ACP Dela Cruz, without any approval from any higher
authority, albeit with a Certification claiming that ACP Dela Cruz has
prior written authority or approval from the City Prosecutor in filing the
said information. In this regard, petitioner claimed that nothing in the
Information would show that ACP Dela Cruz had prior written authority
or approval from the CP to file or approve the filing of the information
against her. As such, the information must be quashed for being tainted
with a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured. Should the motion be
granted and the criminal case against the accused be dismissed?
Answer:
END