Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Thereafter, on September 4, 2002, private On March 27, 2003, Prosecutor Cuevas issued a
respondent executed an affidavit subscribed and Resolution dismissing the instant complaint on
sworn to before Vice-Consul Maria Lourdes C. the ground that it is impossible for him to
Legaspi in New York City, USA, claiming that proceed with the preliminary investigation
the deed of extra-judicial settlement attached without the appearance of private respondent
to the motion to dismiss which herein who will be subjected to some clarificatory
petitioners submitted in Civil Case No. questions on certain matters.
Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or
Department of Justice proceeding to determine whether or not there
is sufficient ground to engender a well-
The DOJ assailed the Resolution which reversed founded belief that a crime has been
and set aside the March 27, 2003 Resolution of committed; and that the respondent, who is
the Provincial Prosecutor and ordered the filing probably guilty thereof, should be held for trial.
of the corresponding information against herein
Adapons. Although a preliminary investigation is not a trial
and is not intended to usurp the function of the
The DOJ pointed out that the dismissal on the trial court, it is not a casual affair; the officer
sole basis of the non attendance of the petitioner conducting the same investigates or inquires
at the clarificatory hearing was erroneous into the facts concerning the commission of
because: the crime with the end in view of determining
whether or not an information may be
(1) the investigating prosecutor did not state prepared against the accused.
the matters that still needed to be clarified to
justify the necessity for her to personally appear After all, the purpose of preliminary
that her failure to do the same would cause the investigation is not only to determine whether
dismissal of the complaint; and, [No stating of there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
matters to be clarified] founded belief that a crime has been committed
and the respondent therein is probably guilty
(2) the totality of the evidence presented thereof and should be held for trial; it is just as
already established probable cause to indict well for the purpose of securing the innocent
the respondents for the violation of Article 172, against hasty, malicious and oppressive
paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code. prosecution, and to protect him from an open
[Probable Cause] and public accusation of a crime, from the
trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial.
Although it was concededly discretionary on the Sales is merely witnesses for the
part of the investigating prosecutor to call for the Prosecution of the trial. Her participation
clarificatory hearing considering that Section in the criminal case as the complainant was
4(e)13 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court has used similar to that of the relator in other
the word may in assigning such prerogative to jurisdictions, the real party in interest in
him, the discretion was not unbounded because whose name a legal action is brought by the
the rule precisely stated that the clarificatory State, or who relates the facts on which the
hearing was to be set only "if there are such facts action is based.
and issues to be clarified from a party or a
witness." The offense of falsification complained of
was a public offense the charges for which
The CA bases its reason on the following that the could be initiated by anyone, as opposed to a
dismissal of the criminal complaint was private crime whose institution could be
warranted because the investigating prosecutor made only by particular individuals.22This
had not personally examined the petitioner as the distinction validated the non-indispensability
complainant due to her failure to attend the of the personal presence of the petitioner as
clarificatory hearing. It held that the personal the complainant in the proceedings to
examination of the complainant by the determine the existence of probable cause
investigating prosecutor was a prerequisite to the against the respondents. We note that she
finding of probable cause, citing in support had already submitted relevant sworn
Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which declarations on the falsification, as well as
pertinently provides as the affidavit of Jerico, her agent, containing
follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary allegations necessary and sufficient to
establish probable cause based on his direct
familiarity with her signature and his
personal knowledge of the denial of the
signature appearing in the Deed of Extra
Judicial Settlement Among Heirs presented
before the Regional Trial Court in Batangas.