Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Facts: this case is a petition for certiotari under rule 65 of the rules of court, seeking to
reverse the may 31, 1997 resolution and the october 24, 1997 order of then
ombudsman aniano a. Desierto who exonerated herminio t. Disini of the crimes of
corruption of public officials in relation to bribery and of violation of the anti-graft law.
The assailed resolution dismissed the charges against disini for lack of prima facie
evidence , while the assailed order denied petitioner s motion for reconsideration.
The pcgg charged disini with bribing the late president ferdinand e. Marcos as a
means to induce him to assist and favor individuals and corporate entities. The charge
pertained to the negotiation, award, signing, amendment and implementation of the
main and related contracts for the philippine nuclear power plant (pnpp) project of the
national power corporation (npc), as a result the afore-mentioned public official
accumulated and benefited from unlawful acquisition of income or profits.
Issue: whether or not the pcgg has submitted sufficient evidence to be the cause of
belief that an offense has been committed by disini, but in grave abuse of discretion of
the then ombudsman desierto dismissed the charges?
Ruling: yes. In sum, the pcgg presented sufficient evidence to engender a well-founded
belief that at least one crime had been committed, and that disini was probably guilty
thereof and should be held for trial. Also, the pcgg has sufficiently established probable
cause to show that disini had capitalized, exploited and taken advantage of his close
personal relations with the former president. Should the appropriate information(s) be
filed, nothing should prevent the ombudsman from presenting other pieces of evidence
to buttress the prosecution s case and to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
offense(s) charged. In the present case, herminio t. Disini is being charged as the
principal while the others are accessories or an accomplice. Petition granted, the
resolution and order are set aside and the ombudsman is directed to file in the proper
court the appropriate criminal charge(s) against him.
Hashim vs. Boncan
topic: preliminary investigation and inquest; definition, nature and purpose; definition
when required
Facts: hashim was caught red handed in possession of counterfeit treasury certificates.
A criminal action was filed against him. A warrant for his arrest was issued on the
strength of the fiscals sworn statement that he had conducted a preliminary
investigation and that he had examined the witnesses under oath. Prior to his
arraignment, his counsel filed a motion asking that the fiscal furnish the clerk of court
with the testimony of the witnesses who testified at the preliminary investigation, or an
extract thereof, as well as the alleged 560 counterfeit treasury certificate or in the
alternative, that the court immediately conduct an investigation.
Fiscals position: there is no necessity for the court to conduct another preliminary
investigation because the office of the fiscal has already conducted one in accordance
with the law.
to ask for an abstract testimony of such proceedings for no other purpose than to
scrutinize the evidence which convinced the fiscal and the judge that there was
reasonable ground to proceed against the petitioner, is contrary the nature of pis as a
brief investigation.
Section 1. Grounds
Section 2. Evaluation
Upon evaluating the complaint, the investigating officer shall recommend whether it
may be:
C) indorsed to the proper government office or agency which has jurisdiction over the
case;
Section 4. Procedure
A) if the complaint is not under oath or is based only on official reports, the
investigating officer shall require the complainant or supporting witnesses to execute
affidavits to substantiate the complaints.
B) after such affidavits have been secured, the investigating officer shall issue an
order, attaching thereto a copy of the affidavits and other supporting documents,
directing the respondents to submit, within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, his
counter-affidavits and controverting evidence with proof of service thereof on the
complainant. The complainant may file reply affidavits within ten (10)days after service
of the counter-affidavits.
C) if the respondents does not file a counter-affidavit, the investigating officer may
consider the comment filed by him, if any, as his answer to the complaint. In any event,
the respondent shall have access to the evidence on record.
D) no motion to dismiss shall be allowed except for lack of jurisdiction. Neither may a
motion for a bill of particulars be entertained. If respondents desires any matter in the
complainant's affidavit to be clarified, the particularization thereof may be doneat the
time of clarificatory questioning in the manner provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
F) if, after the filing of the requisite affidavits and their supporting evidences, there are
facts material to the case which the investigating officer may need to be clarified on, he
may conduct a clarificatory hearing during which the parties shall be afforded the
opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or cross-examine the witness
being questioned. Where the appearance of the parties or witnesses is impracticable,
the clarificatory questioning may be conducted in writing, where by the questions
desired to be asked by the investigating officer or a party shall be reduced into writing
and served on the witness concerned who shall be required to answer the same in
writing and under oath.
G) upon the termination of the preliminary investigation, the investigating officer shall
forward the records of the case together with his resolution to the designated
authorities for their appropriate action thereon. No information may be filed and
no complaint may be dismissed without the written authority or approval of the
ombudsman in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the sandiganbayan, or of the
proper deputy ombudsman in all other cases.
Cases falling under the jurisdiction of the office of the ombudsman which are
cognizable by municipal trial courts, including those subject to the rule on summary
procedure may only be filed in court by information approved by the ombudsman or the
proper deputy ombudsman.
Section 6. Notice to parties.
the parties shall be served with a copy of the resolution as finally approved by the
ombudsman or by the proper deputy ombudsman.
-b) the filing of a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation shall not bar the filing of the
corresponding information in court on the basis of the finding of probable cause in the
resolution subject of the motion. (as amended by administrative order no. 15, dated
february 16,2000)
to subject the respondent fiscal to the provisions of rule 108 sec. 11 (rights
of defendant afterarrest) is to
Prolong an otherwise brief investigation
Which said officer is authorized to conduct.
the
New rules of court have not repealed the existing laws
governing the fiscal's power toconduct pi. If neither sec. 11 nor sec. 13 of rule
108 is applicable to the pi conducted by the cityfiscal, as above shown, and if
existing legislation thereon is to be deemed repealed, then thematter would be
left uncovered by rule or law.