SUMMARY INVESTIGATION -refers to investigation conducted by the Pros to determine the

existence or non-existence of probable cause in cases that do not require Prel. Inv. ( penalty not
more than 4 yrs, 2 mos and 1 day, regardless of fine.

SUMMARY RPOCEDURE – court procedure in criminal cases involving offenses in which the
penalty prescribed by law does not exceed 6 mos imprisonment or fine not exceeding
P1,000.00;

CASES FALLING UNDER THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY - . Offenses for which the law
prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment of one (1) year or a fine of five thousand pesos
(P5,000.00);

except in the following disputes:

1. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality

thereof;
2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the
performance of his official functions;
3. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and
municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to
amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
4. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnership or juridical entities,
since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either
as complainants or respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay
Rules);
5. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or
municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the
parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate Lupon;
67. Offenses where there is no private offended party;
8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being
committed or further continued, specifically the following:
a. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or
detention (see Sec. 412 (b) (1), Revised Katarungang Pambarangay
Law);
b. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his
rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived or on
acting in his behalf;
c. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary
injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support
during the pendency of the action; and
d. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.
9. Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of
justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;
 10. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL) (Sec. 46 & 47, R.A. 6657);
11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations
(Montoya vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended,
which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and mediation of
disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of the Department of Labor
and Employment);
12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly in
court (See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459).

INQUEST – came from the latin word “inquisita” w/c means to inquire into or to investigate

- An informal inquiry and summary investigation conducted by a public prosecutor

in criminal cases involving persons arrested and detained w/o the benefit of a
warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether or
not said persons should remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in
court.
- Conducted at any time of the week. However where an inquest falls on a non-
working day, Saturday, Sunday and Holiday and a prosecutor is not available, the
inquest proceedings shall be conducted on the 1 st day of office following the
arrest ( Medina vs Orozco, 18 S1168)

PURPOSE: To determine whether the person arrested w/o warrant shall remain under custody
and shall correspondingly be charged in court.

COVERAGE:

1. All offenses covered by the RPC and special laws, rules and regulations;
2. Where the respondent is a minor, the inquest investigation shall cover only offenses
punishable by imprisonment of not less than 6 years & 1 day + a finding of discernment
from the LSWDO ( Dept Circ No. 39, s of 2007)

WHEN COMMENCED: Shall be considered commenced upon receipt by the inquest prosecutor
from the law enforcement authorities of the complaint/referral documents which include:

a. The Affidavit of arrest;

b. The investigation report;
c. The statements of the complainant and witnesses and
d. other supporting evidence gathered by the police.

DUTIES OF THE INQUEST PROSECUTOR:

 1) Determine if complaint was brought for inquest w/n the pd provided under art 125 RPC
2) Determine if the arrest was made in accordance with sec 5, Rule 113
3) Where the arrest of the detained person was properly effected, ask if he desires to avail
himself a PI, and if so, explain the consequences thereof
 Execute a waiver of Art 125 w/ the assistance of counsel
 Set it for PI, resolve w/n 10 days
4) If detained person does not opt for PI, inquest prosecutor shall examine the SS/affidavits
of the complainant and witnesses and other supporting evidence
- Conduct informal & summary investigation for the purpose of determining prob
cause
5) prepare resolution
6) Have reso approved by Chief Prosec
7) If he finds probable cause, File Info within the period provided under Art 125 of RPC; ( 12
for light offenses, 18hrs for less grave & 36 hrs for grave counted fr time of arrest)
- If no prob cause, recommend release of the arrested/detained person

In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the
offended party or a peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of
the offended party or arresting officer or person.

Factors that are taken into consideration in determining whether or not Art 125 has been
violated:

1. The means of communication;

2. The hour of arrest;
3. Other circumstances such as
a. The time of surrender;
b. The material possibility for the prosecution to make investigation and file intime the
corresponding info because of the ff reasons:
i. Availability of the clerk of court to open the courthouse, docket the case and
have the order of commitment prepared; or
ii. Availability of the judge to act on the case;
iii. The fact that gov’t offices open for business transactions at 8am and close at
5pm

WHO SHALL CONDUCT INQUEST OF COMPLAINTS COGNIZABLE BY THE SANDIGANBAYAN?

-it shall be conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman provided that inquest of such
complaints committed outside NCR may be conducted by the City/Provincial Prosecutors who
are authorized to approve and file Info before the respective Clerks of Courts of RTCs pursuant
to Ombudsman Administrative Order No 11-94.

HOW ABOUT VIOLATION OF ELECTION LAWS?

 - Only prosecutor can conduct inquest of election offenses. COMELEC officials are
merely authorized to conduct preliminary investigation of election offenses. ( sec
2, par(1) COMELEC Resolution No. 9386 dated 4-13-12 and Memo dated 11-5-13)

Instances when the presence of detained person is dispensed with:

1. If he is confined in the hospital;

2. If he is detained in a place under maximum security

Remedies available to the arrested person:

1. before the filing of info in court:

a. Waive article 125 of RPC with assistance of counsel and avail of a 15-day PI
- No Motion for Reconsideration in inquest reso
b. File Petition for Habeas Corpus
c. May post bail if offense is bailable – IP will issue a certification that the person
arrested is being charged with an offense in an inquest proceeding and specifying
the recommended bail
- Posting bail does not constitute waiver of the invalidity of the warrantless arrest

2. After filing info in court:

a. file Motion to defer arraignment and pray for PI
b. Motion to Quash Info

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION - RULE 112

-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. ( SEC 1)

- the question sought to be answered: “ is the respondent probably guilty and therefore should
go to trial?

PURPOSES:

1) to determine whether a crime has been committed and there is probable cause to
believe that the accused is guilty thereof.
2) to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution of a crime
from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial
3) to protect the state from useless and expensive prosecutions

WHEN REQUIRED: where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months
and one (1) day without regard to the fine, except as provided in Section 7 of this Rule:
NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO A PI

1) It is not a constitutional/fundamental right and is not among the rights guaranteed in

the Bill of rts;
2) It is merely a statutory grant.
-hence a law not requiring PI is not unconstitutional cases, like in case of inquest cases
3) It is a substantive right and a component of due process in the administration of criminal
justice, not a mere formal or technical right To deny the claim of the accused to a PI wld
be to deprive him the full measure of his right to due process. ( Duterte vs
Sandiganbayan, 289 S 721)
4) It is a personal right
– can be waived expressly or impliedly

Implied waiver:
a) Accused failed to submit his counter-affidavit
b) Failure to invoke such rt or to question irregularity of the PI that was conducted but
instead submits himself for arraignment & go to trial;
c) In inquest cases, failure to invoke the same w/n 5 days from the time he lears of the
filing of the information ( mandatory)

NATURE OF Preliminary Investigation

1) It is an executive function
-it is a function that properly pertain to the public prosecutor who is given a broad
discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those whom he
believes to have committed the crime as defined by law and thus should be held for
trial;
2) It is preliminary in nature
-While probable cause demands more than “bare suspicion”, it requires less than
evidence which would justify conviction
-the occasion is for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well
founded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably
guilty thereof;
3) It is a summary and inquisitorial proceeding
- It is not a judicial trial but a summary proceeding intended to discover whether a
person may be reasonably charged w/ a crime, to enable the prosecutor to
prepare the information.
4) It is considered as an inquiry /proceeding wherein the prosecutor or investigating
officer, by nature of his functions acts as a quasi-judicial officer. (DOJ vs Alaon, 723 S
580) although the DOJ is not a quasi-judicial body

QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED:

PROBABLE CAUSE - Such evidence as would engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.

– does not mean “actual and positive cause” nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely
based on opinion and reasonable belief.

-a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a
crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect.

- no fixed formula for det prob cause; depends upon sound discretion of the prosec.

TWO KINDS OF DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE

EXECUTIVE level JUDICIAL level

1. conducted by the prosecutor
2. during PI b4 the filing of info
4. Determine whether or not a criminal
case must be filed in court
1. conducted by the judge
3. A prel inquiry/examination to det prob
cause for the issuance of warrant of
arrest
5. The judge must satisfy himself that
based on the evidence submitted,
there is necessity of placing the
accused under custody in order not to
frustrated the ends of justice

INQUEST PRELIMINARY INVGN

1. commenced upon receipt by the
inquest prosecutor from the law
enforcement authorities of the
complaint/referral docs
2. PI is commenced by:
a) Filing of complaint by the offended
party or any competent person
directly w/ the prosecutor’s office
b) By referral from or upon request of
the law enforcement agency that
investigated the criminal incident
c) Upon request of a person arrested
w/o warrant but executes a waiver
of Art 125 of RPC
d) By an Order or directive from the
court or other competent authority
e) Upon the initiative of COMELEC or
upon a written complaint by any
citizen, a candidate, a registered
political party, a coalition of

2.Applicable only in cases of warrantless
arrest
3. No counter-affidavit is required unless
resp seeks for a PI and waives Art 125.
In which case, PI shall be conducted
but must be terminated within 15 days
fr its inception
4. Covered by Rule 112, sec 6 of the Rev
Rules of Crim Proc & DOJ Circ No. 61
( 1993)
5. IP must determine if the arrest has
been made in accordance with a & b of
R-113, sec 5 of RRCP. Henceforth, he
shall det probable cause by examining
the SS/affids of the complainant &
other supporting evidence submitted
to him
6. MR or Appeal by petition for review to
the office of the Secretary is nt
available against the reso if IP ( except
dismissal of drug case, automatic
review)
7. The inquest proceedings must be
terminated w/n the period prescribed
in Art 125 of RPC
8. The inquest conducted must be for the
offense for which the detained person
registered parties or an
organization under the party-list
system or any accredited citizen
arm of the Comelec in cases of
election offenses
2.a)Applicable to cases wherein the resp
has not yet been arrested but believed by
the complainant to have committed an
offense.
b) in case arrested person /o warrant
executes a waiver of Art 125RPC
3. Resp is given 10 days to file counter-aff
& supporting docs
4. Covered by rule-112 of the RRCP
5. Within 10 days fr receipt of the
complaint, the IP shall:
a) Inhibit himself fr conducting a PI
b) Dismiss the case if he no ground to
continue with the inquiry
( prescription;lack of juris, etc)
c) Refer case to other concerned
agencies
d) Wait for counter-affidavit
6.The party nt satisfied may file an MR or
Petition for Review with the office of the
Secretary w/n the reglementary pd.
7PI shall be terminated w/n 60 days fr date
of assignment w/ one mot for extension of
10 days ( capital offense, complex issues,
w/ counter-charge, reassignment, other
valid reason
9. PI must be for the offense alleged in
the ss & supported by evidence on
 was arrested record

After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary

investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the time he learns of its filing,
ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense
as provided in this Rule.

OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT PI

1. Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;

2. National and Regional State Prosecutors and their assistants;
3. Other officers as may be authorized by law.
i. The COMELEC is mandated not only to investigate but also prosecute cases of
violation of election offenses;
ii. The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct PI and prosecute cases
involving public officers and employees

Note: a prosecutor has shared authority to investigate and prosecute Ombudsman cases not
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. With respect to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, the
Ombudsman has primary authority to investigate and exclusive authority to file and Prosecute
Sandiganbayan cases. ( Uy vs Sandiganbayan, 2-06-07)

iii. The PCGG with the assistance of the Office of the SolGen and other government
agencies was empowered to file and prosecute before the Sandiganbayan all
cases involving ill-gotten wealth pursuant to EO No. 14, series of 1986

NOTE: The filing of a Motion to Dismiss or for Bill of Particulars or Memorandum or

Manifestation shall not suspend the running of the 10-day pd to submit counter-affidavit/and
other supporting documents.

- These are prohibitive pleadings and shld be ignored. Its filing is deemed not to
have controverted complainant’s evidence.
- Extension of time of another 10 days shall not be allowed except in the interest
of justice ( like to engage the services of counsel; to examine or verify
authenticity of documents; undertake studies or research on novel, complicated
issues)

CLARIFICATORY QUESTIONING:
-w/n 10 days from submission of counter-affidavit when there are matters to be inquired
personally by him; must be terminated w/n 5 days from its inception.

1. No right to examine or cross-examine;

2. The investigating pros may record the facts and issues clarified, signed by the parties. The
same shall form part of the official record of the case;

3. No right to counsel – a confession obtained without counsel however is inadmissible

NOTE: The IP shall not require the submission of reply-affidavits and/or rejoinder except where
new issues of fact are invoked in the counter; when there is a need to controvert or rebut and
issue – submit w/n 5 days

PD TO RESOLVE – 60 days from date of assignment to the IV, (w/ a maximum of 2 15-day
extensions in cases involving capital offenses, complex issues, w/ counter-charges, consolidation
of related complaints, reassignement, other urgent valid reasons.

DRUG cases – must be resolved w/n 30 days from date of filing

VERIFIED MOTION TO RE-OPEN PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION – in case of newly discovered

evidence and /or in cases where respondent has not been notified of the complaint.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION – filed w/n 15 days from receipt of the resolution; must be
resolved w/n 30 days

- If information already filed in court, the MR shall not be given due course until
there is showing that the movant has filed a motion with the court for
suspension of the proceedings and the court granted such motion.
- The verified motion must state clearly and distinctly the grounds relied upon in
support of the motion.

PETITION FOR REVIEW – with the Secretary of Justice or w/ RSP ( for cases w/n j. of MTC) 15
days from receipt of adverse resolution

- Suspend proceedings in court for 60 days only

MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION - after court has acquired juris over the case, the motion must
be addressed to the court who has sole authority to grant or deny it based on newly discovered
evidence or if the accused substantial rights would be impaired.

REINVESTIGATION MAY BE CONDUCTED:

1. Pursuant to a court order for cases already filed in court;

 2. Pursuant to an order or directive from the RSP or the Secretary of Justice.

CASES NOT REQUIRING PI

1) IF filed with prosecutor – he must act on it w/n 10 days from filing of the complaint
based on affidavits and other supporting documents;
2) If filed with the MTC – if w/n 10 days he finds prob cause after personally evaluating the
evidence, he shall issue a warrant of arrest or commitment order if the accused had
already been arrested and hold him for trial.
- If NO prob cause, require the submission of additional evidence;
-if the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the accused under custody,
he may issue summons instead of warrant of arrest.

CAN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION BE ENJOINED?

General rule: criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or
final.

EXCEPTIONS:
"a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused (Hernandez vs.
Albano, et al., L-19272, January 25, 1967, 19 SCRA 95);
"b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or
multiplicity of actions (Dimayuga, et al. vs. Fernandez, 43 Phil. 304; Hernandez vs. Albano,
supra; Fortun vs. Labang, et al., L-38383, May 27, 1981, 104 SCRA 607);
"c. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub judice (De Leon vs. Mabanag, 70 Phil.
202);
"d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority (Planas vs. Gil, 67 Phil. 62);
"e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation (Young vs. Rafferty,
33 Phil. 556; Yu Cong Eng vs. Trinidad, 47 Phil. 385, 389);
"f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent (Sangalang vs. People and Avendia, 109 Phil.
1140);
"g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense (Lopez vs. City Judge, L-25795, October
29, 1966, 18 SCRA 616);
"h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution (Rustia vs. Ocampo, CA-G.R. No.
4760, March 25, 1960);
"i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance (Recto vs.
Castelo, 18 L.J. [1953], cited in Rañoa vs. Alvendia, CA-G.R. No. 30720-R, October 8, 1962; Cf,
Guingona, et al vs. City Fiscal, L-60033, April 4, 1984, 128 SCRA 577); and
"j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that
ground has been denied (Salonga vs. Paño, et al., L-59524, February 18, 1985, 134 SCRA 438).
"7. Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened
unlawful arrest of petitioners (Rodriguez vs. Castelo, L-6374, August 1, 1958)." (cited in
Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, p. 188, 1988 Ed.)
CAN COURTS DISTURB THE FINDING/NON-FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE BY THE
PROSECUTION?

GENERAL RULE: courts of law are precluded from disturbing the findings of public prosecutors
and the DOJ on the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the purpose of filing
criminal informations.

- The rationale behind the general rule rests on the principle of separation of powers, dictating
that the determination of probable cause for the purpose of indicting a suspect is properly an
executive function;

-as a general rule, if the information is valid on its face and there is no showing of manifest
error, grave abuse of discretion or prejudice on the part of the public prosecutor, courts should
not dismiss it for 'want of evidence,' because evidentiary matters should be presented and
heard during the trial. The functions and duties of both the trial court and the public prosecutor
in "the proper scheme of things" in our criminal justice system should be clearly understood.

EXCEPTION: unless such findings are tainted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction.

- the exception hinges on the limiting principle of checks and balances, whereby the judiciary,
through a special civil action of certiorari , has been tasked by the present Constitution " to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."