INQUEST

CONCEPT- AN INQUEST PROCEEDING IS

AN INFORMAL AND SUMMARY INVESTIGATION
CONDUCTED BY A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN
CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING PERSONS
ARRESTED AND DETAINED WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT OF A WARRANT OF ARREST ISSUED BY
THE COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING
WHETHER OR NOT THESE PERSONS SHOULD
REMAIN UNDER CUSTODY AND
CORRESPONDINGLY BE
CHARGED IN COURT.
RULE 113, SEC. 5
Arrest without warrant:

 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has

committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
 When an offense has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to
be arrested has committed it;
 When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he
is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
COMMENCEMENT:
The inquest proceedings shall be
considered commenced upon receipt by the
inquest prosecutor of the following:

 Affidavit of arrest duly subscribed

before him.
 Investigation report.

 Sworn statements of the complainant/s

and witness/es.
 Others.
INCOMPLETE DOCUMENTS:

When the documents presented are

insufficient to establish probable cause, the
prosecutor shall direct the law
enforcement officer to submit the required
evidence within the prescribed period under
Article 125, RPC. Failure to submit within
the period shall constrain the prosecutor to
release the detained person.
THE PRESENCE OF DETAINED PERSON
CAN BE DISPENSED WITH IF:

 Heis confined in a hospital;

 He is detained in a place under
maximum security.
WHEN ARREST WAS PROPER:

The detained person shall be asked if he

desires to avail himself of a preliminary
investigation. If he does, the consequences thereof
must be explained to him.

 Assistance of counsel

 Signing of waiver of Article 125 RPC.

WHEN ARREST WAS NOT PROPER:

Recommend the release of the person

arrested through a resolution.
RELEASE OF DETAINED PERSON
FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION:
Where the recommendation for the release of
the detained person is approved by the PG/PP/CP,
but the evidence on hand warrants the conduct of a
regular preliminary investigation, the prosecutor
shall:

 Serve the order of release on the law enforcement

officer having custody of him.
 Direct the said officer to serve upon the detainee
the subpoena of PI together with a copy of the
complaint and other supporting documents.
INQUEST PROPER:
Where the detained person does not opt for a
PI or otherwise refuses to execute the required
waiver, the prosecutor shall proceed with the
conduct of the inquest proceeding by examining the
affidavits of complainant and other evidence. The
conduct of an inquest should never be initiated
in the absence of an affidavit of arrest.
WHEN THERE IS A FINDING OF PROBABLE
CAUSE:

-The prosecutor shall prepare the resolution

with a recommendation that the
corresponding Information be filed in court.

WHEN THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE:

-Recommend the release of the arrested

person.
-Prepare a resolution of dismissal.
POSTING OF BAIL:

-If bailable: the arrested person may post

bail before the filing of Information. The inquest
prosecutor shall prepare a certification that the
person arrested is being charged for an offense in
an inquest proceeding and specifying the
recommended bail therefor.

-If non-bailable: The prosecutor must move

for the suspension of the bail hearing until the
termination of the FI.
TERMINATION OF INQUEST
PROCEEDINGS:

Article 125, RPC:

 12 hours for LIGHT offenses.

 18 hours for LESS GRAVE offenses.
 36 hours for GRAVE offenses.
 72 hours for violation of the Human Security
Act.
ARTICLE 9, RPC
 Grave felonies are those to which the law
attaches the capital punishment or penalties
which in any of their periods are afflictives;

 Less grave felonies are those which the law

punishes with penalties which in their maximum
period are correctional;

 Light felonies are those infractions of law for

the commission of which the penalty of arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding Php200.
ARTICLE 25, RPC
 Capital punishment- Death

 Afflictive penalties- Reclusion perpetua,

 Reclusion temporal, Prision mayor

 Correctional penalties- Prision correctional,

Arresto mayor, Suspension, Distierro

 Light penalties- Arresto menor

JURISPRUDENCE
 People vs. Generoso, G.R. No.182601, Nov. 10,
2014.
 The element of personal knowledge in Rule 113, (5)
(b) must be coupled with the element of immediacy.
 Reason: as the time gap from the commission of the
offense widens, the pieces of information gathered
are prone to become contaminated and subject to
external factors, interpretations and hearsay.
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
 CONCEPT- 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.
NO FIXED FORMULA FOR DETERMINING
 Probable cause vs. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
 Sound discretion of prosecutor
PURPOSES
 To secure the innocent against hasty, malicious
and oppressive prosecution
 To protect the State from having to conduct
useless and expensive trials.
NATURE

 Executive function-NPS

 Preliminary in nature-Only probable cause

 Summary and Inquisitorial-Not trial on the

merits
 Personal right/Waivable
 But this is a substantive right- To deny it would
mean denial of due process
OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT PI
 DOJ prosecutors
 Ombudsman

 COMELEC
COVERAGE
 Offenses punishable by imprisonment of 4 years
2 months and 1 day
 Those which the prosecutor believes that PI
should be conducted
 Those committed by public officials in the
performance of duties
COMMENCEMENT OF THE PI
 a. By the filing of a complaint by the offended
party
 b. By referral from or upon request of the law

enforcement agency (Important contents)

 c. Request by arrested person who executed

waiver of Article 125

d. By order of the court
e. Upon the initiative of the COMELEC
INITIAL ACTIONS BY THE PROSECUTOR
 Inhibit
 Issue subpoena

 Dismiss when:
 Lack of jurisdiction
 Prescription
 Complainant not authorized to file
 No Katarungan Pambarangay
SUBMISSION OF COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
 10 days from receipt of subpoena
CLARIFICATORY QUESTIONING
 10 days from submission of counter-affidavit or
after the lapse thereof
REPLY/REJOINDER
 5 days
SUBMISSION FOR RESOLUTION
 Preparation of the resolution
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 15 days
RULES ON EVIDENCE
 Definition- Evidence is the means, sanctioned by
these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact
ADMISSIBILITY
 When relevant to the issue and is not excluded by
law or rules
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
 Object evidence- those addressed to the senses of
the court

 Documentary evidence- consists of writings or

any material containing letters, words, figures,
symbols, numbers, or other words of written
expressions offered as proof of their contents.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
 Original document
 must be produced; when the subject of the
inquiry is the contents of a document;
 Exceptions:
 Lost, destroyed cannot be produced
 In the custody of adverse party who fails to produce
 Voluminous and fact sought to be established is only
the general result of the whole
 Public records in custody of public officer or recorded
in a public office.
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
 Qualifications of witness- Except as provided in
the next succeeding section, all persons who can
perceive, and perceiving, can make known their
perception to others, may be witnesses.

 Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of

the case, or conviction of a crime, unless otherwise
provided by law, shall not be a ground for
disqualification.
DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MENTAL
INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY

 Those whose mental condition, at the time of

their production for examination, is such
that they are incapable of intelligently making
known their perception to others;

 Children whose mental maturity is such as to

render them incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which they are examined and of
relating them truthfully.
DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF
MARRIAGE

 During their marriage, neither the husband nor

the wife may testify for or against the other
without the consent of the affected spouse except
in a civil case by one against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime by one against the other
or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.
DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

 The following cannot testify as to matters learned

in confidence in the following cases:
 The husband or the wife, during or after the
marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of
the other as to any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during the marriage
except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime by one against the other or
the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.
 Lawyer’s advice or communication to him, in the
course of, or with a view to professional employment.
 Doctors; in a civil case, as to information which was
necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, and
which would blacken the reputation of the patient.
 Minister or priests
 Public officer; as to communication made to him
in confidence, when public interest would suffer
by the disclosure
PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE
 No person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children or
other direct descendants.
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
 Admissions of a party- The act, declaration or
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be
given in evidence against him.
OFFER OF COMPROMISE

 In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an

admission of any liability, and is not admissible
in evidence against the offeror.

 In criminal cases, except those quasi-offenses or

those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer
of compromise by the accused may be received in
evidence as an implied admission of guilt

 An offer to pay or the payment of medical,

hospital or other expenses occasioned by an
injury is not admissible.
ADMISSION BY THIRD PARTY (RES INTER
ALIOS ACTA)

 The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an

act, declaration, or omission of another.
EXCEPTIONS

 Admission by co-partner or agent- The act or

declaration of a partner or agent of the party
within the scope of his authority and during the
existence of the partnership or agency, may be
given in evidence against such party after the
partnership or agency is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration.
 Admission by co-conspirator-The act or
declaration of a conspirator relating to the
conspiracy and during its existence, may be given
in evidence against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such
act or declaration.
 Admission by privies- Where one derives title to
property from another, the act, declaration, or
omission of the latter, while holding the title, in
relation to the property, is evidence against the
former.
 Admission by silence- An act or declaration made
in the presence and within the hearing or
observation of a party who does or says nothing
when the act or declaration is such as naturally
to call for action or comment if not true, and
when proper and possible for him to do so, may
be given in evidence against him.
CONFESSION
 The declaration of an accused acknowledging his
guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense
included therein, may be given in evidence
against him
SIMILAR ACT AS EVIDENCE
 Evidence that one did or did not do a certain
thing at one time is not admissible to prove that
he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at
another time; but it may be received to prove a
specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan,
system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the
like.
TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE
 A witness can testify only to those facts which he
knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which
are derived from his own perception, except as
otherwise provided.
EXCEPTIONS
 Dying declaration- The declaration of a dying person,
made under the consciousness of an impending death,
may be received in any case wherein his death is the
subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such death.

 Declaration against interest- The declaration of a

person deceased, or unable to testify, against the
interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the
declaration was at the time it was made so far
contrary to declarant’s own interest, that a reasonable
man in his position would not have made the
declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be
received in evidence against himself or his successors
in interest.
PEOPLE VS. GILBERTO VILLARICO, ET AL
G.R. NO. 158362, APRIL 4, 2011
 Part of res gestae- Statements made by a person while a
startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae.
 The term res gestae refers to those circumstances which are
the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act and
which are admissible when illustrative of such acts. In a
general way, res gestae includes the circumstances, facts and
declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to
illustrate its character and which are so spontaneous and
contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea
of deliberation and fabrication.
 The rule on res gestae encompasses the exclamations and
statements made by either the participants, victims, or
spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or
immediately after the commission of the crime when the
circumstances are such that the statements were made as a
spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement
of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the
declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement.
 Learned treatises
 Entries in the course of business
 Entries in official records
 Commercial lists
 Declaration about pedigree
 Family reputation
 Common reputation

 Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding- The

testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or
unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding,
involving the same subject matter, may be given in
evidence against the adverse party who had the
opportunity to cross-examine him.
OPINION RULE
 General rule- Opinion of a witness; not
admissible
 Exceptions:
 Opinion of expert witness- The opinion of a witness
on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience or training, which he is shown to possess,
may be received in evidence.
 Opinion of ordinary witness-admissible regarding:
identity of a person about whom he has adequate
knowledge; handwriting which he has sufficient
familiarity; mental sanity of a person with whom he
is sufficiently acquainted.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
 In criminal cases- The accused may prove his
good moral character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged.
 Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his
bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the offense charged.
 The good or bad moral character of the offended party
may be proved if it tends to establish the probability
or improbability of the offense charged.
BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTION
 Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence on the fact in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defense.
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS
 A person found in possession of a thing taken in
the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker
and the doer of the whole act
RIGHTS OF A WITNESS
 To be protected from irrelevant, improper or
insulting questions
 Not to be detained longer than the interests of
justice
 Not to be examined except only as to matters
pertinent to the issue
 Not to give an answer which will tend to subject
him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise
provided
 Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade
his reputation unless it be to the very fact at
issue. But a witness must answer to the fact of
his previous final conviction for an offense.
ORDER OF EXAMINATION
 Direct examination
 Cross-examination

 Re-direct examination

 Re-cross examination
LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS
 A question which suggests to the witness the
answer which the examining party desires is a
leading question. It is not allowed, except:
 On cross-examination
 On preliminary matters
 Ignorant witness, child of tender age, feeble mind or
deaf-mute
 Unwilling or hostile witness
 Adverse witness
 A misleading question is one which assumes as
true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
contrary to that which he has previously stated.
It is not allowed.
IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTY’S
WITNESS

 A witness may be impeached by the party against

whom he was called by: contradictory evidence,
by evidence that his general reputation for truth
honesty or integrity is bad, by evidence that he
has made at other times statements inconsistent
with his present testimony.
PARTY MAY NOT IMPEACH HIS OWN
WITNESS; EXCEPTIONS

 Hostile witness
 Adverse party
OFFER AND OBJECTION
 Offer of evidence- The court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally offered.
The purpose for which the evidence is offered
must be specified.
 When to make offer-
 Testimonial evidence; at the time the witness is
called to testify.
 Documentary/object evidence; after the presentation
of a party’s testimonial evidence
OBJECTIONS
 Objection to evidence offered orally must be made
immediately after the offer is made.
 Objection to a question propounded in the course
of the oral examination of a witness shall be
made as soon as the ground therefor shall become
reasonably apparent.
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
 An extrajudicial confession made by an accused
shall not be sufficient ground for conviction,
unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.

 Circumstantial evidence- Sufficient to convict

when:
 There is more than one circumstance
 The facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven
 The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
PP VS. ROMY LIM G. R. NO. 231989, SEPT
4, 2018
 SEC 21, RA 9165- Custody and Disposition of
confiscated, seized, xxx dangerous drugs xxx
 The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of
all dangerous drugs xxx for proper disposition in
the following manner:
 The apprehending team having initial custody and
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused
or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, and any elected public official
who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof.
RA 10640 ACT TO STRENGTHEN THE
ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE
GOVERNMENT, JULY 15, 2014
 The apprehending team having initial custody and control
of the dangerous drugs xxx shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized
items and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person from whom such items were
confiscated or seized, or his representative or counsel, with
an elected public official and a representative of the
National Prosecution Service or the media who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station
xxx Provided, finally, that noncompliance of these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said
items
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
 The chain of custody rule is but a variation of the
principle that real evidence must be
authenticated prior to its admission into
evidence. To establish a chain of custody
sufficient to make evidence admissible, the
proponent needs only to prove rational basis from
which to conclude that the evidence is what the
party claims it to be. In other words, in a
criminal case, the prosecution must offer
sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact
could reasonably believe that an item still is
what the government claims it to be. xxx
PP VS. VICENTE SIPIN G. R. NO. 224290,
JUNE 11, 2018

 The links in the chain of custody that must be

established are:
 1. The seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
 2. The turnover of the seized illegal drug by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
 3. The turnover of the illegal drug by the
investigating officer to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and
 4. The turnover and submission of the illegal drug
from the forensic chemist to the court.
PP VS. SIPIN
 The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause
for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section
21. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance
thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it
must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any
perceived deviations from the requirement of law. Its
failure to follow the mandated procedure must be
adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in
accordance with the rules on evidence. It should take note
that the rules require that the apprehending officers do not
simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state
this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with the steps
they took to preserve the integrity of the sized items. Strict
adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of
illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly
susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence.
 It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the
three witnesses to the physical inventory and
photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained
due to reason/s such as:
 Their attendance was impossible because the place of
arrest was a remote area;
 Their safety during the inventory and photograph of the
seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory
action of action or any person acting for and in his behalf;
 The elected officials themselves were involved in the
punishable acts sought to be apprehended;
 Earnest efforts to secure their presence within the period
required under Article 125 prove futile through no fault of
the arresting officers;
 Time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations,
which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented
them from obtaining the presence of the witnesses.
 MANDATORY PROCEDURE (PP VS. ROMY
LIM)
 1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the
apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with
the requirements of Section 21 as amended and its IRR;
 2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the
apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or
explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in
order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized/confiscated items;
 3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared
in the sworn statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal
must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead,
he must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in
order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause;
 4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such
absence, the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse
to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss
the case outright for lack of probable cause.
 THANK YOU….