Download Rule 112 - Inigo PDF

TitleRule 112 - Inigo
TagsProsecutor Complaint Affidavit Arrest Search Warrant
File Size327.6 KB
Total Pages22
Table of Contents
                            SANCHEZ vs. DEMETRIOU
TEEHANKEE JR. vs. MADAYAG
An example of “Other officers as may be authorized by law to conduct preliminary investigation” is the Ombudsman. In the case of UY VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (312 SCRA 77 [August 9, 1999]), the Ombudsman and his deputies are only authorized to conduct preliminary investigation of public officers in cases which are falling within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (SB).So even if the crime is a violation of the Anti-Graft law, or a crime committed by a public officer in relation to his office, if he is below Grade 27, the proper court is not the SB, but the MTC or RTC. Before kasi, the original SC interpretation of the Ombudsman law as laid down in the first case of DELOSO VS. DOMINGO (November 21, 1990), is that, all crimes committed by public officers should be investigated by the Ombudsman.
	TATAD vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
	SANTIAGO vs. GARCHITORENA
	SOCRATES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
		SERVANTES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
	MERCADO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
	HO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
                        
Document Text Contents
Page 22

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 112
Preliminary

Investigation

f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for

vengeance; and
j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a

motion to quash on that ground has been denied.

There are some interesting cases where the SC intervened. Normally, hindi nakikialam
ang SC eh – i-acquit mo na lang yan sa trial. But there are cases when the SC is convinced
that there is no probable cause, bakit mo pa pahirapan yung tao? You can order the case
to be dismissed. These are rare instances where the SC becomes activist.

In the case of ALEADO VS. DIOKNO (232 SCRA 192) two (2) lawyers: Atty. Diosdado Jose
Aleado and Atty. Roberto Mendoza who were associates in the office of senator Jovito
Salonga were implicated in the murder of a German national. There was an investigation
and a case was filed against them. Salonga entered into picture and questioned whether
or not there is probable cause. [Normally, hindi dapat yan eh. Yang probable cause, sa
fiscal lang yan, hindi dapat sa SC.]

But surprisingly, the SC reviewed and said that there was no probable cause which
justified the issuance of order of arrest of the 2 lawyers. The SC ordered that the warrant
of arrest be set aside and the trial court is permanently enjoined from further proceeding
against them. In effect, the respondent judge was ordered to dismiss the information
before him. (Aleado vs. Diokno, supra)

It was a very rare situation. That does not happen every year. It does not happen even
in 10 or 20 years! Yan ang mga kuyaw where the Court has the power to issue injunction
order to stop a case when there is no probable cause. Salonga yata yan!


SPACE-FILLER #2:

A recently graduated lawyer wanted to make everyone believe that he was in great
demand, so he ordered his secretary to keep clients waiting for a long time.

A man arrived and asked to see the lawyer, so the secretary did as she was told. After a
while, she showed the man into her boss’s office, while the lawyer pretended to be on the
phone handling a delicate situation with an important client. The lawyer ended the make-
believe phone call and hung up. He asked the man: “How can I help you?”

The man answered: “I’m here to install the phone line.”

Source: Reader’s Digest, March 2001

Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

78

Similer Documents