8/11/2019 Rule 111 - Cornejo

1/6

Rule 110 Sec 16

CONTROL OF THE PROSECUTION

When the case is dismissed upon motion of the prosecutor, the private prosecutor cannot appeal the same except when the case is

dismissed on the ground that the acts alleged do not constitute and offense (QUESTION OF LAW)

Baes V Judge

A filed a complaint against B for the commission of the crime against religious worship. After the preliminary investigation, the fiscalfiled a petition to dismiss based on the ground that the act imputed to B does not constitute the crime charged. ( according to the spirit

of article 133 of the Revised Penal Code

A filed motions for reconsideration but were denied.

A filed for mandamus

Mandamus is granted because . the question raised is one of law, that is, the determination of whether or not the facts alleged in the

complaint constitute the crime charged.

Rule 111to establish connection of the civil action (damages) arising from the crime

Implied institution of civil action with the criminal actionno qualification

A person criminally liable, is civilly liable

The only czivil action that is impliedly is instituted is that the civil action (damages) flowing from the crime subject of the

criminal action, all other civil action arising from other sources are not deemed institutedconnection must be established

Exceptions to implied institution:

o Waiver, reservation, institution ahead of criminal action

No counterclaim etc may be filed by the accused in the criminal case where he is the accused

Criminal action for violation for BP 22no reservation to file civil action separately

MTC (exclusive original jurisdiction)

o Accused is prosecuted & convicted of violation of BP 22(check amount1M)

o

Can MTC award damages over & beyond its jurisdictional limit of 300k/400k? YES. For actual damages. Not

anything beyond the amount of the check

Rule 111 Sec 2when civil action is suspended

Preference in the prosecution of the criminal over civil action (civil action arising from the crime subject of the criminal

action)

Exception: PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONpreference will be given to the civil action because resolution of the civil action

will be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal action

Requisites / Elements of prejudicial question

o It must be a previously instituted civil action

o Will the resolution of the civil action determine WON criminal action will proceed or whether it will be

determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal action

Civil & Admin actionno prejudicial question

They filed violation of 3019 against paymaster for not being given their salaries (undue injury)

SC: Civil action is prejudicial to criminal action

WON they are designated sectoral representatives

NOT A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION:

Annulment of the second marriage

8/11/2019 Rule 111 - Cornejo

2/6

A married B, subsequently, A married C but A said he was simply forced to marry B.

A filed for annulment of marriage to B

If marriage is contracted during the subsistence of a previous marriage is null & void

Annulment is not per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal liability

Art 349 RPC penalizes the act of contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage

Veronica Penebro V CA (2004)

Sec 4 (Effect of death of the convict)

Total extinction of criminal liability (Death before final judgment)

The only civil liability if the convict dies before final judgment is the civil liability flowing from the crime from which he

was convicted shall be extinguished

Actions based on quasi-contracts, quasi-delicts, contractcivil action shall proceed

Rule 111 Sec 5

Example (DISMISSAL OF CIVIL ACTION IS NOT A BAR)

Gorospe V Nolasco

An analysis of the averments of the civil complaint and those of the criminal information is in order. The complaint in the

civil case was planted upon the claim that the sum of three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) obtained by petitioner from

respondent Romero was used by the former to acquire Lot No. 19, Block No. 58 of the Rita Legarda Subdivision, the title towhich was placed in petitioner's name. That is why, the complaint prayed that defendant be ordered to deliver to plaintiff the

absolute ownership of that Lot or, in the alternative, to return to said plaintiff the sum of three thousand pesos (P3,000.00).

During the pendency of the civil case, the matter was referred by respondent Romero to the city fiscal's office for criminal

prosecution of petitioner for estafa. Further investigation was made by the fiscal. It was then that allegedly the complaining

witness came to know that the sum of three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) received by petitioner from said respondent for the

purchase of a lot in Rita Legarda Subdivision, was never paid to or acknowledged by the said subdivision; and that the

alleged contract to purchase, delivered by petitioner to respondent Romero, was not genuine for the reason that 'the money

therein mentioned was not acknowledged by the said subdivision in payment of the lot mentioned therein'. Thus, it is, that in

the criminal information, petitioner was charged with having feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted the said

sum to his own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of respondent Pastor Romero and his daughter Sofrania

Romero.

The situation is this: The civil complaint was upon the theory that the money was used for the purchase of a lot; the criminal

information, in turn, alleges that the money was never used for the purchase of any lot at all but, on the contrary, wasembezzled by petitioner.

... Fraud is not an essential element of the civil suit; petitioner could well have been held civilly liable for breach of contract

with respondent Romero. Upon the other hand, the action for estafa is predicated upon deceit without which there can be no

estafa. So that, the one is entirely distinct and may be litigated independently from the other. Sy vs. Malate Taxicab and

Garage, Inc., G.R. No. L-8937, November 28, 1957.

We find the above considerations to be correct and in accord with the provisions of Article 31 of the New Civil Code to the

effect that "When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony,

such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.".

Rule 111 Sec 6 & 7

EXAMPLE (CASE W/ PREJUDICIAL QUESTION)

FACTS:

D e l i a E s t r e l l a n e s a n d B a r t o l o m e B i n a o h a n w e r e d e s i g n a t e d a s i n d u s t r i a l l a b o r sectoral

representative and agricultural labor sectoral representative respectively, for theSan gg un ia ng

Bayan of Jima lal ud, Prov ince of Negr os Orie ntal by then Secr etar y of theDepartment of Local Government.

They took their oath of office. Petitioners filed a

petitionw i t h t h e O f f i c e o f t h e P r e s i d e n t f o r r e v i e w a n d r e c a l l o f s a i d d e s i g n a t i o n s . T h e l a t t e r ,

however, denied the peti tion and enj oined M ayor Re ynaldo Tuanda to recognize privaterespondents as

sectoral representatives. Undaunted, petitioners filed an action with the RTCof Du ma gu ete Ci ty to de clare nu ll an d

void the designations of private respondents

8/11/2019 Rule 111 - Cornejo

3/6

ass e c t o r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . M e a n w h i l e , p r i v a t e r e s p o n d e n t s a l s o f i l e d b e

f o r e t h e Sandiganbayan a complaint against petitioners for violation of section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019

o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t p e t i t i o n e r s r e f u s e d t o g i v e t h e m t h e i r p e r d i e m s , s a l a r i e s a n d o t h e r p r i v i l e g

es a nd be nefi ts a s sec tora l r epre senta tive s. Peti tio ners fil ed a moti on with theSandiganbayan for suspension of

the proceedings on the ground that a prejudicial questionexists in the civil case pending before the RTC of

Dum agu ete Ci ty. The RTC re nde red adecision declaring null and void

ab initio

the designations issued by the Department of LocalGovernment to the private respondents as sectoral representatives for

having been done inviolation of Section 146 (2) of the Local Government Code. Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayanissued a

resolution denying the motion for suspension of proceedings filed by petitioners.

Isthe legality or validity of private respondents designation as sectoral representatives aprejudicial

quest ion just ifyi ng s uspen sion of t he p rocee ding s i n t he cr imi nal case agai nstpetitioners? In the event that

private respondentsdesignations are finally declared invalid,may still be considered

de facto

public officers entitled to compensation for services actuallyrendered?

HELD:

T h e i s s u e i n t h e c i v i l c a s e c o n s t i t u t e s a v a l i d p r e j u d i c i a l q u e s t i o n t o w a r r a n t s u s p e n s i o n o f

th e a r ra ig nm en t an d f ur th er pr oc ee di ng s i n t he cr im in al ca se ag ai ns tpetitioners. The facts and issues

involved in the civil action and the criminal case are closelyrelated. The filing of the criminal case was premised on

petitionersalleged partiality andevident bad faith in not paying private respondents salaries and per diems as

sectoralrepresentatives, while the civil action was instituted precisely to resolve whether or not thedesignations of private

respondents as sectoral representatives were made in accordancewith law

Sec 6 & 7 Prejudicial Question

It must be remembered however, that a prejudicial question does not conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused but

simply tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case. A party

who raises a prejudicial question is deemed to have hypothetically admitted that all the essential elements of a crime have been

adequately alleged in the information, considering that the prosecution has not yet presented single evidence on the indictment or may

not yet have rested its case. A challenge of the allegations in the information on the ground of prejudicial question is in effect a

question on the merits of the criminal charge through a non-criminal suit.

8/11/2019 Rule 111 - Cornejo

4/6

Rule 112PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

Determination of probable cause for purpose of:

1.

Indictmentexclusive w/in the province of fiscal

Consists of facts & circumstances that will engender a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that

the accused is probably guilty thereof

There must be a certification that a preliminary investigation has been performed (SC: not the sole basis of the judge

in determining probable cause for issuance of warrant of arrest) -Placer V Villanueva

2. Issuance of warrant of arrestw/in the jurisdiction of the court

If the judge, upon determination that there is no probable cause, he must dismiss the case. Dismissal must not be

without prejudice

Sec 2

Other officers who may be authorized by law:

OmbudsmanGeorge UY V Sandiganbayan (public officer/employee)

Ombudsman has primary & plenary authority even if the cases are cognizable by the sandiganbayan and regular court.

Special Prosecutorto conduct preliminary investigation over cases involving public officers/employees cognizable by the

Sandiganbayan

Preliminary investigation- matter of right (4y2m1d)

PROCEDURES (2)

SEC 3regular procedure

SEC 7procedure for purposes of inquest (If there has been: lawful warrantless arrest)

Rule 112 Preliminary Investigation

Rule 112. Sec 1Preliminary investigation defined

Preliminary Investigationan inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-

founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial

preliminary because it is yet to be followed by trial; only evidence as may engender a well-grounded belief that an

offense has been committed

Purposesecure the innocent against hasty, malicious & oppressive prosecutions, protect him from open & public accusation

of a crime, from the trouble, expense, anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the state from useless and expensive

prosecutions

3-fold purpose

o To inquire concerning the commission of a crime and the connection of the accused with it, in order that he may be

informed of the nature and character of the crime charged against him, and if, there is probable cause for believing

him guilty, that the state may take the necessary steps to bring him to trial

o To preserve the evidence and keep witnesses within the control of the state

o To determine the amount of bail, if the offense is bailable

Nature of right to preliminary investigation

o Merely inquisitorial, not a trial on the merits

8/11/2019 Rule 111 - Cornejo

5/6

o Sole purposedetermine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that

the accused is guilty thereof

o Not a judicial proceeding

o Quasi-judicial function of prosecutoran officer of the executive department exercising powers akin to those of a

court

o Does not require the presence of the accused, may be conducted ex parte

o Not a creation of the Constitution; Origin- Statutory

o Generallynot an essential part of due process of law (may be suppressed)

o

Exceptionit becomes a part of due process when granted by law

US V Marfori (conviction w/o prelim investigationw/o due process of law)

Justice of peace who held the preliminary investigation discharged the accused on the ground that he was not guilty of the

crime with which he was charged.

He appears to have been of opinion that the crime ofinjurias graveshad not been committed, and that it was a mere

misdemeanor of the class defined and penalized in book 3 of the Penal Code.

the complaining witness renewed the complaint in the Court of First Instance, an information was filed in that court and the

accused brought to trial thereon without further proceedings.

During arraignment, counsel for accused pleaded not to proceed (no jurisdiction) - no order remainding the accused for trial

having been issued by a competent magistrate as a result of a preliminary trial held in accordance with law.

Trial judge proceeded and convicted the accused

SC Reversed

However, in more recent cases, it was held that the absence of the preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash a complaint,

instead, the following must be done:

o Hold in abeyance the proceedings

o Remand the case to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal/ Ombudsman

Waiver of preliminary investigationthe right is a personal right, which may be waived by the accused either expressly or by

implication. It is deemed waived when:o Accused failed to claim it before he pleaded

o By his silence

o Failure to request for it within 5 days from the time he learns of the filing of the complaint or information

o When accused posted a bond for his release & subsequently proceeds to trial without claiming that he did not have

the benefit of a preliminary investigation

o Any irregularity that attended the investigation

o Negligence of the accused to attend to the scheduled date of investigation

o Absence of the accused

o Posting bail & submitting to arraignment

NOTE: Posting bail ALONE does not constitute waiver of right to preliminary investigation

Cases wherein preliminary investigation is required depends upon the imposable penalty for the crime charged in the

complaint or information filed and not upon the imposable penalty for the offense which may be found to have been

committed by the accused after a preliminary investigation.

Rule 112 Sec 2Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigation

1.

Provincial or city prosecutors & their assistants

2.

National & Regional State Prosecutors

3. Other officers as may be authorized by law:

a. Ombudsman

8/11/2019 Rule 111 - Cornejo

6/6

b.

Graft Investigator Officers

c.

Special Prosecutor

d. COMELEC legal officers

e. PCGG

Authority of Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigation not exclusive, concurrent authority with regular courts

RA 6670 - AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Sec 15 of RA 6770vests with the Ombudsman the power to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of public officers

/ employees regardless of WON they are cognizable by the Sandiganbayan (PLENARY POWER) Special Prosecutorlimited only to those cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan

No need to deputize all prosecutors because they are already authorized by law to investigate the commission of crimes under

the RPC (Revised Administrative Code)

Rule 112 Sec 3 PROCEDURE

30-45 days total

10 daysfor the investigating officer to dismiss / subpoena the respondent

10 daysupon receipt of subpoena, for the respondent to file a counter-affidavit

10 daysfrom the submission of counter-affidavit / expiration of period for filing the same

5 daysmax period of hearing

10 daysafter the preliminary investigation, investigating officer must determine WON there is a probable cause