Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Action

1. General Rule: The injured party may file a civil action independent of the criminal proceeding to
recover damages from the offender.
à Article 32 is a valid cause of a civil action for damages against public officers who impair the
Constitutional rights of citizens (Aberca vs. Ver)
à Even if the private prosecutor participates in the prosecution, if he is not given the chance to prove
damages, the offended party is not barred from filing a separate civil action
2. Civil action for recovery of civil liability impliedly instituted, EXCEPT
1. Waiver
2. Reservation of right to institute separate action
3. Institution of civil action prior to criminal action
à NOTE: Under SC Circular 57-97, all criminal actions for violations of BP Blg. 22 shall be deemed to
necessarily include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such civil action separately
shall be allowed or recognized.
à San Ildefonso Lines vs. CA – past pronouncements of the SC that the requirement in Rule 111 that a
reservation be made prior to the institution of an independent civil action is an “unauthorized
amendment” to substantive law is now no longer controlling. Far from altering substantive rights, the
primary purpose of the reservation requirement is to avoid multiplicity of suits, to prevent delays, to
clear congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court, and in short, the attainment of justice
with the least expense and vexation to parties-litigants.
3. Civil action suspended when criminal action filed, EXCEPT
1. Independent civil action (Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of NCC)
2. Prejudicial civil action
3. Civil case consolidated with criminal action
4. Civil action not one intended to enforce civil liability arising from the offense (e.g., action for legal
separation against a spouse who committed concubinage)

4. Prejudicial question arises when

1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
action
2. The resolution of such issue will determine whether the criminal action will proceed or not
à Requisites for a prejudicial question:
1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
action: and
2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed
à Petition for suspension of criminal action is to be filed at any time before prosecution rests.
5. Remedies
a. Reservation of right to institute separate civil proceedings to recover civil liability arising
from crime
à Must be made before prosecution presents evidence
à Action instituted only after final judgment in criminal action
b. Petition to suspend the criminal action
à May be filed upon existence of a prejudicial question in a pending civil action
à Filed at any time before the prosecution rests
6. Extinction of penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil unless the extinction
proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not
exist.
à Final judgment in civil absolving defendant from civil liability not a bar to criminal action
7. Filing fees:
1. Actual or compensatory damages – filing fees not required
2. Moral, temperate and exemplary – filing fees required
1. If alleged, fees must be paid by offended party upon filing of complaint or information
1. If not alleged, filing fees considered a first lien on the judgment

Rule 112 Preliminary Investigation

1. Preliminary investigation – inquiry or proceeding to determine if there is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime cognizable by the RTC has been committed, and that the
respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial
à A preliminary investigation is only necessary for an information to be filed with the RTC; complaints
may be filed with the MTC without need of an information, which is merely recommendatory (Tandoc
vs. Resultan)
à Absence of a preliminary investigation is NOT a ground for a motion to quash the information; an
information filed without a preliminary investigation is defective but not fatal; in its absence, the
accused may ask for one; it is the fiscal’s refusal to conduct a preliminary investigation when the
accused demands one which is a violation of the rights of the accused (Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan).
Court should not dismiss the info, but hold the case in abeyance and either: (1) conduct its own
investigation; or (2) require the fiscal to hold a reinvestigation.
2. GENERAL RULE: The fiscal conducts the preliminary investigation before filing an information with
the RTC, EXCEPT where the accused is lawfully arrested without a warrant and an inquest is
conducted.
3. Right to Preliminary Investigation
à A personal right and may be waived
à Waived by failure to invoke the right prior to or at least at the time of the plea
4. Who conducts Preliminary Investigation
1. Provincial or city fiscals and their assistants
2. Judges of MTC and MCTC
3. National and regional state prosecutors
4. Such other officers as may be authorized by law
5. Duly authorized legal officers of COMELEC
1. The Ombudsman
2. The PCGG, in cases of ill-gotten wealth
5. Procedure
a. If conducted prior to arrest:
i. Complainant files complaint with:
(a) Provincial or city fiscal
(b) Regional or state prosecutor
(c) MTC or MCTC judge, excluding MTC judge of Metro Manila or chartered
cities
 (d) Other offices authorized by law
⁃ Investigating officer either dismisses complaint or asks by subpoena
complainant and respondent to submit affidavits and counter-
affidavits
⁃ If the investigating officer finds prima facie evidence, he
prepares an information and a resolution
à i.e., if fiscal finds reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and accused is
probably guilty thereof
à Prima facie evidence is that evidence which, standing alone, unexplained and uncontradicted, would
be enough to merit a conviction of the accused
iv. Otherwise, he recommends the dismissal of the complaint
à If the investigating officer is an MTC judge, and he finds that probable cause exists and that there is
a need to place the accused under custody, then he may issue a warrant of arrest
à Flores vs. Sumaling – What differentiates the present rule from the previous one is that while
before, it was mandatory for the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused if
he found probable cause, the rule now is that the investigating judge’s power to order the arrest of the
accused is limited to instances in which there is a necessity for placing him in custody “in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice.” It is therefore error for the investigating judge to order the issuance of
a warrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable cause, without making any finding of a necessity to
place the accused in immediate custody to prevent a frustration of justice.
1. Investigating officer forwards records to the city fiscal or chief state prosecutor
1. City fiscal or state prosecutor either dismisses the complaint or files the information in court
à Decision prevails over decision of the MTC judge
vii. Records will not form records of the case proper
à Court on its own or on motion may order production of record
b. If conducted after warrantless arrest
1. If accused waives Art. 125, RPC and asks for a preliminary investigation, with the assistance of
counsel, then the procedure for one prior to arrest is followed
1. Inquest conducted as follows
(a) Fiscal determines the validity of the arrest
(b) Fiscal determines existence of prima facie evidence based on the statements of the complainant,
arresting officer and witnesses
(c) Fiscal either dismisses the complaint and orders the immediate release of the accused, OR
prepares and files an information
à While fiscal has quasi-judicial discretion whether or not to file an information, once it is filed with
the court, the court acquires jurisdiction giving it discretion over the disposition of the case and the
Sec. of Justice should refrain from entertaining petitions for review or appeals from the decision of
fiscal (Crespo vs. Mogul; Velasquez vs. Undersecretary of Justice)
NOTE: Information may be filed by offended party, peace officer or fiscal without preliminary
investigation.

6. Remedies
a. Motion for preliminary investigation
à Filed when accused is arrested without warrant
à Must be with assistance of counsel and after waiving Art. 125, RPC
 b. Motion for preliminary investigation
à Filed within 5 days after accused learns an information against him has been filed
without a preliminary investigation
c. Motion for re-investigation
d. Appeal to DOJ
à Filed upon denial of his motion for a preliminary investigation, on the ground that
his rights to due process of law were violated, ousting the court of jurisdiction
e. Petition for prohibition
à Filed with appellate court to stop the criminal proceedings
à Ordinarily, injunction will not lie but may be granted in certain cases
à When prohibition proper to restrain criminal proceedings:
⁃ When strong-arm tactics are used for vindictive purposes (Salonga vs. Cruz-
Pano)
⁃ When the accused is deprived of his rights
⁃ When the statute on which the charge is based is null and void
⁃ When it will aid the administration of justice (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan)
⁃ When multiplicity of suits will be avoided (Guingona vs. City Fiscal)