Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

MA. ROSARIO SANTOS-CONCIO, MA. SOCORRO V.

VIDANES, MARILOU investigation of the case, which found probable cause to indict the respondents-herein
ALMADEN, CIPRIANO LUSPO, MORLY STEWART NUEVA, HAROLD JAMES petitioners for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Homicide and Physical
NUEVA, NORBERT VIDANES, FRANCISCO RIVERA, MEL FELICIANO, and JEAN Injuries, and recommended the conduct of a separate preliminary investigation against
OWEN ERCIA, certain public officials.
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, as Secretary of the Alleging that their case had been prejudged and that the complaints filed against them
Department of Justice, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION - NATIONAL BUREAU OF were fatally defective because the same failed to state the acts or omissions
INVESTIGATION, PANEL OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS created under constituting the crime, petitioners prayed to annul the DOJ’s orders (creating an
Department of Justice Department Order No. 165 dated 08 March 2006, LEO B. Evaluating Panel and designating an Investigating Panel) and all orders, proceedings
DACERA III, as Chairman of the Panel of Investigating Prosecutors, and DEANA and issuances emanating therefrom; and to prohibit the DOJ from further conducting a
P. PEREZ, MA. EMILIA L. VICTORIO, EDEN S. WAKAY-VALDES and PETER L.
preliminary investigation on the case. The CA dismissed the same, hence, the present
ONG, as Members of the Panel of Investigating Prosecutors, the EVALUATING
PANEL created under Department of Justice Department Order No. 90 dated 08 petition.
February 2006, JOSELITA C. MENDOZA as Chairman of the Evaluating Panel, ISSUE
and MERBA WAGA, RUEL LASALA and ARNOLD ROSALES, as Members of the
Evaluating Panel Whether or not the complaints were sufficient to initiate preliminary investigation
pursuant to Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
G.R. No. 175057 January 29, 2008
RULING
FACTS Yes. A complaint for purposes of conducting a preliminary investigation differs from a
complaint for purposes of instituting a criminal prosecution. There should be no
The present case involves the “Ultra Stampede” incident which happened on February
confusion about the objectives, however, since, as intimated during the hearing before
4, 2006, when thousands of people swarmed the Philsports Arena (formerly Ultra) in
the appellate court, preliminary investigation is conducted precisely to elicit further facts
Pasig City to attend the first anniversary episode of Wowowee, a noontime game show
or evidence. Being generally inquisitorial, the preliminary investigation stage is often
aired by ABS-CBN. Hours before the show and minutes after the people were allowed
the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a
entry through two entry points at six oclock in the morning, the obstinate crowd along
crime, to enable the preparation of a complaint or information. The complaint is not
Capt. Javier Street jostled even more just to get close to the lower rate pedestrian gate.
entirely the affidavit of the complainant, for the affidavit is treated as a component of
The mad rush of the unruly mob generated much force, triggering the horde to surge
the complaint. All necessary allegations need not be contained in a single document. It
forward with such momentum that led others to stumble and get trampled upon by the
is unlike a criminal complaint or information where the averments must be contained in
approaching waves of people right after the gate opened. This fatal stampede claimed
one document charging only one offense, non-compliance with which renders it
71 lives and left hundreds wounded which necessitated emergency medical support
vulnerable to a motion to quash. A preliminary investigation can thus validly proceed
and prompted the cancellation of the shows episode.
on the basis of an affidavit of any competent person, without the referral document, like
An inter-agency fact-finding team was created by the DILG through then Sec. Reyes to the NBI-NCR Report, having been sworn to by the law enforcer as the nominal
investigate the circumstances surrounding the stampede, which submitted its report to complainant. After all, what is required is to reduce the evidence into affidavits, for while
the DOJ. The DOJ in turn through then Sec. Gonzalez constituted an evaluating panel reports and even raw information may justify the initiation of an investigation, the
to evaluate the DILG Report and determine whether there is sufficient basis to proceed preliminary investigation stage can be held only after sufficient evidence has been
with the conduct of a preliminary investigation on the basis of the documents submitted. gathered and evaluated which may warrant the eventual prosecution of the case in
Said Evaluating Panel concluded that there was no sufficient basis to proceed with the court.
conduct of a preliminary investigation because a) no formal complaints had been filed
A complaint for purposes of conducting preliminary investigation is not required to
by any of the victims or any authorized law enforcement agency, b) no documents were
exhibit the attending structure of a complaint or information laid down in Rule 110
submitted to prove the deaths and injuries alleged, c) the Fact-Finding Report did not
(Prosecution of Offenses) which already speaks of the People of the Philippines as a
indicate the names of the persons involved and their specific participation in the Ultra
party, an accused rather than a respondent, and a court that shall pronounce judgment.
Incident and d) names of the persons alleged to be responsible were not mentioned in
If a complaint or information filed in court does not comply with a set of constitutive
the victims’ sworn statements. The case was then referred to the NBI-NCR, which
averments, it is vulnerable to a motion to quash.The filing of a motion to dismiss in lieu
recommended the conduct of preliminary investigation for Reckless Imprudence
of a counter-affidavit is proscribed by the rule on preliminary investigation, however.
resulting in Multiple Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries against petitioners and
The investigating officer is allowed to dismiss outright the complaint only if it is not
seven others as respondents. Acting on this recommendation the DOJ then designated
sufficient in form and substance or no ground to continue with the investigation is
a panel of state prosecutors (Investigating Panel) to conduct the preliminary
appreciated.
GIRLIE M. QUISAY, Petitioner, Within five (5) days from his resolution, he shall forward the record of the case to the
provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his
v. deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction. They shall act on the resolution within ten (10) days from their
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. receipt thereof and shall immediately inform the parties of such action.

G.R. No. 216920 January 13, 2016 No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating
prosecutor without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city
prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.

FACTS
Thus, as a general rule, complaints or informations filed before the courts without the
On December 28, 2012, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City (OCP-Makati) prior written authority or approval of the foregoing authorized officers renders the same
issued a Pasiya or Resolution finding probable cause against petitioner for violation of defective and, therefore, subject to quashal pursuant to Section 3 (d), Rule 11 7 of the
same Rules, to wit:
Section 10 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610. Consequently, a Pabatid Sakdal or
Information was filed before the RTC charging petitioner of such crime. Petitioner
moved for the quashal of the Information against her on the ground of lack of authority SECTION 3. Grounds. - The accused may move to quash the complaint or information
on any of the following grounds:
of the person who filed the same before the RTC. Petitioner pointed out that the Pasiya
issued by the OCP-Makati was penned by Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP) De La Cruz
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
and approved by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor (SACP) Hirang, while the Pabatid
Sakdal was penned by ACP De La Cruz, without any approval from any higher
authority, albeit with a Certification claiming that ACP De La Cruz has prior written The CA correctly held that the City Prosecutor may delegate his power to his
authority or approval from the City Prosecutor in filing the said Information. Petitioner subordinates as he may deem necessary in the interest of the prosecution service and
in this light, the Pasiya or Resolution finding probable cause to indict petitioner of the
claimed that nothing in the aforesaid Pasiya and Pabatid Sakdal would show that ACP
crime charged, was validly made. However, the same could not be said of the Pabatid
De La Cruz and/or SACP Hirang had prior written authority or approval from the City
Sakdal or Information filed before the RTC, as there was no showing that it was
Prosecutor to file or approve the filing of the Information against her. As such, the approved by either the City Prosecutor of Makati or any of the OCPMakati' s division
Information must be quashed for being tainted with a jurisdictional defect that cannot chiefs or review prosecutors. All it contained was a Certification from ACP De La Cruz,
be cured. Both the RTC and the CA denied petitioner’s motion, hence, the present but in a series of previous cases, the Court had already rejected similarly-worded
petition. certifications, uniformly holding that despite such certifications, the Informations were
defective as it was shown that the officers filing the same in court either lacked the
ISSUE authority to do so or failed to show that they obtained prior written authority from any of
those authorized officers enumerated in Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules
Whether or not the Motion to Quash the Information should be granted on the ground
of Criminal Procedure.
of lack of authority of the person who filed the same

RULING Records are bereft of any showing that the City Prosecutor of Makati had authorized
ACP De La Cruz to do so by giving him prior written authority or by designating him as
a division chief or review prosecutor of OCP-Makati. There is likewise nothing that
Yes. Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states that
would indicate that ACP De La Cruz sought the approval of either the City Prosecutor
the filing of a complaint or information requires a prior written authority or approval of
or any of those authorized pursuant to OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32 in filing
the named officers therein before a complaint or information may be filed before the
the Pabatid Sakdal. Quite frankly, it is simply baffling how ACP De La Cruz was able to
courts, viz.:
have the Pasiya approved by designated review prosecutor SACP Hirang but failed to
have the Pabatid Sakdal approved by the same person or any other authorized officer
SECTION 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review. - If the investigating in the OCP-Makati.
prosecutor finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution
and information. He shall certify under oath in the information that he, or as shown by
the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his As a final note, it must be stressed that "[t]he Rules of Court governs the pleading,
witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed practice, and procedure in all courts of the Philippines. For the orderly administration of
and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the justice, the provisions contained therein should be followed by all litigants, but
complaint and of the evidence submitted against him; and that he was given an especially by the prosecution arm of the Govemment."
opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall recommend the
dismissal of the complaint.
Petition GRANTED.
REGINO SY CATIIS, Petitioner,
v. Sec. 9. Cause of the accusations. The acts or omissions
COURT OF APPEALS (17th Division), REYNALDO A. PATACSIL, ENRICO D. complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and
LOPEZ, LUZVIMINDA A. PORTUGUEZ and THE BUREAU OF JAIL aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise
MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but
MAKATI CITY JAIL, THROUGH ITS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE WARDEN, CHIEF in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to
INSP. ISAGANI M. GAMINO, Respondents. know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
G.R. NO. 153979 February 6, 2006

FACTS Clearly, it is now a requirement that the aggravating as well as the qualifying
circumstances be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or
Petitioner filed a letter-complaint against private respondents and a certain Margielyn information. Otherwise, they cannot be considered by the trial court in their judgment,
Tafalla before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, for violation of Art. 315, even, if they are subsequently proved during trial. A reading of the Information shows
No. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1689 that there was no allegation of any aggravating circumstance, thus Judge Bersamin is
(syndicated estafa) and other related offenses. Assistant City Prosecutor Jurado issued correct when he found that the lesser penalty, i.e., reclusion temporal, is imposable in
a Resolution finding the existence of probable cause for syndicated Estafa against case of conviction.
private respondents and Tafalla with no bail recommended. The Resolution was
approved by City Prosecutor Arellano and an Information was then filed on the same Section 13, Article III of the Constitution provides that all persons, except those charged
day by Prosecutor Jurado against private respondents and Tafalla before the RTC. with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall
Judge Lucas P. Bersamin issued an Order finding probable cause against all the before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties or be released on recognizance as
accused and approved the recommendation of the City Prosecutor that the charge be may be provided by law. In pursuance thereof, Section 4 of Rule 114, as amended,
non-bailable. The corresponding warrants of arrest were issued. However, upon private now provides that all persons in custody shall, before conviction by a regional trial court
respondents’ filing of an urgent motion to fix bail, Judge Bersamin issued an Order of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, be
reconsidering his earlier Order and declaring that the accused are entitled to bail. admitted to bail as a matter of right. Since the imposable penalty on private
According to him, the crime could not have been committed by a syndicate since there respondents, in case of conviction, is reclusion temporal, they are entitled to bail as a
are less than five persons who have been indicted. Further, a perusal of the information matter of right. Notably, Judge Bersamin issued his Order finding the crime charge
discloses that no aggravating circumstance has been alleged in the information and the bailable and fixed the amount of P150,000.00 each for the provisional liberty of private
penalty under the second paragraph of Sec.1, P.D. No. 1689, when there is neither respondents only after petitioner had submitted their comment/opposition to petitioners
mitigating or aggravating circumstance attendant, is the medium period of reclusion motion to fix bail.
temporal. Hence, the offense charged is unquestionably bailable
Petition DENIED.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Bersamin is correct in finding that the crime charged is bailable despite
that the imposable penalty ranges from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua

RULING

The Court answers in the affirmative.

Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took
effect on December 1, 2000, provide:

Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. The complaint or


information shall state the designation of the offense given by the
statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and
specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no
designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or
subsection of the statute punishing it.