1)dechavez vs sb

nature of preliminary investigation and its objective

definition of probable cause for the purposes of preliminary investigation

mere suspension < probable cause < guilty beyond reasonable doubt

Probable cause, as used in preliminary investigations, has been defined as the

existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a
reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that
the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.31 We
reiterate this in the case of Pimentel Jr. v. COMELEC

2) pp vs ca 126005
ledesma vs ca

objectives of prelim investigation

The primary objective of a preliminary investigation is to free respondent from the

inconvenience, expense, ignominy and stress of defending himself/herself in the
course of a formal trial, until the reasonable probability of his or her guilt in a
more or less summary proceeding by a competent office designated by law for that
purpose. Secondarily, such summary proceeding also protects the state from the
burden of the unnecessary expense an effort in prosecuting alleged offenses and in
holding trials arising from false, frivolous or groundless charges.

NOTE: INCLUDE YOUR NAMES SA CASE DIGEST.

3) Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan

no prelim investigation conducted.

congressman pilapil alleged that the case should be dismissed because of such. but
SC said during the rtc level, congressman pilapil already fialed to tell the court
that there was no pronouncement. absence of prelim inves does not affect juris of
court and validity of the information. he raised the issuer at the sc level, sc
then took his silence as waiving his right. he should have done that before
arraignment

SECTION 2

remember mtc judges cannot conduct preliminary investigations because of a circular

from sc. naa na sa letter b. tanggala na!

4) Turingan vs Judge Garfin 153284

- no authority to prelim invest under ra 8282

5) Tilendo v. Ombudsman
-Administrative Order No. 07 (AO 7), as amended, or the Rules of Procedure of the
Office of the Ombudsman outlines the procedure applicable to all criminal and
administrative complaints cognizable by the Ombudsman. Section 2, Rule II of AO 7
clearly states that "upon evaluating the complaint, the investigating officer shall
recommend whether it may be: (a) dismissed outright for want of palpable merit; (b)
referred to respondent for comment; (c) endorsed to the proper government office or
agency which has jurisdiction over the case; (d) forwarded to the appropriate
office or official for fact-finding investigation; or (e) referred for
administrative adjudication; or (f) subjected to a preliminary investigation.
- in this case, nbi officials di pwede mag prelim invest. so sino ang authorized
under the rules? Further, the NBI is not among those authorized under Section 3,
Rule II of AO 7 to conduct preliminary investigations for complaints cognizable by
the Ombudsman, to wit:

1) Ombudsman Investigators;

2) Special Prosecuting Officers;

3) Deputized Prosecutors;

4) Investigating Officials authorized by law to conduct preliminary investigations;

or

5) Lawyers in the government service, so designated by the Ombudsman.

6) castro vs deloria
- can ombudsman prelim invest for offenses na wala syang original jurisdiction?
- Section 15 of RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The law defines such primary jurisdiction as
authorizing the Ombudsman "to take over, at any stage, from any investigatory
agency of the government, the investigation of such cases." The grant of this
authority does not necessarily imply the exclusion from its jurisdiction of cases
involving public officers and employees cognizable by other courts. The exercise by
the Ombudsman of his primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan is not incompatible with the discharge of his duty to investigate and
prosecute other offenses committed by public officers and employees. Indeed, it
must be stressed that the powers granted by the legislature to the Ombudsman are
very broad and encompass all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance
committed by public officers and employees during their tenure of office.
- in cases cognizable by sb or not, tanawa if original. if so, directly file sa
ombudsman. if appelate lang, file it sa proper prosecutor, HOWEVER. ombudsman is
not precluded from conducting the p.investigation, pwede si ombudsman mag take over

7)Deloso v. Domingo
- crime not done sa public office. gitanaw ni ang relation sa pub office para
makita if sb has juris.
-pero for purposes of prelim investigation, dili material if related sa public
position or dili. maka prelim invest gihapon si ombudsman

8)Schroeder vs Saldevar GR 163656

-court can interfere if naay gadlej only. pero pag wala, ayaw hilabti kay bad na

Section 3)
READ THIS THOROUGHLY ALBEIT it being lengthy. remember the periods. when u file
counteraffidavit, same sa complaint. di pwede motion to dismiss, counter affidavit
dapat
sa prelim investigation, walang examine cross examine. di sya part ng trial.
instead, you can submit questions to the investigating prosecutor.
when shall the hearing be conducted? within 10 days

see repercussions if merong clarificatory hearing or not. magic number is 10 days

to issue a resolution to dismiss/recommedning filing

9) ladlad vs velasco
-absence or unavailability of prosector was not proven, 3 a was violated
-when u issue subpoena dapat may kasamang evidence,attachment, complaint
-the 10 days to give counteraffidavit woud not begin to run pag walang kasama yung
subpoena
10) Gutierrez vs Hernandez
-walang subpoena na inissue dito sa complainants.
-during the prelim investigation, walang prelim invest to begin

45 days all in all idealy ang prelim investigation. but this does not happen
shempre

11) People vs Anonas

-SUPER delay like 4 years sa prelim invest
-due process was violated kay walay speedy disposition
-wa sab naresolve sa officer within 10 days