PRE TRIAL and TRIAL SKILLS

By: DCP Irene R. Medrano

Office of the City Prosecutor, Quezon City
 Criminal Litigation Process

Crime which requires

preliminary
investigation

Crime which does not

Commission require preliminary
of Crime investigation

Crime committed in
flagrante delicto
 INQUEST

DIRECT FILING
 File in Court

Refer for
Further
Documentation Investigation
of the
Arrest Law Inquest Dismiss Case
Enforcement Conduct P.I.
in view of
Waiver of
Article 125
 INQUEST
Is an informal and summary investigation conducted
by a Public Prosecutor in criminal cases involving
persons arrested and detained without the benefit of
a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the
purpose of determining whether or not said persons
should remain under custody and correspondingly be
charged in court (New Rules on Inquest, DOJ
Department Circular No. 61 (September 21, 1993),
Sec 1 cited in Leviste vs. Alameda, 626 SCRA 575
[(2010)].
 Inquest Scenarios

Referred to
For Filing in Not proper Case
Further
Court for Inquest Dismissed
Investigation
 How many How many How many How many
hours? hours? hours? hours?

Commission Discovery/ Filing in

of Crime Reporting Arrest Inquest Court

For P.I.

Subject
for RFI
“Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper
Judicial Authorities” Art. 125 RPC

12 HOURS FOR
LIGHT
OFFENSE

18 HOURS FOR
LESS GRAVE
OFFENSE

36 HOURS FOR
GRAVE OFFENSES
COMMENCEMENT OF INQUEST PROCEEDINGS

The inquest proceeding shall be considered commenced

upon receipt by the Inquest Prosecutor of the following
documents:
a) The affidavit of arrest duly subscribed and sworn to
before him by the arresting officer;
b) The investigation report;
c) The sworn statements of the complainant/s and
witness; and
d) Other supporting pieces of evidence gathered by the
police in the course of the latter’s investigation of the
criminal incident involving the arrested or detained
person.
 MEANING OF PROBABLE CAUSE IN
INQUEST CASES

Probable cause means an actual belief or reasonable grounds

of suspicion (People vs. Tudtud, GR No. 144037, Sept. 26,
2003) that the person to be arrested is about to commit or is
attempting to commit a crime, or is in the act of committing a
crime, or has committed a crime. Probable cause for purposes
of filing a criminal information is such facts as are sufficient to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed
and that respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be
held for trial.
 DETERMINATION OF ARREST BY THE
INQUEST PROSECUTOR

The inquest prosecutor shall first determine if the arrest of the

detained person was made in accordance with paragraphs (a),
(b) and (c) of Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure which provides that arrests without a
warrant may be effected: (Go vs. Court of Appeals, 206
SCRA 138 [1992]; Umil, et.al. vs. Ramos,202 SCRA 251
[1991] and companion cases People vs. Malmstedt, 198
SCRA 408 and People vs. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA 402
[1998]).
 HOT PURSUIT ARREST

When an offense has been committed and he

has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it.
(Sec. 5(b), Rule 113)
 PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

“Personal knowledge of the facts and

circumstances that the person to be arrested
committed it” means personal knowledge not of
the commission of the crime itself but of facts and
circumstances which would lead to the conclusion
that the person to be arrested has probably
committed the crime.” (People vs. Del Rosario,
G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999)
 NOTE:
 There must be compliance with the
between the time of the commission of
the crime and the time of arrest. (People vs.
Salvatiera, G.R. No. 104663, July 24, 1997)

is
different from personal knowledge. The rule requires
that the arrest immediately follows the commission of
the offense (People vs. Manlulu, G.R. No. 102140,
April 22, 1994)
• A waiver of the provisions of Art. 125 of the
Revised Penal Code signed by the arrested
person so he can avail of a preliminary
investigation, allows the authorities to detain a
person arrested without a warrant beyond the
periods specified under Article 125 within which
they are required to deliver a person arrested
without warrant to the proper judicial authorities.
(IBP vs. DOJ, Provincial Prosecutor's Office et. al.,
GR. No. 232413, July 25, 2017)
 INQUEST SUMMARY

Probable cause + Arrest properly effected FILE

Probable cause + Arrest not properly effected

RFI
- (Refer the case for further investigation)
No Probable cause + Arrest properly effected
RFI
- (Refer the case for further investigation)
No Probable cause + No Arrest was effected
RFI
- (Refer the case for further investigation)
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
QUEZON CITY

Inquest No. :
Complainant :
Respondent :
Crime :
Date Assigned/Date of Inquest :
Date Submitted for Review :
Date Returned by the Inquest Chief
for correction/Finalization :

RESOLUTION

( ) FOR FILING: There was lawful arrest under Sec. 5, Rule 113, of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure and evidence is sufficient to hold
respondent/s for trial in Court for the following offenses:

( ) FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION: Case needs preliminary

investigation for probable cause, because respondent/s was/were not lawfully
arrested under Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and/or for
insufficiency of evidence to hold respondent/s for trial in Court.

( ) NOT PROPER FOR INQUEST

( ) CASE DISMISSED/WITHDRAWN

BRIEF MEMO/OTHER MATTERS

( ) RELEASE ORDER. Arresting officer is directed to release

respondent/s unless detained for lawful cause/s. Subject to the approval of the
Inquest Chief.

Assistant City Prosecutor

APPROVED BY AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR:
 Invalid Arrest

• Invalid Warantless Arrest not raised before arraignment

is waived (De Asis vs. Romero, 41 SCRA 235 cited in
People vs. Trestiza, 660 SCRA 407)
• Waiver of Illegal Arrest does not include waiver of the
inadmissibility of evidence. The waiver is limited only to
a submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court
(Dissenting Opinion, J. Bersamin in Esquillo vs. People,
629 SCRA 370)
• Regularity of warrantless arrest and admissibility of
evidence are two different matters and are governed by
different sets of rules.
IBP vs. DOJ ( GR No. 232413, July 25, 2017)

DOJ Circulars

• DC 46—No release pending review

• DC 12—Release pending Review
• DC 22- *Continued detention if there is waiver A125
and Reinvestigation
• *Release if arrest is not valid, no probable cause
• DC 50—Release after 30 day period
• DC 003—Reinstated no. 12
• DC 004—Reiterated no.3

SC held that A. 125 must coincide with Sec. 7, Rule 112

otherwise this violates the accused’s right to liberty
WHERE AN INFORMATION IS FILED WITH THE COURTS

• Dismiss the Case if there is no probable cause

(Cajipe vs. People, GR. No. 203605)
• Issue a Warrant of Arrest
• Order the Prosecutor to present additional evidence (Hao vs.
People, GR No. 183345, September 17, 2014)

Distinction between Executive Findings of Probable

Cause and Judicial Findings of Probable Cause

See AAA vs. Judge Carbonell, GR No. 171465, June 8, 2007

Mendoza vs. People, GR No. 197293, April 21, 2014
Distinction between Executive Findings of
Probable Cause and Judicial Findings of Probable
Cause

See AAA vs. Judge Carbonell, GR No. 171465, June 8, 2007

Mendoza vs. People, GR No. 197293, April 21, 2014
Determination of Probable Cause
Executive Determination Judicial Determination
 is one made during the preliminary  is one made by the judge to ascertain
investigation, it is a function that whether a warrant of arrest should be
properly pertains to the public issued against the accused. The judge
prosecutor who is given a broad must satisfy himself that based on the
discretion to determine whether evidence submitted, there is necessity
probable cause exists and to charge for placing the accused under custody
those whom he believes to have in order not to frustrate the ends of
committed the crime as defined by the justice. if the judge find no probable
law and thus should be held for trial cause, the judge cannot be forced to
(People vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 171188, issue the arrest warrant (Leviste vs.
June 19, 2009) Alameda, GR. No. 182677, August 3,
2010)
 Otherwise stated, such official has the
quasi-judicial authority to determine
whether or not a criminal case must be
filed in court.
Can the Courts review the findings
of probable cause by the
Prosecutor?

• See Unilever Philippines vs. Tan, GR No. 179367,

January 29, 2014
• Cruz vs. Agas, GR No.204095, June 15, 2015
• Inocentes vs. People, GR No. 205963-64, July 7,
2016
• Maza vs. Turla, GR No. 187094, February 15, 2017
Issuance of Hold Departure Orders
• See SC Circular No. 39-97 dated June 19, 1997
• See A.M. No. 01-9-245-MTC, Dec 5, 2001 (371 SCRA 397)

Issuance of Watch List Orders (DOJ Circular No. 41)

• But See Genuino et.al. vs. de Lima, GR No. 197930, April 17,
2018 where said Circular is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL
by the SC.

Rule on Precautionary Hold Departure Order (A.M. No.

18-07-05-SC, August 7, 2018)

Issuance of Immigration Look Out Bulletin (ILBO)

 SEARCH WARRANT
• Rule 126, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

• Administrative Matter No. 99-10-09-SC Resolution

Clarifying the Guidelines on the Application for the
Enforceability of Search Warrants

• Administrative Matter No. 03-8-02-SC Guidelines on

the Selection and Designation of Executive Judges
and Defining their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties

• See Malaloan vs. CA, 232 SCRA 249

• See Marimla vs. People, 604 SCRA 57

 Suspension of Arraignment
GROUNDS

• Unsound Mental Condition (Sec 11 a, Rule 116, 2000

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
• Prejudicial Question (Sec. 11 b)
• Petition for Review (Sec. 11 c)
• Reinvestigation proceedings
• Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 (see consolidated
cases of Tan Jr. vs. Matsuura, GR No. 1790093 & TanJr.
Vs. Cua, GR No. 195816, January 9, 2013)
 NOTE:

Insanity

If he is found incompetent to stand trial, the trial is simply

postponed until such time as he may be found competent.
Incompetency to stand trial is not a defense, it merely
postpones trial (People vs. Estrada, GR. No. 130487, June
19, 2000).
 The Concept of ”Inordinate Delay”

• “There is no constitutional or legal provision which

states that it is mandatory for the accused to follow
up his case before his right to its speedy disposition
can be recognized. To rule otherwise would
promote judicial legislation where the Court would
provide a compulsory requisite not specified by the
constitutional provision (Remulla vs.
Sandiganbayan, GR No. 218040, April 17, 2017)

• See also People vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No.

232197-98, December 5, 2018.
What is the effect if there was a delay in the preliminary
investigation of a case that was subsequently filed before the
Courts?
“On the other hand, in a number of civil, criminal or
administrative case, the Court has declared that delay
which is oppressive, capricious and vexatious
constitutes violation of the right of a party to speedy trial
or disposition. In those cases. The delay took place
during the preliminary investigation stage, the trial
stage or the resolution of a mere incidental or
interlocutory matter. Moreover, the consequent
violation of the right to speedy trial or disposition
warranted the ouster of the court of the jurisdiction and
dismissal of cases.” (Reyes vs. Sandiganbayan, GR
No. 243411, August 19, 2020.)
 BAIL

• See Padua and Pimentel vs. People, GR No. 220913, Feb 4, 2019)

Accused filed an Omnibus Motion Ex-Abundante Ad Cautelam (To

Quash Warrant of Arrest and To Fix Bail). xxx It is not required that
accused be in custody of the law because the same is not an application
for bail where custody is required.

Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon application
for bail but it is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by
the accused. In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person of the
accused is deemed waived when he files any pleading seeking an
affirmative relief, except when he invokes special jurisdiction of the court
by impugning such jurisdiction over his person.
• DOJ’s Bail Bond Guide shall be considered but
shall not be controlling (Sec 1, A.M. No. 12-11-2-
SC, May 1, 2014)
 Pre- Trial
• Mandatory in Criminal Cases

• Shall proceed even in the absence of parties provided they

were notified and counsels are present.

• Non Appearance of the accused during Pre Trial does not

ipso facto convert the accused’s status to that of a fugitive
without standing (Ivler vs. Modesto, GR No. 172716, Nov.
17,2010)
 Demurrer to Evidence
• See Katigbak vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 140183, July
10, 2003 where it was held that an order denying a
demurrer to evidence is interlocutory, it is not appealable.
Neither can it be the subject of a petition for Certiorari in
the absence if grave abuse of discretion or excess of
jurisdiction, or an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.

• See Macapagal Arroyo vs People, GR No.220598 April

18, 2017 where it was held that prohibition contained in
Sec. 23 Rule 119 is not an insuperable obstacle to the
review by the High Court
End of Presentation