Case 28 – ABSENCE OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

 A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is a sufficient ground

to engender a well-founded belief that a crime was committed and the respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for trial.
 The absence of a preliminary investigation is not a ground for the quashal of a complaint or information,
nor it affects the court’s jurisdiction over the case. Instead of dismissing the information, the court should
remand the case to the prosecutor so that the investigation may be conducted.
 Questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation must be done before the accused enters his plea.
Failure to invoke the right will amount to a waiver.
 Changing of the designation of the offense does not require a new preliminary investigation because it is
only a formal amendment. It did not change the nature of the crime nor affect the essence of the offense.
 The Revised Rules on Summary Procedure does not provide a preliminary investigation prior to the filing
of a criminal case. It shall commence by filing a complaint or information in the MTC. (133)

Case 29 – INCOMPLETE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

 The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the innocent against malicious and oppressive
prosecution of a public trial. It is also intended to prevent a conduct of useless and expensive trial. It acts
as filter that will avoid a clog in the dockets of our court.
 In the judicial determination of probable cause, it must be personally determined by the Ombudsman
and he must evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor or he may
require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses. In this case, there was a dereliction of duty.
 The determination of a probable cause is either executive or judicial. It is executive when it is done by the
prosecutor during preliminary investigation to determine whether to file a complaint or information
against the respondent. It is judicial when it is done by the judge receiving the complaint to ascertain
whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. Under this case, it is a judicial
proceeding.
 Although personal examination or hearing is not necessary, the accused must be given at least the
opportunity to be notified or heard.
 Relative to the case, there are four lapses in the conduct of the preliminary investigation:
a) passing the buck, the investigating officers did not complete the preliminary investigation
b) no thorough investigation, the Ombudsman disregarded the defense of the accused
c) the accused was deprived of motion for reconsideration
d) Sandiganbayan relied purely on the Ombudsman’s certification of probable cause.
 The task of determining probable cause of issuing a warrant of arrest is a responsibility of the judge. The
preliminary inquiry made by the prosecutor does not bind the judge, it only assists him in determining a
probable cause. (199)

Case 30 – PCGG
 Errors of jurisdiction can be appealed by filing a special action of certiorari under Rule 65 while errors of
judgment and final order are correctible by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
 The PCGG has the power to investigate and prosecute offenses committed in the acquisition of ill-gotten
wealth. Relative to the case, it does not extend to other acts not involving ill-gotten wealth. Other
violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Acts are vested in the Ombudsman.
  Filing of motion to recall warrants of arrest and posting bail does not mean a waiver to a preliminary
investigation. It is deemed waived when the accused fails to invoke it before he enters his plea.
 The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the jurisdiction of the court which has taken
cognizance of the information. The invalidity of the preliminary investigation does not impair the validity
of the information. (194)

Case 31 – DISCRETION OF THE COMPLAINT ONCE FILED IN COURT

 As a rule, courts of law are precluded from disturbing the findings of public prosecutors. The institution of
a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal, being an executive function.
 No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by a fiscal without the prior written approval of
the provincial or city or chief state prosecutor. However, the prosecutor’s ruling is reviewable by the
Secretary of Justice who has the power to reverse, modify or affirm the prosecutor’s determination.
 Once the complaint or information is already filed in court, any disposition of the case rests in the sound
discretion of the court. The court hereby acquires jurisdiction over the case. What the fiscal can do is to
proceed with the case and see that justice is done. (222)

Case 32 – WARRANTLESS SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST

 An arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense.
 A person lawfully arrested may be searched without a search warrant. The purpose of the warrantless
search is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed and to prevent the accused from destroying
the evidence seized.
 A person need not be actually restrained by the person making an arrest, a submission to the custody of
the person making the arrest already constitutes an arrest
 Any objection involving a warrant of arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea. (269)

Case 33 – WARRANTLESS ARREST

 Under the constitution, no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall be issued except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the judge. The exceptions when an arrest may be made without a warrant
are, when the peace officer:
a. in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense
b. when an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts that the person to be arrested has committed it
c. when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
 Relative to the case, the question is whether the warrantless arrest falls under the second exception.
Unfortunately, the arrest only happened four days after the crime. They had no personal knowledge of
the probability of guilt of persons who committed the offense. What they had were positive
identifications which is insufficient to justify the warrantless arrest. Therefore, it is an illegal arrest.
 Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause which means an actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion.
  In the issue of obstruction of justice, there was no violation of PD No. 1829 because petitioners had the
right to prevent the arrest of the accused because it was an illegal arrest.

Case 34 – ENTRAPMENT
 An illustration of an arrest in flagrante delicto is one made after conducting a buy-bust operation. It is
considered a valid means of arresting those who commit violations under RA 6425 where the idea to
commit the crime originates from the offender without inducement from anybody.
 An arrest made after an entrapment operation does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a
valid warrantless arrest.
 Relative to the case, George de Leon, was acquitted of illegal possession of drugs because the police failed
to immediately pick him up and place him under arrest and his participation in the transaction was
doubtful. Only Julliver de Leon was present during the arrest.

Case 35 – WARRANTLESS ARREST

 Stop and frisk search is the act of a police officer to stop a citizen, interrogate him and pat him for
weapons or contrabands. However, the allowable scope is limited to a protective search of the outer
clothing of a person.
 Under search incidental to lawful arrest, the law requires that there must be a lawful arrest before a
search can be made, the process cannot be reversed.
 Relative to the case, the search was made pursuant to routine airport security procedure. RA No. 6235
states that the passenger by an airline carrier is subject to search and seizure of prohibited materials or
substances. Refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft.
 Custodial investigation refers to the questioning initiated by the law enforcement officers after a person
has been taken into custody. In this case, no custodial investigation was conducted after the person’s
arrest. She affixed her signature to the receipt of the things searched from her and she was given the
option to sign it or not.
 Personal properties to be seized are those that are subject of the offense; stolen or embezzled and other
proceeds, or fruits of the offense; and those used or intended to be used as the means of committing an
offense.

Case 36 – ILLEGAL WARRANTLESS SEARCH

 The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures shall be inviolable. Any evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible. Art. III Section 2
 The conviction or acquittal of the accused depends primarily on the validity of the search and seizure, as
well as the admissibility of the evidence obtained. Without the evidence, the prosecution would not be
able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
 Relative to the case, the constitutionality of the place searched by the police was merely speculative and
conjectural. There were also inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses. The testimony of the
barangay captain raised serious doubts on the prosecution’s evidence.
 Under the Bill of Rights, it is the fundamental right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty. To overcome such presumption, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
  In search incidental to lawful arrest, the scope should be limited to the area within his immediate control.
The purpose of the warrantless search is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed and to
prevent the accused from destroying the evidence seized.

Case 37 – EXCESSIVE BAIL

 All persons except those charged with offense punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is
strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable.
 The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial. The amount should be high
enough to assure the presence of the accused, but should not be unreasonably higher to fulfill the
purpose.
 For conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death or reclusion perpetua, the court, in its
discretion, may allow the accused to post bail.
 The provision against requiring excessive bail is enshrined in the Constitution. Relative to the case,
although the courts are not precluded from imposing a higher bail, the setting of amount at P5,500,000.00
is unreasonable and excessive.
 The liberty of abode and travel shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court or in the
interest of national security or public health and safety.

Case 38 – BAIL, CUSTODY OF LAW

 No person charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence
of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.
 Bail is a security given for the release of a person in custody of the law. To avail of this, the accused must
be in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty to be able to post bail. Therefore, a free man
is not entitled to bail.

 The Court, in its discretion, may allow the accused to continue on provisional liberty under the same bail
bond during the period to appeal subject to the consent of the bondsman. Relative to the case, the bail
bond that the accused previously posted can only be used during the 15-day period to appeal and not
during the entire period of appeal.
 Petitioners' non-appearance during the promulgation of the court's decision despite due notice and
without justifiable reason, and their continued non-submission to the proper authorities, constitutes
violations of the conditions of their bail. Moreover, it appears that petitioners failed to renew their
expired bail bond.
 All persons in custody shall: (a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the
Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, be
admitted to bail as a matter of right.

Case 39 – FAKE BAIL BOND

 The escape from imprisonment, jumping bail, or fleeing to a foreign country would result in the outright
dismissal of his appeal. A person who files a fake bail bond is considered not merely to have jumped bail
but to have escaped detention.
  Relative to the case, the accused escaped confinement despite their appeals pending before the CA.
Normally, their appeals should have been dismissed by the CA. However, it was not possible because the
fake bail bonds were discovered only after the CA had already rendered judgment on the case.
 The Supreme Court has the power to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal, or certiorari,
final judgments and orders of lower courts in all criminal cases in which the penalty is reclusion perpetua.

RTC

Murder Garcia & Peralta – prision mayor to reclusion temporal

Del Rosario – prision correccional to prision mayor

Theft Garcia & Peralta – principal

Del Rosario & Canedo – accessory

CA

Murder Garcia & Peralta – reclusion perpetua

Del Rosario – prision mayor to reclusion temporal

Theft Del Rosario – arresto mayor