Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Samson Vs Guingona
Samson Vs Guingona
Samson Vs Guingona
GR 123504
Facts:
A murder case was filed against the police-petitioners, for the slaughter of Datu
Sinsuat. Upon filing of the complaint, this case was subsequently assigned to
Prosecutor Velasco in order to determine whether there was probable cause. In his
resolution, he concluded that there was enough evidence for this case to be filed
before the trial court for the issuance of warrants of arrest.
On the same day when the information was filed, accused petitioners filed a Very
Urgent Motion for Judicial Determination of Existence of Probable Cause (to Hold
the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest).
Trial Court ordered for reinvestigation, in its order, the court stated that there was not
enough probable cause. Trial court ordered the Chief State Prosecutor, the DOJ or his
Assistant to reinvestigate the case.
Hence, they filed a petition to the SC to enjoin the above-stated authorities from
further proceeding with the reinvestigation with the case.
Issue:
Whether petitioners can request for the SC to enjoin the respondents from firther
reinvestigating the case.
Ruling:
Petitioners’ plea for injunction to retrain the reinvestigation of the criminal case
against them is not legally permissible.
As a general rule, the court will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction
preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain, criminal prosecution. With more reason will
injunction not lie when the case is still at the stage of preliminary investigation or
reinvestigation. Unless, in extreme cases such as;
In the case at bar, accused petitioners have not shown any instance that would fall
within any exceptions recognized. They have only relied on the probability that a
reinvestigation will result in the remand of the case to the court and the issuance of
warrant of arrest. Therefore, their request was without merit.