Actions Discretionary Power of Fiscal (1999)

Actions; Discretionary Power of Fiscal (1999)
A filed with the Office of the Fiscal a Complaint for estafa against B. After the preliminary investigation, the
Fiscal dismissed the Complaint for lack of merit.
May the Fiscal be compelled by mandamus to file the case in court? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The public prosecutor may not be compelled by mandamus to file the case in court because the
determination of probable cause is within the discretion of the prosecutor. The remedy is an appeal to the
Secretary of Justice. (Sec. 4 Rule 112.)
 If upon petition by a proper party under such rules as the Department of Justice may prescribe or motu
proprio, the Secretary of Justice reverses or modifies the resolution of the provincial or city prosecutor or
chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the prosecutor concerned either to file the corresponding information
without conducting another preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or
information with notice to the parties. The same rule shall apply in preliminary investigations conducted by
the officers of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Actions; Injunction (1999)

Will injunction lie to restrain the commencement of a criminal action? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As a general rule, injunction will not lie to restrain a criminal prosecution except:
a.) To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;

b.) When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;
c.) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
d.) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance;
e) Where there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been
denied.
(See cases cited in Roberts, Jr., vs. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 307 [1996] and Brocka v. Enrile, 192 SCRA
183 [1990].)
Arrest; Warrantless Arrest; Preliminary Investigation (2004)

AX swindled RY in the amount of P10,000 sometime in mid-2003. On the strength of the sworn statement
given by RY personally to SPO1 Juan Ramos sometime in mid-2004, and without securing a warrant, the police
officer arrested AX. Forthwith the police officer filed with the City Prosecutor of Manila a complaint for estafa
supported by RY"s sworn statement and other documentary evidence. After due inquest, the prosecutor filed the
requisite information with the MM RTC. No preliminary investigation was conducted either before or after the
filing of the information and the accused at no time asked for such an investigation. However, before
arraignment, the accused moved to quash the information on the ground that the prosecutor suffered from a
want of authority to file the information because of his failure to conduct a preliminary investigation before
filing the information, as required by the Rules of Court.
Is the warrantless arrest of AX valid? Is he entitled to a preliminary investigation before the filing of the
information? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The warrantless arrest is not valid because the alleged offense has not just been committed. The crime was
allegedly committed one year before the arrest. (Sec. 5 (b) of Rule 113).
 The situation above is not one of those instances enumerated under Rule 113 Section 5 for valid
warrantless arrest.
Yes, he is entitled to a preliminary investigation because he was not lawfully arrested without a warrant (See
Sec. 7 of Rule 112). He can move for a reinvestigation.
 Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation in
accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and
the investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.
After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary investigation, the accused may,
within five (5) days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right
to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this Rule.

Actions Discretionary Power of Fiscal (1999)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Actions Discretionary Power of Fiscal (1999)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Actions Discretionary Power of Fiscal (1999)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Actions; Discretionary Power of Fiscal (1999)

Actions; Injunction (1999)

a.) To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;

Arrest; Warrantless Arrest; Preliminary Investigation (2004)

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.