DOJ DC 15 – RULES ON Pi AND iNQUEST PROCEEDING

Sec.3 – conduct of Pi is required for crime or offense at least 6yrs and 1day

No prima facie evidence = the prosecutor may dismiss the complaint

inquest – DoJ file in court when prima facie evidence with reasonable
certainty of conviction

Reasonable certainty of conviction means that the evidence — whether

testimonial, documentary, or physical —should be strong enough that, if
unchallenged, it could establish all elements of the alleged crime and result
in a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ex: testimonial, documentary and real which may be sufficient to establish all
the elements of crime or offense charge, and warrant a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt

Evidence must be admissible, credible and capable of being preserved

or presented to establish all the elements of the crime or offense and the
identity of the person/s responsible

Who conducts Pi?

All prosecutors, prosecution attorneys and other officers may be allowed by

law

State prosecutors assigned at the Office of the Secretary of Justice = national

jurisdiction

City, provincial or regional prosecutors and their assistants = territorial

jurisdiction

Virtual Pi – videoconferencing can avail on initial hearing (attend physical

hearing first) then check the availability of ICT from prosecution office and
both parties Virtual Pi

 If beneficial to fair, speedy and efficient administration of justice

Complainant - offended party

Respondent – party being charged

Complaint-Affidavit

 written statement charging a person

 subscribed by offended party
o subscribed by person authorized of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure to file on behalf of the offended party
o or law enforcement officer
 o or any other public officer charged with the enforcement of the
law violated
 sworn to before a prosecutor or any govt official authorized to
administer oath
o in their absence or unavailability, a notary public

Shall state:

a) name and address and address of the parties

b) date and place where the alleged crime/offense/violation was
committed
c) statement of facts on how it was committed
d) accompanied by affidavit of witnesses and supporting evidence to
establish prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction

Counter-Affidavit

 written statement of the respondent indicating defenses

 subscribed and sworn

Reply-Affidavit

 written statement by the complainant which answers new

allegations in counter-affidavit
 subscribed and sworn

Rejoinder-Affidavit

 written statement of the respondent in response to the reply-

affidavit
 subscribed and sworn

 All affidavits defined shall include affidavits of witnesses and other

documentary evidence
 Affidavit of desistance may be allowed ONLY if not prohibited under
applicable laws, rules and existing policies
 No motion for bill of particulars shall be filed in lieu of counter
affidavit
o A Bill of Particulars is a written statement that clarifies or
amplifies specific allegations in a pleading (e.g., Complaint,
Answer) which are so vague, indefinite, or ambiguous that the
opposing party cannot intelligently respond or prepare for trial.
 No motion or request for extension of time shall be allowed (any
extension of time granted to submit a pleading shall NOT
EXCEED 10 DAYS)
o Except when the interest of justice demands
 When a party needs reasonable time to:
 engage the services of counsel to assist during Pi
  examine or verify the existence, authenticity or
accuracy of documents presented in support of
pleading
 undertake studies or issues of law and of facts
attendant to case under investigation
 No motion for inhibition shall be granted
o Unless based on just, valid or compelling reasons pursuant to:
 prosecutor or his spouse or child is interested as heir,
legatee, creditor
 prosecutor is related to either party within 6th degree
of consanguinity and affinity
 prosecutor is related to counsel with 4th degree of cos
and aff
 prosecutor has been named executor, administrator,
guardian, trustee or counsel of any parties
 The Prosecutor may disqualify himself in the exercise of his discretion
for just and valid reasons provided that the head of prosecution office
approved the same

PROCEDURE OF REGULAR Pi

o Pi initiated by filing of original complaint

o Upon receipt of complaint-affidavit, prosecution shall ensure
sufficiency, require the complainant to submit any lacking piece of
evidence. Once sufficient form and evidence is complete, it shall be
docketed
o Within 5 calendar days from the receipt of the records, investigating
officer shall either recommend the dismissal if no ground to
continue the investigation or issue subpoena to the parties for
Pi hearing
 Subpoena to the respondent shall include the complaint-
affidavit and direct him to submit counter-affidavit which
must be at 10 days from the receipt of the subpoena and
complaint-affidavit
 In case of voluminous record, the prosecutor shall set
separate date for respondent to pick-up the record in not
less than 10 days prior to the scheduled Pi hearing
o During Pi hearing, the respondent shall file counter-affidavit
o The personal appearance of respondent during Pi may be dispensed,
provided that his counter-affidavit was subscribed and sworn
 If the respondent does not appear, the investigating
prosecutor shall require proof from the complainant that
the respondent’s address in the complaint-affidavit is the
last known address
 If despite receipt of subpoena at respondent's last known
address and he fails to appear or file his counter-affidavit
without justifiable reason, the investigating prosecutor
may submit the case for resolution
 o After receiving the counter-affidavit, the investigating prosecutor may
either consider the case for resolution or when there are facts and
issued to be clarify, set the case for clarificatory hearings, within
10 days from the receipt
 Attendance of both shall be mandatory
o During clarificatory hearing, the investigating prosecutor may:
o Ask clarificatory questions
o Submit the case for resolution
o Require the filing of Reply-affidavit or Rejoinder-affidavit
 The filing of Reply-affidavit is when the counter-affidavit
contains new issues of fact or question of law that are
material and substantial in nature
 When Reply-affidavit is filed, the respondent shall have
opportunity to file Rejoinder-affidavit
 Reply-affidavit and Rejoinder-affidavit shall file not more
than 10 days from the receipt of the pleading
 Rejoinder-affidavit shall be the last pleading allowed
o During Pi, before the case is submitted to resolution, the prosecutor
may issue subpoena duces tecum or ad testificandum
 Duces Tecum - a type of subpoena that requires the
witness to produce documents, books, records, or other
evidence pertinent to a legal proceeding
 Ad Testificandum - a writ ordering a person to attend a
court.

 Prosecutors may initiate criminal complaints (Resistance and

Disobedience to Person in Authority or the Agents), Obstruction of
Justice, or unexplained failure to comply with subpoena
 A motion to dismiss in lieu of counter affidavit shall not be allowed
o Except when it is verified by the respondent and contains his
defense which it shall be treated as counter-affidavit
 No motion to reopen Pi unless justified
o Newly discovered pieces of evidence
o When the complainant or respondent failed to participate in the
proceedings due to non-receipt or belated receipt of subpoena

iNquest Proceeding – an informal and summary investigation conducted

by prosecutor in cases involving persons arrested and detained
without warrant of arrest, to determine whether should remain under
custody and be charged in court

PROCEDURE:

 Initiated by filing of the original of the referral letter prepared by the

LEA or private citizen including the required evidence
o 12 hours for crimes and offenses – light penalty
o 18 hours – correctional penalties
 o 36 hours – afflictive or capital penalties
 The referral will be forwarded by the docket section to head of the
prosecution office or designated prosecutor who shall provisionally
determine the validity of warrantless arrest
o If invalid, the arrested person shall be ordered released
o If incomplete, the referring LEA or private citizen shall be
required to submit the lacking evidence
 In case of failure to submit, the arrested person shall be
ordered to release and the records returned to referral
 During the inquest proceeding, the respondent shall be represented by
counsel
 The inquest prosecutor shall administer the oath for all the affiants and
may conduct a clarificatory question
o If the respondent opted for the conduct of Pi, he shall be required
to sign a waiver (Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the
proper judicial authorities) in the presence of counsel
 The respondent may apply for bail and the investigation
must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its
inception
 The inquest prosecutor shall discuss:
o Provisional determination about the validity of the warrantless
arrest
o existence of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of
conviction

Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is

entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt

Probable Cause is 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

DISPOSITION OF THE CASE

Resolution – ruling of the prosecutor on the Pi and inquest proceeding to

determine whether an information should be filed in the Court, or the
complaint should be dismissed.

Information – accusation in writing charging a person with a crime or

offense subscribed, certified by a prosecutor and filed with the proper Court

 In the name of “People of the Philippines, and against all persons who
appear to be responsible for the crime or offense
 The certification in the Information shall be under oath:
o He personally examined the Complainant and the witness/es
o That there is prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of
conviction based on the evidence
 o That the accused was informed of the complaint and of the
evidence submitted against him
o That the accused was given opportunity to submit controverting
evidence
o That the filing of the information is with prior authority of
Prosecutor General/City Prosecutor/ Provincial Prosecutor
 If the Information emanates (form) from an inquest proceeding, the
certification includes that the accused has not opted to avail of his
right to a preliminary investigation and not executed a waiver
 The Resolution and Information shall be approved by the Prosecutor
General, City/Provincial Prosecutor or duly authorized deputies.
 The Information filed in Court shall be supported by the affidavits and
counter-affidavits of the parties and witness/es
 If the prosecutor determines based on the evidence that there is no
prima facie evidence with a reasonable certainty that the respondent
will be convicted once tried in Court, he shall dismiss the Complaint
with the authority or approval of the head of prosecution office.
o Provided that the dismissal shall be without prejudice to and may
be refiled when new or additional pieces of evidence are
produced
 When the investigating prosecutor recommends the dismissal of the
Complaint, but the recommendation is disapproved, the head of the
prosecution office may file the Information against the
respondent, or direct another prosecutor without conducting Pi
 If the prosecutor determines that there is prima facie evidence with
reasonable certainty, he shall issue a Resolution recommending the
filing of Information in Court

PERIOD TO RESOLVE CASES

 Within 60 days from the date of assignment with a maximum of 30-day

extension in:
o Capital offense
o Complex issue
o Countercharges
o Related Complaints
o Reassignment
 Recommendatory Resolution and Information shall be transmitted to
the head of office for approval within 5 days from the date of
resolution
 Recommendatory Resolution and Information shall be acted upon by
Prosecutor General, City/Provincial within 10 days from the
receipt of the Resolution and Information
 The Resolution shall be promulgated within 5 days from its
approval
 Inquest referrals shall be resolved within the day and transmitted to
the Head for approval on the next working day
REMEDIES

Motion for Reconsideration – may be filed by aggrieved party within 15 days

from the receipt

 The MoR shall be assigned to the investigating prosecutor within 3

days from its filing and resolved within 30 days from the date
of assignment

Petition for Review – Resolution on Pi or MoR may be subject for review or

appeal, provided the petition is accompanied by motion to suspend
proceedings as filed with the Court

 Resolutions of the Prosecutor General or Regional Prosecutor on appeal

of the cases cognizable by first level courts is final and no longer
appealable to Office of Sectary of Justice
 Resolution of Secretary of Justice on appeal in criminal cases
cognizable by second level courts is final, executory and non-
appealable
o Except offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua to death
o The President may order the SOJ to reopen/review the case,
provided that the prescription of the offense is not due to lapse
within 6 months, such petition for review is filed within 30 days
from such notice
 Motion for Reconsideration on Petition for Review – the aggrieved party
may file a verified motion for reconsideration of the Resolution within
15 days from receipt

The Rule on Valid Warrantless Arrests: Rule 113, Section 5

Rules of Court
1) In flagrante delicto arrest (Section 5, a): A person is lawfully
arrested without a warrant if he is caught in the act of committing,
attempting to commit, or has just committed a crime. This means that the
crime must have been observed directly by the arresting officer. An arrest in
flagrante delicto is one of the most common forms of valid warrantless
arrest. To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, the arresting officer
must directly witness the person in the process of committing the crime. The
phrase "in the act of committing" means that the crime is happening before
the officer's eyes, leaving no room for doubt that an offense is ongoing.

For example, if a person is seen picking someone’s pocket in a public place,

law enforcement officers may immediately arrest that person without
needing a warrant since the crime is being committed in their presence.
Philippine jurisprudence has long established the parameters of this form of
arrest. In the case of People v. Lagui, the Supreme Court held that for an
arrest to be lawful under in flagrante delicto, the officer must have witnessed
the offense clearly. If there is any doubt or if the officer arrives after the
crime has been committed, the arrest may be invalid. This is a safeguard to
ensure that warrantless arrests are not abused under the guise of being
caught "in the act."

2) Hot pursuit arrest (Section 5, b): An officer may arrest a person

without a warrant when he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested has committed an offense. The "personal
knowledge" requirement emphasizes the officer's direct awareness of facts
leading to the belief that a crime has just been committed. A hot pursuit
arrest occurs when a crime has already been committed, and the arresting
officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the individual arrested
is the one responsible. The phrase "personal knowledge" has been subject to
various interpretations, but the courts have consistently ruled that it means
the officer must be aware of the facts firsthand, not through hearsay or
speculation. This knowledge must establish probable cause, which justifies
the arrest.

The case of People v. Molina clarifies this principle. The Supreme Court ruled
that a hot pursuit arrest could be justified if the arresting officer immediately
pursues the suspect upon the commission of the crime, relying on facts that
point to the involvement of the person to be arrested. However, an arrest
based on mere suspicion, rumor, or unverified information is not valid.
Therefore, the timing of the arrest and the officer’s certainty of the facts are
crucial in determining whether the arrest falls within this exception.

3) Escapee arrest (Section 5, c): A warrantless arrest is also valid if

the person to be arrested is an escapee, meaning he has escaped from a
penal establishment or detention facility, or has escaped while being
transferred to another location. The third type of warrantless arrest applies to
individuals who have escaped from lawful custody. An escapee may be
arrested without a warrant if he escapes from jail, prison, or another place of
detention. Similarly, this applies when a person escapes during transport
between detention facilities.

In this case, the primary justification is that an escapee, by fleeing, has

defied the judicial process and has essentially placed himself outside the law,
which allows law enforcement officers to act swiftly in capturing him.

4) Rule 114 Sec. 23 Arrest of accused out on bail: When an accused

released on bail attempts to depart from the Philippines without permission
of the court where the case is pending, he may re-arrest without a warrant
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

1. Unlawful Arrest and Exclusionary Rule

Even when a person is validly arrested without a warrant, any evidence

obtained during an unlawful search and seizure incident to that arrest may
still be inadmissible in court. This principle stems from the exclusionary rule
found in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. The exclusionary rule
protects individuals from illegal searches and seizures, and any evidence
obtained from such actions cannot be used in court.

For example, in People v. Aruta, the Supreme Court ruled that the search and
seizure of illegal drugs found during a questionable arrest was invalid. The
drugs, being the fruits of an illegal search, were inadmissible in court. Thus,
even if an arrest itself appears lawful, the subsequent actions of law
enforcement must also adhere to constitutional standards.

2. Citizen's Arrest

Apart from law enforcement officers, private individuals are also granted the
authority to make a warrantless arrest in certain circumstances. Known as a
citizen's arrest, this is valid only in cases where the crime is committed in the
citizen's presence or the individual to be arrested is an escapee.

The citizen must still comply with the requirements of the law, and excessive
force or unlawful actions may render the arrest invalid or expose the
arresting citizen to civil or criminal liability.