Rule 111 to 115 an investigation for the determination of a

sufficient ground for the filing of the

DIO vs CA/ PEOPLE vs. DESMOND information or it is an investigation for the
GRs 178947, 179079; June 26, 2013 determination of a probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest. The first
kind of preliminary investigation is
Facts: When Dio (majority stockholder of
executive in nature. It is part of the
HS Equities) met Desmond (CEO of
prosecution's job.1âwphi1 The second
SBMEI), several discussions were made
kind of preliminary investigation which is
onn possible business venture, and later
more properly called preliminary
Dio decided to invest a substantial amount
examination is judicial in nature and is
of money in SBMEI, a theme park.
lodged with the judge.
Subsequently Dio was appointed a BoD
and was later appointed as Treasurer. Dio
On this score, it bears to stress that a
infused more capital to SBMEI. It appears
judge is not bound by the resolution of the
however that SBMEI used the infused
public prosecutor who conducted the
capital on the negative cash flows of
preliminary investigation and must himself
SBMEI, contrary to the guarantee made
ascertain from the latter’s findings and
by Desmond made disbursements without
supporting documents whether probable
the knowledge of Dio and when Desmond
cause exists for the purpose of issuing a
refused to sign an undertaking to return
warrant of arrest. This prerogative is
the said funds, Dio suspended the release
granted by no less than the Constitution
over the remaining funds. She was ousted
which provides that "no warrant of arrest
as a BoD. Hence she filed a case of estafa.
shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge
After the PI, a Resolution was issued
after examination under oath or
finding probable cause agaist Desmond.
affirmation of the complainant and the
The RTC however issued an order that
witnesses he may produce.
there was no proabable cause since the
element of Estafa was not present.
While a judge’s determination of probable
Consequently, the RTC denied the
cause is generally confined to the limited
issuance of a warrant of arrest and hold
purpose of issuing arrest warrants,
departure order against Desmond and
Section 5(a),53 Rule 112 of the Revised
ordered the dismissal of the cases against
Rules of Criminal Procedure explicitly
him. This was sustained by the CA
states that a judge may immediately
dismiss a case if the evidence on record
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in
clearly fails to establish probable cause.
finding no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the RTC when it dismissed the
In this regard, so as not to transgress the
subject Informations for lack of probable
public prosecutor’s authority, it must be
cause?
stressed that the judge’s dismissal of a
case must be done only in clear-cut cases
Ruling: Petition is meritorious. The CA
when the evidence on record plainly fails
decision is set aside and RTC criminal case
to establish probable cause – that is when
is reinstated.
the records readily show uncontroverted,
and thus, established facts which
In the case of Co v. Republic, the Court
unmistakably negate the existence of the
emphasized the settled distinction
elements of the crime charged. On the
between an executive and a judicial
contrary, if the evidence on record shows
determination of probable cause, viz:
that, more likely than not, the crime
charged has been committed and that
We reiterate that preliminary investigation
respondent is probably guilty of the same,
should be distinguished as to whether it is
the judge should not dismiss the case and

1
thereon, order the parties to proceed to mineral disorder. She intended to see
trial. In doubtful cases, however, the specialists in 6 countries: USA, Germany,
appropriate course of action would be to Singapore, Italy, Spain and Austria.
order the presentation of additional Before the resolution of her application,
evidence. Arroyo filed a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition under Rule 65, with Prayer for
In other words, once the information is the issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of
filed with the court and the judge Preliminary Injunction. Her husband did
proceeds with his primordial task of the same. They assailed the
evaluating the evidence on record, he may constitutionality of DOJ Circular No. 41
either: (a) issue a warrant of arrest, if he and the Watch List Order against them.
finds probable cause; (b) immediately On the same day, De Lima denied GMA's
dismiss the case, if the evidence on record application for several discrepencies. The
clearly fails to establish probable cause; Supreme Court eventually granted a TRO,
and (c) order the prosecutor to submit which allowed Arroyo to leave the country.
additional evidence, in case he doubts the
existence of probable cause. Issue: Constitutional?

Applying these principles, the Court finds Ruling: NO. It is unconstitutional because
that the RTC’s immediate dismissal, as it assumes that the Executive Department
affirmed by the CA, was improper as the has the responsibility to fill in the gaps
standard of clear lack of probable cause within the authority and responsibilities
was not observed. In this case, records given to the Judiciary. It assumes that the
show that certain essential facts – namely, DOJ Sec is the sole authority to issue or
(a) whether or not Desmond committed cancel an HDO or WLO, in determining the
false representations that induced Dio to sufficiency of the grounds for an ADO.
invest in Ocean Adventure; and (b) This indiscriminately subjects to the
whether or not Desmond utilized the funds discretion of the DOJ Sec the exercise of
invested by Dio solely for the Miracle the right to travel of persons subject of
Beach Project for purposes different from preliminary investigation or criminal
what was agreed upon – remain cases. The HDO and WLO remains
controverted. As such, it cannot be said efffective even after the lapse of its
that the absence of the elements of the validity period, since the DOJ Sec can
crime of estafa under Article 315(2)(a)57 either lift or prolong. This makes it an
and 315(1) (b)58 of the RPC had already arbitrary measure beyond the powers
been established, thereby rendering the granted to the Executive Department.
RTC’s immediate dismissal of the case
highly improper.
Enrile vs Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 213847. August 18, 2015
Genuino vs. De Lima
Facts: On June 5, 2014, the Office of the
Facts: Criminal complaints were filed Ombudsman charged Enrile and several
against former President Gloria others with plunder in the Sandiganbayan
Macapagal-Arroyo before the DOJ. on the basis of their purported
Pursuant to her authority under DOJ involvement in the diversion and misuse
Circular No. 41, then DOJ Secretary De of appropriations under the Priority
Lima placed Arroyo and her husband in Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
the Bureau of Immigration's watchlist. Enrile respectively filed his Omnibus
Arroyo requested for the issuance of an Motion and Supplemental Opposition,
Allow-Departure Order, so that she may praying that he be allowed to post bail
seek medical attention for her should probable cause be found against
hypothyroidism and metabolic bone him.

2
Enrile claims that before judgment of of guilt is strong in criminal cases
conviction, an accused is entitled to bail as involving capital offenses, or offenses
matter of right; that it is the duty and punishable with reclusion perpetua or life
burden of the Prosecution to show clearly imprisonment lies within the discretion of
and conclusively that Enrile comes under the trial court.
the exception and cannot be excluded
from enjoying the right to bail; that the Enrile is not a flight risk because of his
Prosecution has failed to establish that social and political standing and his having
Enrile, if convicted of plunder, is immediately surrendered to the
punishable by reclusion perpetua authorities upon being charged in court.
considering the presence of two mitigating The currently fragile state of Enrile’s
circumstances — his age and his voluntary health is a compelling justification for his
surrender; that the Prosecution has not admission to bail. (Chronic hypertension,
come forward with proof showing that his diffuse atherosclerotic cardiovascular
guilt for the crime of plunder is strong; disease, Atrial and Ventricular Arrhythmia,
and that he should not be considered a etc.)
flight risk taking into account that he is
already over the age of 90, his medical Granting provisional liberty to Enrile will
condition, and his social standing. then enable him to have his medical
condition be properly addressed and
Ombudsman contends that Enrile's right better attended to by competent
to bail is discretionary as he is charged physicians in the hospitals of his choice.
with a capital offense; that to be granted This will not only aid in his adequate
bail, it is mandatory that a bail hearing be preparation of his defense but, more
conducted to determine whether there is importantly, will guarantee his appearance
strong evidence of his guilt, or the lack of in court for the trial.
it; and that entitlement to bail considers
the imposable penalty, regardless of the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Marvic
attendant circumstances. M.V.F. Leonen

Issue: Whether or not Enrile can bail.

where the crime charged is plunder and
Ruling: Yes, Enrile's poor health justifies the imposable penalty is reclusion
his admission to bail. perpetua. The grant of bail is a special
accommodation for the petitioner.
The purpose of bail is to guarantee the
appearance of the accused at the trial, or
whenever so required by the trial court. given the opportunity to rebut the
The amount of bail should be high enough allegation that petitioner suffers from
to assure the presence of the accused medical conditions.
when so required, but it should be no
higher than is reasonably calculated to
fulfill this purpose. rights principle does not provide clear
legal basis for the grant of bail on
The general rule is, therefore, that any humanitarian grounds. It is neither
person, before being convicted of any presently provided in our Rules of Court
criminal offense, shall be bailable, unless nor found in any statue or provision of the
he is charged with a capital offense, or Constitution. This sets a dangerous
with an offense punishable with reclusion precedent for the granting of bail on the
perpetua or life imprisonment, and the basis of humanitarian conditions, which is
evidence of his guilt is strong. For determined by the personal discretion of
purposes of admission to bail, the the trial judge.
determination of whether or not evidence

3
 sought reconsideration but the motion
petitioner without any determination of remained unresolved.
whether the evidence of guilt is strong
violates the clear and unambiguous text of Relying on the arrest order against Ivler,
the constitution. Ponce sought in the RTC dismissal of the
Petition for Certiorari. She contends that
Ivler lost his standing to maintain the suit.
IVLER vs. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Thereafter, RTC dismissed the case. Ivler
G.R. No. 172716. November 17, 2010 sought reconsideration but this proved
unavailing.
Facts: Following a vehicular collision in
August 2004, Jason Ivler was charged In his petition under Rule 45, Ivler argues
before the MeTC with two separate that his constitutional right not to be
offenses: placed twice in jeopardy of punishment for
1. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in the same offense bars his prosecution in
Slight Physical Injuries (Criminal Criminal Case No. 82366, having been
Case No. 82367) for injuries previously convicted in Criminal Case No.
sustained by Evangeline Ponce; 82367 for the same offense of reckless
and imprudence charged in Criminal Case No.
2. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in 82366. He further submits that the
Homicide and Damage to Property multiple consequences of such crime are
(Criminal Case No. 82366) for material only to determine his penalty.
the death of Ponce's husband
Nestor Ponce and damage to the Issues:
spouses Ponce's vehicle. 1. Whether Ivler forfeited his standing
to seek relief in the petition for
Ivler posted bail for his temporary release review case when the MeTC
in both cases. Thereafter, he pleaded ordered his arrest following his
guilty to the charge in Criminal Case No. non-appearance at the arraignment
82367 and was meted out the penalty of in Criminal Case No. 82366. (NO)
public censure. Invoking this conviction, 2. If in the negative, whether Ivler's
he moved to quash the Information in constitutional right under the
Criminal Case No. 82366 for placing him Double Jeopardy Clause bars
in jeopardy of second punishment for the further proceedings in Criminal
same offense of reckless imprudence. Case No. 82366. (YES)

The MeTC refused quashal, finding no Ruling:

identity of offenses in the two cases. After 1. Ivler’s non-appearance at the
unsuccessfully seeking reconsideration, arraignment in Criminal Case No.
Ivler elevated the matter to the RTC in a 82366 did not divest him of standing
Petition for Certiorari. Meanwhile, he to maintain the special civil action for
sought from the MeTC the suspension of certiorari.
proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366,
including the arraignment invoking the Under Section 21, Rule 114 of the Revised
Petition for Certiorari as a prejudicial Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
question. Without acting on Ivler's motion defendant's absence merely renders his
to suspend, the MeTC proceeded with the bondsman potentially liable on its bond
arraignment and, because of Ivler's (subject to cancellation should the
absence, cancelled his bail and ordered his bondsman fail to produce the accused
arrest. Seven days later, the MeTC issued within 30 days); the defendant retains his
a resolution denying Ivler's motion to standing and, should he fail to surrender,
suspend proceedings and postponing his will be tried in absentia and could be
arraignment until after his arrest. Ivler convicted or acquitted.

4
 other acts are penalized as grave or less
Indeed, the 30-day period granted to the grave offenses, in which case Article 48 is
bondsman to produce the accused not deemed to apply and the act penalized
underscores the fact that mere non- as a light offense is tried separately from
appearance does not ipso facto convert the resulting acts penalized as grave or
the accused's status to that of a fugitive less grave offenses.
without standing.
In one case the Solicitor General stresses
2. Ivler’s Conviction in Criminal Case No. in his brief that the charge for slight
82367 bars his prosecution in Criminal physical injuries through reckless
Case No. 82366. imprudence could not be joined with the
accusation for serious physical injuries
The two charges against Ivler, arising through reckless imprudence, because
from the same facts, were prosecuted Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
under the same provision of the Revised allows only the complexing of grave or
Penal Code, as amended, namely, Article less grave felonies. The court held that
365 defining and penalizing quasi- such contention might be true, however,
offenses. Quasi-crimes under Article 365 neither was the prosecution obliged to
are distinct species of crimes and not first prosecute the accused for slight
merely methods of committing crimes. physical injuries through reckless
imprudence before pressing the more
Reason and precedent both coincide in serious charge. Having first prosecuted
that once convicted or acquitted of a the defendant for the lesser offense of
specific act of reckless imprudence, the which he was acquitted, such acquittal
accused may not be prosecuted again for prevents his prosecution for serious
that same act. For the essence of the physical injuries through reckless
quasi offense of criminal negligence under imprudence. The second accusation places
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies the defendant in second jeopardy for the
in the execution of an imprudent or same offense.
negligent act that, if intentionally done,
would be punishable as a felony. The law The prosecution under Article 365 should
penalizes thus the negligent or careless proceed from a single charge regardless of
act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the number or severity of the
the consequence is only taken into consequences. In imposing penalties, the
account to determine the penalty, it does judge will do no more than apply the
not qualify the substance of the offense. penalties under Article 365 for each
And, as the careless act is single, whether consequence alleged and proven. In short,
the injurious result should affect one there shall be no splitting of charges
person or several persons, the offense under Article 365, and only onE
(criminal negligence) remains one and the information shall be filed in the same first
same, and cannot be split into different level court.
crimes and prosecutions.

Add. Info.: Article 48 of the RPC does not Causing vs. Dela Rosa
apply to acts penalized under Article 365
of the RPC. It is conceptually impossible Atty. Causing and his client, Mabasa
for a quasi-offense to stand for (1) a (Complainants), charged respondent
single act constituting two or more grave Judge Dela Rosa with gross ignorance of
or less grave felonies; or (2) an offense the law, gross misconduct and gross
which is a necessary means for incompetence for reversing the dismissal
committing another. The issue of double of a libel case against Mabasa. Said libel
jeopardy arises if one of the resulting acts case was dismissed because it violated the
is penalized as a light offense and the accused's right to speedy trial. This is

5
equivalent to a dismissal on the merits of complexity of a given case. Nonetheless,
the case. Furthermore, they argued that the accused must invoke his or her
he acted in bad faith when he reported constitutional rights in a timely manner.
Atty Causing to the IBP after the latter The failure to do so could be considered
wrote Facebook and Blogspot posts by the courts as a waiver of right.
against Judge Dela Rosa.
In his Comment, Dela Rosa averred that On 10 February 2003, the Office of the
he has reversed his earlier reversal. He Ombudsman received an anonymous
said his decision was based on liberality, complaint, accusing employees of the Vice
because the delays were mostly caused by Governor of Sarangani Province's office of
herein complainants. He denied that he graft and corruption. They did this by
was motivated by bad faith, ill will, fraud, diverting public funds given as grants or
dishonesty, corruption or caprice. aid, using barangay officials and
cooperatives and "dummies". The
The Office of the Court recommended that complaint was referrred to the
the complaint be dismissed for lack of Commission on Audit for investigation.
merit. This was adopted by the Supreme
Court. It ruled that, for liability to attach 7 years later, the Ombudsman filed
for ignorance of the law, the assailed act informations for violation of Anti-Graft and
of the judge must not only be erroneous. Corrupt Practices Act and Malversation of
It must also have been motivated by bad Public Funds through Falsification of Public
faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other ill Documents against the accused. The latter
motive. filed a Motion to Quash/Dismiss with
Judge Dela Rosa himself rectified his Prayer to Void and Set Aside Order of
earlier decision. He thus cannot be held Arrest, because there was an inordinate
liable, as this would be nothing short of delay in filing the Informations. This was
harassing judges to take the fantastic and denied by the Sandiganbayan, which also
impossible oath of rendering infallible denied the MR.
judgments. Furthermore, the judge's
contempt power must be exercised The Supreme Court held that there was no
judiciously and sparingly, not for inordinate delay.
retaliation or vindictiveness. As such,
there was no need to use it against Atty The constitutional right to speedy
Causing when reporting him to the IBP disposition of cases does not only include
would do. the period from which a case is submitted
for resolution. Rather, the right covers the
entire period of investigation, even
Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan BEFORE trial. Thus, it may be invoked as
early as the preliminary investigation
Every accused has the rights to due stage.
process and to speedy disposition of
cases. Inordinate delay in the resolution However, the fact of delay is not
and termination of a preliminary determined through mere mathematical
investigation will result in the dismissal of reckoning. There must be an examination
the case against the accused. Delay, of the facts and circumstances
however, is not determined through mere surrounding each case. Furthermore, the
mathematical reckoning but through the accused must invoke constitutional rights
examination of the facts and in a timely manner. Here, while there may
circumstances surrounding each case. have been a long investigation period,
Courts should appraise a reasonable petitioner did not assert rights during this
period from the point of view of how much period.
time a competent and independent public
officer would need in relation to the