Inquest Proceedings | Remedial Law Notes

See - Inquest Proceedings | Remedial Law Notes

"x x x.

Sec. 6. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. – When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.

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 provision 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.

NOTES:

Section 6 is called INQUEST PROCEEDINGS, related to Rule 113, Section 5 [a] and [b] on warrantless arrest. Inquests proceedings follow in cases where persons are arrested without the benefit of an arrest order or warrant, or are caught in the act of committing a criminal offense. 

Only offenses that would require preliminary investigation will have to go through inquest. Those not requiring preliminary investigation need not go through an inquest proceeding.

Here, there is no need for preliminary investigation because there is a deadline for the accused to be detained. Otherwise the peace officer will be guilty of arbitrary detention – delay in the delivery. 

The purpose of the inquest proceedings in these cases is that while the state acknowledges the law enforcers’ authority to arrest and detain persons without a warrant, the state must also ensure that these persons are not unlawfully detained, and that they are not denied due process. The inquest establishes whether the evidence is sufficient enough to seek court approval to keep the person in detention.

Prosecutors have a heavy burden to oversee police investigations in cases involving inquest proceedings (DOJ Circular 61 on New Rules on Inquest). Each police station or headquarters should in principle also have designated inquest prosecutors to process inquest procedures with a schedule of assignments for their regular inquest duties.

The inquest requires the prosecutors to resolve the complaint the police filed in a prescribed period, which varies depending on the gravity of the offense. Cases punishable with light penalties must be resolved in 12 hours; those punishable with correctional penalties within 18 hours; and those punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, within 36 hours. If the inquest prosecutor fails to complete the proceedings in the prescribed period then the person must be released. - http://www.article2.org

How should the complaint or information be filed when the accused is lawfully arrested without warrant?

The complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need for a preliminary investigation provided an inquest proceeding has been conducted in accordance with existing rules. (Sec. 6, Rule 112, Rules of Court)

Suppose there is no inquest prosecutor? Or there is an inquest prosecutor but he is not available, what will happen now to the case?

In the absence of an inquest prosecutor, the offended party or any peace officer may file the complaint directly in court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or peace officer. (Sec. 6, Rule 112, Rules of Court)

What is an inquest?

An inquest is an informal and summary investigation conducted by a public prosecutor in a criminal case involving persons arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether said persons should remain under custody and correspondingly charged in court. (Section 1, DOJ Circular No. 61)

What is the remedy of the person arrested without warrant if he wants a preliminary investigation?

BEFORE the complaint or information is filed, he may ask for one provided that he signs a waiver of his rights under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code in the PRESENCE of his counsel. He may still apply for bail in spite of the waiver. The investigation must be terminated within 15 days.

● Correlate this with Section 2 [e] of RA 7438 – Law Protecting Rights of Persons under custody – i.e. he must be assisted by his counsel. Otherwise the waiver is not valid.

AFTER the complaint of information is filed but before arraignment, the accused may, within 5 days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation. (Sec. 6, Rule 112, Rules of Court)

● The request for preliminary investigation should be made before plea, otherwise the right to ask for a preliminary investigation shall be deemed waived.

● The period for filing a motion for preliminary investigation after an information has been filed against an accused who was arrested without a warrant has been characterized as mandatory by the court. In People vs Figueroa, the Supreme Court held that as the accused in that case did not exercise his right within the five-day period, his motion for reinvestigation was denied.

What are the guidelines to safeguard the rights of an accused who has been arrested without a warrant?

1. The arresting officer must bring the arrestee before the inquest prosecutor to determine whether the person should remain in custody and charged in court or if he should be released for lack of evidence or for further investigation.

2. The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing, and before such report is signed or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or dialect known to him, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever. (DOJ Circular No. 61)

x x x."

Independence and impartiality of judges, prosecutors, lawyers

See - www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training9chapter4en.pdf  (Download)

INDEPENDENCE AND
IMPARTIALITY OF
JUDGES, PROSECUTORS
AND LAWYERS

Sources of Information on Justice for Children

Content of Sources of Information on Justice for Children:



National Reports and Books p.1

International Reports and Books p.2

Training Manuals on Justice for Children and Children Rights p.3

International Instruments p.3





National Reports and Books:



Ø African Child Policy Forum (2007), Report on the Study of the Treatment of Cg Deprived of their Liberty in 8 Towns in Ethiopia, Draft, Addis Ababa, 72p.

Ø African Child Policy Forum (2006), Harmonisation of Laws relating to Children in Eastern and Southern Africa, A Draft Report, Addis Ababa, 61p.

Ø African Child Policy Forum (2005), A Report on Violence Against Children, Addis Ababa.

Ø Alem, E. (2005), Violence against children in Ethiopia; Manifestations, the Legal and Policy framework and Challenges of Implementation, UNICEF/MOLSA Ethiopia, 58p.

Ø Andargatchew Tesfaye (2000), An Evaluation of the Child Protection Program Operated by the Addis Ababa City Administration Police Commission and Forum on Street Children Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.

Ø Askale Mekonnen (2001), An Assessment Report of Best Practice of the Child Protection Programme undertaken by Police and Forum on Street Children Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.

Ø Askale Mekonnen & Sara T. Mariam (2003), An evaluation report o the performance of the Justice for Children project, Federal Supreme Court, Addis Ababa.

Ø Azeb Adefrsew (2004), Institutional Capacity Needs Assessment Survey: The Addis Ababa Rehabilitation Institute for Juvenile Delinquents, Addis Ababa, 59p.

Ø Desalegn Chalchisa (1997), Psychological Guidelines for Child Protection Unit and Procedural Manual for Police Working in Child Protection and Care Units, Addis Ababa.

Ø Endeshaw, Y., (2006), Gebeyehu, M. and Reta, B. (2006), Assessment of Trafficking in Women and Children in and from Ethiopia, IOM, 60p.

Ø Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2005), Comprehensive Justice System Reform Programme. Baseline Study Report, Ministry of Capacity Building, Justice System Reform Program Office, Addis Ababa.

Ø Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2005), Country response to the questionnaire on Violence against Children by the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, Addis Ababa.

Ø Forum on Street Children Ethiopia (2003), Annual Report 2003.

Ø Forum on Street Children Ethiopia and Save the Children Sweden (2003), Community Based Correction Programme - Individual Treatment Plan, Addis Ababa.

Ø Forum on Street Children Ethiopia (2005), Annual Activity and Financial Report – Advocacy and Child Protection Programme, January – December 2004, Addis Ababa.

Ø Forum on Street Children – Ethiopia (FSCE), Information on Child Abuse in Ethiopia, FSCE, 22p.

Ø Forum on Street Children – Ethiopia (2006), Advocacy and Child Protection Program, Annual Activity and Financial Report, Submitted to Save the Children – Sweden, 46p.

Ø International Office for Migration (2004), Assessment of the magnitude of women and children trafficked within and outside Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.

Ø Justice for Children Project Office (2004), Bi-Annual Report of the Federal Supreme Court Justice for Children Project Office, Addis Ababa.

Ø Meskerem Geset Techane (2002), Critical Evaluation of the Justice for Children Administration in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.

Ø Ministry of Capacity Building (2005), Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Comprehensive Justice System Reform Program, Baseline Study Report, Center for International Legal Cooperation, Leiden, 531p.

Ø Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2005), National Action Plan on Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children (2006 - 2010), MOLSA, Addis Ababa, 74p.

Ø National Committee on the Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children in Ethiopia, National Plan of Action on Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children (2006-2010), Draft, Addis Ababa, September 2005.

Ø National Plan of Action for Children, (2003-2010 and beyond), Addis Ababa.

Ø National Plan of Action on Orphans and Vulnerable Children (2004-2006), Addis Ababa.

Ø Original Wolde Giorgis, Emebet Kebede, Mellese Damtie (2004), Violence Against Women in Addis Ababa in Berchi, The Annual Journal of Ethiopian Women Lawyers Association, Number 5.

Ø Save the Children Denmark (2005), Prison Fellowship Ethiopia and Daystar Consult International, The Situation of Children in Prisons in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.

Ø Save the Children Sweden (2005), Diversion of children in conflict with the law to community-based programme centers – a case study from Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.

Ø UNICEF & MOLSA (2005), Violence Against Children in Ethiopia: Manifestations, the Legal and Policy Framework and Challenges of Implementation, Addis Ababa.

Ø Quéré, V. (2005), Justice for Children, Good Practices and Remaining Challenges in the Area of ‘Justice for Children’ in Ethiopia, UNICEF Assessment Report, UNICEF, Ethiopia, 120p.

Ø United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (January, 2001), Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Ethiopia, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.144, Geneva.

Ø van Welzenis, I. (2007)., Project ‘Children Rights Protection Training Development’; Needs Assessment Findings, UNICEF-Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, 70p.





International Reports and Books:



Ø International Save the Children Alliance (2005), The Right Not to Lose Hope: An analysis of violence in the lives of children in conflict with the law, with examples of good practice in community-based responses, Draft.

Ø Lansdown, G. (2005), The Evolving Capacities of the Child, UNICEF/Save the Children, 83p.

Ø Richman, N. (1993), Communicating with Children, Helping children in distress, Development Manual 2, Save the Children, London, 106p.

Ø Save the Children (1992), Helping children in difficult circumstances, A Teacher’s manual, Save the Children, London, 47p.

Ø Roy, N. and Wong, M. (2004), Juvenile Justice, Modern Concepts of Working with Children in Conflict with the Law, Save the Children, 174p.

Ø UNICEF (1998), Justice for Children, Innocenti Digest 3.

Ø UNICEF (2002), Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Right of the Child (with CD-Rom), United Nations Publications, New York, 762p.

Ø UNICEF (2001), Early Marriage, Child Spouses, Innocenti Digest 7.

Ø UNICEF (2002), Birth Registration Rights from the Start, Innocenti Digest 9.





Training Manuals on Justice for Children and Children Rights:



Ø Philippine National Police, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UNICEF (2002), Juvenile Justice Training Manual for Law Enforcers : Child Rights Training, Volume One, Philippines.

Ø Save the Children Sweden, Regional Office for Eastern and Central Africa and Forum on Street Children Ethiopia (1999), Protection of Children, Youth and Women: Manual for Training Police Officers, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ø Save the Children Sweden, Forum on Street Children Ethiopia & Addis Ababa Police Commission (2004), Guidelines for Police Working in Child Protection Programs in Ethiopia& Pocket Book for Police Officers Working in Child Protection Programs, Ethiopia.

Ø Uganda Police Force and UNICEF, The Role of the Uganda Police in the Protection of Women and Children’s Legal Rights, A Trainer’s Manual, Uganda.

Ø UNICEF, Handbook on Juvenile Justice and Children’s Rights for police, magistrates and judges, UNICEF, Bangladesh.

Ø UNICEF, Police Guidelines for Dealing with Children, Mongolia

Ø UNICEF (2004), Timor-Leste Child Protection Section, Training Manual for Police Officers on Child Rights, Juvenile Justice, Child Abuse and Children At-Risk, Draft.

Ø United Nations (2001), Asia-Pacific Answers: Good Practices in Combating Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth, www.unescap.org/esid/hds/sexual/inter-agency.doc

Ø Wernham, M. (2004), An Outside Change, Street Children and Juvenile Justice, An International Perspective, CCS, www.streetchildren.org.uk/resources

Ø Wernham, M. (2005), Police Training on Children Rights & Child Protection: Lessons Learned & Manual, CCS, www.streetchildren.org.uk/resources





International Instruments:



Ø UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: www.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

Ø African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child: www.achpr.org/english/_info/child_en.html

Ø Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict: www.unicef.org

Ø Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography: www.unicef.org

Ø UN Guidelines on the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (Riyadh Guidelines): www.ohchr.org/english/law/juvenile.htm

Ø UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules): www.ohchr.org/english/law/beijingrules.htm

Ø UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (JDLs): www.ohchr.org/english/law/res45_113.htm

Ø UN Guidelines for Action for Children in the Criminal Justice System (Vienna Guidelines): www.ohchr.org/english/law/system.htm

Ø UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners: www.ohchr.org/english/law/treatmentprisoners.htm



Ø UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (Tokyo Rules): www.ohchr.org/english/law/tokyorules.htm

DOJ ISSUES ADVISORY OPINION ON RULES ON MILITARY/POLICE CHECKPOINTS

See - DOJ ISSUES ADVISORY OPINION ON RULES ON MILITARY/POLICE CHECKPOINTS

Republika ng Pilipinas

KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN

Department of Justice Manila

15 March 2011

ADVISORY OPINION NO. 01
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ADVISORY ON RULES ON MILITARY/POLICE CHECKPOINTS

I. INTRODUCTION


This Department of Justice (DOJ) Advisory (the “Advisory”) is intended to address and advise the public on the proper conduct of checkpoints to protect citizens, to serve as warning to erring law enforcers and to weed out illegal checkpoints. The Advisory summarizes law and jurisprudence to ensure that in the implementation of proper search and seizure procedures at military or police checkpoints, civil, political and human rights are not violated.

II. SUMMARY OF THE LAW

Constitution
Section 2, Article III of the Constitution provides for the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.


Section 3, Article III also provides that any evidence obtained in violation of the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.


Election laws, rules and guidelines
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has issued guidelines on the establishment of checkpoints to effectively implement the firearms ban during election period pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Constitution, Omnibus Election Code and other election laws.


Supreme Court decisions
The Supreme Court, in several cases, has ruled that not all checkpoints are illegal. Those which are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed. For, admittedly, routine checkpoints do intrude, to a certain extent, on motorists’ right to “free passage without interruption,” but it cannot be denied that, as a rule, it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which the vehicle’s occupants are required to answer a brief question or two. For as long as the vehicle is neither searched not its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individual’s right against unreasonable search. In fact, these routine checks, when conducted in a fixed area, are even less intrusive. [1]


III. IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS

Checkpoint – A place where the military or police check vehicular or pedestrian traffic in order to enforce circulation control measures and other laws, orders, and regulations which involves only a brief detention of travelers during which the vehicle’s occupants are required to answer a brief question or two.


Brief detention – a brief stoppage or interruption of travel or motion (in the context of the conduct of checkpoints).


Plain view – that which is readily in sight of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view.


Probable cause – the existence of such facts and circumstances as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person charged is guilty of the crime subject of the investigation.


Uniformed personnel – refers to the AFP and/or PNP personnel wearing their respective service uniforms with the name plates and other identification tags.


Visual search – an eye search using the ‘plain view’ doctrine.



IV. ADVISORY

The general public is hereby advised on the rules on military/police checkpoints as follows:


CHECKPOINT MUST BE WELL-LIGHTED, PROPERLY IDENTIFIED AND MANNED BY UNIFORMED PERSONNEL.

Checkpoint guidelines provide that all personnel manning legitimate checkpoints should be in service uniform with the name plates and other identification tags clearly visible and readable.


UPON APPROACH, SLOW DOWN, DIM HEADLIGHTS AND TURN ON CABIN LIGHTS. NEVER STEP OUT OF THE VEHICLE.

In a checkpoint inquiry, the occupants cannot be compelled to step out of the vehicle.[2]


LOCK ALL DOORS. ONLY VISUAL SEARCH IS ALLOWED.


The search which is normally permissible is limited to visual search where the officer simply looks into the vehicle and flashes a light therein without opening the car’s door.[3]


DO NOT SUBMIT TO A PHYSICAL OR BODY SEARCH.


The search which is normally permissible is limited to an instance where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search.[4]


YOU ARE NOT OBLIGED TO OPEN GLOVE COMPARTMENT, TRUNK OR BAGS.


The personnel manning the checkpoint cannot compel the motorist to open the trunk or glove compartment of the car or any package contained therein. Such extensive search requires the existence of probable cause.[5]


ORDINARY/ROUTINE QUESTIONS MAY BE ASKED. BE COURTEOUS BUT FIRM WITH ANSWERS.


Checkpoint involves only a brief detention of travelers during which the vehicle’s occupants are required to answer a brief question or two.[6]


ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS, HAVE PRESENCE OF MIND AND DO NOT PANIC.


The constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right which may be waived. Affirmative acts of volition without being forced or intimidated to do so, shall properly be construed as a clear waiver of right.[7]


KEEP YOUR DRIVER’S LICENSE AND CAR REGISTRATION HANDY AND WITHIN REACH.


To avoid delay and inconvenience, ready the car registration documents for inspection, in case requested by authorities.


BE READY TO USE YOUR CELLPHONE AT ANYTIME. SPEED DIAL EMERGENCY NUMBER.
In case of violation in any these standards, cellphones can be used anytime to call emergency numbers:117 (PNP) or (02) 521-2930 (DOJ Action Center).


REPORT VIOLATIONS IMMEDIATELY. YOUR ACTIONS MAY SAVE OTHERS.


All violations shall be reported to the authorities to ensure steps are taken to investigate checkpoint violations.



This Advisory is issued in line with the thrust of the Department to take a pro-active stance and dynamic approach in criminal justice concerns and all are enjoined to observe this Advisory.


(signed)

LEILA M. DE LIMA
Secretary



[1] People vs. Escaño, G.R. No. 129756-58, January 28,2000

[2] Abenes vs. CA, GR No. 156320, February 14, 2007

[3] Caballes vs. CA, GR No. 136292, January 15, 2002

[4] Op. Cit.

[5] People vs. Lacerna GR. No.n 109250, September 5, 1997

[6] Supra. Abenes vs. CA

[7] Supra. Caballes vs. CA

Last Updated (Wednesday, 13 July 2011 05:26)

How to Appeal Decisions of Prosecutor

See - How to Appeal Decisions of Prosecutor

"x x x.

In the municipal level, the relationship of the Philippine National Police and the Office of the Prosecutor is of paramount importance. The PNP usually represented by the unit Investigator, has nobody to turn except to the Public Prosecutor when confronted with issues requiring legal expertise particularly with the filing of criminal cases. We must admit though, that in certain instances, a Prosecutor may not necessarily be convinced of the cases filed by a Police Investigator. It may result in the dismissal of cases even on the preliminary investigation or inquest stage.

Outcome of cases filed by the police is at the mercy of the Prosecutor because no office in the PNP handle appeals in connection with Resolutions of the Prosecutor. Dismissal of the case at the prosecutor’s level means the PNP has to let go of the suspect. This would further drain the resources of a police unit because after a warrant of arrest will be issued, police personnel will exert effort and spent financial resources again to capture the same person.

It is no arrogance to claim, especially to those who have the experience that the reason for the dismissal of the case is not really that the PNP has no case at all citing experience as a Police Investigator. The problem lies on relationship with the handling Prosecutor.

At the very start of the incident the Investigator knows the real-score on how to win the case. But sometime events turn otherwise when the prosecutor imposes his authority, suggests things, requires documents, gives demoralizing comments, etc. as to the merit of the case citing variables such as politics, blood relationships and previous experience with the PNP’s law enforcement activities, not to mention volume of his deadlines, and many factors that drives a prosecutor to have an attitude of resistance upon seeing a PNP member in his office.

Eto ang Abogado Nyo!

While looking for references in the library, I came across a criminal investigation Manual revised 2010 published by Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management (DIDM). The book laid down the procedures that Investigators need in performing their duty. Although the last part of the Manual has a form for notice of appeal, the appeal is premised on the outcome of the trial.

Absent in the manual is the discussion on how to appeal an adverse Resolution of the Public Prosecutor be it regular preliminary investigation, reinvestigation or those arising from an inquest proceeding found in DOJ Department Circular No. 70 (2000 NPS Rule on Appeal) which I believe should have been incorporated in the Manual.

There is no much problem in appealing Resolutions during Preliminary Investigations or Reinvestigation. The appeal procedure provides that:

1. The verified Petition for Review shall be brought to the Secretary of Justice within 15 days after receipt of the Resolution or within the same period after receipt of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration if one has been filed.

2. The investigating/reviewing/approving prosecutor shall not be impleaded as party respondent in the petition. The PNP unit taking the appeal shall be referred to in the petition as "Complainant-Appellant".

3. The petition shall contain or state: (a) the names and addresses of the parties; (b) the Investigation Slip number (I.S. No.) and criminal case number, if any, and title of the case, including the offense charged in the complaint; (c) the venue of the preliminary investigation; (d) the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (e) a clear and concise statement of the facts, the assignment of errors, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; and (f) proof of service of a copy of the petition to the adverse party and the Prosecution Office concerned.

4. The petition shall be accompanied by legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the resolution appealed from together with legible true copies of the complaint, affidavits/sworn statements and other evidence submitted by the parties during the preliminary investigation/reinvestigation.

5. Failure to comply with the above requirements shall constitute sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

Below is a suggested format;

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE

Office of the Secretary

Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila

________________,

Complainant-Appellant,

- versus -

                                                                                            For: ______________

________________,

Respondent-Appellee.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

                                                    PETITION FOR REVIEW

COMES NOW, the undersigned petitioner, unto this Honorable Office respectfully avers:

1. That on _________ the undersigned Chief of Police of ____(state the unit and postal address)_______ upon complaint of the private offended party filed a case against _____(state the name and postal address of the respondent)_ for___(designation of offense)__ docketed under IS No.____ before the Office of Honorable _________ located in ______ where the preliminary investigation took place;

2. That for the information of the Honorable Secretary this case started ___(give the concise facts of the case)

3. That on _____(date)___ the undersigned received the Resolution of the Honorable Prosecutor copy of which is attached as Annex “A” disposing the case as follows:

Note: Copy the dispositive portion of the resolution.

4. That the undersigned ______(pls give ur analysis how the Prosecutor disposed the case) ___.

5. That with due respect to the Honorable Prosecutor, the undersigned believed that he committed error on the following:

Note: Cite now the matters that adversely affect your case specifically pinpointing the law that supports your position

6. Attached as integral part of this petition are the following:

a) Proof of service of this Petition to the Honorable Prosecutor (Annex “B”)

b) Proof of service of this Petition to the Appealee

c) Other Records of the Case

WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectfully prays for the setting aside of the appealed resolution of Prosecutor __________ dated _____and that the honorable prosecutor be directed to file information (blah blah cite now the relief that you want if you have any)­­­­_____

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

____Place________. ____Date_____.

_____________________

Chief of Police

                                                    VERIFICATION                           

                                                          JURAT

Copy furnished:

- Prosecutor

- Respondent

The more bloody discussion is on appeal of Resolutions arising from Inquest Proceedings. During inquest, the prosecutor may recommend for the release of the respondent. However his recommendation is subject to approval by the head prosecutor who, in the natural course of events, acts on the recommendation only after the lapse of 3 days. Pending approval of the recommendation, does the respondent be released by the PNP so as to avoid arbitrary detention charges? The answer is NO. The officer having custody of the detainee must wait for the Order of Release served upon him.

Although we have a principle in law that interpretations of the law must tend to benefit the person in custody, in the case of LADLAD VS VELASCO et al (GR No. 172070-72 promulgated June 1, 2007), Section 9 of DOJ Circular No. 61 (new Rules on Inquest) in relation to section 7 of Rule 112 (Preliminary Investigation) was discussed and the Supreme Court seems to suggest that the PNP should not release the respondent pending approval of the recommendation by the Head Prosecutor. If the recommendation to release the respondent is approved because the arrest is not in accordance with the rules of warrantless arrest but the case itself is meritorious, the Order of Release shall be served on the officer having custody of the detainee; and, the Order to submit counter-affidavit will be served to the respondent so that the regular preliminary investigation will proceed. The Resolution in the regular preliminary investigation will be the subject of petition for review and not the resolution in Inquest Proceeding pursuant to the case of LEVISTE vs ALAMEDA GR No. 182677 promulgated Aug. 3, 2010.

If the Prosecutor dismisses the case subject of inquest, the course of action is not to appeal but to file again the case curing the defect of the complaint.

Hope, this write-up helps our frontliners.

About the Author:

PSI GARRY FRANCO CAÑETE PUASO is a member of the BAR who hails from San Isidro, Northern Samar. He was formerly assigned with the Northern Samar Police Provincial Office where he was designated as Special Operations Group team leader, Police Investigator and DOJ authorized Prosecutor for ten years. He studied law in University of Eastern Philippines, Catarman, Northern Samar and joined the PNP-Legal Service thru Lateral Entry after passing the 2008 Bar Examinations.

The above discussion is his insight on a common predicament faced by police front-line investigators.

He topped the Order of Merit for Papa Company during the PSOBC Class 2010-109, Class Dakila, conducted at Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Calamba City, Laguna.

Currently, he oversees the LS Legal Advice 24/7 Office and the big brother behind the advisory messages sent to Investigators nationwide. He also supervises the PNP Legal Service Website.

x x x."

Manual for Public Prosecutors | Karla Rose Gutierrez - Academia.edu

See - (7) Manual for Public Prosecutors | Karla Rose Gutierrez - Academia.edu

(Download)



                                             Department of Justice

Manual for Public Prosecutors

Guidelines on the application of Art. 125, Rev. Penal Code. DOJ Circ. 50, s. 2012

See - https://www.doj.gov.ph/files/issuance/Department_Circular_No_50.pdf

(Download)

Guidelines on the application of Art. 125, Rev. Penal Code. DOJ Circ. 50, s. 2012. Inquest. Waiver of Art. 125, RTC.  The "12-18-36 hours" detention rule in Inquest proceedings.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10353 - Anti-Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance Act of 2012

See - www.gov.ph/downloads/2012/12dec/20121221-RA-10353-BSA.pdf

[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10353]

AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING ENFORCED OR INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCE

SECTION 1. Short Title. –This Act shall be known as the “Anti-Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance Act of 2012″.

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. –The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights for which highest priority shall be given to the enactment of measures for the enhancement of the right of all people to human dignity, the prohibition against secret detention places, solitary confinement, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention, the provision for penal and civil sanctions for such violations, and compensation and rehabilitation for the victims and their families, particularly with respect to the use of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will of persons abducted, arrested, detained, disappeared or otherwise removed from the effective protection of the law.

Furthermore, the State adheres to the principles and standards on the absolute condemnation of human rights violations set by the 1987 Philippine Constitution and various international instruments such as, but not limited to, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), to which the Philippines is a State party.

SEC. 3. Definitions. –For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall be defined as follows:

(a) Agents of the State refer to persons who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the government, or shall perform in the government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class.

(b) Enforced or involuntary disappearance refers to the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty committed by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which places such person outside the protection of the law.

(c) Order of Battle refers to a document made by the military, police or any law enforcement agency of the government, listing the names of persons and organizations that it perceives to be enemies of the State and which it considers as legitimate targets as combatants that it could deal with, through the use of means allowed by domestic and international law.

(d) Victim refers to the disappeared person and any individual who has suffered harm as a direct result of an enforced or involuntary disappearance as defined in letter (b) of this Section.

SEC. 4. Nonderogability of the Right Against Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance. –The right against enforced or involuntary disappearance and the fundamental safeguards for its prevention shall not be suspended under any circumstance including political instability, threat of war, state of war or other public emergencies.

SEC. 5. “Order of Battle” or Any Order of Similar Nature, Not Legal Ground, for Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance. – An “Order of Battle” or any order of similar nature, official or otherwise, from a superior officer or a public authority causing the commission of enforced or involuntary disappearance is unlawful and cannot be invoked as a justifying or exempting circumstance. Any person receiving such an order shall have the right to disobey it.

SEC. 6. Right of Access to Communication. – It shall be the absolute right of any person deprived of liberty to have immediate access to any form of communication available in order for him or her to inform his or her family, relative, friend, lawyer or any human rights organization on his or her whereabouts and condition.

SEC. 7. Duty to Report Victims of Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance. – Any person, not being a principal, accomplice or accessory, who has an information of a case of enforced or involuntary disappearance or who shall learn of such information or that a person is a victim of enforced or involuntary disappearance, shall immediately report in writing the circumstances and whereabouts of the victim to any office, detachment or division of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), the Department of National Defense (DND), the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the City or Provincial Prosecutor, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) or any human rights organization and, if known, the victim’s family, relative, or lawyer.

SEC. 8. Duty to Certify in Writing on the Results of Inquiry into a Reported Disappeared Person’s Whereabouts. –In case a family member, relative, lawyer, representative of a human rights organization or a member of the media inquires with a member or official of any police or military detention center, the PNP or any of its agencies, the AFP or any of its agencies, the NBI or any other agency or instrumentality of the government, as well as any hospital or morgue, public or private, on the presence or whereabouts of a reported victim of enforced or involuntary disappearance, such member or official shall immediately issue a certification in writing to the inquiring person or entity on the presence or absence and/or information on the whereabouts of such disappeared person, stating, among others, in clear and unequivocal manner the date and time of inquiry, details of the inquiry and the response to the inquiry.

SEC. 9. Duty of Inquest/Investigating Public Prosecutor or any Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Official or Employee. –Any inquest or investigating public prosecutor, or any judicial or quasi-judicial official or employee who learns that the person delivered for inquest or preliminary investigation or for any other judicial process is a victim of enforced or involuntary disappearance shall have the duty to immediately disclose the victim’s whereabouts to his or her immediate family, relatives, lawyer/s or to a human rights organization by the most expedient means.

SEC. 10. Official Up-to-Date Register of All Persons Detained or Confined. – All persons detained or confined shall be placed solely in officially recognized and controlled places of detention or confinement where an official up-to-date register of such persons shall be maintained. Relatives, lawyers, judges, official bodies and all persons who have legitimate interest in the whereabouts and condition of the persons deprived of liberty shall have free access to the register.

The following details, among others, shall be recorded, in the register:

(a) The identity or name, description and address of the person deprived of liberty;

(b) The date, time and location where the person was deprived of liberty and the identity of the person who made such deprivation of liberty;

(c) The authority who decided the deprivation of liberty and the reasons for the deprivation of liberty or the crime or offense committed;

(d) The authority controlling the deprivation of liberty;

(e) The place of deprivation of liberty, the date and time of admission to the place of deprivation of liberty and the authority responsible for the place of deprivation of liberty;

(f) Records of physical, mental and psychological condition of the detained or confined person before and after the deprivation of liberty and the name and address of the physician who examined him or her physically, mentally and medically;

(g) The date and time of release or transfer of the detained or confined person to another place of detention, the destination and the authority responsible for the transfer;

(h) The date and time of each removal of the detained or confined person from his or her cell, the reason or purpose for such removal and the date and time of his or her return to his or her cell;

(i) A summary of the physical, mental and medical findings of the detained or confined person after each interrogation;

(j) The names and addresses of the persons who visit the detained or confined person and the date and time of such visits and the date and time of each departure;

(k) In the event of death during the deprivation of liberty, the identity, the circumstances and cause of death of the victim as well as the destination of the human remains; and

(1) All other important events bearing on and all relevant details regarding the treatment of the detained or confined person.

Provided, That the details required under letters (a) to (f) shall be entered immediately in the register upon arrest and/or detention.

All information contained in the register shall be regularly or upon request reported to the CHR or any other agency of government tasked to monitor and protect human rights and shall be made available to the public.

SEC. 11. Submission of List of Government Detention Facilities. –Within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act and as may be requested by the CHR thereafter, all government agencies concerned shall submit an updated inventory or list of all officially recognized and controlled detention or confinement facilities, and the list of detainees or persons deprived of liberty under their respective jurisdictions to the CHR.

SEC. 12. Immediate Issuance and Compliance of the Writs of Habeas Corpus, Amparo and Habeas Data. – All proceedings pertaining to the issuance of the writs of habeas corpus, amparo and habeas data shall be dispensed with expeditiously. As such, all courts and other concerned agencies of government shall give priority to such proceedings.

Moreover, any order issued or promulgated pursuant to such writs or their respective proceedings shall be executed and complied with immediately.

SEC. 13. Visitation /Inspection of Places of Detention and, Confinement. –The CHR or its duly authorized representatives are hereby mandated and authorized to conduct regular, independent, unannounced and unrestricted visits to or inspection of all places of detention and confinement.

SEC. 14. Liability of Commanding Officer or Superior. – The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the AFP or the immediate senior official of the PNP and other law enforcement agencies shall be held liable as a principal to the crime of enforced or involuntary disappearance for acts committed by him or her that shall have led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether directly or indirectly, the commission thereof by his or her subordinates. If such commanding officer has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that an enforced or involuntary disappearance is being committed, or has been committed by subordinates or by others within the officer’s area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, did not take preventive or coercive action either before, during or immediately after its commission, when he or she has the authority to prevent or investigate allegations of enforced or involuntary disappearance but failed to prevent or investigate such allegations, whether deliberately or due to negligence, shall also be held liable as principal.

SEC. 15. Penal Provisions. – (a) The penalty of reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalties shall be imposed upon the following persons:

(1) Those who directly committed the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance;

(2) Those who directly forced, instigated, encouraged or induced others to commit the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance;

(3) Those who cooperated in the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance by committing another act without which the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance would not have been consummated;

(4) Those officials who allowed the act or abetted in the consummation of enforced or involuntary disappearance when it is within their power to stop or uncover the commission thereof; and

(5) Those who cooperated in the execution of the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance by previous or simultaneous acts.

(b) The penalty of reclusion temporal and its accessory penalties shall be imposed upon those who shall commit the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance in the attempted stage as provided for and defined under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code.

(c) The penalty of reclusion temporal and its accessory penalties shall also be imposed upon persons who, having knowledge of the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, took part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manner:

(1) By themselves profiting from or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance;

(2) By concealing the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance and/or destroying the effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its discovery; or

(3) By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal/s in the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance, provided such accessory acts are done with the abuse of official functions.

(d) The penalty of prision correctional and its accessory penalties shall be imposed against persons who defy, ignore or unduly delay compliance with any order duly issued or promulgated pursuant to the writs of habeas corpus, amparo and habeas data or their respective proceedings.

(e) The penalty of arresto mayor and its accessory penalties shall be imposed against any person who shall violate the provisions of Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of this Act.

SEC. 16. Preventive Suspension/Summary Dismissal. –Government officials and personnel who are found to be perpetrators of or participants in any manner in the commission of enforced or involuntary disappearance as a result of a preliminary investigation conducted for that purpose shall be preventively suspended or summarily dismissed from the service, depending on the strength of the evidence so presented and gathered in the said preliminary investigation or as may be recommended by the investigating authority.

SEC. 17. Civil Liability. –The act of enforced or involuntary disappearance shall render its perpetrators and the State agencies which organized, acquiesced in or tolerated such disappearance liable under civil law.

SEC. 18. Independent Liability. –The criminal liability of the offender under this Act shall be independent of or without prejudice to the prosecution and conviction of the said offender for any violation of Republic Act No. 7438, otherwise known as “An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining, and Investigating Officers, and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof’; Republic Act No. 9745, otherwise known as “An Act Penalizing Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Prescribing Penalties Therefor”; and applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

SEC. 19. Nonexclusivity or Double Jeopardy Under International Law. – Any investigation, trial and decision in any Philippines court, or body for any violation of this Act shall; be without prejudice to any investigation, trial, decision or any other legal or administrative process before any appropriate international court or agency under applicable international human rights and humanitarian law.

SEC. 20. Exemption from Prosecution. – Any offender who volunteers information that leads to the discovery of the victim of enforced or involuntary disappearance or the prosecution of the offenders without the victim being found shall be exempt from any criminal and/or civil liability under this Act: Provided, That said offender does not appear to be the most guilty.

SEC. 21. Continuing Offense. – An act constituting enforced or involuntary disappearance shall be considered a continuing offense as long as the perpetrators continue to conceal the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared person and such circumstances have not been determined with certainty.

SEC. 22. Statue of Limitations Exemption. – The prosecution of persons responsible for enforced or involuntary disappearance shall not prescribe unless the victim surfaces alive. In which case, the prescriptive period shall be twenty-five (25) years from the date of such reappearance.

SEC. 23. Special Amnesty Law Exclusion. – Persons who are changed with and/or guilty of the act of enforced or involuntary disappearance shall not benefit from any special amnesty law or other similar executive measures that shall exempt them from any penal proceedings or sanctions.

SEC. 24. State Protection – The State, through its appropriate agencies, shall ensure the safety of all persons involved in the search, investigation and prosecution of enforced or involuntary disappearance including, but not limited to, the victims, their families, complainants, witnesses, legal counsel and representatives of human rights organizations and media. They shall likewise be protected from any intimidation or reprisal.

SEC. 25. Applicability of Refouler. –No person shall be expelled, returned or extradited to another State where there are substantial grounds to believe that such person shall be in danger of being subjected to enforced or involuntary disappearance. For purposes of determining whether such grounds exist, the Secretary of the Department, of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in coordination with the Chairperson of the CHR, shall take into account all relevant considerations including where applicable and not limited to, the existence in the requesting State of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

SEC. 26. Restitution and Compensation to Victims of Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance and/or Their Immediate Relatives. –The victims of enforced or involuntary disappearance who surface alive shall be entitled to monetary compensation, rehabilitation and restitution of honor and reputation. Such restitution of honor and reputation shall include immediate expunging or rectification of any derogatory record, information or public declaration/statement on his or her person, personal circumstances, status, and/or organizational affiliation by the appropriate government or private agency or agencies concerned.

The immediate relatives of a victim of enforced or involuntary disappearance, within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, may also claim for compensation as provided for under Republic Act No. 7309, entitled “An Act Creating a Board of Claims under the Department of Justice for Victims of Unjust Imprisonment or Detention and Victims of Violent Crimes and For Other Purposes”, and other relief programs of the government.

The package of indemnification for both the victims and the immediate relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity shall be without prejudice to other legal remedies that may be available to them.

SEC. 27. Rehabilitation of Victims and/or Their Immediate Relatives, and Offenders. – In order that the victims of enforced or involuntary disappearance who surfaced alive and/or their immediate relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, may be effectively reintegrated into the mainstream of society and in the process of development, the State, through the CHR, in coordination with the Department of Health, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and the concerned nongovernment organization/s, shall provide them with appropriate medical care and rehabilitation free of charge.

Toward the attainment of restorative justice, a parallel rehabilitation program for persons who have committed enforced or involuntary disappearance shall likewise be implemented without cost to such offenders.

SEC. 28. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – Within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this Act, the DOJ, the DSWD, the CHR, the Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND) and the Families of Desaparecidos for Justice (Desaparecidos), in consultation with other human rights organizations, shall jointly promulgate the rules and regulations for the effective implementation of this Act and shall ensure the full dissemination of the same to the public.

SEC. 29. Suppletory Applications. – The applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall have suppletory application insofar as they are consistent with the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 30. Appropriations. –The amount of Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) is hereby appropriated for the initial implementation of this Act by the CHR. Subsequent fluids for the continuing implementation of this Act shall be included in the respective budgets of the CHR and the DOJ in the annual General Appropriations Act.

SEC. 31. Separability Clause. –If for any reason, any section or provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or invalid, such other sections or provisions not affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect.

SEC. 32. Repealing Clause. – All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations and other issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

SEC. 33. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation or the Official Gazette, which shall not be later than seven (7) days after the approval thereof.

PNP criminal investigation manuals.

See - DIDM MANUALS (Downloads)

DIDM MANUALS

• CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION MANUAL REVISED 2011 (PNPM-DIDM-DS-9-1)
• FIELD MANUAL ON INVESTIGATION OF CRIMES OF VIOLENCE AND OTHER CRIMES 2011 (PNPM-DIDM-DS-9-2)
• PNP PRE-CHARGE EVALUATION AND SUMMARY HEARING GUIDE (PNPM-DIDM-DS-9-3)

Sandiganbayan

See - about us (Sandiganbayan)

"x x x.

ABOUT SANDIGANBAYAN

MANDATE OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN

SEC. 5. The Batasang Pambansa shall create a special court, to be known as Sandiganbayan, which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law. (Art. XIII), 1973 Constitution.

SEC. 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law. (Art. XI), 1987 Constitution.

x x x.

JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN

The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is perhaps one of the most often amended provision from the 1973 Constitution to RA 8249 of 1997. Before RA 8249, jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was determined on the basis of the penalty imposable on the offense charged. Then, it was amended such that regardless of the penalty, so long as the offense charged was committed by a public officer, the Sandiganbayan was vested with jurisdiction. Under RA 8249, to determine whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, lawyers must look into two (2) criteria, namely:

The nature of the offense and The salary grade of the public official.

Thus, Sec.4 of RA 8249 provides that the Sandiganbayan shall have original exclusive jurisdiction over:

I.) Violations of RA 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Law);

II.) RA 1379 (Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Wealth);

III.) Crimes by public officers or employees embraced in Ch. II, Sec.2 Title VII, Bk. II of the RPC (Crimes committed by Public Officers) namely:

a) Direct Bribery under Art. 210 as amended by BP 871, May 29, 1985;

b) Indirect Bribery under Art. 211 as amended by BP 871, May 29, 1985;

c) Qualified Bribery under Art. 211-A as amended by RA 7659, Dec. 13, 1993;

d) Corruption of public officials under Art. 212

where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 Republic Act No. 6758) specifically including:

a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and other provincial department heads;

b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panglungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers and other department heads;

c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;

d) Philippine Army and Air force colonels, naval captains and all officers of higher rank;

e) Officers of the PNP while occupying the position of Provincial Director and those holding the rank of Senior Superintendent or higher;

f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants; officials and the prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor ;

g) President, directors or trustees or managers of government owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations;

2) Members of Congress and Officials thereof classified as Grade 27 and up under the Compensation and Classification Act of 1989;

3) Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provision of the Constitution;

4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provision of the Constitution;

5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

IV.) Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed in relation to their office by the public officials and employees mentioned above;

V.) Civil and Criminal Cases filed pursuant to and in connection with EO 1, 2, 14 & 14-A issued in 1986

VI.) Petitions for issuance of Writ of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; Provided, jurisdiction is not exclusive of the Supreme Court

VII.) Petitions for Quo Warranto arising or that may arise in cases filed or that may be filed under EO 1, 2, 14 & 14- A

VIII.) OTHERS provided the accused belongs to SG 27 or higher:

a.) Violation of RA 6713 - Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards

b.) Violation of RA 7080 - THE PLUNDER LAW

c.) Violation of RA 7659 - The Heinous Crime Law

d.) RA 9160 - Violation of The Anti-Money Laundering Law when committed by a public officer

e.) PD 46 referred to as the gift-giving decree which makes it punishable for any official or employee to receive directly or indirectly and for the private person to give or offer to give any gift, present or other valuable thing on any occasion including Christmas, when such gift, present or valuable thing is given by reason of his official position, regardless of whether or not the same is for past favors or the giver hopes or expects to receive a favor or better treatment in the future from the public official or employee concerned in the discharge of his official functions. Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties or entertainment in honor of the official or employee or his immediate relatives.

f.) PD 749 which grants immunity from prosecution to any person who voluntarily gives information about any violation of Art.210, 211 or 212 of the RPC, RA 3019, Sec.345 of the NIRC, Sec. 3604 of the Customs and Tariff Code and other provisions of the said Codes penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of the public officials concerned and other laws, rules and regulations penalizing graft, corruption and other forms of official abuse and who willingly testifies against the public official or employee subject to certain conditions.

It should be noted that private individuals can be sued in cases before the Sandiganbayan if they are alleged to be in conspiracy with the public officer.

The Sandiganbayan is vested with Appellate Jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC whether in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction over crimes and civil cases falling within the original exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but which were committed by public officers below Salary Grade 27.

HISTORY OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN

The creation of the Sandiganbayan was originally provided for by Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution:

"SEC. 5. The National Assembly shall create a special court, to be known as Sandiganbayan, which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law.

In obedience to this mandate, the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos, exercising the emergency legislative power granted him under Amendment No. 6 of the 1976 Amendments to the 1973 Constitution, issued on June 11, 1978, Presidential Decree No. 1486 creating the Sandiganbayan and putting it on the same level as what were then known as the Courts of First Instance, now the Regional Trial Courts. Shortly thereafter, however, the Sandiganbayan was elevated to the level of the Court of Appeals by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1606 issued on December 10, 1978.

At the start of its operation on February 12, 1979, the Sandiganbayan had only one Division, composed of the Presiding Justice, Hon. Manuel R. Pamaran, and two Associate Justices, Hon. Bernardo P. Fernandez and Hon. Romeo M. Escareal, and a skeleton force of fifteen (15). The start of the third year of the Court's operation in 1981 was marked by the activation of the Second Division. The appointment of three more Justices of the Third Division in August 4, 1982 completed the full membership of the Court.

The historic EDSA Revolution of February 1986 that signaled the beginning of a new dispensation, caused substantial changes in the entire government machinery, including the judiciary. However, both the 'Freedom Constitution' and the new Constitution have seen fit to maintain the Sandiganbayan as one of the principal instruments of public accountability. In furtherance of this, its jurisdiction has been broadened to include the so-called 'ill-gotten wealth' cases investigated by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) through Executive Orders No. 14 and No. 14-A. In the reorganization program of the new government, the resignation of some of the members of the Court was accepted leading to the appointment of a new Presiding Justice in the person of Hon. Francis E. Garchitorena.

To further strengthen the functional and structural organization of the Sandiganbayan, several amendments have been introduced to the original law creating it, the latest of which are Republic Acts No. 7975 and No. 8249. Under these new laws, the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is now confined to cases involving public officials occupying positions classified as salary grade 27 and higher. As restructured, the Sandiganbayan is presently composed of a Presiding Justice and fourteen (14) Associate Justices who sit in five (5) Divisions of three Justices each in the trial and determination of cases.

STATUTORY HISTORY OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN

1. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1486 - CREATING A SPECIAL COURT TO BE KNOWN AS 'SANDIGANBAYAN' AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES - promulgated June 11, 1978;

2. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606 - REVISING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1486 CREATING A SPECIAL COURT TO BE KNOWN AS 'SANDIGANBAYAN' AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES - promulgated December 10, 1978;

3. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1629 - AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1486 CREATING A SPECIAL COURT TO BE KNOWN AS 'SANDIGANBAYAN', AS REVISED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606 - promulgated July 18, 1979;

4. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1822 - PROVIDING FOR THE TRIAL BY COURTS-MARTIAL OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES CHARGED WITH OFFENSES RELATED TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES - promulgated January 16, 1981;

5. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 22-A - AMENDING SECTION 1, P.D. NO. 1822, PROVIDING FOR TRIAL BY COURTS-MARTIAL OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES CHARGED WITH OFFENSES RELATED TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES - promulgated January 16, 1981;

6. BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129 - THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980 - promulgated August 14, 1981;

7. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1850 - PROVIDING FOR THE TRIAL BY COURTS-MARTIAL OF MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED NATIONAL POLICE AND FURTHER DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL OVER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES - promulgated October 4, 1982;

8. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1860 - AMENDING THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606 AND BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129 RELATIVE TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES - promulgated January 14, 1983;

9. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1861 - AMENDING THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606 AND BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129 RELATIVE TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES - promulgated March 23, 1983;

10. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1952 - AMENDING SECTION ONE OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1850, ENTITLED 'PROVIDING FOR THE TRIAL BY COURTS-MARTIAL OF MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED NATIONAL POLICE AND FURTHER DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL OVER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES' - promulgated September 9, 1984;

11. EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 14 - DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OVER CASES INVOLVING THE ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH OF FORMER PRESIDENT FERDINAND E. MARCOS, MRS. IMELDA R. MARCOS, MEMBERS OF THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY, CLOSE RELATIVES, SUBORDINATES, CLOSE AND/OR BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, DUMMIES, AGENTS AND NOMINEES - promulgated May 7, 1986;

12. EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 14-A - AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 14 - promulgated August 18, 1986;

13. EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 101 - FURTHER AMENDING PRESIDETIAL DECREE NO. 1486, AS AMENDED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606 CREATING A SPECIAL COURT TO BE KNOWN AS 'SANDIGANBAYAN' - promulgated December 24, 1986;

14. EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 184 - AMENDING SECTION 3 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606 - promulgated June 5, 1987.

x x x."