Pleadings and Motions Before Arraignment

June 6, 2018 | Author: jhoanna mariekar victoriano | Category: Probable Cause, Prosecutor, Arrest, Arrest Warrant, Search Warrant
Share Embed Donate

Short Description

criminal procedure...


Pleadings and motions before arraignment 1. Petition for review review  - filed with the Department of Justice, the Regional State Prosecutor’s office, or the Office of the President, if the prosecutor has committed manifest error or grave abuse of discretion during the preliminary investigation Period of suspension of arraignment shall not e!ceed si!ty days from the filing of the petition for review 2. Motion for reinvestigation reinvestigation  - alleges defects or irregularities in the preliminary investigation, re"uests that the findings be invalidated and that another investigation be conducted to determine if there is probable cause 3. Motion for a bill of particulars (Rule 116, Section 1!  - the motion specifies alleged defects of the complaint or information and re"uests details that will enable the accused to plead properly to the charge against him and to ade"uately prepare for trial ". Motion for suspension of arraignment  - this motion may be filed on the ground that the accused appears to be suffering from a n unsound mental condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto #n such a case, the court orders a mental e!amination of the accused and if necessary, his confinement for such purpose $nother ground is when the court finds the e!istence of a valid pre%udicial "uestion &for e!ample, a void first marriage in bigamy cases' #. Motion to $uas% t%e information  &a' (he accused has been previously convicted or in %eopardy of being convicted, or has been ac"uitted of the offense charged &b' (he criminal action or liability has already p rescribed &c' (he facts charged do not constitute an offense &d' (he court trying the case has no %urisdiction over the case or over the person of the accused &e' (he officer who filed the information had no authority to do so &f'(he information contains statements which constitute a legal e!cuse or %ustification &g' #t does not conform substantially to the prescribed form &h' )ore than one offense is charged &e!cept in cases where the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses' 6. Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of prosecution, police or ot%er law investigating investigating agencies in order to prevent surprise, suppression suppression or alteration (Sec. 1, Rule 116!. &. Motion to $uas% a searc% warrant or to suppress evidence (Section 1" of Rule 126! - $ motion to "uash a search warrant and*or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and acted upon only by the court where the action has been instituted #f no criminal action has been instituted, the motion may be filed in and resolved by the court that issued search warrant +owever, if such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subse"uently filed in another court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter court &#f # remember correctly, $tty Oliver oano several years ago defended an alleged drug lord by filing a motion to suppress the State’s evidence, a shipload of drugs $tty oano argued that there was no evidence the boatload of drugs to the accused, that the ship was registered in another person’s name, etc (he %udge agreed with this contention and dismissed the complaint without a full-blown trial # remember reading a column by Justice #sagani /ru which criticied the dismissal of the case' '. Motion for udicial determination of probable cause 0 Please read the Supreme /ourt d ecision in 1People of the Philippines vs /astillo et al 2, 3R 4o 565577, June 58, 9::8 (he pertinent provisions of


the decision are posted below0 (here are two .inds of determination of probable cause0 e!ecutive and %udicial (he e!ecutive determination of probable cause is one made during preliminary investigation #t is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a broad discretion to determine whether probable cause e!ists and to charge those whom he believes to have committed the crime as defined by law and thus should be held for trial Otherwise stated, such official has the "uasi-%udicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed in court ;hether or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public prosecutor, ie, whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment of the e!istence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon (he %udicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, is one made by the %udge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused (he %udge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of %ustice #f the %udge finds no probable cause, the %udge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant /orollary to the principle that a %udge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if he or she deems that there is no probable cause for doing so, the %udge in turn should not override the public prosecutor’s determination of probable cause to hold an accused for trial on the ground that the evidence presented to substantiate the issuance of an arrest warrant was insufficient #t must be stressed that in our criminal  %ustice system, the public prosecutor e!ercises a wide latitude of discretion in determining whether a criminal case should be filed in court, and that courts must respect the e!ercise of such discretion when the information filed against the person charged is valid on its face, and that no manifest error or grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the public prosecutor Summing up, a udicial determination of probable cause is concerned wit% t%e matter of w%et%er t%e udge s%ould issue a warrant of arrest against t%e accused or not. )s to w%et%er t%ere is probable cause for t%e filing of t%e case in court, t%at is t%e responsibilit*, not of t%e udge, but of t%e prosecutor+s office. efense law*ers s%ould now refrain from filing a -motion for udicial determination of probable cause for t%ree reasons/ (1! (he %udge is already duty-bound to determine whether there is probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest +e studies the records of the preliminary investigation &complaint, counter-affidavit, affidavit of witnesses, documentary evidences, etc' +e then decides whether to issue a warrant of arrest or not (here is therefore no need for a defense lawyer to file a 1motion for %udicial determination of probable cause2
View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.