Inquest and Warrantless Arrest, Know Your Rights

Understanding inquest proceeding and how it differs with preliminary investigation may spell the difference between liberty and a night or two behind bars.

The Supreme Court in a 2006 administrative case clarifies that preliminary investigation is a proceeding distinct from an inquest. A preliminary investigation is "an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial."

An inquest is "a summary inquiry conducted by a prosecutor for the purpose of determining whether the warrantless arrest of a person was based on probable cause."

Where the penalty prescribed by law for an offense is at least four years, two months and one day of imprisonment without regard to the fine, a preliminary investigation must be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for such offense. The conduct of an inquest investigation does not fulfill the requirement for the conduct of a preliminary investigation before the filing of an information or complaint involving any such offenses, except when the accused was lawfully arrested without a warrant. (Enriquez case)

The DOJ Manual for Prosecutors defines inquest as an “informal and summary investigation conducted by the public prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether or not such persons should remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court.”

Under the Rules of Court, Rule 113, Section 5, a warrantless arrest is lawful under three circumstances:

1. When, in the presence of the policeman, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
2. When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment.

Under the said DOJ Manual, the City or Provincial Prosecutor usually assigns fiscals as inquest officers on a rotation basis. The list of their names and schedule is given to the chief of police for proper coordination.

The inquest proceedings starts when the inquest officer receives from the arresting officers the following: affidavit of arrest, the investigation report, the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, and other evidence gathered at the course of investigation. As a general rule, the arrested person must be made physically present.

The inquest officer may order the release of the detained person when the documents are incomplete (and the lacking documents are not submitted on time), or recommend his release when there is no valid warrantless arrest or when there is no probable cause.

Maj. Gen. Garcia's Plunder Case and the Plea Bargaining Agreement (My Two Cents' Worth)

Much has been said and written about the plunder case and the plea bargaining deal by former AFP Deputy Chief of Staff for Comptrollership, Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia.

The question now is, who is the proper authority to question Garcia’s pleading to a lesser offense? What are the requirements for a valid and effective plea?

Under Rule 116 of Criminal Procedure: Section 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. — At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary.

It bears stressing that trial has already started in Garcia’s case, with Heidi Mendoza, formerly of COA, as well as other witnesses, testifying for the State.

The Supreme Court in Rodriguez vs. Gadiane, et. al., reiterated its ruling in People vs. Santiago that –

It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General (OSG). Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal.

On the other hand, the Ombudsman Act (RA 6770) provides that the Ombudsman has the power to: Investigate and initiate the proper action for the recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth amassed after February 25, 1986 and the prosecution of the parties involved therein. (Section 15, par. 11)

The case is not yet on appeal, as the plea bargaining agreement is still subject to the determination for approval or disapproval by the Sandiganbayan.

In a plea to a lesser offense, it is important to note that consent of the offended party and the approval of the trial court must be obtained. Otherwise, the accused cannot claim double jeopardy should he be charged anew with the graver offense subject of the original complaint or information. (Regalado)

In Garcia’s case, the prosecutor is the Ombudsman and the offended party is the Government, particularly the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

The AFP has already announced that it did not and will not give its consent to the plea bargaining agreement, a position supported by the OSG. How will the Sandiganbayan rule on the issue? Abangan. (Let's wait and see.)