Page 12 of 27

to testify in favor of the petitioner. Fairness dictates that the request of petitioner for a
chance to be heard in a capital offense case should have been granted by the
prosecutor. In Webb vs. de Leon, (247 SCRA 652, 687) we emphasized that "attuned to
the times, our Rules have discarded the pure inquisitorial system of preliminary
investigation. instead, Rule 112 installed a quasi-judicial type of preliminary investigation
conducted by one whose high duty is to be fair and impartial. As this Court emphasized
in Rolito Go vs. Court of Appeals, 'the right to have a preliminary investigation conducted
before being bound over for trial for a criminal offense and hence formally at risk of
incarceration or some other penalty, is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a
substantive right.' A preliminary investigation should therefore be scrupulously
conducted so that the constitutional right to liberty of a potential accused can be
protected from any material damage.".

RULE 110
Prosecution of Offenses

SECTION 1. institution of criminal actions. — Criminal actions shall be instituted as

follows:
(a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required pursuant to
Section 1 of Rule 112, by filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of
conducting the requisite preliminary investigation;
(b) For all other offenses, by filing the complaint or information directly with
the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, or the complaint with
the office of the prosecutor. in Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint
shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their
charters.
The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of
prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise provided in special laws. (1 a)

Notes:

As a general rule, criminal prosecutions cannot be enjoined. However, there are

recognized exceptions which . are: (a) To afford adequate protection to the
constitutional rights of the accused; (b) When necessary for the orderly administration of
justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; (c) When there is a prejudicial
question which is sub judice; (d) When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority; (e) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; (f)
When double jeopardy is clearly apparent; (g) Where the court had no jurisdiction over
the offense; (h) Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; (i) Where the
charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and (j) When there
is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground
has been denied.
Teodoro C. Borlongan, Jr., et al. vs. Magdalene M. Pella, et al., G.R. No. 143591, May
5, 2010, citing Brocka v. lEnrile, G.R. Nos. 69863-65, December 10, 1990

[Oince a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case as to its
dismissal, or conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound discretion of the
said court, as it is the best and sole judge of what to do with the case before it.
Bienvenido Dino, et al, vs. Pablo Olivarez, G.R. No. 170447, December 4, 2009

It is an established doctrine that injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution
because public interest requires that criminal acts be immediately investigated and
prosecuted for the protection of society. However, it is also true that various decisions of
this Court have laid down exceptions to this rule, among which are:
a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the
accused;
b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of actions;
c. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub judice;
d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;