Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE B. INTING

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 212140-41 2015-01-21	SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA v. BERSAMIN CARPIO, J.
Justice J.B.L. Reyes, writing for the Court, emphatically declared in Lozada v. Hernandez,[28] that the "rights conferred upon accused persons to participate in preliminary investigations concerning themselves depend upon the provisions of law by which such rights are specifically secured, rather than upon the phrase 'due process of law'." This reiterates Justice Jose P. Laurel's oft-quoted pronouncement in Hashim v. Boncan[29] that "the right to a preliminary investigation is statutory, not constitutional." In short, the rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation are merely statutory rights, not constitutional due process rights. An investigation to determine probable cause for the filing of an information does not initiate a criminal action so as to trigger into operation Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution.[30] It is the filing of a complaint or information in court that initiates a criminal action.[31]
	GR No. 187000 2014-11-24	PEOPLE v. AQUILINO ANDRADE PERALTA, J.
The difference is clear: The executive determination of probable cause concerns itself with whether there is enough evidence to support an Information being filed. The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. In People v. Inting:[21]
	GR No. 197293 2014-04-21	ALFREDO C. MENDOZA v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
The difference is clear: The executive determination of probable cause concerns itself with whether there is enough evidence to support an Information being filed. The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. In People v. Inting:[33]
	GR No. 174016 2008-07-28	SEVERINO C. BALTAZAR v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In People v. Inting,[41] this Court aptly stated:Judges and Prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or released. Even if the two inquiries are conducted in the course of one and the same proceeding, there should be no confusion about the objectives. The determination of probable cause for the warrant of arrest is made by the Judge. The preliminary investigation proper - whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and, therefore, whether or not he should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial - is the function of the prosecutor.[42] (Emphasis supplied.) Under Section 1, Rule 112[43] of the Revised Rules of Court, the investigating prosecutor, in conducting a preliminary investigation of a case cognizable by the RTC, is tasked to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent therein is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. A preliminary investigation is for the purpose of securing the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution; and to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime, as well as for the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial.[44]
	GR NO. 168811 2007-11-28	MARILYN H. CO v. REPUBLIC CARPIO, J.
The Court again reiterated this rule in People v. Inting[21] where we further explained:Judges and Prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or released. Even if the two inquiries are conducted in the course of one and the same proceeding, there should be no confusion about the objectives. The determination of probable cause for the warrant of arrest is made by the Judge. The preliminary investigation proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and, therefore, whether or not he should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial is the function of the Prosecutor.
	GR No. 171465 2007-06-08	AAA v. ANTONIO A. CARBONELL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is well to remember that there is a distinction between the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or be released. The determination of probable cause for purposes of issuing the warrant of arrest is made by the judge. The preliminary investigation proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged is the function of the investigating prosecutor.[26]
	GR NO. 158763 2006-03-31	JOSE C. MIRANDA v. VIRGILIO M. TULIAO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The records of the case show that the prosecutor's certification was accompanied by supporting documents, following the requirement under Lim, Sr. v. Felix [30] and People v. Inting. [31] The supporting documents are the following: Resolution dated 21 June 2001 of State Prosecutor Leo S. Reyes; Affidavit dated 22 May 2001 of Modesto Gutierrez; Affidavit dated 19 May 2001 of Romeo B. Ocon; Joint Counter Affidavit dated 23 May 2001 of Mayor Jose C. Miranda and Reynaldo de la Cruz; Affidavit dated 19 May 2001 of Alberto Dalmacio; Decision dated 22 April 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 41 in Criminal Case No. 97-160355; Sworn statement dated 27 April 2001 of Rodel Maderal; Information dated 22 June 2001; Affidavit-complaint of Virgilio Tuliao; and Medico-legal Reports of the cadavers of Elezer Tuliao and Vicente Buazon.