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. How to Appeal Decisions of Prosecutor http://ls.pnp.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26:how-to-appeal-decisions-of-prosecutor[9/17/2014 11:32:18 PM] 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 How to Appeal Decisions of Prosecutor http://ls.pnp.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26:how-to-appeal-decisions-of-prosecutor[9/17/2014 11:32:18 PM] - 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.
UPL Alameda County Judge Lawrence John Appel Aiding and Abetting Unauthorized Practice of Law Alleged: Stipulation and Order by Non-Lawyer Kevin Singer Superior Court Receiver-Receivership Specialists – Whistleblower Leak – California Attorney General Kamala Harris – California State Bar Association Office of Chief Trial Counsel – Jayne Kim Chief Trial Counsel State Bar of California – Judicial Council of California Chair Tani Cantil-Sakauye – Martin Hoshino - Commission on Judicial Performance Director Victoria Henley – CJP Chief Counsel Victoria B. Henley – Supreme Court of California Justice Lenodra Kruger, Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Justice Goodwin Liu, Justice Carol Corrigan, Justice Ming Chin, Justice Kathryn Werdegar, Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye
California Judicial Branch News Service - Investigative Reporting Source Material & Story Ideas