Exceptions to the Court’s general policy not to interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations, leaving the investigating officers sufficient discretion to determine probable cause.

While it is this Court’s general policy not to interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations, leaving the investigating officers sufficient discretion to determine probable cause,[27] we have nonetheless made some exceptions to the general rule, such as:

1.  when necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;

2.  when necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;

3.  when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;

4.  when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;

5.  where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;

6.  when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;

7.  where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;

8.  where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;

9.  where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance;

10.              when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied.[28] (emphasis ours)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/132422.htm

Advertisements

About Erineus

Born on December 28, 1965, Surallah, South Cotabato, Southern Mindanao, Philippines.
This entry was posted in Criminal Procedures, Exceptions, Preliminary Investigation, Remedial Law and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s