Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 147932 January 25, 2006 L !L G.

"E OC MPO, Petitioner, vs. T#E #ONOR $LE SECRET R% O& JUST!CE, M G" LEN $. " C RR , an' ERL!N" P. OR % N, Respondents. D C RP!O, J.: T() Ca*) This petition for certiorari" assails the Resolutions dated "# Septe$ber %&&& and "' (pril %&&" of the Secretar) of the Depart$ent of *ustice +,DO* Secretar),- in I.!. No. ''./%#0.% The DO* Secretar)1 denied 2aila 3. De Oca$po4s +,petitioner,- petition for revie5 of the investi6atin6 prosecutor4s findin6 of probable cause a6ainst her for ho$icide0 in relation to Section "&+a-, (rticle VI of Republic (ct No. 7/"& +,R( 7/"&,- # and for violation of the sa$e provision of R( 7/"&. The DO* Secretar) / also denied petitioner4s $otion for reconsideration. T() &a+,* The present case arose fro$ a s5orn state$ent of respondent Ma6dalena 8. Dacarra +,Ma6dalena,- e9ecuted before the :o$en4s Des; of the !PD Police Station in 8atasan Hills, <ue=on !it) on "& Dece$ber "'''. Ma6dalena stated that on 0 Dece$ber "''', her nine.)ear.old son Ronald co$plained of di==iness upon arrivin6 ho$e at about si9 in the evenin6. Ronald then vo$ited, pro$ptin6 Ma6dalena to as; 5hat happened. Ronald replied that petitioner, 5ho 5as Ronald4s teacher, ban6ed his head a6ainst that of his class$ate 2orendo Ora)an +,2orendo,-. Ma6dalena inspected Ronald4s head and sa5 a 5oundless contusion. Due to Ronald4s continued vo$itin6, Ma6dalena brou6ht hi$ to a >uac; doctor +arbularyo- on # Dece$ber "'''. The follo5in6 $ornin6, Ma6dalena brou6ht Ronald to the ast (venue Medical !enter 5here he under5ent an 9.ra). The attendin6 ph)sician infor$ed Ma6dalena that Ronald4s head had a fracture. 8lood oo=ed out of Ronald4s nose before he died on ' Dece$ber "'''. 2orendo also e9ecuted a s5orn state$ent narratin6 ho5 petitioner ban6ed his head a6ainst Ronald4s. Durin6 the in>uest proceedin6s on "0 Dece$ber "''', (ssistant <ue=on !it) Prosecutor Maria 2elibet Sa$pa6a +,in>uest prosecutor,- ruled as follo5s? vidence 5arrants the release of the respondent for further investi6ation of the char6es a6ainst her. The case is not proper for in>uest as the incident co$plained of happened on Dece$ber 0, "'''. @urther, 5e find the evidence insufficient to support the char6e for ho$icide a6ainst the respondent. There is no concrete evidence to sho5 proof that the alle6ed ban6in6 of the heads of the t5o $inor victi$s could be the actual and pro9i$ate cause of the death of $inor Ronald Dacarra ) 8aluton. 8esides, the police report sub$itted b) the respondent in this case states that said victi$ bears stitches or sutures on the head due to a vehicular accident. There is no certaint), therefore, that respondent4s alle6ed 5ron6doin6 contributed or caused the death of said victi$.7 !ISION

Subse>uentl), the case 5as referred to (ssistant <ue=on !it) Prosecutor 2orna @. !atris.!hua !hen6 +,investi6atin6 prosecutor,- for preli$inar) investi6ation. She scheduled the first hearin6 on / *anuar) %&&&. Respondent rlinda P. Ora)an +, rlinda,-, 2orendo4s $other, attended the hearin6 of / *anuar) %&&& and alle6ed that petitioner offered her P"&&,&&&, 5hich she initiall) accepted, for her and her son4s non.appearance at the preli$inar) investi6ation. rlinda presented the $one) to the investi6atin6 prosecutor. On 7 *anuar) %&&&, *ennil)n <uiron6, 5ho 5itnessed the head.ban6in6 incident, and Melanie 2u6ales, 5ho clai$ed to be another victi$ of petitioner4s alle6ed cruel deeds, filed their s5orn state$ents 5ith the Office of the <ue=on !it) Prosecutor. On "A *anuar) %&&&, petitioner sub$itted her counter.affidavit. Petitioner invo;ed the disposition of the in>uest prosecutor findin6 insufficient evidence to support the char6es a6ainst her. Petitioner assailed the o$ission in Ma6dalena4s s5orn state$ent about Ronald4s head inBur) due to a vehicular accident in Nove$ber "''7. Petitioner pointed out the absence of da$a6e or inBur) on 2orendo as borne out b) his $edical certificate. Petitioner contended that the head.ban6in6 incident 5as not the pro9i$ate cause of Ronald4s death, but the failed $edical attention or $edical ne6li6ence. Petitioner also alle6ed that *ennil)n <uiron6 and Melanie 2u6ales have i$$ature perception. Petitioner further asserted that the causes of death stated in Ronald4s Death !ertificate are hearsa) and inad$issible in the preli$inar) investi6ation. Ronald4s Death !ertificate sho5s the i$$ediate cause of his death as ,!ardio Pul$onar) (rrest,, the underl)in6 cause as ,!erebral de$a,, and other si6nificant conditions contributin6 to death as , lectrol)te i$balance and vo$itin6., The (utops) Report, obtained b) the investi6atin6 prosecutor fro$ the PNP !ri$e 2aborator) in !a$p !ra$e, states the cause of death as ,Intracranial he$orrha6e secondar) to trau$atic inBur) of the head., The investi6atin6 prosecutor issued a Resolution findin6 probable cause a6ainst petitioner for the offenses char6ed. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads? :H R @OR , in vie5 of the fore6oin6, it is respectfull) reco$$ended that CpetitionerD be char6ed 5ith Ho$icide in relation to (rt. VI, Sec. "& of R.(. 7/"& and Violation of (rt. VI, Sec. "&+a- of R.(. 7/"& 5ith no bail reco$$ended for the Ho$icide since par. / of (rt. VI of Sec. "& of R.(. 7/"& provides that? ,@or purposes of this (ct, the penalt) for the co$$ission of acts punishable under (rticles %0A, %0', %/%, par. % and %/1, par. " (ct No. 1A"#, as a$ended, the Revised Penal !ode, for the cri$es of $urder, ho$icide, other intentional $utilation and serious ph)sical inBuries, respectivel), shall be reclusion perpetua 5hen the victi$ is under t5elve +"%- )ears of a6e., 8ail reco$$ended? No bail reco$$ended E Ho$icide, in relation to (rt. VI, Sec. "&, R.(. 7/"&F and T5ent) Thousand pesos +P%&,&&&.&&- E Viol. of Sec. "&+a- of R.(. 7/"&A !onse>uentl), petitioner filed a petition for revie5 5ith the DO*. In her appeal to the DO*, petitioner contended that the investi6atin6 prosecutor sho5ed bias in favor of co$plainants Ma6dalena and rlinda +,co$plainants,- for not conductin6 a clarificator) hearin6 and unilaterall) procurin6 the autops) report. Petitioner ar6ued that the investi6atin6 prosecutor erred in concludin6 that her alle6ed act of ban6in6 Ronald and 2orendo4s heads 5as the cause of Ronald4s inBur) and that such 5as an act of child abuse. Petitioner also alle6ed that it is the Office of the O$buds$an 5hich has Burisdiction over the case, and not the <ue=on !it) Prosecutor4s Office.

The Resolution of the DO* Secretar) The DO* Secretar) denied the petition for revie5. The DO* Secretar) held that there 5as no bias in co$plainants4 favor 5hen the investi6atin6 prosecutor did not conduct a clarificator) hearin6 and unilaterall) procured the autops) report as nothin6 precluded her fro$ doin6 so. The DO* Secretar) upheld the investi6atin6 prosecutor4s findin6 that Ronald4s inBur) 5as the direct and natural result of petitioner4s act of ban6in6 Ronald and 2orendo4s heads. The DO* Secretar) stated that petitioner never denied such act, $a;in6 her responsible for all its conse>uences even if the i$$ediate cause of Ronald4s death 5as alle6edl) the failed $edical attention or $edical ne6li6ence. The DO* Secretar) held that assu$in6 there 5as failure of $edical attention or $edical ne6li6ence, these inefficient intervenin6 causes did not brea; the relation of the felon) co$$itted and the resultin6 inBur). The DO* Secretar) reBected petitioner4s clai$ that she is innocent as held b) the in>uest prosecutor. The in>uest prosecutor did not dis$iss the case. She $erel) reco$$ended petitioner4s release for further investi6ation since the case 5as not proper for in>uest and the evidence 5as then insufficient. The DO* Secretar) further stated that the o$ission in Ma6dalena4s s5orn state$ent about Ronald4s head inBur) due to a vehicular accident in Nove$ber "''7 and the absence of an) inBur) on 2orendo are inconse>uential. Moreover, the DO* Secretar) ruled that 5hether the state$ents of the causes of death in the death certificate and autops) report are hearsa), and 5hether *ennil)n <uiron6 and Melanie 2u6ales have i$$ature perception, are evidentiar) $atters 5hich should be deter$ined durin6 trial. The DO* Secretar) also sustained the investi6atin6 prosecutor4s conclusion that the ban6in6 of Ronald and 2orendo4s heads is an act of child abuse. Petitioner filed a $otion for reconsideration' 5hich the DO* Secretar) denied in his Resolution dated "' (pril %&&"."& Hence, this petition. T() !**u)* Petitioner raises the follo5in6 issues? ". :hether petitioner 5as denied due process durin6 the preli$inar) investi6ationF and %. :hether there is probable cause a6ainst petitioner for ho$icide under (rticle %0' of the Revised Penal !ode in relation to Section "&+a-, (rticle VI of R( 7/"& and for violation of Section "&+a-, (rticle VI of R( 7/"&. T() Ru-.n/ o0 ,() Cour, The petition lac;s $erit. 8efore resolvin6 the substantive issues in this case, the !ourt 5ill address the procedural issue raised b) the Office of the Solicitor 3eneral +,OS3,-. "" The OS3 contends that instead of Rule /#, Rule 01 is applicable to the present case. Thus, the OS3 ar6ues that the petition should be dis$issed outri6ht for bein6 filed 5ith this !ourt, instead of 5ith the !ourt of (ppeals, under a 5ron6 $ode of appeal. On the other hand, assu$in6 Rule /# applies, the OS3 points out that the petition for certiorari should be

filed 5ith the !ourt of (ppeals. 8ased on Me$orandu$ !ircular No. #A,"% the resolution of the DO* Secretar) is appealable ad$inistrativel) to the Office of the President since the offenses char6ed in this case are punishable b) reclusion perpetua."1 @ro$ the Office of the President, the a66rieved part) $a) file an appeal 5ith the !ourt of (ppeals pursuant to Rule 01."0 ven assu$in6 that the DO* Secretar) co$$itted 6rave abuse of discretion in renderin6 the assailed Resolutions a$ountin6 to lac; or e9cess of Burisdiction, petitioner should have filed the instant petition for certiorari 5ith the !ourt of (ppeals. Hence, on the issue alone of the propriet) of the re$ed) sou6ht b) petitioner, this petition for certiorari $ust fail. Ho5ever, considerin6 the 6ravit) of the offenses char6ed and the need to e9pedite the disposition of this case, the !ourt 5ill rela9 the rules and finall) resolve this case in the interest of substantial Bustice. 1(),()r 2),.,.on)r 3a* ')n.)' 'u) 2ro+)** 'ur.n/ ,() 2r)-.4.nary .n5)*,./a,.on Absence of a clarificatory hearing The !ourt reBects petitioner4s contention that she 5as denied due process 5hen the investi6atin6 prosecutor did not conduct a clarificator) hearin6. ( clarificator) hearin6 is not indispensable durin6 preli$inar) investi6ation. Rather than bein6 $andator), a clarificator) hearin6 is optional on the part of the investi6atin6 officer as evidenced b) the use of the ter$ ,$a), in Section 1+e- of Rule ""%. This provision states? +e- !0 ,() .n5)*,./a,.n/ o00.+)r 6)-.)5)* ,(a, ,()r) ar) 4a,,)r* ,o 6) +-ar.0.)' , he 4ay set a hearin6 to propound clarificator) >uestions to the parties or their 5itnesses, durin6 5hich the parties shall be afforded an opportunit) to be present but 5ithout the ri6ht to e9a$ine or cross.e9a$ine. 999"# +e$phasis suppliedThe use of the 5ord ,$a), in a statute co$$onl) denotes that it is director) in nature. The ter$ ,$a), is 6enerall) per$issive onl) and operates to confer discretion. "/ Gnder Section 1+e- of Rule ""%, it is 5ithin the discretion of the investi6ation officer 5hether to set the case for further hearin6s to clarif) so$e $atters. In this case, the investi6atin6 prosecutor no lon6er conducted hearin6s after petitioner sub$itted her counter.affidavit. This si$pl) $eans that at that point the investi6atin6 prosecutor believed that there 5ere no $ore $atters for clarification. It is onl) in petitioner4s $ind that so$e ,crucial points, still e9ist and need clarification. In an) event, petitioner can raise these ,i$portant, $atters durin6 the trial proper. Petitioner 5as not deprived of due process since both parties 5ere accorded e>ual ri6hts in ar6uin6 their case and presentin6 their respective evidence durin6 the preli$inar) investi6ation. Due process is $erel) an opportunit) to be heard. "7 Petitioner cannot successfull) invo;e denial of due process since she 5as 6iven the opportunit) of a hearin6."A She even sub$itted her counter.affidavit to the investi6atin6 prosecutor on "A *anuar) %&&&. Preli$inar) investi6ation is $erel) in>uisitorial. It is not a trial of the case on the $erits. Its sole purpose is to deter$ine 5hether a cri$e has been co$$itted and 5hether the respondent is probably guilty of the cri$e.%& It is not the occasion for the full and e9haustive displa) of the parties4 evidence.%" Hence, if the investi6atin6 prosecutor is alread) satisfied that he can reasonabl) deter$ine the e9istence of probable cause based on the parties4 evidence thus presented, he $a) ter$inate the proceedin6s and resolve the case.
"'

Obtainin6 a cop) of the autops) report, Petitioner ar6ues that she 5as denied the ri6ht to e9a$ine evidence sub$itted b) co$plainants 5hen the investi6atin6 prosecutor unilaterall) obtained a cop) of the autops) report fro$ the PNP !ri$e 2aborator). Petitioner fails to persuade us. Thou6h the autops) report is not part of the parties4 evidence, the Rules on preli$inar) investi6ation do not forbid the investi6atin6 prosecutor fro$ obtainin6 it. Neither is there a la5 re>uirin6 the investi6atin6 prosecutor to notif) the parties before securin6 a cop) of the autops) report. The autops) report, 5hich states the causes of Ronald4s death, can either absolve or conde$n the petitioner. Gnfortunatel) for petitioner, the investi6atin6 prosecutor found that the autops) report bolstered co$plainants4 alle6ations. Moreover, there is nothin6 to support petitioner4s clai$ that the investi6atin6 prosecutor 5as biased in favor of co$plainants. There are other pieces of evidence aside fro$ the autops) report upon 5hich the investi6atin6 prosecutor based her findin6 of probable cause. The autops) report is not the sole piece of evidence a6ainst petitioner. The s5orn state$ent of the other victi$, 2orendo, and the e)e5itness account of *ennil)n <uiron6, substantiate the char6es a6ainst petitioner. Petitioner4s failure to den) the occurrence of the head.ban6in6 incident also stren6thened co$plainants4 alle6ations. Petitioner $ista;enl) cites Section 1+d- of Rule ""%%% in ar6uin6 that the investi6atin6 prosecutor should not 6o be)ond the evidence presented b) co$plainants in resolvin6 the case. This provision applies if the respondent cannot be subpoenaed or if subpoenaed fails to sub$it her counter.affidavit 5ithin the prescribed period. Such is not the case here 5here petitioner filed her counter.affidavit and both parties presented their respective evidence. 1(),()r ,()r) .* 2ro6a6-) +au*) 0or ,() o00)n*)* +(ar/)' a/a.n*, 2),.,.on)r Existence of probable cause Petitioner challen6es the findin6 of probable cause a6ainst her for the offenses char6ed ar6uin6 that the head.ban6in6 incident 5as not the pro9i$ate cause of Ronald4s death. Petitioner insists that efficient intervenin6 events caused Ronald4s death. :e do not a6ree. There is probable cause for the offenses char6ed a6ainst petitioner. Probable cause is the e9istence of such facts and circu$stances as 5ould e9cite the belief in a reasonable $ind that a cri$e has been co$$itted and the respondent is probabl) 6uilt) of the cri$e.%1 In the present case, Ronald, a nine.)ear.old student, died five da)s after his teacher, petitioner in this case, alle6edl) ban6ed his head a6ainst that of his class$ate 2orendo. There is nothin6 in the records sho5in6 petitioner4s specific denial of the occurrence of such act. Petitioner si$pl) stated that ,the head.ban6in6 incident happened but CsheD did not perpetrate it., %0 In effect, petitioner ad$its the occurrence of the head. ban6in6 incident but denies co$$ittin6 it. The alle6ed intervenin6 events before Ronald died, na$el)? +a- the consultation 5ith a >uac; doctor, and +b- the three.da) confine$ent in the ast (venue Medical !enter, are not sufficient to brea; the relation of the felon) co$$itted and the resultin6 inBur). :ere it not for the head.ban6in6 incident, Ronald $i6ht not have needed $edical assistance in the first place.

These circu$stances 5hich alle6edl) intervened causin6 Ronald4s death are evidentiar) $atters 5hich should be threshed out durin6 the trial. The follo5in6 are also $atters better left for the trial court to appreciate? +a- the contents of the death certificate and autops) report, +b- the $edical records of Ronald4s accident in Nove$ber "''7, +cthe perception of 5itnesses *ennil)n <uiron6 and Melanie 2u6ales, and +d- the alle6ed lac; of $edical assistance or $edical ne6li6ence 5hich caused Ronald4s death. To repeat, 5hat is deter$ined durin6 preli$inar) investi6ation is onl) probable cause, not proof be)ond reasonable doubt.%# (s i$plied b) the 5ords the$selves, ,probable cause, is concerned 5ith probabilit), not absolute or $oral certaint).%/ (ssertin6 her innocence, petitioner continues to invo;e the disposition of the in>uest prosecutor findin6 insufficient evidence for the char6es a6ainst her. (s correctl) ruled b) the DO* Secretar), the in>uest prosecutor did not dis$iss the case but $erel) reco$$ended it for further investi6ation since it 5as not proper for in>uest and the evidence 5as then insufficient. Moreover, petitioner4s active participation in the preli$inar) investi6ation 5ithout >uestionin6 the propriet) of such proceedin6s indicates petitioner4s a6ree$ent 5ith the reco$$endation of the in>uest prosecutor for the further investi6ation of the case. Charges of Homicide and Child Abuse Petitioner4s sin6le act of alle6edl) ban6in6 the heads of her students had t5o distinct victi$s, na$el) Ronald and 2orendo. Therefore, petitioner has to face prosecution for cruelt) to each victi$. @or Ronald4s death, petitioner is bein6 char6ed 5ith ho$icide under (rticle %0' of the Revised Penal !ode%7 in relation to Section "&+a-, (rticle VI of R( 7/"& punishable b) reclusion perpetua.%A Ho5ever, this does not $ean that petitioner is bein6 char6ed 5ith the distinct offenses of ho$icide and child abuse for Ronald4s death. On the other hand, for her cruelt) to 2orendo, petitioner is bein6 char6ed 5ith violation of Section "&+a-, (rticle VI of R( 7/"& punishable b) prision mayor in its $ini$u$ period. !ontrar) to petitioner4s contention, Section "&+a-, (rticle VI of R( 7/"& is clear. This provision reads? +a- (n) person 5ho shall co$$it an) other acts of child abuse, cruelt) or e9ploitation or be responsible for other conditions preBudicial to the child4s develop$ent includin6 those covered b) (rticle #' of Presidential Decree No. /&1, as a$ended, but not covered b) the Revised Penal !ode, as a$ended, shall suffer the penalt) of prision mayor in its $ini$u$ period. +b($bi6uit) is a condition of ad$ittin6 t5o or $ore $eanin6s, of bein6 understood in $ore than one 5a), or of referrin6 to t5o or $ore thin6s at the sa$e ti$e. ( statute is a$bi6uous if it is susceptible to $ore than one interpretation. %' In the present case, petitioner fails to sho5 convincin6l) the a$bi6uit) in Section "&+a-, (rticle VI of R( 7/"&. Section 1+b-, (rticle VI of R( 7/"& defines ,child abuse, as the $altreat$ent, 5hether habitual or not, of the child 5hich includes ph)sical abuse and cruelt). Petitioner4s alle6ed ban6in6 of the heads of Ronald and 2orendo is clearl) an act of cruelt).

In a petition for certiorari li;e this case, the pri$ordial issue is 5hether the DO* Secretar) acted 5ith 6rave abuse of discretion a$ountin6 to lac; or e9cess of Burisdiction. The !ourt rules that the DO* Secretar) did not co$$it 6rave abuse of discretion in findin6 that there is probable cause to char6e petitioner of the cri$es of ho$icide and child abuse. The !ourt further rules that the investi6atin6 prosecutor did not act 5ith 6rave abuse of discretion in securin6 motu proprio the autops) report and in not callin6 for a clarificator) hearin6. This rulin6 does not di$inish in an) 5a) the constitutional ri6ht of petitioner to be presu$ed innocent until the contrar) is proven. 1#ERE&ORE, 5e "EN% the instant petition. :e &&!RM the Resolutions of the Secretar) of *ustice dated "# Septe$ber %&&& and "' (pril %&&" in I.!. No. ''./%#0. No pronounce$ent as to costs. SO OR"ERE". NTON!O T. C RP!O (ssociate *ustice 1E CONCUR? LEON R"O . 7U!SUM$!NG (ssociate *ustice !hairperson CONC#!T C RP!O MOR LES (ssociate *ustice " NTE O. T!NG (sscociate *ustice

TTEST T!ON I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision 5ere reached in consultation before the case 5as assi6ned to the 5riter of the opinion of the !ourt4s Division. LEON R"O . 7U!SUM$!NG (ssociate *ustice !hairperson, Third Division CERT!&!C T!ON Pursuant to Section "1, (rticle VIII of the !onstitution, and the Division !hairperson4s (ttestation, I certif) that the conclusions in the above Decision 5ere reached in consultation before the case 5as assi6ned to the 5riter of the opinion of the !ourt4s Division. RTEM!O 8. P NG N!$ N !hief *ustice

&oo,no,)* " Gnder Rule /# of the "''7 Rules of !ivil Procedure. % Subse>uentl) beca$e !ri$inal !ases No. <.&&.'&"A0 and A#. 1 The DO* Secretar) then 5as (rte$io 3. Tu>uero. 0 Gnder (rticle %0' of the Revised Penal !ode. # (n (ct Providin6 for Stron6er Deterrence and Special Protection a6ainst !hild (buse, 9ploitation and Discri$ination, Providin6 Penalties for its Violation, and for Other Purposes. This la5 is other5ise ;no5n as the ,Special Protection of !hildren (6ainst !hild (buse, 9ploitation and Discri$ination (ct., / The DO* Secretar) 5as alread) Hernando 8. Pere=. 7 Rollo, p. 10. A Rollo, pp. 00.0#. ' Rollo, pp. A&.AA. "& Ibid., p. A'. "" Representin6 the DO* Secretar). "% Reiteratin6 and !larif)in6 the 3uidelines Set @orth in Me$orandu$ !ircular No. "%// +0 Nove$ber "'A1- !oncernin6 the Revie5 b) the Office of the President of Resolutions Issued b) the Secretar) of *ustice !oncernin6 Preli$inar) Investi6ations of !ri$inal !ases. "1 See Dee v. !ourt of (ppeals, 3.R. No. """"#1, %" Nove$ber "''0, %1A S!R( %#0. "0 Section " of Rule 01 provides? S !TION ". Scope. E This Rule shall appl) to appeals fro$ Bud6$ents or final orders of the !ourt of Ta9 (ppeals and fro$ a5ards, Bud6$ents, final orders or resolutions of or authori=ed b) an) >uasi. Budicial a6enc) in the e9ercise of its >uasi.Budicial functions. ($on6 these a6encies are the !ivil Service !o$$ission, !entral 8oard of (ssess$ent (ppeals, Securities and 9chan6e !o$$ission, O00.+) o0 ,() Pr)*.')n,, 2and Re6istration (uthorit), Social Securit) !o$$ission, !ivil (eronautics 8oard, 8ureau of Patents, Trade$ar;s and Technolo6) Transfer, National lectrification (d$inistration, ner6) Re6ulator) 8oard, National Teleco$$unications !o$$ission, Depart$ent of (6rarian Refor$ under Republic (ct No. //#7, 3overn$ent Service Insurance S)ste$, $plo)ees4 !o$pensation !o$$ission, (6ricultural Inventions 8oard, Insurance !o$$ission, Philippine (to$ic ner6) !o$$ission, 8oard of Invest$ents, !onstruction Industr) (rbitration !o$$ission, and voluntar) arbitrators authori=ed b) la5. + $phasis supplied"# Substantiall) reiterated in Section 1+e-, Rule ""% of the %&&& Rules of !ri$inal Procedure. "/ (6palo, Ruben ., Statutor) !onstruction, Second dition "''&, p. %1' citin6 8ersabel v. Salvador, 3.R. No. 1#'"&, %" *ul) "'7A, A0 S!R( "7/F Di=on v. ncarnacion, ""' Phil. %& +"'/1-F !abaluna v. Ventura and (6oncillo, 07 Phil. "/# +"'%0-F !astillo v. Sian, et al., "&# Phil. /%% +"'#'-. "7 ($arillo v. Sandi6anba)an, 000 Phil. 0A7 +%&&1-F !entral Pan6asinan lectric !ooperative, Inc. v. Macarae6, 001 Phil. A// +%&&1-. "A (lau)a, *r. v. !o$$ission on lections, 001 Phil. A'1 +%&&1-. "' Re)es v. !a$ilon, 3.R. No. 0/"'A, %& Dece$ber "''&, "'% S!R( 00#. %& Section " of Rule ""%, 5hich is substantiall) reiterated in Section " of Rule ""% of the %&&& Rules of !ri$inal Procedure, reads? S !TION ". Definition. E Preli$inar) investi6ation is an in>uir) or proceedin6 for the purpose of deter$inin6 5hether there is sufficient 6round to en6ender a 5ell founded belief that a cri$e co6ni=able b) the Re6ional Trial !ourt has been co$$itted and that the respondent is probabl) 6uilt) thereof, and should be held for trial. %" 8a)tan v. !OM 2 !, 000 Phil. A"% +%&&1-. See also (n6 v. 2ucero, 3.R. No. "01"/', %" *anuar) %&&#, 00' S!R( "#7 citin6 People v. !(, 1/" Phil. 0&" +"'''-. %% Section 1 of Rule ""%, 5hich is substantiall) reiterated in Section 1 of Rule ""% of the %&&& Rules of !ri$inal Procedure, provides? S !. 1. Procedure. .. The preli$inar) investi6ation shall be conducted in the follo5in6 $anner? 999 +d- If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not sub$it counter.affidavits 5ithin the ten +"&- da) period, the investi6atin6 officer shall base his resolution on the evidence presented b) the co$plainant. %1 8uchanan v. Viuda de steban, 1% Phil. 1/1 +"'"#-. %0 Rollo, p. "7. %# See Ri=on v. Desierto, 3.R. No. "#%7A', %" October %&&0, 00" S!R( ""#. %/ (n6 v. 2ucero, 3.R. No. "01"/', %" *anuar) %&&#, 00' S!R( "#7 citin6 Microsoft !orporation v. Ma9icorp, Inc., 3.R. No. "0&'0/, "1 Septe$ber %&&0, 01A S!R( %%0. %7 (rticle %0' of the Revised Penal !ode provides? (RT. %0'. Homicide. E (n) person 5ho, not fallin6 5ithin the provisions of article %0/ shall ;ill another 5ithout the attendance of an) of the circu$stances enu$erated in the ne9t precedin6 article, shall be dee$ed 6uilt) of ho$icide and be punished b) reclusion temporal. %A The last para6raph of Section "&, (rticle VI of R( 7/"& provides? @or purposes of this (ct, the penalt) for the co$$ission of acts punishable under (rticles %0A, %0', %/%, para6raph %, and %/1, para6raph " of (ct No. 1A"#, as a$ended, the Revised Penal !ode, for the cri$es of $urder, ho$icide, other intentional $utilation, and serious ph)sical inBuries, respectivel), shall be reclusion perpetua 5hen the victi$ is under t5elve +"%- )ears of a6e. 999 %' (6palo, Ruben ., supra note "/, p. 0# citin6 :ebster4s Third Ne5 International Dictionar), p. // +"'/"-.