How to Appeal Decisions of Prosecutor

In the municipal level, the relationship of the Philippine National Police and the
Office of the Prosecutor is of paramount importance. The PNP usually represented
by the unit Investigator, has nobody to turn except to the Public Prosecutor when
confronted with issues requiring legal expertise particularly with the filing of
criminal cases. We must admit though, that in certain instances, a Prosecutor may
not necessarily be convinced of the cases filed by a Police Investigator. It may result
in the dismissal of cases even on the preliminary investigation or inquest stage.

Outcome of cases filed by the police is at the mercy of the Prosecutor because no
office in the PNP handle appeals in connection with Resolutions of the Prosecutor.
Dismissal of the case at the prosecutors level means the PNP has to let go of the
suspect. This would further drain the resources of a police unit because after a
warrant of arrest will be issued, police personnel will exert effort and spent financial
resources again to capture the same person.

It is no arrogance to claim, especially to those who have the experience that the
reason for the dismissal of the case is not really that the PNP has no case at all
citing experience as a Police Investigator. The problem lies on relationship with the
handling Prosecutor.

At the very start of the incident the Investigator knows the real-score on how to win
the case. But sometime events turn otherwise when the prosecutor imposes his
authority, suggests things, requires documents, gives demoralizing comments, etc.
as to the merit of the case citing variables such as politics, blood relationships and
previous experience with the PNPs law enforcement activities, not to mention
volume of his deadlines, and many factors that drives a prosecutor to have an
attitude of resistance upon seeing a PNP member in his office.

Eto ang Abogado Nyo!

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.
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
- 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.