Paderanga vs. Drilon G.R. 96080, April 19, 1991

Issue: Whether the Fiscal have the jurisdiction to determine the probable cause of the accused

Held: Yes, Preliminary investigation is generally inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it does not place the person against whom it is taken in jeopardy. The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. He has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court. ence, the general rule is that an injunction will not be granted to restrain a criminal prosecution.  The fiscal has the discretion to determine whether or not he will propound these questions to the parties or witnesses concerned.

One thought on “Paderanga vs. Drilon G.R. 96080, April 19, 1991

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 )

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

%d bloggers like this: