Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    Borlongan v. Pena

    Uploaded by

    Ridzanna Abdulgafur
    The petitioners claimed their right to due process was violated during the preliminary investigation for alleged falsification of documents. The prosecutor found probable cause to indict the petitioners based on documents submitted by the respondent. The petitioners argued they were not able to submit a counter-affidavit. The Supreme Court ruled the prosecutor is not mandated to require a counter-affidavit from the respondent during the determination of probable cause. If probable cause is found based on the complaint and supporting documents, the prosecutor may file an information without a counter-affidavit from the respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Borlongan v. Pena

    Uploaded by

    Ridzanna Abdulgafur
    54 views1 page
    The petitioners claimed their right to due process was violated during the preliminary investigation for alleged falsification of documents. The prosecutor found probable cause to indict the petitioners based on documents submitted by the respondent. The petitioners argued they were not able to submit a counter-affidavit. The Supreme Court ruled the prosecutor is not mandated to require a counter-affidavit from the respondent during the determination of probable cause. If probable cause is found based on the complaint and supporting documents, the prosecutor may file an information without a counter-affidavit from the respondent.

    Original Description:

    Crim Proc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners claimed their right to due process was violated during the preliminary investigation for alleged falsification of documents. The prosecutor found probable cause to indict the petitioners based on documents submitted by the respondent. The petitioners argued they were not able to submit a counter-affidavit. The Supreme Court ruled the prosecutor is not mandated to require a counter-affidavit from the respondent during the determination of probable cause. If probable cause is found based on the complaint and supporting documents, the prosecutor may file an information without a counter-affidavit from the respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    54 views1 page

    Borlongan v. Pena

    Uploaded by

    Ridzanna Abdulgafur
    The petitioners claimed their right to due process was violated during the preliminary investigation for alleged falsification of documents. The prosecutor found probable cause to indict the petitioners based on documents submitted by the respondent. The petitioners argued they were not able to submit a counter-affidavit. The Supreme Court ruled the prosecutor is not mandated to require a counter-affidavit from the respondent during the determination of probable cause. If probable cause is found based on the complaint and supporting documents, the prosecutor may file an information without a counter-affidavit from the respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    71.

    Borlongan vs Pena
    Facts: Respondent Atty. Peña instituted a civil case for recovery of agent’s compensation and expenses,
    damages, and attorney’s fees against Urban Bank and herein petitioners, before the RTC of Negros Occidental,
    Bago City. Atty. Peña anchored his claim for compensation on the Contract of Agency for preventing any
    intruder and squatter from unlawfully occupying Urban Bank’s property. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss
    arguing that they never appointed the respondent as agent or counsel. Atty. Pena claimed that the documents
    were falsified. The City prosecutor found probable cause for the indictment of petitioners for four (4) counts of
    the crime of Introducing Falsified Documents. Thereafter, Judge Primitivo Blanca issued the warrants for the
    arrest of the petitioners. Petitioners insisted that they were denied due process because of the non-observance of
    the proper procedure on preliminary investigation prescribed in the Rules of Court. Specifically, they claimed
    that they were not afforded the right to submit their counter-affidavit.
    Additional info “Attached to the motion to dismiss were the following documents: 1) a letter dated December 19, 1994
    signed by Herman Ponce and Julie Abad on behalf of Isabela Sugar Company, Inc. (ISCI), the original owner of the subject
    property; 2) an unsigned letter dated December 7, 1994 addressed to Corazon Bejasa from Marilyn G. Ong; 3) a letter
    dated December 9, 1994 addressed to Teodoro Borlongan and signed by Marilyn G. Ong; and 4) a Memorandum dated
    November 20, 1994 from Enrique Montilla III. Said documents were presented in an attempt to show that the
    respondent was appointed as agent by ISCI and not by Urban Bank or by the petitioners. ”

    Issue: Whether or not the prosecutor is not mandated to require respondent to submit his counter-affidavit to
    oppose the complaint

    Ruling: YES. While probable cause should first be determined before an information may be filed in court, the
    prosecutor is not mandated to require the respondent to submit his counter-affidavits to oppose the
    complaint. In the determination of probable cause, the prosecutor may solely rely on the complaint, affidavits
    and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant. If he does not find probable cause, the
    prosecutor may dismiss outright the complaint or if he finds probable cause or sufficient reason to proceed
    with the case, he shall issue a resolution and file the corresponding information 

    Rule 112, Sec. 9 is presently worded as follows:

    Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation nor covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. –

    (a) If filed with the prosecutor. – If the complaint is filed directly with the prosecutor involving an
    offense punishable by imprisonment of less than four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, the
    procedure outlined in section 3(a) of this Rule shall be observed. The prosecutor shall act on the
    complaint based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant
    within ten (10) days from its filing.

    You might also like