Week 6 Coverage Table
The table below mirrors the coverage sheet's assigned cases for Week 6 and links each item to its digest page. Entries marked supra re-assign a case already listed earlier in the week under a later subtopic; they point at the same digest.
Class. records how the case actually stands to the subtopic it was assigned under — DIRECT (the Court squarely applies the doctrine), ANALOGOUS (it decides the point under a different provision or doctrine), REJECTED (the Court found the doctrine not established), INCIDENTAL (the doctrine is mentioned but the disposition rests elsewhere). Reciting a REJECTED case as if it were DIRECT inverts the holding.
Recitation Map
One line per digested case — what it is assigned for, and how it came out.
| Case | What it is for | Disposition |
|---|---|---|
| Galvez v. CA | 1 — Nature and Purpose | CA Decision dated 27 June 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 97160 AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION: Gilbert G. Guy, Rafael H. Galvez, Philip Leung, Katherine L. Guy, and Eugenio H. Galvez, Jr. to be charged for SYNDICATED ESTAFA under Article 315(2)(a), Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 1, P.D. No. 1689. |
| Callo-Claridad v. Esteban | 1 — Nature and Purpose | Petition for review on certiorari DENIED. CA Decision promulgated 20 November 2009 AFFIRMED. Petitioner to pay costs of suit. |
| Punzalan v. Plata | 1 — Nature and Purpose | Petition GRANTED. CA Decision dated 29 September 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 62633 REVERSED and SET ASIDE. DOJ Resolutions dated 6 June 2000 and 11 October 2000 REINSTATED (informations ordered withdrawn). |
| Salapuddin v. CA | 1 — Nature and Purpose | Petition GRANTED. CA Decision (6 August 2008) and Resolution (16 October 2008) in CA-G.R. SP No. 103461 REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Secretary of Justice's Resolution dated 23 April 2008 in I.S. No. 2007-992 REINSTATED; Salapuddin excluded from the Information. |
| Mendoza v. People | 1 — Nature and Purpose | Petition GRANTED. CA Decision dated 14 January 2011 in CA-G.R. SP No. 110774 REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Criminal Case Nos. MC08-11604-05 against Alfredo C. Mendoza DISMISSED. |
| Arroyo v. Department of Justice | 1 — Nature and Purpose | Petitions and supplemental petitions DISMISSED. Comelec Resolution No. 9266, Joint Order No. 001-2011, and the Fact-Finding Team's Initial Report declared VALID. The Joint Committee's Rules of Procedure declared INEFFECTIVE for lack of publication. The conduct of the preliminary investigation declared VALID; proceedings in RTC Pasay City, Branch 112 to proceed with dispatch. |
| Navarro v. Cornejo | 1 — Nature and Purpose | Petition GRANTED. CA Decision (21 July 2022) and Resolution (20 September 2022) in CA-G.R. SP No. 166222 REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Informations against Navarro for Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness DISMISSED for lack of probable cause. |
| Ocampo v. Abando | 1 — Nature and Purpose | Consolidated petitions DISMISSED. RTC Manila, Branch 32 ordered to proceed with dispatch in Criminal Case No. 08-262163. Petitioners to remain on temporary liberty under previously granted bail, subject to stated conditions. |
| Estrada v. Ombudsman | 1 — Nature and Purpose | Petitions DISMISSED for lack of merit. Ombudsman's finding of probable cause against all petitioners AFFIRMED. |
| Marinas v. Siochi | 1 — Nature and Purpose | Petition DENIED; Writ of Preliminary Injunction lifted; costs against petitioners. |
| Duterte v. Sandiganbayan | 1 — Nature and Purpose | Petition GRANTED. Criminal Case No. 23193 DISMISSED. Temporary restraining order of 4 September 1997 made PERMANENT. |
| People v. Gomez | 1 — Nature and Purpose | Order of dismissal dated 2 November 1966 SET ASIDE; Court of First Instance of Zamboanga ordered to proceed to trial in Criminal Cases Nos. 3083, 3084, 3088, and 3128. |
| Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy Chim | 3.a — DOJ Department Circular No. 015 July 16, 2024: Probable Cause | Petition for review DENIED (G.R. No. 174168 only). CA Decision (31 May 2006) and Resolution (8 August 2006) in CA-G.R. SP No. 91416 AFFIRMED; costs against petitioners. |
| Mangila v. Pangilinan | 5 — Officers Authorized to Conduct Preliminary Investigation | Petition for review DENIED for lack of merit. CA Resolutions dated 14 October 2003 and 19 November 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 79745 AFFIRMED; petitioner ordered to pay costs of suit. |
| Yambot v. Armivit | 5 — Officers Authorized to Conduct Preliminary Investigation | Petition for review on certiorari DENIED. CA Decision (16 September 2005) and Resolution (8 May 2006) in CA-G.R. SP No. 54397 AFFIRMED. |
| Tetangco v. Ombudsman | 7 — Doctrine of Non-Interference | Petition DISMISSED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs. |
| Alawiya v. Atumanong | 7 — Doctrine of Non-Interference | Petition GRANTED insofar as the case is REMANDED to the RTC, Branch 41, Manila, to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case and determine whether probable cause exists to hold the accused for trial. |
| Maximo v. Villapando | 8 — Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor and its Review | Both petitions DENIED. CA Decision (13 June 2014) and Resolution (16 October 2014) AFFIRMED — Amended Information for Perjury against Villapando DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of a new Information by an authorized officer. |
| Quisay v. People | 8 — Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor and its Review | Petition GRANTED. CA Decision (10 October 2014) and Resolution (30 January 2015) in CA-G.R. SP No. 131968 REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Information (Pabatid Sakdal) against petitioner QUASHED and the criminal case against her DISMISSED. |
| De Lima v. Reyes | 8 — Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor and its Review | Petition DISMISSED for being moot. Branch 52, Regional Trial Court of Palawan DIRECTED to proceed with the prosecution of Criminal Case No. 26839. |
| Estrada v. Ombudsman | 8 — Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor and its Review | Petition for Certiorari DISMISSED for prematurity and forum shopping. |
| Shu v. Dee | 8 — Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor and its Review | Petition GRANTED. CA Decision (19 June 2007) and Resolution (4 April 2008) REVERSED and SET ASIDE, reinstating the Secretary of Justice's finding of probable cause for falsification against respondents. |
| Pestillos v. Generoso (Pestilos v. Generoso) | 9 — When Warrant of Arrest May Issue | Petition DENIED. CA Decision (Jan. 21, 2008) and Resolution (Apr. 17, 2008) in CA-G.R. SP No. 91541 AFFIRMED. City Prosecutor of Quezon City ORDERED to proceed with the criminal proceedings against petitioners. |
| The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche v. Fria | 9 — When Warrant of Arrest May Issue | Petition DENIED. RTC Resolution (8 January 2008) and Order (16 May 2008) in S.C.A. Case No. 07-096 AFFIRMED, sustaining the MTC's dismissal of Criminal Case No. 46400 for lack of probable cause. |
| Hao v. People | 9 — When Warrant of Arrest May Issue | Petition DENIED. CA Decision (28 February 2006) and Resolution (13 June 2008) in CA-G.R. SP No. 86289 AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION — petitioners ordered charged and arraigned for simple estafa under Article 315(2)(a), RPC, instead of syndicated estafa; warrants of arrest issued STAND. |
| Maza v. Turla | 9 — When Warrant of Arrest May Issue | Petition PARTIALLY GRANTED. RTC Orders dated 18 July 2008 and 2 December 2008 in Criminal Case Nos. 1879-P and 1880-P SET ASIDE. Case REMANDED to the RTC for further proceedings — a proper exercise of the judge's Section 5(a), Rule 112 options — with due and deliberate dispatch. |
| Anlud Metal Recycling Corporation v. Ang | 9 — When Warrant of Arrest May Issue | Petition for Review DENIED. CA Decision (4 December 2007) and Resolution (13 March 2008) in CA-G.R. SP No. 97124, affirming the RTC Decision (18 September 2006) and Order (3 October 2006) in Criminal Case No. 12691-04-C dismissing the estafa charge against respondent, AFFIRMED. |
| De Lima v. Guerrero | 9 — When Warrant of Arrest May Issue | Petition for prohibition and certiorari DISMISSED for lack of merit; the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204 ordered to proceed with dispatch with Criminal Case No. 17-165. Provisional reliefs rejected. |
| Cajipe v. People | 9 — When Warrant of Arrest May Issue | Petition GRANTED. CA Decision (15 June 2012) and Resolution (5 October 2012) in CA-G.R. SP 117756 REVERSED. RTC Order dismissing the case against petitioners AFFIRMED. Charges DISMISSED; warrants of arrest against petitioners ORDERED WITHDRAWN. |
| Ladlad v. Velasco | 10 — When Accused Lawfully Arrested Without Warrant | Petitions GRANTED. In G.R. No. 175013, Orders dated 31 May 2006 and 29 August 2006 SET ASIDE. In G.R. Nos. 172070-72 and 172074-76, Orders dated 22 March 2006 and 4 April 2006 SET ASIDE. RTC Makati, Branch 150, ORDERED to DISMISS Criminal Case Nos. 06-452 and 06-944. |
| De Castro v. Fernandez, Jr. | 10 — When Accused Lawfully Arrested Without Warrant | Petition DISMISSED for availment of the wrong remedy; on the merits, Orders dated 5 August 2002 and 28 August 2002 of the RTC, Las Piñas City, Branch 254, AFFIRMED. |
| Victorias Milling Co. v. Padilla | 11 — Cases Not Requiring PI Nor Covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure | Petition GRANTED. MTCC Judge (or the incumbent Presiding Judge of the MTCC of Victorias City) ORDERED to determine the existence of probable cause against respondents as conspirators, in accordance with the procedure in Section 8(b), Rule 112, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. |
| Borlongan, Jr. v. Peña | 11 — Cases Not Requiring PI Nor Covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure | Petition GRANTED. CA Decision dated 20 June 2000 REVERSED and SET ASIDE. TRO dated 2 August 2000 made PERMANENT. MTCC, City of Bago, ORDERED to DISMISS Criminal Case Nos. 6683-86. |
| Tabujara v. People | 11 — Cases Not Requiring PI Nor Covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure | Petition GRANTED. CA Decision and Resolution REVERSED and SET ASIDE. MTC of Meycauayan, Bulacan, Branch 11, DIRECTED to dismiss Criminal Cases Nos. 99-29037 and 99-29038 for lack of probable cause and to quash the warrants of arrest. |
Topic Notes
Explanatory notes carried in the coverage sheet for the outline items themselves, as distinct from the assigned cases.
A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC, May 28, 2024
This is a 2024 Supreme Court issuance amending and updating rules relevant to preliminary investigation and the issuance of warrants of arrest, part of the Court's ongoing continuous-trial and case-decongestion reform agenda. Because these administrative issuances are periodically updated, always check for the most current version in actual practice rather than relying solely on what a syllabus or textbook lists, since procedural circulars like this one are amended more frequently than the Rules of Court themselves.
DOJ Department Circular No. 015, July 16, 2024
This is a Department of Justice circular governing the conduct of preliminary investigation by public prosecutors nationwide, covering matters such as procedures, timelines, and standards applicable across the National Prosecution Service. Circulars like this one operationalize the bare text of Rule 112 into concrete, day-to-day guidance for the thousands of prosecutors actually conducting preliminary investigations across the country.
DOJ Department Circular No. 028, November 13, 2024
This is a more recent DOJ circular further refining the rules and standards governing preliminary investigation and case build-up by public prosecutors, superseding or supplementing earlier circulars like DOJ Circular No. 015. Its existence on a 2026 syllabus is a reminder that the DOJ's internal rules for conducting PI are a genuinely moving target that prosecutors and reviewees alike must track.
A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC
This is the Supreme Court issuance that removed the authority of first-level court (MTC) judges to conduct preliminary investigation, a power they had exercised under earlier versions of the Rules. After this issuance, PI is conducted exclusively by prosecutors and other officers specifically authorized by law, reflecting a deliberate institutional choice to keep the executive (prosecutorial) and judicial (trial) functions more cleanly separated.
6. Preliminary Investigation vs. Preliminary Examination
Preliminary investigation is EXECUTIVE in nature, conducted by the public prosecutor or the Ombudsman, and its purpose is to determine whether there is probable cause to file an information in court in the first place. Preliminary examination, sometimes called preliminary inquiry, is JUDICIAL in nature, conducted by the judge himself, and its purpose is to personally determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest once a case has already been filed. The two are entirely independent of each other — a judge is never bound by the prosecutor's PI findings when conducting his own preliminary examination, and this independence is exactly what several of the 'When Warrant of Arrest May Issue' cases below are designed to protect.
f. DOJ Circular No. 70, July 3, 2000
This is the former '2000 NPS Rule on Appeal,' which governed the procedure and periods for filing a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice from a prosecutor's resolution in a preliminary investigation. Though it has since been supplemented or superseded by more recent circulars, it remains historically important as the framework many of the review-related cases in this cluster were actually decided under.
Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases
These are Supreme Court guidelines designed to streamline criminal case processing from filing through trial, including specific timelines for resolving preliminary investigation and for the judge's determination of probable cause needed to issue a warrant of arrest. They reflect the judiciary's broader institutional push to reduce case backlog and delay across the entire criminal justice system, not just at the trial stage.