> Inquest
On Tuesday’s news, Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuno was seen
on television going to the House of Representatives to conduct an
inquest on five (5) party-list Congressmen facing rebellion and
coup d’etat charges before the Department of Justice. But since
the solons refused to cooperate in the proceedings by not
appearing before him, Pros. Zuno declared the investigation
submitted for resolution.
The New Rules on Inquest of the Department of Justice define the
term “inquest” as an informal and summary investigation conducted
by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons
arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest
issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether or not
said persons should remain under custody and correspondingly be
charged in court.
The operative phrase in the foregoing definition of inquest is
that it pertains to persons arrested and detained without the
benefit of a warrant of arrest. In other words, inquest is
conducted on persons arrested without a warrant of arrest.
Under the Rules of Court, there are at least three (3) instances
where a person may be arrested without a warrant by a peace
officer or a private person. These are: (1) when in the presence
of the arresting officer the person to be arrested has committed,
is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense; (2)
when an offense has in fact just been committed, and the arresting
officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and (3) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
In the case of the party-list representatives, rebellion and coup
d’etat complaints have been lodged against them by the police. As
far as the latter is concerned, these solons could be considered
as having just committed the offenses of rebellion and coup d’etat.
However, none of them has been arrested by any police officer.
Given this situation, was it proper for Pros. Zuno to conduct an
inquest proceeding on the solons?
Arguably, in my opinion, Pros. Zuno is correct in conducting an
inquest on the party-list representatives. It should be pointed
out that under Section 2, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court an arrest
can be done not only by actually restraining the person to be
arrested but also when the person to be arrested submits himself
to the custody of the person making the arrest.
Actual restraint on the persons of these solons have not been
effected because Speaker Jose De Venecia intervened and agreed
that he would keep custody of them within the confines of the
Batasang Pambansa. Apparently, the solons were amenable to such an
arrangement. In fact, television and newspaper reports show that
they have actually spent the night at the Batasan.
Having agreed to such an arrangement, the solons, debatably, could
be considered to have voluntarily submitted themselves to the
custody of the police. Their situation could be likened to that of
a house arrest. Consequently, it was proper to conduct an inquest
because the solons are, technically, under detention.
