Flashcards Studio

In a preliminary investigation into a complaint for estafa through falsification of transaction records, the investigating prosecutor dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. Weeks later, newly obtained bank documents and a sworn statement from a witness who previously refused to testify indicate the existence of probable cause. The complainant files a Motion to Reopen before the same prosecutor, arguing that the newly discovered evidence warrants reconsideration of the dismissal. The motion is denied. (a) Identify the controlling doctrine on a Motion to Reopen in the context of Rule 112 preliminary investigation; (b) Distinguish this remedy from a motion for reconsideration and from other available remedies; (c) Apply the doctrine to the facts and determine whether the motion should have been granted, including the probable effect on the investigation and possible next steps.