(Philippine criminal procedure—practical, court-room reality, and rule-based guidance)

1) Why this topic matters in the MTC setting

The Municipal Trial Courts (MTC/MTCC/MCTC) handle a huge volume of criminal cases—many of which are “minor” in penalty, but not all are “simple” in procedure. Some MTC cases are filed after a full preliminary investigation, others are filed without one, and a significant number fall under the Rules on Summary Procedure, where delay-causing pleadings are intentionally restricted.

Because of that mix, people often use the term “reinvestigation” loosely—sometimes to mean:

a true reinvestigation (a second look at a prosecutor’s finding of probable cause), or
a belated request for preliminary investigation (because none was conducted), or
a DOJ review (appeal-type review of the prosecutor’s resolution).

Those are related—but not the same. Whether you can file a “motion for reinvestigation” in an MTC criminal case depends on what kind of MTC case it is, what stage the case is in, and what you’re really asking for.

2) Core framework: MTC jurisdiction and why reinvestigation even comes up

A. MTC criminal jurisdiction (big picture)

As a rule of thumb, the MTC tries offenses where the penalty does not exceed the level assigned to it by law (commonly, cases with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years, subject to exceptions and special laws). That means MTC dockets can include:

very light offenses (often summary procedure),
mid-level offenses (still within MTC penalty limits) that may require preliminary investigation.

B. Preliminary Investigation (PI) vs Reinvestigation (RI)

Preliminary Investigation (PI) (Rule 112) is a prosecutor-led proceeding to determine probable cause before filing an information in court—required for more serious offenses (measured by the threshold penalty rule).

Reinvestigation (RI) is not a single neatly-defined procedure in the Rules of Court with one universal set of steps. In practice, it refers to a prosecutor re-examining a prior finding of probable cause—usually after:

new evidence surfaces,
a party claims denial of due process,
there are serious factual inconsistencies,
or the case appears weak on its face.

Once an Information is already filed in court, the prosecutor’s ability to “undo” or withdraw it becomes subject to court control (because the case is now in the court’s jurisdiction). That’s why reinvestigation requests often involve both the prosecutor and the court, and why timing matters.

3) The single most important question: Was a preliminary investigation required (and was it done)?

This is the fork in the road.

Scenario 1: The offense requires PI, but the case was filed without PI

In this situation, what many call a “motion for reinvestigation” is often really a request for preliminary investigation under Rule 112.

Key practical rule: If an Information was filed in court without the required PI, the accused may request that a PI be conducted—typically by filing the proper motion within the limited period provided by the Rules (commonly discussed as within five (5) days from learning of the filing of the Information).

Effect (commonly):

The court may suspend proceedings (often including arraignment) while the prosecutor conducts the PI, subject to conditions (e.g., posting bail if custody issues arise).
This is not meant to be a stalling tactic. Courts watch for delay.

Bottom line: Yes—relief is available in MTC cases where PI is required but was not done, but doctrinally it’s better described as a motion/request for preliminary investigation, not “reinvestigation.”

Scenario 2: The offense requires PI and PI was conducted, but the accused wants a second look

This is where the phrase “motion for reinvestigation” is most accurate.

Here, the accused typically seeks:

reinvestigation by the prosecutor, and/or
a review (e.g., DOJ petition for review), and
a motion to defer arraignment / suspend proceedings in the MTC while that happens.

Critical procedural reality: Once the Information is filed, the prosecutor cannot simply withdraw or dismiss the case on their own. If after reinvestigation the prosecutor recommends withdrawal/dismissal, the court generally must approve it.

Bottom line: Yes—an MTC case can be the subject of reinvestigation, especially if it’s an MTC offense that required PI in the first place. But it is typically discretionary, heavily influenced by timing and the court’s duty to avoid delay.

Scenario 3: The case is under the Rules on Summary Procedure

Many MTC cases fall under summary procedure (designed to be fast). Summary procedure limits motions and pleadings that cause delay.

In many summary procedure cases:

PI is not required as a rule (given the low penalties and streamlined mechanism).
Courts may be stricter about attempts to “re-open” prosecutorial evaluation through motions that look like reinvestigation requests.

Bottom line: In summary procedure cases, a “motion for reinvestigation” is often improper, unnecessary, or treated as dilatory, depending on what it’s asking for. Courts still must protect constitutional rights, but the system is intentionally less tolerant of re-litigation at the preliminary stage.

4) Timing: When is reinvestigation most likely to be entertained?

A. Before arraignment: best window

Courts are generally most receptive to reinvestigation requests before arraignment, because:

issues of probable cause can still be meaningfully corrected early,
it avoids wasting trial time,
it prevents prejudice from an improvident plea.

Often, the request is paired with a motion to defer arraignment.

B. After arraignment: possible but harder

After arraignment, reinvestigation requests face stronger resistance because:

the case should proceed toward trial,
the accused has a constitutional/statutory right to speedy trial (and so does the State),
courts dislike interruptions that appear tactical.

That said, courts may still allow it in exceptional circumstances, such as:

clear denial of due process during PI,
material new evidence,
glaring weaknesses showing absence of probable cause.

C. During trial: generally disfavored

Once trial is underway, requests resembling reinvestigation are usually viewed as late-stage delay tactics, unless tied to a serious irregularity that affects jurisdiction or fundamental rights.

5) Who do you ask—court, prosecutor, or DOJ?

In practice, reinvestigation-related relief may involve three “venues,” often in combination:

1) The Prosecutor (reinvestigation / reconsideration)

You may request the prosecutor to reinvestigate or reconsider. But if the case is already in court, any move that effectively dismisses/withdraws the case will generally require court approval.

2) The MTC (to suspend/defer while reinvestigation happens)

Because the case is pending, the MTC controls:

whether arraignment will be deferred,
whether proceedings will be suspended,
whether the prosecutor will be directed to comment/act,
and whether any eventual motion to withdraw/dismiss is granted.

3) The DOJ (petition for review)

A DOJ petition for review is an administrative review of the prosecutor’s resolution. Parties commonly ask the court to defer arraignment while the DOJ review is pending—but courts are not required to freeze the case automatically. Many courts require a strong showing that the review is not just for delay.

6) What grounds actually work in reinvestigation requests?

Reinvestigation is most persuasive when grounded on substance, not just disagreement. Common serious grounds include:

Denial of due process in PI Examples: no real opportunity to submit counter-affidavit, no notice, inability to access evidence relied upon (depending on context), or other procedural unfairness.
Newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence Something genuinely material that could change the probable cause assessment.
Misapprehension of facts / clearly mistaken identity E.g., documentary proof of impossibility, strong alibi supported by records (not just assertions), mistaken person charged.
Legal impossibility / no offense charged Where even if facts are accepted, they don’t constitute the crime alleged.
Probable cause issues so glaring they risk injustice Not every weakness qualifies; courts often look for something more than “he said, she said.”

7) Reinvestigation vs other remedies in MTC criminal cases (don’t mix these up)

Because litigants often label everything “reinvestigation,” it helps to separate common tools:

A. Motion for Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112 mechanism)

Use this when PI was required but not done.

B. Motion to Defer Arraignment

Used to pause arraignment while:

reinvestigation is pending,
DOJ review is pending,
or other threshold issues are being resolved.

C. Motion to Quash (Rule 117)

Attacks the Information on specific grounds (e.g., facts charged do not constitute an offense, lack of jurisdiction, double jeopardy, etc.). This is different from reinvestigation: it’s a court-based attack on the charging document.

D. Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause / Opposition to Warrant

Judges must personally evaluate probable cause for issuance of a warrant. This is not reinvestigation, but it can overlap factually.

E. Demurrer to Evidence (later stage)

Filed after the prosecution rests—totally different stage and standard.

Practical point: If what you really want is dismissal because the Information is defective on its face, a motion to quash may be more appropriate than reinvestigation.

8) How reinvestigation requests typically look in an MTC case (step-by-step)

A common real-world sequence (when PI was conducted and the case is now in MTC):

File a motion in court (often styled “Motion for Reinvestigation” and/or “Motion to Defer Arraignment”).
Attach or specify:
- the prosecutor’s resolution,
- the alleged errors,
- new evidence (if any),
- due process issues (if any),
- explanation why the motion is not dilatory.
The court may:
- require comment from the prosecution,
- set hearing,
- grant (and suspend/defer),
- or deny (especially if late or weakly supported).
If reinvestigation results in a recommendation to withdraw/dismiss:
- prosecutor files motion to withdraw/dismiss,
- court evaluates and decides (court approval is key once Information is filed).

If PI was required but not done, the sequence often becomes:

File motion/request for PI under Rule 112 mechanism (often with a request to suspend proceedings).
Court orders prosecutor to conduct PI and suspends proceedings subject to rules/conditions.

9) Speedy trial, Speedy disposition, and the “dilatory motion” problem

Courts balance reinvestigation requests against:

the accused’s right to speedy trial, and
the broader policy of prompt criminal justice.

So courts commonly deny reinvestigation motions when:

filed very late without compelling justification,
repetitive (“second,” “third” reinvestigation),
unsupported by new facts or serious procedural issues,
clearly used to postpone arraignment/trial.

A well-crafted motion explains why the requested reinvestigation is necessary for justice and why it will not unduly delay proceedings.

10) Special notes for MTC practice

A. Direct filing and prosecutor involvement varies

Some MTC cases begin through:

complaint filed with the prosecutor (then Information in court), or
complaint directly filed in court (common in some low-level settings), depending on the offense/procedure.

Where the pathway bypassed PI (because PI wasn’t required), courts are less receptive to attempts to retrofit a full-blown preliminary stage.

B. Barangay conciliation issues are separate

If the dispute is covered by Katarungang Pambarangay and conciliation is required but not complied with, that is usually tackled through the proper procedural vehicle (often tied to jurisdiction/condition precedent concepts), not “reinvestigation.”

C. “Reinvestigation” is often discretionary once the case is in court

Even if the prosecutor agrees to revisit, once the case is pending, the court is not obliged to pause everything unless a proper basis is shown.

11) So—can a Motion for Reinvestigation be filed in MTC criminal cases?

Yes, in appropriate MTC criminal cases, particularly where:

the offense is of a kind that involved a prosecutor-led finding of probable cause, and
the case posture makes reinvestigation meaningful (most commonly before arraignment), and
the request is supported by serious grounds (due process issues, new evidence, clear factual/legal error).

But three major cautions apply:

If PI was required but not done, the proper remedy is often best framed as a motion/request for preliminary investigation under Rule 112, even if lay practice calls it “reinvestigation.”
If the case is under Summary Procedure, reinvestigation-type motions are commonly disfavored and may be treated as inconsistent with the streamlined nature of the proceeding.
Once the Information is filed, reinvestigation is typically not an automatic right; it is frequently treated as discretionary, with courts guarding against delay.

12) Practical takeaways (non-formula, courtroom-useful)

Identify first: Does this offense require PI? Was PI actually done?
If no PI but required: move promptly under the Rule 112 mechanism; delay can waive practical relief.
If PI was done: file early (ideally before arraignment), show concrete grounds (not conclusions), and couple it with a well-justified motion to defer arraignment if needed.
Consider whether a motion to quash or other remedy is the correct tool instead of reinvestigation.
Show the court you’re not stalling: propose a narrow timeframe, highlight materiality of issues, avoid repetitive filings.

This article is for general legal information and education in the Philippine context and is not a substitute for advice on a specific case (facts, dates, offense classification, and procedural posture can change the correct remedy).