Short answer. The investigating judge must transmit the resolution within ten days after the preliminary investigation, together with the full case record. The reviewing prosecutor or Ombudsman then has thirty days to rule on probable cause, and must order release of a detained accused if no probable cause is found.
What the law says
Within ten days after the preliminary investigation, the investigating judge shall transmit the resolution of the case to the provincial or city prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, for appropriate action.
Rule 112, Section 5 — Resolution of investigating judge and its review. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Within thirty days from receipt of the records, the provincial or city prosecutor, or the Ombudsman or his deputy, as the case may be, shall review the resolution of the investigating judge on the existence of probable cause.
Rule 112, Section 5 — Resolution of investigating judge and its review. Read the full provision →
What the law says
They shall order the release of an accused who is detained if no probable cause is found against him.
Rule 112, Section 5 — Resolution of investigating judge and its review. Read the full provision →
The ten-day transmittal deadline
Once an investigating judge finishes a preliminary investigation, Section 5 gives that judge only ten days to send the resolution onward — to the provincial or city prosecutor ordinarily, or to the Ombudsman or a deputy where the offense falls within the Sandiganbayan's original jurisdiction. The resolution must state the facts found and the law supporting the judge's action. Missing that ten-day window does not appear to void the proceedings outright, but it undercuts the swift review the rule is designed to secure.
What travels with the resolution
The record sent up is not just the judge's conclusion. Section 5 lists what must accompany it: the arrest warrant if one issued, the affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties, the accused's bail undertaking and release order, the transcripts of the preliminary investigation proceedings, and the bail-cancellation order if the resolution recommends dismissal. Without this complete package, the reviewing prosecutor or Ombudsman would have to reconstruct the basis for the judge's resolution rather than review it directly.
The reviewing officer's thirty days
The prosecutor or Ombudsman then has thirty days from receiving the record to review the investigating judge's finding on probable cause. That review must expressly and clearly state the facts and law it rests on, and copies go to the parties — this is not a rubber stamp of the judge's resolution. This written, reasoned review requirement guards against a resolution being rubber-stamped or reversed without any documented basis for the change.
Release if probable cause is not found
If, after that review, no probable cause is found against a detained accused, Section 5 obligates the reviewing officer to order the accused's release. This is a mandatory consequence, not a discretionary one — continued detention cannot rest on a resolution the reviewing authority itself has determined lacks probable cause. This mandatory release requirement exists precisely to prevent someone from remaining detained on a resolution that the reviewing authority has already determined lacks sufficient legal basis.