Jurisprudence Preliminary Preliminary investigation [G.R. No. No. 147932. 147932. January 25, 25, 2006.] 2006.] LAILA G. DE OCAMPO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, MAGDALENA B. DACARRA, and ERLINDA P. ORAYAN, respondents. To repeat, what is determined determined during preliminary investigation investigation is only probable cause, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. 25 As implied by the words themselves, "probable cause" is concerned with probability, not absolute or moral certainty
[G.R. No. No. 186652. 186652. October 6, 2010.] ATTY. ALICE ODCHIGUE-BONDOC, petitioner, vs. TAN TIONG BIO A.K.A. HENRY TAN, respondent. A preliminary investigation thus partakes of an investigative or inquisitorial power for the sole purpose of obtaining information on what future action of a judicial nature may be taken.
First Women's Credit Corporation v. Perez G.R. No. 169026, June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 774, 777 It is settle settled d that that the determ determina inatio tion n of whethe whetherr probabl probable e cause cause exists exists to warrant the prosecution in court of an accused should be consigned and entrusted to the Department of Justice, as reviewer of the findings of public pros prosec ecut utor ors. s. The The cour court' t's s duty duty in an appr approp opri riat ate e case case is conf confin ined ed to a determination of whether the assailed executive or judicial determination of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction. This is consistent with the general rule that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed by injunc injunctio tion, n, prelim prelimina inary ry or final, final, albeit albeit in extrem extreme e cases, cases, except exception ional al circumstances have been recognized. The rule is also consistent with this Court's policy of non-in -interference in the conduct of preliminary ary invest investiga igatio tions, ns, and of leavin leaving g to the invest investiga igatin ting g prosec prosecuto utorr suffic sufficien ientt latitude of discretion in the exercise of determination of what constitutes suff su ffic icie ient nt evid eviden ence ce as will will esta establ blis ish h prob probab able le caus cause e for for the the fili filing ng of an information against a supposed offender.
UCPB v. Looyuko G.R. G.R. No. 156337, 156337, Septem September ber 28, 2007, 2007, 534 SCRA 322, 322, 331 citing Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Tonda, 392 Phil. 797, 814 Consistent with this policy, courts do not reverse the Secretary of Justice's findings and conclusions on the matter of probable cause except in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion. xxx xxx xxx In other words, judicial review of the resolution of the Secretary of Justice is limi limite ted d to a dete determ rmin inat atio ion n of whet whethe herr ther there e has has been been a grav grave e abuse abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction considering that full discretionary authority has been delegated to the executive branch in the
2
determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation. Courts are not empowered to substitute their judgment for that of the executive branch; it may, however, look into the question of whether such exercise has been made in grave abuse of discretion.
[G.R. No. No. 172796. 172796. July 13, 2009.] SPS. ARTEMIO and ESPERANZA ADUAN, petitioners, vs. LEVI CHONG, respondent. It is hornbook principle that the term "grave abuse of discretion" means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 15 The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exer exerci cise sed d in an arbi arbitr trar ary y or desp despot otic ic mann manner er by reaso reason n of passi passion on or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. [G.R. No. No. 171435. 171435. July 30, 2008.] ANTHON ANTHONY Y T. REYES, REYES, petitio petitioner ner,, vs. PEARLB PEARLBANK ANK SECURI SECURITIES TIES,, INC., INC., respondent. Suffice it to say that it is indubitably within the discretion of the prosecutor to determine who must be charged with what crime or for what offense. Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. (Sy v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 166315, 14 December 2006, 511 SCRA SCRA 92, 96; Metrop Metropol olita itan n Bank Bank and Trust Company Company v. Court Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154685, 27 November 2006, 508 SCRA 215, 224; Cabrera v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 157835, 27 July 2006, 496 SCRA 771, 782; 782; Osorio Osorio v. Desier Desierto to,, G.R. G.R. No. No. 156652 156652,, 13 Octobe October r 2005, 2005, 472 SCRA 559, 573; Sarigumba v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 154239-41, 16 February 2005, 451 SCRA 533, 550; Quiambao v. Desierto, G.R. No. No. 149069 149069,, 20 Septem September ber 2004, 2004, 438 SCRA 495, 495, 508; 508; Serapi Serapio o v. Sand Sandig igan anba baya yan, n, 444 444 Phil Phil.. 499, 499, 531 531 (200 (2003) 3);; Fabi Fabia a v. Cour Courtt of Appeals, 437 Phil. 389, 398-399 (2002); Domalanta v. Commission Commission on Elections, 390 Phil. 46, 62-63 (2000); Webb v. Hon. De Leon, 317 Phil Phil.. 758, 758, 779779-78 780 0 (199 (1995) 5);; Pila Pilapi pill v. Sand Sandig igan anba baya yan, n, G.R. G.R. No. No. 101978, 7 April 1993, 221 SCRA 349, 360 ) The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolu absolute te certai certainty nty.. It is merel merely y based based on opinio opinion n and reason reasonabl able e belief belief.. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, not on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. 20 In determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. 21 What is determined is whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
3
These findings of probable cause fall within the jurisdiction of the prosecutor or fiscal in the exercise of executive power, which the courts do not interfere with with unless unless there there is grave grave abuse abuse of dis discr creti etion. on. The determ determina inatio tion n of its exis existe tenc nce e lies lies with within in the the disc discre reti tion on of the the pros prosec ecut utin ing g offi office cers rs afte afterr conducting a preliminary investigation upon complaint of an offended party. Thus, the decision whether to dismiss a complaint or not is dependent upon Public Ut Utili ilitie ties s the sound discretion of the prosecuting fiscal. (Public Depa Depart rtme ment nt v. Hon. Hon. Guin Guingo gona na,, Jr., Jr., 417 417 Phil Phil.. 798, 798, 804 804 (2001 2001); ); Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon, 361 Phil. 900, 907 (1999) He may dismiss the complaint forthwith, if he finds the charge insufficient in form or substance or with withou outt any any grou ground nd.. Or he may proc procee eed d with with the the inve invest stig igat atio ion n if the the complaint in his view is sufficient and in proper form. To emphasize, the determination of probable cause for the filing of information in court is an executive function, one that properly pertains at the first instance to the public prosecutor and, ultimately, to the Secretary of Justice, who may direct the filing of the corresponding information or move for the dismissal of the case (Adv (Advin incu cula la v. Cour Courtt of Appea Appeals ls,, 39 397 7 Phil Phil.. 64 641, 1, 65 650 0 (200 (2000) 0);; Punzalan v. Dela Peña, G.R. No. 158543, 21 July 2004, 434 SCRA 601) Ultimately, whether or not a complaint will be dismissed is dependent on the sound discretion of the Secretary of Justice. 24 And unless made with grave abuse of discretion, findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review. For this reason, the Court considers it sound judicial policy to refrain from inter interfer fering ing in the conduc conductt of preli prelimin minary ary invest investiga igatio tions ns and to leave leave the Department of Justice ample latitude of discretion in the determination of what what consti constitut tutes es suffic sufficien ientt eviden evidence ce to establ establish ish probab probable le cause cause for the prosecution of supposed offenders. Consistent with this policy, courts do not reverse the Secretary of Justice's findings and conclusions on the matter of probable cause except in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion ( First Women Women's 's Credi Creditt Corpor Corporat ation ion v. Perez, Perez, G.R. G.R. No. No. 169026 169026,, 15 June June 2006, 490 SCRA 774, 777 )
D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Esguerra, 328 Phil. 1168, 1181 (1996). By grav grave e abuse abuse of disc discre reti tion on is meant meant,, su such ch capr capric icio ious us and and whim whimsi sical cal exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion discretion must be grave as where the power power is exercised exercised in an arbitrary arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. [G.R. No. No. 154920. 154920. August 15, 2003.] RODNEY HEGERTY, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ALLAN NASH, respondents. The City Prosecutor had the duty to determine whether there was a prima facie case for estafa based on sufficient evidence that would warrant the filing of an information. A public prosecutor, by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a criminal information where no clear legal justification has been shown, and no sufficient evidence of guilt nor prima facie case has been presented by the petitioner. We need only to stress that the determination of probable cause during a prelimin preliminary ary investigat investigation ion or reinvesti reinvestigatio gation n is recogniz recognized ed as an executiv executive e
4
function exclusively of the prosecutor. An investigating prosecutor is under no obligation to file a criminal action where he is not convinced that he has the quantum of evidence at hand to support the averments. Prosecuting officers have equally the duty not to prosecute when after investigation or reinv reinvest estiga igatio tion n they they are convin convinced ced that the eviden evidence ce adduce adduced d was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Thus, the determination of the persons to be prosecuted rests primarily with the prosecutor who is vested with discretion in the discharge of this function.
[G.R. No. No. 163656. 163656. April 27, 2007.] MARINA B. SCHROEDER, petitioner, vs. ATTYS. MARIO A. SALDEVAR and ERWIN C. MACALINO, respondents. In our criminal justice system, the public prosecutor exercises wide latitude of discretion in determining whether a criminal case should be filed in court. Courts must respect the exercise of such discretion when the information filed against the person charged is valid on its face, and no manifest error or grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the public prosecutor ( People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126005, January 21, 1999, 301 SCRA 475, 493 ) [G.R. No. No. 166888. 166888. January 31, 31, 2007.] 2007.] FIRS FIRST T WOME WOMEN' N'S S CRED CREDIT IT CORP CORPOR ORAT ATIO ION N and and SHIG SHIG KATA KATAYA YAMA MA,, petitio petitioner ners, s, vs. HON. ROMMEL O. BAYBAY, BAYBAY, in his capacity capacity as the ACTIN ACTING G PRES PRESIDI IDING NG JU JUDGE DGE OF BRAN BRANCH CH 65 65,, METR METROP OPOL OLITA ITAN N TRIAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY [SIC], * RAMON P. JACINTO, JAIME C. COLAYCO, ANTONIO P. TAYAO and GLICERIO PEREZ, respondents. It is settle settled d that that the determ determina inatio tion n of whethe whetherr probabl probable e cause cause exists exists to warrant the prosecution in court of an accused should be consigned and entrusted to the Department of Justice, as reviewer of the findings of public prosecutors. 26 The court's duty in an appropriate case is confined to a determination of whether the assailed executive or judicial determination of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction. This is consistent with the general rule that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final, 27 albeit in extreme cases, exceptional circumstances have been recognized. 28 The rule is also consistent with this Court's policy of non-in -interference in the conduct of preliminary ary invest investiga igatio tions, ns, and of leavin leaving g to the invest investiga igatin ting g prosec prosecuto utorr suffic sufficien ientt latitude of discretion in the exercise of determination of what constitutes suff su ffic icie ient nt evid eviden ence ce as will will esta establ blis ish h prob probab able le caus cause e for for the the fili filing ng of an information against a supposed offender. 29 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION Cruz vs. Cruz, 515 SCRA 89 (2007) Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. The investigating prosecutor is vested with the duty of (a) preparing a resol resoluti ution on holdin holding g the respo responde ndent nt for trial trial and filing filing the corre correspo spondi nding ng information or (b) dismissing the case should he find that no probable cause exists against respondent.
5
Paredes vs. Calilung, 517 SCRA 369 (2007) Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neit neithe herr on evid eviden ence ce esta establ blis ishi hing ng guil guiltt beyo beyond nd reas reason onab able le doub doubtt and and defini definitel tely, y, not on eviden evidence ce establ establish ishing ing absolu absolute te certai certainty nty of guilt, guilt, but it cert certai ainl nly y dema demand nds s more more than than bare bare su susp spic icio ion n and and can can neve neverr be left left to presupposition, conjecture, or even convincing logic. Alth Althou ough gh it is enti entire rely ly possi possibl ble e that that the the inve invest stig igat atin ing g pros prosec ecut utor or may may erron erroneou eously sly exerc exercise ise the dis discre cretio tion n lodged lodged in him by law, law, this this does does not render his act amenable to correction and annulment by the extraordinary reme remedy dy of cert certio iora rari ri,, abse absent nt any any sh show owin ing g of grav grave e abuse abuse of disc discre reti tion on amounting to excess of jurisdiction. (*USE THIS)
AAA vs. CArbonell, 524 SCRA 496 It is well-settled well-settled that a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt; Probable cause is that which engenders a well-founded well-founded belief that a crime crime has been committed committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial Tilendo vs. Ombudsman, 533 SCRA 331 The presence or absence of the elements of the crimes, which are by their nature evidentiary and defense matters, can be best passed upon after a trial on the merits - a preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence Gonzales vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation 537 SCRA 255 Prob Probab able le caus cause e has has been been defi define ned d as the the exis existe tenc nce e of su such ch fact facts s and and circumstance as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor; A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial – it is not a pronouncement of guilt. Rep Rep vs. Des Desiert ierto o, 512 SCRA CRA 57 57;; De Chav havez vs. Off Office ice of the the Ombudsman, 514 SCRA 638; Magbanua vs. Junsay, 515 SCRA 419; Schroeder vs. Saldevar, 522 SCRA 624; Gonzales vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, 537 SCRA 255 The wide latitude in determining the existence of probable cause or the lack of it cannot be exercised arbitrarily; A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects
Boiser vs. People, 543 SCRA 436 (2008) A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the susp su spec ectt – prob probab able le cause cause need need not not be base based d on clea clearr and and conv convin inci cing ng evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt Tan vs. Ballena, 557 SCRA 229; Baltazar vs. People, 560 SCRA 278 (2008) A prosecutor alone determines the sufficiency of evidence that will establish probab probable le cause cause justif justifyi ying ng the filing filing of a crimi criminal nal infor informat mation ion agains againstt the respo respond nden ent, t, but but by way way of exce except ptio ion, n, judi judici cial al revi review ew is allo allowe wed d wher where e
6
respon responden dentt has clearl clearly y establ establish ished ed that that the prosec prosecuto utorr commit committed ted grave grave abuse of discretion.
Baltazar vs. People, 560 SCRA 278 (2008) As define defined d under under the law, a prelim prelimina inary ry invest investiga igatio tion n is an inquir inquiry y or a proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well well-f -fou ound nded ed beli belief ef that that a crim crime e has has been been comm commit itte ted d , and and that that the the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial Reyes vs. Pearlbank Security, Inc. 560 SCRA 518 (2008) By grav grave e abuse abuse of disc discre reti tion on is meant meant,, su such ch capr capric icio ious us and and whim whimsi sical cal exercise of judgment as is equivalent to the lack of jurisdiction Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc. vs, Lim, 573 SCRA 25 The filing with the Court of Appeals of a petition for review under Rule 43 to question the Justice Secretary’s resolution regarding the determination of probable cause is an improper remedy – the remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Chan vs. Secretary of Justice , 548 SCRA 337 (2008) Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, as the invest investiga igatin ting g office officerr acts acts upon upon reasona reasonable ble belief belief – probab probable le cause cause implies probability of guilt and requires more that bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a conviction Albay Albay Accredi Accredited ted Constr Constructo uctors rs Associ Associatio ation, n, Inc. Inc. vs. Desier Desierto, to, 480 SCRA 520 (20060 The ultimate purpose of preliminary investigation is “to secure the innocent against the hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecutions, and to protect him from open and public accusation of crime, form the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the State from useless and expensive prosecutions. In certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the inquiry is limited essentially on whether or not the public respondent acted without or in excess of its its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse abuse of discretion
Glaxosmithe Glaxosmithekline kline Philippines, Inc. vs. Khalid Mehmood Mehmood Malik, 499 SCRA 268 (2006) The prosecutor’s findings on what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establ establish ish probabl probable e cause cause for the filing filing of the corres correspon pondin ding g compla complaint int or inform informati ation on agains againstt an offend offender er are not subject subject to review review by the courts courts unless shown to have been made with grave abuse of discretion
