G.R. No. 187000
November 24, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. AQUILINO ANDRADE, ROAN LA!AP, "ONG FUNG "UEN, RI!#" "U, $I!ENTE S", AL$IN SO, ROUALDO IRANDA, SINDAO ELI%AS, SATURNINO LI&ANAG, RO%ERTO EDINA '() RAON NA$ARRO,Respondents. FA!TS* Pursuant to the instructions of then Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Dionisio R. Santiago, on June 30, 2003, a random drug test was conducted in the ationa! Bi!i"id Prison #BP$ wherein the urine samp!es of thirt%&eight #3'$ inmates were co!!ected and su"(ected to drug testing "% the Chief )edica! *echno!ogist *echno!ogist and +ssistant )edica! *echno!ogist *echno!ogist of the +!pha Po!%technic a"orator% in -ueon -ueon Cit%, and out of that num"er, twent%&one #2/$ urine samp!es tested positive. +fter conrmator% tests done"% the B1 orensic Chemistr% Division, those twent%&one #2/$ urine samp!es, which inc!uded that of herein respondents, %ie!ded positive resu!ts conrming the resu!t of the initia! screen test. ecessari!%, the twent%&one #2/$ inmates were charged with vio!ation of Section /, +rtic!e 11 of Repu"!ic +ct o. 4/5 #R+ 4/5$ under identica! 1nformations, +!! respondents p!eaded 6ot 7ui!t%6 to the crime charged during their arraignment on June 24, 2005. *hereafter, the case was set for pre&tria! and tria! on +ugust //, 2005. 2005 . 8n +ugust 24, 2005, respondents !ed a Conso!idated )otion to Dismiss on the ground that the facts a!!eged in the 1 nformation do not constitute a vio!ation of Section /, R+ 4/5 *he Regiona! *ria! Court #R*C$ #R*C$ of )untin!upa, "efore the schedu!ed hearing date for pre&tria! pre&tria! and tria!, issued an 8rder 4 granting respondents9 Conso!idated )otion to Dismiss. :;cio. *he C+ a>rmed the tria! court9s 8rder P<*1*18
ISSUE* whether the C+ erred in upho!ding the R*C9s grant of respondents9 motion and eventua!!% dismissing the case "ased on !ac of pro"a"!e cause. HELD*
T+e RT! -)e/ )eerm('o( o3 rob'b5e 6'-e +o-5) +'ve bee( o(5 5me) ror o +e -'(6e o3 ' 'rr'( o3 'rre '() (o '3er +e 'rr'(me(. O(6e +e (3orm'o( +' bee( 95e), +e -)e +'55 +e( :ero('55 ev'5-'e +e reo5-o( o3 +e roe6-or '() -or( ev)e(6e:17 o )eerm(e +e+er +ere rob'b5e 6'-e o -e ' 'rr'( o3 'rre. A + 'e, ' -)6'5 )eerm('o( o3 rob'b5e 6'-e e;./' 1n Peop!e v. Casti!!o and )e(ia, )e(ia ,/4 this Court has stated? *here are two inds of determination of pro"a"!e pro"a"!e cause? eecutive and (udicia!. *he eecutive eecutive determination of pro"a"!e pro"a"!e cause is one made during pre!iminar% investigation. 1t is a function that proper!% pertains to the pu"!ic prosecutor who is given a "road discretion to determine whether pro"a"!e cause eists and to charge those whom he "e!ieves to have committed the crime as dened "% !aw and thus shou!d "e he!d for tria!. 8therwise stated, such o>cia! has the Auasi&(udicia! authorit% to determine whether or not a cr imina! case must "e !ed in court. :hether or not that function has "een correct!% discharged "% the pu"!ic prosecutor, i.e.,whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment of the eistence of pro"a"!e cause in a case, is a matter that the tria! court itse!f does not and ma% not "e compe!!ed to pass upon. *he (udicia! determination of pro"a"!e cause, on the other hand, hand, is one made "% the (udge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest shou!d "e issued against the accused. *he (udge must satisf% himse!f that "ased on the evidence su"mitted, there is necessit% for p!acing the accused under c ustod% in order not to frustrate the ends of (ustice. 1f the (udge nds no pro"a"!e cause, the (udge cannot "e forced to issue t he arrest warrant.20
*he di=erence is c!ear? *he eecutive determination of pro"a"!e cause concerns itse!f with whether there is enough evidence to support an 1nformation "eing !ed. *he (udicia! determination of pro"a"!e cause, on the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest shou!d "e issued. :hi!e it is within the tria! courtEs discretion to mae an independent assessment of the evidence on hand, it ison!% for the purpose of determining whether a warrant of arrest shou!d "eissued. *he (udge does not act as an appe!!ate court of the prosecutor and has no capacit% to review the prosecutorEs determination of pro"a"!e causeF rather, the (udge maes a determination of pro"a"!e cause independent of the prosecutorEs nding. 23 1n truth, the court9s dut% in an appropriate case is conned mere!% to the determination of whether the assai!ed eecutive or (udicia! determination of pro"a"!e cause was done without orin ecess of (urisdiction or with grave a"use of discretion amounting to want of (urisdiction. 2G 1n this particu!ar case, "% proceeding with the arraignment of respondents, there was a!read% an admittance that there is pro"a"!e cause. *hus, the R*C shou!d not have ru!ed on whether or not there is pro"a"!e cause to ho!d respondents !ia"!e for t he crime committed since its dut% is !imited on!% to the determination of whether the materia! averments in the comp!aint or information are su>cient to ho!d respondents for tria!. 1âwphi1 1n fact, in their motion, respondents c!aimed that the facts a!!eged in the 1nformations do not constitute an o=ense. Considering that the R*C has a!read% found pro"a"!e cause, it shou!d have denied the motion to Auash and a!!owed the prosecution to present its evidence and wait for a demurrer to evidence to "e !ed "% respondents, if the% opt to, or a!!owed the prosecution to amend the 1nformation and in the meantime suspend the proceedings unti! the amendment of the 1nformation without dism issing the case. 1f the defect in the information is cura"!e "% amendment, the motion to Auash sha!! "e denied and the prosecution sha!! "e ordered to !e an amended information.25 7enera!!%, the fact that the a!!egations in the information do not constitute an o=ense, or that the information does not conform su"stantia!!% to the prescri"ed form, are defects cura"!e "% amendment. 2@ Coro!!ar% to this ru!e, the court shou!d give the prosecution an opportunit% to amend the information. 2' 1n the present case, the R*C (udge outright!% dismissed the cases without giving the prosecution an opportunit% to amend the defect in the 1nformations. 1n Peop!e v. *a!ao Pere, 24 this Court ru!ed t hat, 6...even granting that the information in Auestion i s defective, as pointed out "% the accused, it appearing that the defects thereof can "e cured "% amendment, the !ower court shou!d not have dismissed the case "ut shou!d have ordered the isca! to amend the information.6 :hen there is an% dou"t a"out the su>cienc% of the comp!aint or information, the court shou!d direct its amendment or that a new information "e!ed, and save the necessit% of appea!ing the case on technica! grounds when the comp!aint might easi!% "e amended. 1 17;* 8 *;< 8R<7817, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari is here"% 7R+*
