Case Digests - Rule 112: Preliminary Investigation || Castro, Boco G.R. No.

180165 April 7, 2009 METROPOLITAN BANK & TRU T !OMPAN", Petitioner, vs.#ON. E!RETAR" O$ %U TI!E RAUL M. GON&ALE , OLI'ER T. "AO ()* +IANA T. "AO, Respondents. $A!T , Petitioner is a an!ing institution duly aut"ori#ed to engage in t"e an!ing usiness under P"ilippine la$s. Private respondents $ere t"e duly aut"ori#ed representatives o% &isaland Inc. '&isaland(, li!e$ise a domestic corporation engaged in t"e real estate development usiness. In order to %inance t"e importation o% materials necessary %or t"e operations o% its sister company, )itan I!eda Construction and Development Corporation ')ICDC(, private respondents, on e"al% o% &isaland, applied $it" petitioner %or 2* letters o% credit, t"e aggregate amount o% $"ic" reac"ed t"e sum o% P+,,-*.,*,-..+. /imultaneous $it" t"e issuance o% t"e letters o% credit, private respondents signed trust receipts* in %avor o% petitioner. Private respondents ound t"emselves to sell t"e goods covered y t"e letters o% credit and to remit t"e proceeds to petitioner, i% sold, or to return t"e goods, i% not sold, on or e%ore t"eir agreed maturity dates. 0"en t"e trust receipts matured, private respondents %ailed to return t"e goods to petitioner, or to return t"eir value amounting to P+,,-*.,*,-..+ despite demand. )"us, petitioner %iled a criminal complaint 1 %or esta%a+ against &isaland and private respondents $it" t"e 2%%ice o% t"e City Prosecutor o% 3anila. In t"eir Counter-4%%idavit,, private respondents denied "aving entered into trust receipt transactions $it" petitioner. Instead, private respondents claimed t"at t"e contract entered into y t"e parties $as a Contract o% 5oan secured y a Real 6state 3ortgage over t$o parcels o% land situated at )agaytay City and registered under t"e name o% t"e spouses 0il ert and Isa elita 7ing 't"e spouses 7ing(. . 4ccording to private respondents, petitioner made t"em sign documents earing %ine prints $it"out apprising t"em o% t"e real nature o% t"e transaction involved. Private respondents came to !no$ o% t"e trust receipt transaction only a%ter t"ey $ere served a copy o% t"e 4%%idavit-Complaint o% t"e petitioner. 4%ter t"e re8uisite preliminary investigation, t"e City Prosecutor %ound t"at no pro a le cause e9isted and dismissed In%ormation /"eet. 0"ile t"e City Prosecutor $as not persuaded y t"e de%ense pro%%ered y private respondents t"at no trust receipt transaction e9isted, it nonet"eless, dismissed t"e case %or lac! o% evidence t"at prior demand $as made y petitioner. )"e City Prosecutor underscored t"at %or a c"arge o% esta%a $it" grave a use o% con%idence to prosper, previous demand is an indispensa le re8uisite. )o prove t"at a demand $as made prior to t"e institution o% t"e criminal complaint, petitioner attac"ed to its 3otion %or Reconsideration a copy o% a letter-demand 11 dated 2- :e ruary 2;;1, addressed to private respondents. 4%ter t"e element o% prior demand $as satis%ied, t"e City Prosecutor issued a Resolution 12 dated 11 2cto er 2;;* %inding pro a le cause %or esta%a under 4rticle <11, paragrap" 1' ( 1< o% t"e Revised Penal Code, in relation to Presidential Decree =o. 111. 4ccordingly, 2< separate In%ormations %or esta%a $ere %iled e%ore t"e Regional )rial Court 'R)C( o% 3anila against private respondents. In t"e interim, private respondents appealed t"e investigating prosecutor>s Resolution to t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice. In a Resolution 1+ dated <1 3arc" 2;;1, t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice ruled t"at t"ere $as no pro a le cause to prosecute private respondents %or esta%a in relation to Presidential Decree =o. 111. )"e /ecretary o% ?ustice declared t"at t"e legitimate transactional relations"ip et$een t"e parties eing merely a contract o% loan, violations o% t"e terms t"ereunder $ere not covered y Presidential Decree =o. 111. )"us, t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice directed t"e City Prosecutor o% 3anila to move %or t"e $it"dra$al o% t"e In%ormations. 4cting on t"e directive o% t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice, t"e City Prosecutor moved %or t"e $it"dra$al o% t"e In%ormations $"ic" $as granted y t"e R)C in an 2rder 1, dated 2. ?uly 2;;1. Conse8uently, Criminal Cases =o. ;*-2<1-21 to =o. ;*2<1-** $ere $it"dra$n. 4%ter "aving een elevated to t"e C4 on a Petition %or Certiorati, t"e appellate court dismissed said petition, %inding t"at t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice committed no grave a use o% discretion in ruling against t"e e9istence o% pro a le cause to prosecute private respondents. I UE, Pro a le cause "as een de%ined as t"e e9istence o% suc" %acts and circumstances as $ould e9cite t"e elie% in a reasona le mind, acting on t"e %acts $it"in t"e !no$ledge o% t"e prosecutor, t"at t"e person c"arged $as guilty o% t"e crime %or $"ic" "e $as prosecuted. Pro a le cause is a reasona le ground o% presumption t"at a matter is, or may e, $ell %ounded on suc" a state o% %acts in t"e mind o% t"e prosecutor as $ould lead a person o% ordinary caution and prudence to elieve, or entertain an "onest or strong suspicion, t"at a t"ing is so. 21 )"e term does not mean Aactual or positive causeA nor does it import a solute certainty. It is merely ased on opinion and reasona le elie%. )"us, a %inding o% pro a le cause does not re8uire an in8uiry into $"et"er t"ere is su%%icient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enoug" t"at it is elieved t"at t"e act or omission complained o% constitutes t"e o%%ense c"arged. Precisely, t"ere is a trial %or t"e reception o% evidence o% t"e prosecution in support o% t"e c"arge. 2+ )o determine t"e e9istence o% pro a le cause, t"ere is need to conduct preliminary investigation. 4 preliminary investigation constitutes a realistic Budicial appraisal o% t"e merits o% a case. 2- Its purpose is to determine $"et"er 'a( a crime "as een committedC and ' ( $"et"er t"ere is a pro a le cause to elieve t"at t"e accused is guilty t"ereo%. 2, It is a means o% discovering $"ic" person or persons may e reasona ly c"arged $it" a crime. )"e conduct o% preliminary investigation is e9ecutive in nature. )"e Court may not e compelled to pass upon t"e correctness o% t"e e9ercise o% t"e pu lic prosecutor>s %unction unless t"ere is a s"o$ing o% grave a use o% discretion or mani%est error in "is %indings. 2. In t"e present case, t"e a use o% discretion is patent in t"e act o% t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice "olding t"at t"e contractual relations"ip %orged y t"e parties $as a simple loan, %or in so doing, t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice assumed t"e %unction o% t"e trial Budge o% cali rating t"e evidence on record, done only a%ter a %ull- lo$n trial on t"e merits. )"e %act o% e9istence or none9istence o% a trust receipt transaction is evidentiary in nature, t"e veracity o% $"ic" can est e passed upon a%ter trial on t"e merits, %or it is virtually impossi le to ascertain t"e real nature o% t"e transaction involved ased solely on t"e sel%-serving allegations contained in t"e opposing parties> pleadings. Clearly, t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice is not in a competent position to pass Budgment on su stantive matters. )"e ases o% a party>s accusation and de%enses are etter ventilated at t"e trial proper t"an at t"e preliminary investigation. 0e need not overemp"asi#e t"at in a preliminary investigation, t"e pu lic prosecutor merely determines $"et"er t"ere is pro a le cause or su%%icient ground to engender a $ell-%ounded elie% t"at a crime "as een committed, and t"at t"e respondent is pro a ly guilty t"ereo% and s"ould e "eld %or trial. It does not call %or t"e application o% rules and standards o% proo% t"at a Budgment o% conviction re8uires a%ter trial on t"e merits. )"e complainant need not present at t"is stage proo% eyond reasona le dou t. 4 preliminary investigation does not re8uire a %ull and e9"austive presentation o% t"e parties> evidence. <2 Precisely, t"ere is a trial to allo$ t"e reception o% evidence %or ot" parties to su stantiate t"eir respective claims. Daving said t"e %oregoing, t"is Court no$ proceeds to determine $"et"er pro a le cause e9ists %or "olding private respondents lia le %or esta%a in relation to Presidential Decree =o. 111. )rust receipt transactions are governed y t"e provisions o% Presidential Decree =o. 111 $"ic" de%ines suc" a transaction as %ollo$s: /ection *. 0"at constitutes a trust receipt transaction. E 4 trust receipt transaction, $it"in t"e meaning o% t"is Decree, is any transaction y and et$een a person re%erred to in t"is Decree as t"e entruster, and anot"er person re%erred to in t"is Decree as t"e entrustee, $"ere y t"e entruster, $"o o$ns or "olds a solute title or security interests over certain speci%ied goods, documents or instruments, releases t"e same to t"e possession o% t"e entrustee upon t"e latter>s e9ecution and delivery to t"e entruster o% a signed document called a Atrust receiptA $"erein t"e entrustee inds "imsel% to "old t"e designated goods, documents or instruments in trust %or t"e entruster and to sell or ot"er$ise dispose o% t"e goods, documents or instruments $it" t"e o ligation to turn over to t"e entruster t"e proceeds t"ereo% to t"e e9tent o% t"e amount o$ing to t"e entruster or as appears in t"e trust receipt or t"e goods, documents or instruments t"emselves i% t"ey are unsold or not ot"er$ise disposed o%, in accordance $it" t"e terms and conditions speci%ied in t"e trust receipt, or %or ot"er purposes su stantially e8uivalent to any one o% t"e %ollo$ing: 1. In t"e case o% goods or documents, 'a( to sell t"e goods or procure t"eir saleC or ' ( to manu%acture or process t"e goods $it" t"e purpose o% ultimate sale: Provided, )"at, in t"e case o% goods delivered under trust receipt %or t"e purpose o% manu%acturing or processing e%ore its ultimate sale, t"e entruster s"all retain its title over t"e goods $"et"er in its original or processed %orm until t"e entrustee "as complied %ully $it" "is o ligation under t"e trust receiptC or 'c( to load, unload, s"ip or transs"ip or ot"er$ise deal $it" t"em in a manner preliminary or necessary to t"eir saleC or 2. In t"e case o% instruments, a( to sell or procure t"eir sale or e9c"angeC or ( to deliver t"em to a principalC or c( to e%%ect t"e consummation o% some transactions involving delivery to a depository or registerC or d( to e%%ect t"eir presentation, collection or rene$al.

0"et"er pro a le cause e9ists %or t"e prosecution o% private respondents %or t"e crime o% esta%a in relation to P.D. =o. 111. #EL+, @es.

Case Digests - Rule 112: Preliminary Investigation || Castro, Boco )"e sale o% goods, documents or instruments y a person in t"e usiness o% selling goods, documents or instruments %or pro%it $"o, at t"e outset o% t"e transaction, "as, as against t"e uyer, general property rig"ts in suc" goods, documents or instruments, or $"o sells t"e same to t"e uyer on credit, retaining title or ot"er interest as security %or t"e payment o% t"e purc"ase price, does not constitute a trust receipt transaction and is outside t"e purvie$ and coverage o% t"is Decree. 4s %ound in t"e Complaint-4%%idavit o% petitioner, private respondents $ere c"arged $it" %ailing to account %or or turn over to petitioner t"e merc"andise or goods covered y t"e trust receipts or t"e proceeds o% t"e sale t"ereo% in payment o% t"eir o ligations t"ereunder. )"e %ollo$ing pieces o% evidence adduced %rom t"e a%%idavits and documents su mitted e%ore t"e City Prosecutor are su%%icient to esta lis" t"e e9istence o% pro a le cause, to $it: :irst, t"e trust receipts<1 earing t"e genuine signatures o% private respondentsC second, t"e demand letter<+ o% petitioner addressed to respondentsC and t"ird, t"e initial admission y private respondents o% t"e receipt o% t"e imported goods %rom petitioner. <Prescinding %rom t"e %oregoing, $e conclude t"at t"ere is ample evidence on record to $arrant a %inding t"at t"ere is a pro a le cause to $arrant t"e prosecution o% private respondents %or esta%a. It must e once again stressed t"at pro a le cause does not re8uire an in8uiry into $"et"er t"ere is su%%icient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enoug" t"at it is elieved t"at t"e act or omission complained o% constitutes t"e o%%ense c"arged. )"at private respondents did not sell t"e goods under t"e trust receipt ut allo$ed it to e used y t"eir sister company is o% no moment. )"e o%%ense punis"ed under Presidential Decree =o. 111 is in t"e nature o% malum pro"i itum. 4 mere %ailure to deliver t"e proceeds o% t"e sale or t"e goods, i% not sold, constitutes a criminal o%%ense t"at causes preBudice not only to anot"er, ut more to t"e pu lic interest. <, 6ven more incredi le is t"e contention o% private respondents t"at t"ey did not give muc" signi%icance to t"e documents t"ey signed, considering t"e enormous value o% t"e transaction involved. )"us, it is "ig"ly impro a le to mista!e trust receipt documents %or a contract o% loan $"en t"e "eading t"ereon printed in old and legi le letters reads: A)rust Receipts.A 0e are not preBudging t"is case on t"e merits. Do$ever, y merely glancing at t"e documents su mitted y petitioner entitled A)rust ReceiptsA and t"e arguments advanced y private respondents, $e are convinced t"at t"ere is pro a le cause to %ile t"e case and to "old t"em %or trial. 4ll told, t"e evidentiary measure %or t"e propriety o% %iling criminal c"arges "as een reduced and li erali#ed to a mere pro a le cause. 4s implied y t"e $ords t"emselves, Apro a le causeA is concerned $it" pro a ility, not a solute or moral certainty. G.R. No. 16-170 April 16, 2009 MA!A.ANG!O ALA/I"A 0 AB+UL, I AGANI AB+UL 0 IA!OR, ()* ARA# LANG!O 0 ANGLI, Petitioners, vs. !OURT O$ APPEAL , E!RETAR" O$ %U TI!E IMEON A. +ATUMANONG, P1! IN P. MI!#AEL ANGELO BERNAR+O MARTIN, P1IN P. ALLAN%ING E TRA+A ME+INA, PO2 ARNOL+ RAMO A I , PO2 PE+RO ANTO GUTIERRE&, PO2 IGNA!IO +E PA&, ()* PO2 ANTONIO EBA TIAN BERI+A, %R., Respondents. $A!T , 2n 1, /eptem er 2;;1, petitioners e9ecuted s$orn statements e%ore t"e Feneral 4ssignment /ection o% t"e 0estern Police District in Gnited =ations 4venue, 3anila, c"arging accused PHC Insp. 3ic"ael 4ngelo Bernardo 3artin, PHInsp. 4llanBing 6strada 3edina, P2< 4rnold Ramos 4sis, P22 Pedro /antos Futierre#, P22 Ignacio De Pa# and P22 4ntonio /e astian Berida, ?r., $"o $ere all policemen assigned at t"at time at t"e =ort"ern Police District, $it" !idnapping %or ransom. /tate Prosecutor 6mmanuel @. &elasco '/tate Prosecutor &elasco(, $"o conducted t"e preliminary investigation, issued a Resolution dated 1* ?anuary 2;;2, recommending t"at t"e accused e indicted %or t"e crime o% !idnapping %or ransom. )"e Resolution $as endorsed %or approval y 4ssistant C"ie% /tate Prosecutor =ilo C. 3ariano and approved y C"ie% /tate Prosecutor ?ovencito R. IuJo. 2n 2* ?anuary 2;;2, /tate Prosecutor &elasco %iled $it" t"e Regional )rial Court o% 3anila, Branc" *1, an In%ormation %or 7idnapping %or Ransom against t"e accused $it" no ail recommended. 2n 2, ?anuary 2;;2, t"e trial court, upon motion y t"e prosecution, issued a Dold Departure 2rder against t"e accused. 2n even date, t"e trial court issued a 0arrant o% 4rrest against all t"e accused. 2n 1, :e ruary 2;;2, t"e accused moved %or t"e 8uas"al o% t"e In%ormation on t"e ground t"at At"e o%%icer $"o %iled t"e In%ormation "as no aut"ority do so.A In an 2rderdated 2- :e ruary 2;;2, t"e trial court denied t"e motion to 8uas" on t"e ground t"at under t"e ruling in People v. Mapalao, an accused $"o is at large is not entitled to ail or ot"er relie%. )"e trial court also "eld t"at t"e Burisdiction and po$er o% t"e 2m udsman under /ection 11'1( o% Repu lic 4ct =o. +--; 'R4 +--;(, as $ell as 4dministrative 2rder =o. , o% t"e 2%%ice o% t"e 2m udsman, are not e9clusive ut s"ared or concurrent $it" t"e regular prosecutors. )"us, t"e aut"ority o% t"e Department o% ?ustice to investigate, %ile t"e in%ormation and prosecute t"e case could no longer e 8uestioned. In a Resolution promulgated on 2* /eptem er 2;;2, t"en /ecretary o% ?ustice Dernando B. Pere# reversed t"e ruling o% /tate Prosecutor &elasco and ordered t"e latter to cause t"e $it"dra$al or dismissal o% t"e In%ormation %or !idnapping %or ransom. )"e /ecretary o% ?ustice ruled t"at t"ere $as no prior approval y t"e 2%%ice o% t"e 2m udsman e%ore t"e In%ormation %or !idnapping $as %iled $it" t"e trial court. De also %ound t"at t"e incident complained o% $as a ungled uy- ust operation, not !idnapping %or ransom. 2n 11 2cto er 2;;2, petitioners %iled a 3otion %or Reconsideration, $"ic" $as denied y t"en /ecretary o% ?ustice /imeon 4. Datumanong in a Resolution promulgated on 1- :e ruary 2;;<. Petitioners %iled a petition %or certiorari $it" t"e Court o% 4ppeals, see!ing t"e nulli%ication o% t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice>s ruling %or "aving een rendered in grave a use o% discretion amounting to lac! or e9cess o% Burisdiction. )"e Court o% 4ppeals rendered a Decision o% * :e ruary 2;;* dismissing t"e petition %or certiorari. )"e Court o% 4ppeals denied t"e petitioners> motion %or reconsideration in a Resolution o% 21 ?une 2;;*. I UE, 1. 2. 2. -. 0"et"er t"e prior approval y t"e 2%%ice o% t"e 2m udsman %or t"e 3ilitary is re8uired %or t"e investigation and prosecution o% t"e instant case against t"e accused. 0"et"er t"e reversal y t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice o% t"e resolution o% /tate Prosecutor &elasco amounted to an Ae9ecutive ac8uittalK. 0"et"er t"e accused policemen can see! any relie% ' via a motion to 8uas" t"e in%ormation( %rom t"e trial court $"en t"ey "ad not een arrested yet. 0"et"er t"ere $as pro a le cause against t"e accused %or t"e crime o% !idnapping %or ransom.

Case Digests - Rule 112: Preliminary Investigation || Castro, Boco #EL+, 1. No )"e po$er o% t"e 2m udsman to investigate o%%enses involving pu lic o%%icers or employees is not e9clusive ut is concurrent $it" ot"er similarly aut"ori#ed agencies o% t"e government suc" as t"e provincial, city and state prosecutors. 2. No /ettled is t"e rule t"at t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice retains t"e po$er to revie$ resolutions o% "is su ordinates even a%ter t"e in%ormation "as already een %iled in court. )"e nature o% t"e po$er o% control o% t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice over prosecutors $as e9plained in 5edesma v. Court o% 4ppeals in t"is $ise: Decisions or resolutions o% prosecutors are su Bect to appeal to t"e /ecretary o% Bustice $"o, under t"e Revised 4dministrative Code, e9ercises t"e po$er o% direct control and supervision over said prosecutorsC and $"o may t"us a%%irm, )3lli40, r565r75 or 8o*i40 9:5ir r3li);7. Contrary to petitioners> contention, t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice>s reversal o% t"e Resolution o% /tate Prosecutor &elasco did not amount to Ae9ecutive ac8uittalA ecause t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice $as simply e9ercising "is po$er to revie$, $"ic" included t"e po$er to reverse t"e ruling o% t"e /tate Prosecutor. Do$ever, once a complaint or in%ormation is %iled in court, any disposition o% t"e case suc" as its dismissal or its continuation rests on t"e sound discretion o% t"e court. )rial Budges are not ound y t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice>s reversal o% t"e prosecutor>s resolution %inding pro a le cause. )rial Budges are re8uired to ma!e t"eir o$n assessment o% t"e e9istence o% pro a le cause, separately and independently o% t"e evaluation y t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice. 2. "57 'pero L=2K rin naman talaga( )"ere is not"ing in t"e Rules governing a motion to 8uas" $"ic" re8uires t"at t"e accused s"ould e under t"e custody o% t"e la$ prior to t"e %iling o% a motion to 8uas" on t"e ground t"at t"e o%%icer %iling t"e in%ormation "ad no aut"ority to do so. Custody o% t"e la$ is not re8uired %or t"e adBudication o% relie%s ot"er t"an an application %or ail. Do$ever, $"ile t"e accused are not yet under t"e custody o% t"e la$, any 8uestion on t"e Burisdiction over t"e person o% t"e accused is deemed $aived y t"e accused $"en "e %iles any pleading see!ing an a%%irmative relie%, e9cept in cases $"en t"e accused invo!es t"e special Burisdiction o% t"e court y impugning suc" Burisdiction over "is person. 4t any rate, t"e accused>s motion to 8uas", on t"e ground o% lac! o% aut"ority o% t"e %iling o%%icer, $ould "ave never prospered ecause as discussed earlier, t"e 2m udsman>s po$er to investigate o%%enses involving pu lic o%%icers or employees is not e9clusive ut is concurrent $it" ot"er similarly aut"ori#ed agencies o% t"e government. -. "57 2rdinarily, t"e determination o% pro a le cause is not lodged $it" t"is Court. Its duty in an appropriate case is con%ined to t"e issue o% $"et"er t"e e9ecutive or Budicial determination, as t"e case may e, o% pro a le cause $as done $it"out or in e9cess o% Burisdiction or $it" grave a use o% discretion amounting to $ant o% Burisdiction. Do$ever, in t"e %ollo$ing e9ceptional cases, t"is Court may ultimately resolve t"e e9istence or non-e9istence o% pro a le cause y e9amining t"e records o% t"e preliminary investigation. a. )o a%%ord ade8uate protection to t"e constitutional rig"ts o% t"e accusedC . 0"en necessary %or t"e orderly administration o% Bustice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity o% actionsC c. 0"en t"ere is a preBudicial 8uestion $"ic" is su BudiceC d. 0"en t"e acts o% t"e o%%icer are $it"out or in e9cess o% aut"orityC e. 0"ere t"e prosecution is under an invalid la$, ordinance or regulationC %. 0"en dou le Beopardy is clearly apparentC g. 0"ere t"e court "as no Burisdiction over t"e o%%enseC ". 0"ere it is a case o% persecution rat"er t"an prosecutionC i. 0"ere t"e c"arges are mani%estly %alse and motivated y t"e lust %or vengeanceC B. 0"en t"ere is clearly no prima %acie case against t"e accused and a motion to 8uas" on t"at ground "as een deniedC MandN !. Preliminary inBunction "as unla$%ul arrest o% petitioners. een issued y t"e /upreme Court to prevent t"e t"reatened )"ere is no clear s"o$ing t"at t"e present case %alls under any o% t"e recogni#ed e9ceptions. 3oreover, as stated earlier, o)<5 9:5 i)4or8(9io) i7 4il5* =i9: 9:5 9ri(l <o3r9 , any disposition o% t"e in%ormation rests on t"e sound discretion o% t"e court. )"e trial court is mandated to independently evaluate or assess t"e e9istence o% pro a le cause and it may eit"er agree or disagree $it" t"e recommendation o% t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice. )"e trial court is not ound to adopt t"e resolution o% t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice. Reliance alone on t"e resolution o% t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice amounts to an a dication o% t"e trial court>s duty and Burisdiction to determine t"e e9istence o% pro a le cause. Considering t"at t"e In%ormation "as already een %iled $it" t"e trial court, t"en t"e trial court, upon %iling o% t"e appropriate motion y t"e prosecutor, s"ould e given t"e opportunity to per%orm its duty o% evaluating, independently o% t"e Resolution o% t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice recommending t"e $it"dra$al o% t"e In%ormation against t"e accused, t"e merits o% t"e case and assess $"et"er pro a le cause e9ists to "old t"e accused %or trial %or !idnapping %or ransom.

Case Digests - Rule 112: Preliminary Investigation || Castro, Boco G.R. No. 152889 ENRI>UE '. 'IU+E& II, Petitioner, vs.T#E !OURT O$ APPEAL ()* #ON. BA ILIO R. GABO, %R. i) :i7 <(p(<i90 (7 Pr57i*i); %3*;5 o4 Br()<: 11, R5;io)(l Tri(l !o3r9, M(lolo7, B3l(<(), Respondents. $A!T , Donorato Falve# and "is driver $ere %atally s"ot on ?une ., 2;;; in Barangay /an ?uan, /an Ilde%onso, Bulacan. 2n ?une 2+, 2;;;, a complaint %or t"e alleged murder o% t"e said victims $as %iled y t"e <;<rd P"ilippine =ational Police Criminal Investigation Division 'P=P CID( )eam $it" t"e 2%%ice o% t"e Provincial Prosecutor against petitioner, et. al. )"e Investigating /tate Prosecutor %ound pro a le cause to indict t"e petitioner and ot"ers %or t"e crime o% murder, t"us, 2 In%ormations %or murder $ere %iled $it" t"e R)C o% 3alolos, Bulacan, $"ic" t"en issued $arrants o% arrest. 2n /eptem er 21, 2;;1, petitioner %iled a 3otion to /uspend Proceedings and to /uspend t"e Implementation o% t"e 0arrant o% 4rrest, arguing t"at all t"e accused in t"e said criminal cases "ad %iled a timely petition %or revie$ $it" t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice and, pursuant to /ection . o% Department Circular =o. -;, t"e implementation o% t"e $arrant o% arrest against petitioner s"ould e suspended andHor recalled pending resolution o% t"e said petition %or revie$. In an 2rder - dated /eptem er 2,, 2;;1, t"e R)C denied petitioner>s 3otion stating t"at, inso%ar as t"e implementation o% t"e $arrant o% arrest against petitioner $as concerned, said $arrant "ad already een issued %or "is appre"ension. )"e court also added t"at t"ere $as no $ay %or it to recall t"e same in t"e a sence o% any compelling reason, and t"at Burisdiction over "is person "ad not yet een ac8uired y itC "ence, petitioner "ad no personality to %ile any pleading in court relative to t"e case until "e $as arrested or voluntarily surrendered "imsel% to t"e court. )"us, petitioner %iled a motion %or reconsideration o% t"e said 2rder, ut $as denied in an 2rder dated 2cto er 1;, 2;;1. )"erea%ter, petitioner %iled $it" t"e C4 a petition %or certiorari $it" prayer %or t"e issuance o% a temporary restraining order ')R2( andHor $rit o% preliminary inBuction claiming t"at t"e 2rder o% /eptem er 2,, 2;;1 and t"e 2rder o% 2cto er 1;, 2;;1 denying t"e 3otion %or Reconsideration $ere issued $it" grave a use o% discretion amounting to lac! o% Burisdiction. )"is is ecause o% t"e %ollo$ing reasons: 'a( )"e %act t"at t"e petitioner "as not voluntarily surrendered nor arrested is not a legal impediment or o stacle to t"e suspension o% t"e implementation o% t"e $arrant o% arrest issued against t"e petitioner. ' ( Precisely, t"e petitioner "as prayed %or t"e suspension o% t"e implementation o% t"e $arrant o% arrest ecause i% "e is arrested or voluntarily surrenders to t"e Court, t"e issues on t"e suspension o% t"e implementation o% t"e $arrant o% arrest $ould ecome moot and academic. It is %or t"is reason t"at t"e petitioner "as prayed %or t"e suspension o% t"e implementation o% t"e $arrant o% arrest. )"e petitioner is merely availing o% "is rig"ts under t"e la$. )"ere $ould e a $aiver on t"e part o% t"e petitioner i% "e surrenders to t"e lo$er court. 3eantime, "e $ould e deprived o% "is provisional li erty pending t"e resolution o% "is petition %or revie$. )"e clear intention o% Department Circular =o. -; is to suspend all proceedings including t"e implementation o% t"e $arrant o% arrest pending resolution y t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice o% t"e petition %or revie$. 'c( )"e aut"ority o% t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice to entertain t"e petition %or revie$ even a%ter t"e %iling o% t"e in%ormations is settled. In /olar )eam 6ntertainment, Inc. v. Don. Rolando Do$, t"e Dig" Court ruled, At"e aut"ority o% t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice to revie$ resolutions o% "is su ordinates even a%ter an in%ormation "as already een %iled in court does not present an irreconcila le con%lict $it" t"e <;-day period prescri ed y /ection - o% t"e /peedy )rial 4ct.A 'd( 3oreover, t"e aut"ority o% t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice to revie$ resolutions o% t"e C"ie% /tate Prosecutor, Provincial or City Prosecutors is recogni#ed y /ec. * o% Rule 112 o% t"e Revised Rules o% Criminal Procedure. 'e( /ec. *, Rule 112 o% t"e Revised Rules o% Criminal Procedure e9pressly recogni#es t"e aut"ority and po$er o% t"e Department o% ?ustice to prescri e t"e rules to e %ollo$ed in cases o% a petition %or revie$ o% a resolution o% t"e C"ie% /tate Prosecutor, Provincial or City Prosecutors. )"e rules provide Ai% upon petition y a proper party under suc" rules as t"e Department o% ?ustice may prescri e,A clearly recogni#ing t"e po$er o% t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice to promulgate rules to e %ollo$ed in petitions %or revie$ o% appeals %rom resolutions o% t"e C"ie% /tate Prosecutor, Provincial or City Prosecutor. '%( Pursuant to t"e rule-ma!ing po$er o% t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice, Department Circular =o. -; $as promulgated y t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice providing t"at At"e appellant and t"e trial prosecutor s"all see to it t"at, pending resolution o% t"e appeal, t"e proceedings in court are "eld in a eyance. 'g( )"e implementation o% t"e $arrant o% arrest issued against t"e petitioner is part o% t"e proceedings in court. /ince t"e circular une8uivocally provides t"at t"e Aproceedings in court are "eld in a eyanceA pending resolution o% t"e petition %or revie$ or appeal, it %ollo$s t"at t"e lo$er court committed grave a use o% discretion amounting to lac! o% Burisdiction $"en it denied t"e motion to suspend t"e implementation o% t"e $arrant o% arrest. )"ere is even no opposition y t"e trial prosecutor to t"e motion to suspend t"e implementation o% t"e $arrant o% arrest against t"e petitioner. . 2n 2cto er 1+, 2;;1, t"e C4 %ound t"at t"e veri%ied petition o% petitioner su%%iciently s"o$ed t"at unless t"e implementation o% t"e $arrants o% arrest dated /eptem er 1., 2;;1 $ere temporarily enBoined e%ore t"e application %or a $rit o% preliminary inBunction could e "eard on notice, great or irrepara le inBury $ould e visited upon t"e petitioner, as "e could momentarily e arrested and detained upon non- aila le c"arges. )"us, t"e C4 granted a )R2, commanding respondent R)C ?udge Fa o to enBoin t"e implementation o% t"e said $arrants o% arrest. 2n Decem er 1., 2;;1, t"e C4 promulgated its Decision dismissing t"e petition %or certiorari %or lac! o% merit and %ound no $"imsicality or oppressiveness in t"e e9ercise o% t"e respondent ?udgeOs discretion in issuing t"e c"allenged 2rders. )"e court added t"at, since t"e premise o% petitionerOs conclusion $as erroneous E %or said circular and t"e cases cited did not ma!e it o ligatory %or respondent ?udge to grant petitionerOs motion E petitionerOs cause $as lost. It also stated t"at no$"ere in t"e Revised Rules o% Criminal Procedure, or in any circular o% t"is Court, even in any o% its decision $as it ever pronounced t"at $"en a petition %or revie$ o% t"e resolution o% t"e investigating prosecutor -- %inding pro a le cause to indict a respondent -- is %iled $it" t"e 2%%ice o% t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice, t"e court $"ic" earlier issued $arrants o% arrest, s"ould suspend t"eir en%orcement. I UE,

0"et"er a pending resolution o% a petition %or revie$ %iled $it" t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice concerning a %inding o% pro a le cause $ill suspend t"e proceedings in t"e trial court, including t"e implementation o% a $arrant o% arrest. #EL+: Petitioner cites D2? Department Circular =o. -;, speci%ically paragrap" 2 o% /ection . t"ereo%, $"ic" provides t"at t"e appellant and t"e trial prosecutor s"all see to it t"at, pending resolution o% t"e appeal, t"e proceedings in court are "eld in a eyance. /ome"o$, petitioner is o% t"e opinion t"at t"e suspension o% proceedings in court, as provided in t"e said circular, includes t"e suspension o% t"e implementation o% $arrants o% arrest issued y t"e court. PetitionerOs contention is $rong. It is $ell to remem er t"at t"ere is a distinction et$een t"e preliminary in8uiry, $"ic" determines pro a le cause %or t"e issuance o% a $arrant o% arrestC and t"e preliminary investigation proper, $"ic" ascertains $"et"er t"e o%%ender s"ould e "eld %or trial or e released. )"e determination o% pro a le cause %or purposes o% issuing a $arrant o% arrest is made y t"e Budge. )"e preliminary investigation proper E $"et"er or not t"ere is reasona le ground to elieve t"at t"e accused is guilty o% t"e o%%ense c"arged E is t"e %unction o% t"e investigating prosecutor. 2, 4s enunciated in Balta#ar v. People,2. t"e tas! o% t"e presiding Budge $"en t"e In%ormation is %iled $it" t"e court is %irst and %oremost to determine t"e e9istence or non-e9istence o% pro a le cause %or t"e arrest o% t"e accused. Pro a le cause is suc" set o% %acts and circumstances as $ould lead a reasona ly discreet and prudent man to elieve t"at t"e o%%ense c"arged in t"e In%ormation or any o%%ense included t"erein "as een committed y t"e person soug"t to e arrested. In determining pro a le cause, t"e average man $eig"s t"e %acts and circumstances $it"out resorting to t"e cali rations o% t"e rules o% evidence o% $"ic" "e "as no tec"nical !no$ledge. De relies on common sense. 4 %inding o% pro a le cause needs only to rest on evidence s"o$ing t"at, more li!ely t"an not, a crime "as een committed and t"at it $as committed y t"e accused. Pro a le cause demands more t"an suspicionC it re8uires less t"an evidence t"at $ould Busti%y conviction. <; )"e purpose o% t"e mandate o% t"e Budge to %irst determine pro a le cause %or t"e arrest o% t"e accused is to insulate %rom t"e very start t"ose %alsely c"arged $it" crimes %rom t"e tri ulations, e9penses and an9iety o% a pu lic trial. <1 )"e %unction o% t"e Budge to issue a $arrant o% arrest upon t"e determination o% pro a le cause is e9clusiveC t"us, t"e conse8uent implementation o% a $arrant o% arrest cannot e de%erred pending t"e resolution o% a petition %or revie$ y t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice as to t"e %inding o% pro a le cause, a %unction t"at is e9ecutive in nature. )o de%er t"e implementation o% t"e $arrant o% arrest $ould e an encroac"ment on t"e e9clusive prerogative o% t"e Budge. 1avvphi1 It must e emp"asi#ed t"at petitioner %iled $it" t"e trial court a motion to suspend proceedings and to suspend t"e implementation o% t"e $arrant o% arrest in

Case Digests - Rule 112: Preliminary Investigation || Castro, Boco pursuance o% a D2? circular, and not a motion to 8uas" t"e $arrant o% arrest 8uestioning t"e issuance t"ereo%. )"us, t"ere is no contest as to t"e validity or regularity o% t"e issuance o% t"e $arrant o% arrest. Petitioner merely $anted t"e trial court to de%er t"e implementation o% t"e $arrant o% arrest pending t"e resolution y t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice o% t"e petition %or revie$ t"at "e %iled citing t"e %ollo$ing directive contained in /ection . o% D2? Department Circular: 9999 )"e appellant and t"e trial prosecutor s"all see to it t"at, pending resolution o% t"e appeal, t"e proceedings in court are "eld in a eyance. <2 )"e a ove provision o% t"e Department Circular is directed speci%ically at t"e appellant and t"e trial prosecutor, giving t"em latitude in c"oosing a remedy to ensure t"at t"e proceedings in court are "eld in a eyance. Do$ever, no$"ere in t"e said provision does it state t"at t"e court must "old t"e proceedings in a eyance. )"ere%ore, t"e discretion o% t"e court $"et"er or not to suspend t"e proceedings or t"e implementation o% t"e $arrant o% arrest, upon t"e motion o% t"e appellant or t"e trial prosecutor, remains un"indered. )"is is in consonance $it" t"e earlier ruling << o% t"is Court t"at once a complaint or in%ormation is %iled in court, any disposition o% t"e case as to its dismissal, or t"e conviction or ac8uittal o% t"e accused, rests on t"e sound discretion o% t"e said court, as it is t"e est and sole Budge o% $"at to do $it" t"e case e%ore it. In t"e instant case, t"e Budge o% t"e trial court merely e9ercised "is Budicial discretion $"en "e denied petitionerOs motion to suspend t"e implementation o% t"e $arrant o% arrest. Conse8uently, t"e C4 $as correct $"en it %ound no $"imsicality or oppressiveness in t"e e9ercise o% t"e trial BudgeOs discretion in issuing t"e c"allenged orders. G.R. No. 171188 %3)5 19, 2009 PEOPLE O$ T#E P#ILIPPINE , Petitioner, vs. %E IE B. !A TILLO ()* $ELI!ITO R. ME%IA, Respondents. $A!T , Complainant Cesar /arino is one o% t"e registered o$ners o% a piece o% land covered y )rans%er Certi%icate o% )itle =o. )-*1;2-, < o% t"e Registry o% Deeds o% Cavite, located in %ront o% /3 Bacoor, Cavite. )"e property is leased to Pepito B. 48uino and 4driano F. /amoy $"o are in turn su leasing it to several stall"olders. In /eptem er 1..., respondent :elicito R. 3eBia, 3unicipal Building 2%%icial o% Bacoor, sent to t"e stall"olders =otices o% &iolation o% t"e =ational Building Code on t"e grounds t"at t"e structures t"ey $ere occupying $ere erected $it"out uilding permits and occupied y t"em $it"out t"e necessary certi%icates o% occupancy "aving een %irst secured. 2n ?anuary 1-, 2;;;, 3eBia>s o%%ice sent letters 1 dated ?anuary 1;, 2;;; to t"e stall"olders in%orming t"em t"at ecause o% t"eir repeated %ailure to comply $it" t"e =ational Building Code and its implementing rules and regulations and t"e Business Permit and 5icensing 2%%ice Re8uirements, t"eir stalls $ill e closed do$n on ?anuary 2*, 2;;;.2n :e ruary 1+, 2;;;, a tas! %orce %rom t"e Bacoor 3unicipal Dall e%%ected t"e closure o% t"e stalls t"roug" t"e installation o% galvani#ed iron %ences. 5essees 48uino and /amoy t"erea%ter %iled e%ore t"e 2%%ice o% t"e 2m udsman a complaint against respondent ?essie B. Castillo, in "is capacity as Bacoor 3unicipal 3ayor, respondent 3eBia and t$o ot"er municipal o%%icials %or violation o% /ection <'e( and '%( o% Repu lic 4ct =o. <;1., ot"er$ise !no$n as t"e 4nti-Fra%t and Corrupt Practices 4ct, as amended. )"e case $as doc!eted as 23B-1-;;-;1<-. 2n 2cto er 2;, 2;;;, t"e 2%%ice o% t"e 2m udsman dismissed 23B-1-;;-;1<-, ruling t"at t"e respondent local o%%icials acted in good %ait" in e%%ecting t"e closure o% t"e stalls. 2n 3ay -, 2;;<, t"e 2%%ice o% t"e 2m udsman, t"roug" t"e 2%%ice o% t"e /pecial Prosecutor, %iled an In%ormation against respondents %or violation o% /ection <'e( o% Rep. 4ct =o. <;1. e%ore t"e /andigan ayan. )"e case $as doc!eted as Criminal Case =o. 2--,.. In a Resolution dated 4ugust 11, 2;;<, t"e /andigan ayan declared t"at pro a le cause e9ists against respondents %or violation o% /ection <'e(. 4ccordingly, it directed t"e issuance o% t"e corresponding $arrants o% arrest and "old departure orders against respondents. 2n 4ugust 2;, 2;;<, respondents voluntarily surrendered to t"e /andigan ayan and posted t"eir respective onds %or t"eir provisional li erty. Respondents moved %or t"e reinvestigation o% t"e case $"ic" t"e /andigan ayan gave due course. 4%ter t"e reinvestigation, t"e 2%%ice o% t"e /pecial Prosecutor, upon approval o% t"e 2m udsman, %iled a 3otion %or 5eave to 4dmit 4ttac"ed 4mended In%ormation. )"e respondents t"en %iled a Comment t"ereon $it" 3otion %or ?udicial Determination o% Pro a le Cause. In a Resolution dated 3ay ., 2;;1, t"e /andigan ayan denied t"e respondents> 3otion %or ?udicial Determination o% Pro a le Cause. 2n 2cto er 1;, 2;;1, t"e /andigan ayan, upon motion %or reconsideration %iled y respondents, reversed its 3ay ., 2;;1 Resolution and dismissed t"e case. )"e /andigan ayan li!e$ise set aside t"e arrest $arrants it previously issued. It "eld t"at t"e instant criminal case is a mere re"as" o% t"e previously dismissed criminal case %iled y complainant>s lessees against respondents. It also ruled t"at t"ere $as no evident ad %ait", mani%est partiality or ine9cusa le negligence t"at can e attri uted to respondents. =eit"er did complainant>s claim o% undue inBury "ave any leg to stand on. I UE, 0"et"er t"e /andigan ayan erred in overturning t"e 2m udsman>s determination o% pro a le cause resulting in t"e dismissal o% t"e case against respondents. #EL+, "57 Petitioner contends t"at a%ter t"e /andigan ayan issued t"e arrest $arrants against respondents, t"e responsi ility o% ma!ing a ne$ determination o% pro a le cause s"i%ted ac! to t"e 2m udsman as prosecutor $"en respondents moved %or t"e reinvestigation o% t"e case and suc" motion $as granted y t"e court. )"e 2m udsman must t"en decide $"et"er respondents s"all continue to e "eld %or trial in lig"t o% any additional evidence presented during reinvestigation. )"is responsi ility, petitioner su mits, elongs to t"e 2m udsman alone and t"e court is ere%t o% aut"ority to overturn t"e %ormer>s %indings as t"e Budicial determination o% pro a le cause is only %or t"e purpose o% determining $"et"er t"e arrest $arrant s"ould e issued. Petitioner %urt"er argues t"at t"ere are only t$o instances $"en t"e court can intervene in t"e 2m udsman>s action E %irst, $"en t"e 2m udsman acted $it" grave a use o% discretionC and second, $"en t"e prosecution ma!es su stantial amendments to t"e in%ormation E ot" o% $"ic" are

Case Digests - Rule 112: Preliminary Investigation || Castro, Boco $anting in t"e instant case. 4%ter seriously considering t"e su mission o% t"e parties, $e are in agreement t"at t"e petition is meritorious. )"ere are t$o !inds o% determination o% pro a le cause: e9ecutive and Budicial. )"e e9ecutive determination o% pro a le cause is one made during preliminary investigation. It is a %unction t"at properly pertains to t"e pu lic prosecutor $"o is given a road discretion to determine $"et"er pro a le cause e9ists and to c"arge t"ose $"om "e elieves to "ave committed t"e crime as de%ined y la$ and t"us s"ould e "eld %or trial. 2t"er$ise stated, suc" o%%icial "as t"e 8uasi-Budicial aut"ority to determine $"et"er or not a criminal case must e %iled in court. 0"et"er or not t"at %unction "as een correctly disc"arged y t"e pu lic prosecutor, i.e., $"et"er or not "e "as made a correct ascertainment o% t"e e9istence o% pro a le cause in a case, is a matter t"at t"e trial court itsel% does not and may not e compelled to pass upon. )"e Budicial determination o% pro a le cause, on t"e ot"er "and, is one made y t"e Budge to ascertain $"et"er a $arrant o% arrest s"ould e issued against t"e accused. )"e Budge must satis%y "imsel% t"at ased on t"e evidence su mitted, t"ere is necessity %or placing t"e accused under custody in order not to %rustrate t"e ends o% Bustice. I% t"e Budge %inds no pro a le cause, t"e Budge cannot e %orced to issue t"e arrest $arrant. Corollary to t"e principle t"at a Budge cannot e compelled to issue a $arrant o% arrest i% "e or s"e deems t"at t"ere is no pro a le cause %or doing so, t"e Budge in turn s"ould not override t"e pu lic prosecutor>s determination o% pro a le cause to "old an accused %or trial on t"e ground t"at t"e evidence presented to su stantiate t"e issuance o% an arrest $arrant $as insu%%icient. It must e stressed t"at in our criminal Bustice system, t"e pu lic prosecutor e9ercises a $ide latitude o% discretion in determining $"et"er a criminal case s"ould e %iled in court, and t"at courts must respect t"e e9ercise o% suc" discretion $"en t"e in%ormation %iled against t"e person c"arged is valid on its %ace, and t"at no mani%est error or grave a use o% discretion can e imputed to t"e pu lic prosecutor. )"us, a sent a %inding t"at an in%ormation is invalid on its %ace or t"at t"e prosecutor committed mani%est error or grave a use o% discretion, a Budge>s determination o% pro a le cause is limited only to t"e Budicial !ind or %or t"e purpose o% deciding $"et"er t"e arrest $arrants s"ould e issued against t"e accused. In t"e instant case, t"ere is no 8uestion t"at ot" t"e original and amended In%ormations $ere valid on t"eir %ace ecause t"ey complied $it" /ection +, Rule 11; o% t"e Rules o% Court. 4lso, a scrutiny o% t"e Resolution dated 4ugust 22, 2;;2 o% t"e 2m udsman $"ic" precipitated t"e %iling o% t"e original In%ormation and t"e su se8uent 3emorandum dated 4ugust *, 2;;* recommending t"e amendment o% t"e In%ormation $ould li!e$ise s"o$ t"at t"e %inding o% pro a le cause against t"e respondents $ere su%%iciently supported y su stantial evidence. 4s a matter o% %act, in t"e Resolution dated 4ugust 22, 2;;2, t"e 2m udsman too! pains to mention eac" element o% t"e crime o% violation o% /ection <'e( o% Rep. 4ct =o. <;1. and t"en one y one ade8uately e9plained "o$ and $"y t"ose elements $ere satis%ied. Dence, as t"e amended In%ormation $as valid on its %ace and t"ere is no mani%est error or ar itrariness on t"e part o% t"e 2m udsman, t"e /andigan ayan erred in ma!ing an e9ecutive determination o% pro a le cause $"en it overturned t"e 2m udsman>s o$n determination. 4nd t"is is true even i% t"e /andigan ayan $as no longer satis%ied $it" t"e evidence presented to sustain t"e e%%ectivity o% t"e arrest $arrants previously issued %or t"e original In%ormation. )"e /andigan ayan could "ave Bust revo!ed t"e previously issued arrest $arrants and re8uired t"e 2m udsman to su mit additional evidence %or t"e purpose o% issuing t"e arrest $arrants ased on t"e amended In%ormation. 3oreover, it $as clearly premature on t"e part o% t"e /andigan ayan to ma!e a determinative %inding prior to t"e parties> presentation o% t"eir respective evidence t"at t"ere $as no ad %ait" and mani%est partiality on t"e respondents> part and undue inBury on t"e part o% t"e complainant. In Fo v. :i%t" Division, /andigan ayan, $e "eld t"at Ait is $ell esta lis"ed t"at t"e presence or a sence o% t"e elements o% t"e crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter o% de%ense t"at may e est passed upon a%ter a %ull- lo$n trial on t"e merits.A 4lso, it $ould e un%air to e9pect t"e prosecution to present all t"e evidence needed to secure t"e conviction o% t"e accused upon t"e %iling o% t"e in%ormation against t"e latter. )"e reason is %ound in t"e nature and o Bective o% a preliminary investigation. Dere, t"e pu lic prosecutors do not decide $"et"er t"ere is evidence eyond reasona le dou t o% t"e guilt o% t"e person c"argedC t"ey merely determine $"et"er t"ere is su%%icient ground to engender a $ell-%ounded elie% t"at a crime "as een committed and t"at respondent is pro a ly guilty t"ereo%, and s"ould e "eld %or trial. G.R. No. 175887 No658?5r 2-, 2010 #EIR O$ T#E LATE NE TOR TRIA, Petitioners, vs.ATT". EPI$ANIA OBIA , Respondent. $A!T , 2n 3ay 22, 1..,, at around 1;:;; o>cloc! in t"e morning at t"e Pili 4irport in Camarines /ur, 6ngr. =estor )ria, Regional Director o% t"e Department o% Pu lic 0or!s and Dig"$ays 'DP0D(, Region & and concurrently 2%%icer-In-C"arge o% t"e 2nd 6ngineering District o% Camarines /ur, $as s"ot y a gunman $"ile $aiting to oard "is %lig"t to 3anila. De $as roug"t to a "ospital ut died t"e %ollo$ing day %rom t"e lone guns"ot $ound on "is nape. /u se8uently, t"e incident $as investigated y t"e =BI. 2n ?uly <1, 1..,, =BI Regional Director 4leBandro R. )eneri%e, C"airman o% )as! :orce )ria, recommended to t"e Provincial Prosecutor o% Camarines /ur t"e indictment o% Ro erto 4clan, ?uanito, 2na and 4tty. 6pi%ania A:annyA Fon#ales-2 ias, %or t"e murder o% 6ngr. )ria. 2n t"e asis o% statements given y t$enty-si9 '2+( individuals, autopsy and allistic e9amination reports, and relevant documents gat"ered t"e =BI %ound t"at: 'summari#ed version :P( ACLAN and ONA had been conducting an almost daily stakeout, or about t!o !eeks prior to the incident, at "ir. #$%A&s o ice. #hey !ould observe #$%A&s arrival and departure rom o ice and !ould even ask the security guard on duty i #$%A has already arrive or le t the o ice. Around '()) o&clock in the morning o May **, 1++', ACLAN and ONA !ere spotted in their usual places at the "P,- O ice. .hortly a ter, Administrative O icer /O.0 P0C1N"O announced to those !ho had some documents or signature o "irector #$%A to proceed to Pili Airport !here #$%A !ould sign them be ore leaving or Manila. 1pon hearing this, ACLAN and ONA le t hurriedly on board a red motorcycle. .hortly a ter 1)()) a.m. on that day, "irector #$%A arrived at the Airport. A ter signing some documents at the parking lot he proceeded to!ards the pre2departure area on the second loor o the airport building. ONA, !ho !as !aiting on the stair!ay, immediately ollo!ed #$%A as the latter !as going up the stairs. As #$%A !as approaching the pre2departure area he !as met by Atty. 304P%5AN%A O6%A. !ho shook his hands and started conversing !ith him. %t !as at this 7uncture that a gunshot rang out and #$%A dropped like a log on the loor, bleeding pro usely rom a gunshot !ound at the back o his head. Atty. 0P%5AN%A O6%A., on the other hand, admitted that she !as !ith ACLAN in the early morning o May **, 1++'8 that at about 9()) a.m. on that day she !ent to the residence o "irector #$%A at Liboton, Naga City, had a brie talk !ith the latter and le t immediately a ter agreeing to meet at the airport later on. .he also volunteered the in ormation that $O60$#O ACLAN !as not the gunman !ho had ired the atal shot at "irector #$%A. .he !as also the last person seen talking !ith "irector #$%A !hen the latter !as gunned do!n. A practicing la!yer, Atty. O6%A. also engages hersel in real estate business on the side. %n 1++9 she had brokered a sale o real estate bet!een and among spouses /0$0M%A., as :endors, and .pouses N0.#O$ and P1$A #$%A, as :endees, over a land in 6alatas, Naga City. %t !as Atty. O6%A. !ho received, or and in behal o the vendors, the ull payment o P*.' Million o the sale but the latter deliberately avoided the #$%A amily and, despite verbal and !ritten demands, she ailed and re used, as she still ails and re uses, to ul ill her legal obligation to the #$%A amily. "uring the preliminary investigation conducted by the O ice o the Provincial Prosecutor, respondent iled her Counter2A idavit denying that she !as in any!ay involved !ith the killing o 0ngr. #ria and denied most o the allegations made by the N6%. 2n ?uly 2, 1..., t"e 2%%ice o% t"e Provincial Prosecutor o% Camarines /ur issued a resolution , directing t"e %iling o% an in%ormation %or murder against 4clan and 2na ut dismissing t"e case %or insu%%iciency o% evidence as against "erein respondent, 4tty. 6pi%ania 2 ias. )"is $as, "o$ever, modi%ied on %()3(r0 25, 2000 y t"en ?ustice /ecretary /era%in Cuevas directing t"e Provincial Prosecutor to include respondent in t"e in%ormation %or murder %iled against 4clan and 2na. Respondent along $it" 4clan and 2na %iled a motion %or reconsideration o% t"e D2?>s ?anuary 21, 2;;; resolution. In t"e meantime, t"e in%ormation c"arging 4clan and 2na "as already een %iled $it" t"e Regional )rial Court 'R)C( o% Pili, Camarines /ur. Gpon re8uest "o$ever, t"e venue $as trans%erred to t"e R)C Pue#on City y resolution o% t"is Court in 4.3. =o. ;;-<1*1-R)C. 1+ 4%ter so muc" petition and appeal, t"e D2? eventually directed t"e Provincial Prosecutor to %or$ard t"e records o% t"e case to t"e 2%%ice o% t"e President in compliance. In "is 2rder dated 3arc" 2*, 2;;*, Presidential 4ssistant 3anuel C. Domingo granted respondent>s motion %or reconsideration and reversed t"e D2? resolutions. )"e 2P concluded t"ere $as no interloc!ing circumstantial evidence o% respondent>s acts e%ore, during and a%ter t"e !illing o% 6ngr. )ria t"at $ould esta lis" conspiracy among 4clan, 2na and respondent to commit t"e crime. 4ccordingly, t"e case against respondent $as dismissed %or insu%%iciency o% evidence.

Case Digests - Rule 112: Preliminary Investigation || Castro, Boco Petitioners %iled a series o% motions, $"ic" reac"ed t"e C4, $"o denied t"eir petition. Dence, t"is appeal. I UE, involves evidentiary matters. )"e same is etter le%t ventilated e%ore t"e trial court during trial, $"ere t"e parties can adduce evidence to prove or disprove its presence. 1< Preliminary investigation is e9ecutive in c"aracter. It does not contemplate a Budicial %unction. It is essentially an in8uisitorial proceeding, and o%ten, t"e only means o% ascertaining $"o may e reasona ly c"arged $it" a crime. 1* Prosecutors control and direct t"e prosecution o% criminal o%%enses, including t"e conduct o% preliminary investigation, su Bect to revie$ y t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice. )"e duty o% t"e Court in appropriate cases is merely to determine $"et"er t"e e9ecutive determination $as done $it"out or in e9cess o% Burisdiction or $it" grave a use o% discretion. Resolutions o% t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice are not su Bect to revie$ unless made $it" grave a use. 11 4%ter a care%ul evaluation o% t"e entire evidence on record, $e %ind no suc" grave a use $"en t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice %ound pro a le cause to c"arge t"e respondent $it" murder in conspiracy $it" 4clan and 2na. )"e %ollo$ing %acts and circumstances esta lis"ed during preliminary investigation $ere su%%icient asis to incite reasona le elie% in respondent>s guilt: @(A Mo9i65 - respondent "ad credi le reason to "ave 6ngr. )ria !illed ecause o% t"e impending criminal prosecution %or esta%a %rom "er dou le sale o% "is lot prior to "is deat", Budging %rom t"e strong interest o% 6ngr. )ria>s %amily to run a%ter said property andHor proceeds o% t"e second sale to a t"ird partyC @?A A<<577 - respondent $as close to 6ngr. )ria>s %amily and %amiliar $it" "is $or! sc"edule, daily routine and ot"er transactions $"ic" could %acilitate in t"e commission o% t"e crime eventually carried out y a "ired gunmen, one o% $"om '4clan( s"e and "er %at"er categorically admitted eing in "er company $"ile s"e visited 6ngr. )ria "ours e%ore t"e latter $as %atally s"ot at t"e airportC @<A 37pi<io37 B5:(6ior -- respondent $"ile declaring suc" close personal relations"ip $it" 6ngr. )ria and even "is %amily, %ailed to give any satis%actory e9planation $"y s"e reacted indi%%erently to t"e violent !illing o% "er %riend $"ile t"ey conversed and s"oo! "ands at t"e airport. Indeed, a relative or a %riend $ould not Bust stand y and $al! a$ay %rom t"e place as i% not"ing "appened, as $"at s"e did, nor re%use to volunteer in%ormation t"at $ould "elp t"e aut"orities investigating t"e crime, considering t"at s"e is a vital eye$itness. =ot even a call %or "elp to t"e people to ring "er %riend 8uic!ly to t"e "ospital. /"e $ould not even dare go near 6ngr. )ria>s ody to c"ec! i% t"e latter $as still alive. 4ll t"e %oregoing circumstances, in our mind, and %rom t"e point o% vie$ o% an ordinary person, lead to a reasona le in%erence o% respondent>s pro a le participation in t"e $ell-planned assassination o% 6ngr. )ria. 0e t"ere%ore "old t"at t"e 2P in reversing t"e D2? /ecretary>s ruling, and t"e C4 in a%%irming t"e same, ot" committed grave a use o% discretion. Clearly, t"e 2P and C4 ar itrarily disregarded %acts on record $"ic" esta lis"ed pro a le cause against t"e respondent. )"e petition is FR4=)6D. )"e ?anuary 21, 2;;; Resolution o% t"en ?ustice /ecretary /era%in Cuevas is "ere y R6I=/)4)6D and GPD65D.

0"et"er non-re%erral y t"e 2P to t"e D2? o% t"e appeal or motion %or reconsideration %iled y t"e respondent "ad deprived t"em o% t"e opportunity to con%ront and cross-e9amine t"e $itnesses on t"ose a%%idavits elatedly su mitted y t"e respondent. E-- =o. 0"et"er t"e C4 gravely a used its discretion in a%%irming t"e 2P>s reversal o% t"e ruling o% t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice. E-- @es. #EL+, Gnder t"e procedure %or preliminary investigation provided in /ection <, Rule 112 o% t"e Revised Rules o% Criminal Procedure, as amended, in case t"e investigating prosecutor conducts a "earing $"ere t"ere are %acts and issues to e clari%ied %rom a party or $itness, AMtN"e parties can e present at t"e "earing ut $it"out t"e rig"t to e9amine or cross-e9amine. )"ey may, "o$ever, su mit to t"e investigating o%%icer 8uestions $"ic" may e as!ed to t"e party or $itness concerned.A Dence, t"e non-re%erral y t"e 2P to t"e D2? o% t"e motion %or reconsideration o% respondent, in t"e e9ercise o% its discretion, did not violate petitioners> rig"t to due process. )"e %indings o% t"e prosecutor $it" respect to t"e e9istence or non-e9istence o% pro a le cause is su Bect to t"e po$er o% revie$ y t"e D2?. Indeed, t"e /ecretary o% ?ustice may reverse or modi%y t"e resolution o% t"e prosecutor, a%ter $"ic" "e s"all direct t"e prosecutor concerned eit"er to %ile t"e corresponding in%ormation $it"out conducting anot"er preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move %or dismissal o% t"e complaint or in%ormation $it" notice to t"e parties. In reversing t"e D2?>s %inding o% pro a le cause, t"e 2P %ound merit in t"e argument o% t"e respondent t"at t"e D2?>s %inding t"at s"e $as $it" 4clan $"en s"e $ent to t"e residence o% 6ngr. )ria early in t"e morning o% 3ay 22, 1..,, $as not su%%iciently esta lis"ed. )"e 2P gave more $eig"t to t"e a%%idavit o% Calayag stating t"at 4clan $as not around $"en t"ey and respondent, among ot"er visitors, $ere at 6ngr. )ria>s "ouse at t"at time -- t"an t"at account given y /4 6duarte, $"ic" $as uncorro orated. 4s to t"e dou le sale allegedly committed y t"e respondent %rom $"ic" t"e latter>s strong motive to li8uidate 6ngr. )ria $as in%erred, t"e 2P %ound t"is as a mere e9pression o% opinion y t"e investigators considering t"at 6ngr. )ria>s $ido$, 3rs. Pura )ria, categorically admitted "er !no$ledge o% t"e said transaction. =eit"er $as t"e 2P persuaded y t"e =BI>s A!iss o% deat"A t"eory since it is ut a customary $ay o% greeting a %riend to s"a!e "ands and "ence it cannot imply t"at respondent utili#ed t"is as a signal or identi%ication %or t"e gunman to s"oot 6ngr. )ria. Respondent>s alleged indi%%erence immediately a%ter 6ngr. )ria $as gunned do$n $"ile conversing $it" "er, $as also negated y t"e a%%idavit o% an employee o% P"ilippine 4ir 5ines ased at t"e Pili 4irport, stating t"at rig"t a%ter t"e incident too! place "e sa$ respondent in t"e radio room in s"oc! and $as eing given $ater y anot"er person. Considering t"e totality o% evidence, t"e 2P $as convinced t"ere $as not"ing suspicious or a normal in respondent>s e"avior e%ore, during and a%ter t"e %atal s"ooting o% 6ngr. )ria as to engender a $ell%ounded elie% o% "er complicity $it" t"e !illing o% 6ngr. )ria. Petitioners, "o$ever, maintain t"at t"e records are replete $it" a undant proo% o% respondent>s complicity in t"e murder o% 6ngr. )ria. Pro a le cause is de%ined as t"e e9istence o% suc" %acts and circumstances as $ould e9cite t"e elie% in a reasona le mind, acting on t"e %acts $it"in t"e !no$ledge o% t"e prosecutor, t"at t"e person c"arged $as guilty o% t"e crime %or $"ic" "e $as prosecuted. *, It is a reasona le ground o% presumption t"at a matter is, or may e, $ell-%ounded, suc" a state o% %acts in t"e mind o% t"e prosecutor as $ould lead a person o% ordinary caution and prudence to elieve, or entertain an "onest or strong suspicion, t"at a t"ing is so. )"e term does not mean Aactual and positive causeA nor does it import a solute certainty. It is merely ased on opinion and reasona le elie%. *. 4 %inding o% pro a le cause merely inds over t"e suspect to stand trialC it is not a pronouncement o% guilt. 1; 2n t"e ot"er "and, conspiracy e9ists $"en t$o or more persons come to an agreement concerning t"e commission o% a %elony and decide to commit it. 11 Direct proo% o% previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. Conspiracy may e s"o$n t"roug" circumstantial evidence, deduced %rom t"e mode and manner in $"ic" t"e o%%ense $as perpetrated, or in%erred %rom t"e acts o% t"e accused t"emselves $"en suc" lead to a Boint purpose and design, concerted action, and community o% interest. 12 0e reverse t"e 2P>s ruling t"at t"e totality o% evidence %ailed to esta lis" a prima %acie case against t"e respondent as a conspirator in t"e !illing o% 6ngr. )ria. )o egin $it", $"et"er or not respondent actually conspired $it" 4clan and 2na need not e %ully resolved during t"e preliminary investigation. )"e a sence or presence o% conspiracy is %actual in nature and