Lawyerly

GR No. 169042

2011-10-05

ERDITO QUARTO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON MARCELO

BRION, J.

This Rule is itself unique as, without detracting from the executive nature of the power to prosecute and the power to grant immunity, it clarifies that in cases already filed with the courts,[65] the prosecution merely makes a proposal and initiates the process of granting immunity to an accused-witness in order to utilize him as a witness against his co-accused.[66] As we explained in Webb v. De Leon[67] in the context of the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act: The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide range of discretion -- the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by prosecutors. We thus hold that it is not constitutionally impermissible for Congress to enact R.A. No. 6981 vesting in the Department of Justice the power to determine who can qualify as a witness in the program and who shall be granted immunity from prosecution. Section 9 of Rule 119 does not support the proposition that the power to choose who shall be a state witness is an inherent judicial prerogative. Under this provision, the court is given the power to discharge a state witness only because it has already acquired jurisdiction over the crime and the accused. The discharge of an accused is part of the exercise of jurisdiction but is not a recognition of an inherent judicial function. [emphasis ours]

GR No. 190487

2011-04-13

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS v. PETER SHERMAN

CARPIO MORALES, J.

It is well-settled that prosecution of crimes pertains to the executive department of the government whose principal power and responsibility is to insure that laws are faithfully executed. Corollary to this power is the right to prosecute violators.[18]

GR No. 176389

2010-12-14

ANTONIO LEJANO v. PEOPLE

ABAD, J.

[11] Webb v. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995, 247 SCRA 652; Webb v. People, G.R. No. 127262, July 24, 1997, 276 SCRA 243.

GR No. 182310

2009-12-09

PEOPLE v. JAN MICHAEL TAN

ABAD, J.

But what is probable cause? Probable cause assumes the existence of facts that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and that it was likely committed by the person sought to be arrested.[37] It requires neither absolute certainty nor clear and convincing evidence of guilt.[38] The test for issuing a warrant of arrest is less stringent than that used for establishing the guilt of the accused. As long as the evidence shows a prima facie case against the accused, the trial court has sufficient ground to issue a warrant for his arrest.

GR NO. 135703

2009-04-15

PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

It bears stressing that a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime was committed and was committed by the suspects.[39] By this standard, the Court finds probable cause to bind over private respondents to stand trial for the offenses charged, except for Placido L. Mapa, Jr. whom the Government had committed to exclude as party defendant or respondent in all PCGG-initiated civil cases and criminal proceedings or investigations in exchange for his having provided information relating to the prosecution of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act cases against the Marcoses in New York.[40]

GR No. 171659

2007-12-13

MARIETTA K. ILUSORIO v. SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO

NACHURA, J.

The conduct of preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause is executive in nature. The right to prosecute crime is reposed in the executive department of the government primarily responsible for the faithful execution of the laws of the land. This right vests the government prosecutor with a wide latitude of discretion on what and whom to charge upon proper finding of probable cause, depending on a smorgasbord of factors best appreciated by him. The preliminary investigation also serves to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an open accusation of a crime, and the expense and anxiety of a public trial. It likewise protects the State from useless and expensive trials, if unwarranted.[18]

GR NO. 161179

2007-08-07

NACE SUE P. BUAN v. FRANCISCO T. MATUGAS

GARCIA, J.

We may also be well reminded that the purpose of preliminary investigation is to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief as to the fact of the commission of a crime and the respondent's probable guilt thereof.[13] A finding of probable cause need only rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. While probable cause demands more than bare suspicion, it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.[14]

GR Nos. 172070-72

2007-06-01

VICENTE P. LADLAD v. SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO

CARPIO, J.

(f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating officer shall determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial. (Emphasis supplied) Instead of following this procedure scrupulously, as what this Court had mandated in an earlier ruling, "so that the constitutional right to liberty of a potential accused can be protected from any material damage,"[38] respondent prosecutors nonchalantly disregarded it. Respondent prosecutors failed to comply with Section 3(a) of Rule 112 which provides that the complaint (which, with its attachment, must be of such number as there are respondents) be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public. Respondent prosecutors treated the unsubscribed letters of Tanigue and Mendoza of the CIDG, PNP as complaints[39] and accepted the affidavits attached to the letters even though some of them were notarized by a notary public without any showing that a prosecutor or qualified government official was unavailable as required by Section 3(a) of Rule 112.

GR NO. 135123

2007-01-22

REPUBLIC v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO

AZCUNA, J.

[18] Webb v. De Leon, 317 Phil. 758, 780 (1995).

GR NO. 170288

2006-09-22

PEDRO E. BUDIONGAN v. JACINTO M. DELA CRUZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The purpose of a preliminary investigation is merely to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the person accused of the crime is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. [18] 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 suspect. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt." [19]

GR NO. 147272

2006-07-14

CONRADO B. NICART v. SANDIGANBAYAN

GARCIA, J.

The determination of a probable cause during a preliminary investigation pertains to the public prosecutor who inquires into facts concerning the commission of a crime with the end in view of determining whether an information may be prepared and filed against the accused.[22] This prefatory inquiry is for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is well-founded ground to believe that a crime has been committed by the accused who is probably guilty thereof,[23] and ergo should be held for trial.[24] Such investigation should be distinguished from an inquiry to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The first kind, also called preliminary investigation proper, is executive in nature and is part of the prosecutor's job. The second kind is judicial in nature and is lodged with the judge.[25]

GR NO. 163593

2005-12-16

PREFERRED HOME SPECIALTIES v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

A preliminary investigation is designed to secure the respondent involved against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution. A preliminary investigation is an inquiry to determine whether (a) a crime has been committed; and (b) whether there is a probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. It is a means of discovering the person or persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt. The investigating officer acts upon reasonable belief. Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a conviction. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspect.[51]

GR NO. 156652

2005-10-13

DR. BENITA F. OSORIO v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In accordance with Section 4 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, the investigating prosecutor shall prepare the resolution and information if he finds cause to hold the respondent for trial. He shall certify under oath that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the complaint and his witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. It is the call of the investigating prosecutor, in the exercise of his sound discretion, whether to conduct a clarificatory hearing or not. As correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, the term "may" under Subsection (e) of Section 3 of Rule 112 is merely permissive and operates to confer discretion upon the investigating prosecutor to conduct a clarificatory hearing or not.[8] If he believes that the evidence before him is sufficient to support a finding of probable cause, he may not hold a clarificatory hearing. As held in Webb v. De Leon:[9]

GR No. 162126

2004-12-09

RCL FEEDERS PTE. v. HERNANDO PEREZ

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly held that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Secretary of Justice in ordering the City Prosecutor to move for withdrawal of the information before the RTC-Makati City. The complaint-affidavit as well as the supporting documents do not attribute any overt act of deceit against respondent, as to constitute a prima facie case for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Although it is true that 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 accused,[25] no such evidence exists in the present case that would engender a well-founded belief that estafa was in fact committed by respondent pursuant to the aforementioned provision of the Revised Penal Code.

GR No. 151198

2004-06-08

PEOPLE v. RAUL BERIBER Y FUENTES

TINGA, J.

The Constitution ordains that due process must be observed in cases involving a possible deprivation of life, liberty or property.[36] More important than convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent is the courts' duty of ensuring that justice is done.[37] Hence, courts must proceed with extreme caution and observe strictly the rules on criminal procedure in cases where the possible penalty is in its severest form; that is, death, because the execution of such a sentence is irrevocable.[38] Any departure from the regular course of trial should be probed into to protect an accused from deprivation of liberty or worse, life itself, on the basis of evidence which cannot establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

	GR No. 169042 2011-10-05	ERDITO QUARTO v. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON MARCELO BRION, J.
This Rule is itself unique as, without detracting from the executive nature of the power to prosecute and the power to grant immunity, it clarifies that in cases already filed with the courts,[65] the prosecution merely makes a proposal and initiates the process of granting immunity to an accused-witness in order to utilize him as a witness against his co-accused.[66] As we explained in Webb v. De Leon[67] in the context of the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act: The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide range of discretion -- the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by prosecutors. We thus hold that it is not constitutionally impermissible for Congress to enact R.A. No. 6981 vesting in the Department of Justice the power to determine who can qualify as a witness in the program and who shall be granted immunity from prosecution. Section 9 of Rule 119 does not support the proposition that the power to choose who shall be a state witness is an inherent judicial prerogative. Under this provision, the court is given the power to discharge a state witness only because it has already acquired jurisdiction over the crime and the accused. The discharge of an accused is part of the exercise of jurisdiction but is not a recognition of an inherent judicial function. [emphasis ours]
	GR No. 190487 2011-04-13	BUREAU OF CUSTOMS v. PETER SHERMAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
It is well-settled that prosecution of crimes pertains to the executive department of the government whose principal power and responsibility is to insure that laws are faithfully executed. Corollary to this power is the right to prosecute violators.[18]
	GR No. 176389 2010-12-14	ANTONIO LEJANO v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
[11] Webb v. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995, 247 SCRA 652; Webb v. People, G.R. No. 127262, July 24, 1997, 276 SCRA 243.
	GR No. 182310 2009-12-09	PEOPLE v. JAN MICHAEL TAN ABAD, J.
But what is probable cause? Probable cause assumes the existence of facts that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and that it was likely committed by the person sought to be arrested.[37] It requires neither absolute certainty nor clear and convincing evidence of guilt.[38] The test for issuing a warrant of arrest is less stringent than that used for establishing the guilt of the accused. As long as the evidence shows a prima facie case against the accused, the trial court has sufficient ground to issue a warrant for his arrest.
	GR NO. 135703 2009-04-15	PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO CARPIO MORALES, J.
It bears stressing that a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime was committed and was committed by the suspects.[39] By this standard, the Court finds probable cause to bind over private respondents to stand trial for the offenses charged, except for Placido L. Mapa, Jr. whom the Government had committed to exclude as party defendant or respondent in all PCGG-initiated civil cases and criminal proceedings or investigations in exchange for his having provided information relating to the prosecution of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act cases against the Marcoses in New York.[40]
	GR No. 171659 2007-12-13	MARIETTA K. ILUSORIO v. SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO NACHURA, J.
The conduct of preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause is executive in nature. The right to prosecute crime is reposed in the executive department of the government primarily responsible for the faithful execution of the laws of the land. This right vests the government prosecutor with a wide latitude of discretion on what and whom to charge upon proper finding of probable cause, depending on a smorgasbord of factors best appreciated by him. The preliminary investigation also serves to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an open accusation of a crime, and the expense and anxiety of a public trial. It likewise protects the State from useless and expensive trials, if unwarranted.[18]
	GR NO. 161179 2007-08-07	NACE SUE P. BUAN v. FRANCISCO T. MATUGAS GARCIA, J.
We may also be well reminded that the purpose of preliminary investigation is to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief as to the fact of the commission of a crime and the respondent's probable guilt thereof.[13] A finding of probable cause need only rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. While probable cause demands more than bare suspicion, it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.[14]
	GR Nos. 172070-72 2007-06-01	VICENTE P. LADLAD v. SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO CARPIO, J.
(f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating officer shall determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial. (Emphasis supplied) Instead of following this procedure scrupulously, as what this Court had mandated in an earlier ruling, "so that the constitutional right to liberty of a potential accused can be protected from any material damage,"[38] respondent prosecutors nonchalantly disregarded it. Respondent prosecutors failed to comply with Section 3(a) of Rule 112 which provides that the complaint (which, with its attachment, must be of such number as there are respondents) be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public. Respondent prosecutors treated the unsubscribed letters of Tanigue and Mendoza of the CIDG, PNP as complaints[39] and accepted the affidavits attached to the letters even though some of them were notarized by a notary public without any showing that a prosecutor or qualified government official was unavailable as required by Section 3(a) of Rule 112.
	GR NO. 135123 2007-01-22	REPUBLIC v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO AZCUNA, J.
[18] Webb v. De Leon, 317 Phil. 758, 780 (1995).
	GR NO. 170288 2006-09-22	PEDRO E. BUDIONGAN v. JACINTO M. DELA CRUZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The purpose of a preliminary investigation is merely to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the person accused of the crime is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. [18] 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 suspect. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt." [19]
	GR NO. 147272 2006-07-14	CONRADO B. NICART v. SANDIGANBAYAN GARCIA, J.
The determination of a probable cause during a preliminary investigation pertains to the public prosecutor who inquires into facts concerning the commission of a crime with the end in view of determining whether an information may be prepared and filed against the accused.[22] This prefatory inquiry is for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is well-founded ground to believe that a crime has been committed by the accused who is probably guilty thereof,[23] and ergo should be held for trial.[24] Such investigation should be distinguished from an inquiry to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The first kind, also called preliminary investigation proper, is executive in nature and is part of the prosecutor's job. The second kind is judicial in nature and is lodged with the judge.[25]
	GR NO. 163593 2005-12-16	PREFERRED HOME SPECIALTIES v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
A preliminary investigation is designed to secure the respondent involved against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution. A preliminary investigation is an inquiry to determine whether (a) a crime has been committed; and (b) whether there is a probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. It is a means of discovering the person or persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt. The investigating officer acts upon reasonable belief. Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a conviction. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspect.[51]
	GR NO. 156652 2005-10-13	DR. BENITA F. OSORIO v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In accordance with Section 4 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, the investigating prosecutor shall prepare the resolution and information if he finds cause to hold the respondent for trial. He shall certify under oath that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the complaint and his witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. It is the call of the investigating prosecutor, in the exercise of his sound discretion, whether to conduct a clarificatory hearing or not. As correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, the term "may" under Subsection (e) of Section 3 of Rule 112 is merely permissive and operates to confer discretion upon the investigating prosecutor to conduct a clarificatory hearing or not.[8] If he believes that the evidence before him is sufficient to support a finding of probable cause, he may not hold a clarificatory hearing. As held in Webb v. De Leon:[9]
	GR No. 162126 2004-12-09	RCL FEEDERS PTE. v. HERNANDO PEREZ YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly held that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Secretary of Justice in ordering the City Prosecutor to move for withdrawal of the information before the RTC-Makati City. The complaint-affidavit as well as the supporting documents do not attribute any overt act of deceit against respondent, as to constitute a prima facie case for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Although it is true that 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 accused,[25] no such evidence exists in the present case that would engender a well-founded belief that estafa was in fact committed by respondent pursuant to the aforementioned provision of the Revised Penal Code.
	GR No. 151198 2004-06-08	PEOPLE v. RAUL BERIBER Y FUENTES TINGA, J.
The Constitution ordains that due process must be observed in cases involving a possible deprivation of life, liberty or property.[36] More important than convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent is the courts' duty of ensuring that justice is done.[37] Hence, courts must proceed with extreme caution and observe strictly the rules on criminal procedure in cases where the possible penalty is in its severest form; that is, death, because the execution of such a sentence is irrevocable.[38] Any departure from the regular course of trial should be probed into to protect an accused from deprivation of liberty or worse, life itself, on the basis of evidence which cannot establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

HUBERT J. P. WEBB v. RAUL E. DE LEON