Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 143591 May 5, 2010
TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, JR., CORAZON M. BEJASA, ARTURO E. MANUEL, JR.,
ERIC L. LEE, P. SIERO !. DIZON, BENJAMIN DE LEON, DEL"IN C. GONZALES, JR.,
a#$ BEN %U LIM, JR., Petitioners,
vs.
MAGDALENO M. PE&A a#$ !ON. MANUEL '. LIMSIACO, JR., a( J)$*+ D+(,*#a-+ o. -/+
M)#,0,1a2 T3,a2 Co)3- ,# C,-,+(, Ba*o C,-y, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
he pivotal issue in this case is !hether or not the Court of "ppeals, in its Decision
#
dated $% &une
$%%% in C"'(.R. SP No. )*+++, is correct !hen it dis,issed the petition for certiorari filed b-
petitioners eodoro C. .orlon/an, &r., Cora0on M. .e1asa, "rturo E. Manuel, &r., .en1a,in de 2eon, P.
Siervo 3. Di0on, Delfin C. (on0ales, &r., Eric 2. 2ee and .en 4u 2i,, &r., and ruled that the Municipal
rial Court in Cities 5MCC6, .a/o Cit-, did not /ravel- abuse its discretion in den-in/ the ,otion for
reinvesti/ation and recall of the !arrants of arrest in Cri,inal Case Nos. ++78, ++7), ++79, and ++7+.
he factual antecedents of the case are as follo!s:
Respondent "tt-. Ma/daleno M. Pe;a 5"tt-. Pe;a6 instituted a civil case for recover- of a/ent<s
co,pensation and e=penses, da,a/es, and attorne-<s fees
$
a/ainst >rban .an? and herein petitioners,
before the Re/ional rial Court 5RC6 of Ne/ros Occidental, .a/o Cit-. he case !as raffled to .ranch
+$ and !as doc?eted as Civil Case No. @9). "tt-. Pe;a anchored his clai, for co,pensation on the
Contract of "/enc-
8
alle/edl- entered into !ith the petitioners, !herein the for,er undertoo? to
perfor, such acts necessar- to prevent an- intruder and sAuatter fro, unla!full- occup-in/ >rban
.an?<s propert- located alon/ Ro=as .oulevard, Pasa- Cit-. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dis,iss
)
ar/uin/ that the- never appointed the respondent as a/ent or counsel. "ttached to the ,otion !ere the
follo!in/ docu,ents: #6 a 2etter
9
dated #* Dece,ber #**) si/ned b- 3er,an Ponce and &ulie "bad
on behalf of Isabela Su/ar Co,pan-, Inc. 5ISCI6, the ori/inal o!ner of the sub1ect propert-B $6 an
unsi/ned 2etter
+
dated @ Dece,ber #**) addressed to Cora0on .e1asa fro, Maril-n (. On/B 86 a
2etter
@
dated * Dece,ber #**) addressed to eodoro .orlon/an, &r. and si/ned b- Maril-n (. On/B
and )6 a Me,orandu,
7
dated $% Nove,ber #**) fro, EnriAue Montilla III. Said docu,ents !ere
presented in an atte,pt to sho! that the respondent !as appointed as a/ent b- ISCI and not b- >rban
.an? or b- the petitioners.
In vie! of the introduction of the above',entioned docu,ents, "tt-. Pe;a filed his Co,plaint'
"ffidavit
*
!ith the Office of the Cit- Prosecutor, .a/o Cit-.
#%
3e clai,ed that said docu,ents !ere
falsified because the alle/ed si/natories did not actuall- affi= their si/natures, and the si/natories !ere
neither stoc?holders nor officers and e,plo-ees of ISCI.
##
Corse, petitioners introduced said
docu,ents as evidence before the RC ?no!in/ that the- !ere falsified.
In a Resolution
#$
dated $) Septe,ber #**7, the Cit- Prosecutor found probable cause for the
indict,ent of petitioners for four 5)6 counts of the cri,e of Introducin/ Dalsified Docu,ents, penali0ed
b- the second para/raph of "rticle #@$ of the Revised Penal Code. he Cit- Prosecutor concluded that
the docu,ents !ere falsified because the alle/ed si/natories untruthfull- stated that ISCI !as the
principal of the respondentB that petitioners ?ne! that the docu,ents !ere falsified considerin/ that the
si/natories !ere ,ere du,,iesB and that the docu,ents for,ed part of the record of Civil Case No.
@9) !here the- !ere used b- petitioners as evidence in support of their ,otion to dis,iss, and then
adopted in their ans!er and in their Pre'rial .rief.
#8
SubseAuentl-, the correspondin/ Infor,ations
#)
!ere filed !ith the MCC, .a/o Cit-. he cases !ere doc?eted as Cri,inal Case Nos. ++78, ++7),
++79, and ++7+. hereafter, &ud/e Pri,itivo .lanca issued the !arrants
#9
for the arrest of the
petitioners.
On # October #**7, petitioners filed an O,nibus Motion to Euash, Recall Carrants of "rrest andFor
Dor Reinvesti/ation.
#+
Petitioners insisted that the- !ere denied due process because of the non'
observance of the proper procedure on preli,inar- investi/ation prescribed in the Rules of Court.
Specificall-, the- clai,ed that the- !ere not afforded the ri/ht to sub,it their counter'affidavit. hen
the- ar/ued that since no such counter'affidavit and supportin/ docu,ents !ere sub,itted b- the
petitioners, the trial 1ud/e ,erel- relied on the co,plaint'affidavit and attach,ents of the respondent in
issuin/ the !arrants of arrest, also in contravention !ith the Rules of Court. Petitioners further pra-ed
that the infor,ation be Auashed for lac? of probable cause. Moreover, one of the accused, i.e., .en
2i,, &r., is not even a director of >rban .an?, contrar- to !hat co,plainant stated. 2astl-, petitioners
posited that the cri,inal cases should have been suspended on the /round that the issue bein/ threshed
out in the civil case is a pre1udicial Auestion.
In an Order
#@
dated #8 Nove,ber #**7, the MCC denied the o,nibus ,otion pri,aril- on the /round
that preli,inar- investi/ation !as not available in the instant case G !hich fell !ithin the 1urisdiction
of the first'level court. he court, li?e!ise, upheld the validit- of the !arrant of arrest, sa-in/ that it
!as issued in accordance !ith the Rules of Court. .esides, the court added, petitioners could no lon/er
Auestion the validit- of the !arrant since the- alread- posted bail. he court also believed that the issue
involved in the civil case !as not a pre1udicial Auestion, and, thus, denied the pra-er for suspension of
the cri,inal proceedin/s. 2astl-, the court !as convinced that the Infor,ations contained all the facts
necessar- to constitute an offense.
Petitioners i,,ediatel- instituted a special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition !ith Pra-er for
Crit of Preli,inar- In1unction and e,porar- Restrainin/ Order 5RO6 before the Court of "ppeals,
ascribin/ /rave abuse of discretion a,ountin/ to lac? or e=cess of 1urisdiction on the part of the MCC
in issuin/ and not recallin/ the !arrants of arrest, reiteratin/ the ar/u,ents in their o,nibus ,otion.
#7
he-, li?e!ise, Auestioned the court<s conclusion that b- postin/ bail, petitioners alread- !aived their
ri/ht to assail the validit- of the !arrants of arrest.
On $% &une $%%%, the Court of "ppeals dis,issed the petition.
#*
hus, petitioners filed the instant
petition for revie! on certiorari under Rule )9 of the Rules of Court, raisin/ the follo!in/ issues:
".
Chere the offense char/ed in a cri,inal co,plaint is not co/ni0able b- the Re/ional rial
Court and not covered b- the Rule on Su,,ar- Procedure, is the findin/ of probable cause
reAuired for the filin/ of an Infor,ation in courtH
If the alle/ations in the co,plaint'affidavit do not establish probable cause, should not the
investi/atin/ prosecutor dis,iss the co,plaint, or at the ver- least, reAuire the respondent
to sub,it his counter'affidavitH
..
Can a co,plaint'affidavit containin/ ,atters !hich are not !ithin the personal ?no!led/e
of the co,plainant be sufficient basis for the findin/ of probable causeH
C.
Chere there is offense char/ed in a cri,inal co,plaint is not co/ni0able b- the Re/ional
rial Court and not covered b- the Rule on Su,,ar- Procedure, and the record of the
preli,inar- investi/ation does not sho! the e=istence of probable cause, should not the
1ud/e refuse to issue a !arrant of arrest and dis,iss the cri,inal case, or at the ver- least,
reAuire the accused to sub,it his counter'affidavit in order to aid the 1ud/e in deter,inin/
the e=istence of probable causeH
D.
Can a cri,inal prosecution be restrainedH
E.
Can this 3onorable Court itself deter,ine the e=istence of probable causeH
$%
On the other hand, respondent contends that the issues raised b- the petitioners had alread- beco,e
,oot and acade,ic !hen the latter posted bail and !ere alread- arrai/ned.
On $ "u/ust $%%%, this Court issued a RO
$#
en1oinin/ the 1ud/e of the MCC fro, proceedin/ in an-
,anner !ith Cri,inal Case Nos. ++78 to ++7+, effective durin/ the entire period that the case is
pendin/ before, or until further orders of, this Court.
Ce !ill first discuss the issue of ,ootness.
he issues raised b- the petitioners have not been ,ooted b- the fact that the- had posted bail and !ere
alread- arrai/ned.
It appears fro, the records that upon the issuance of the !arrant of arrest, petitioners i,,ediatel-
posted bail as the- !anted to avoid e,barrass,ent, bein/ then the officers of >rban .an?. On the
scheduled date for the arrai/n,ent, despite the petitioners< refusal to enter a plea, the court a Auo
entered a plea of INot (uilt-I for the,.
he erst!hile rulin/ of this Court !as that postin/ of bail constitutes a !aiver of an- irre/ularit- in the
issuance of a !arrant of arrest, that has alread- been superseded b- Section $+, Rule ##) of the Revised
Rule of Cri,inal Procedure. he principle that the accused is precluded fro, Auestionin/ the le/alit-
of the arrest after arrai/n,ent is true onl- if he voluntaril- enters his plea and participates durin/ trial,
!ithout previousl- invo?in/ his ob1ections thereto.
$$

"s held in O?abe v. 3on. (utierre0:
$8
It bears stressin/ that Section $+, Rule ##) of the Revised Rules on Cri,inal Procedure is a ne! one,
intended to ,odif- previous rulin/s of this Court that an application for bail or the ad,ission to bail b-
the accused shall be considered as a !aiver of his ri/ht to assail the !arrant issued for his arrest on the
le/alities or irre/ularities thereon. he ne! rule has reverted to the rulin/ of this Court in People v.
Red. he ne! rule is curative in nature because precisel-, it !as desi/ned to suppl- defects and curb
evils in procedural rules. 3ence, the rules /overnin/ curative statutes are applicable. Curative statutes
are b- their essence retroactive in application. .esides, procedural rules as a /eneral rule operate
retroactivel-, even !ithout e=press provisions to that effect, to cases pendin/ at the ti,e of their
effectivit-, in other !ords to actions -et undeter,ined at the ti,e of their effectivit-. .efore the
appellate court rendered its decision on &anuar- 8#, $%%#, the Revised Rules on Cri,inal Procedure
!as alread- in effect. It behoved the appellate court to have applied the sa,e in resolvin/ the
petitioner<s petition for certiorari and her ,otion for partial reconsideration.1avvphi1
Moreover, considerin/ the conduct of the petitioner after postin/ her personal bail bond, it cannot be
ar/ued that she !aived her ri/ht to Auestion the findin/ of probable cause and to assail the !arrant of
arrest issued a/ainst her b- the respondent 1ud/e. here ,ust be clear and convincin/ proof that the
petitioner had an actual intention to relinAuish her ri/ht to Auestion the e=istence of probable cause.
Chen the onl- proof of intention rests on !hat a part- does, his act should be so ,anifestl- consistent
!ith, and indicative of, an intent to voluntaril- and uneAuivocall- relinAuish the particular ri/ht that no
other e=planation of his conduct is possible. = = =.
3erein petitioners filed the O,nibus Motion to Euash, Recall Carrants of "rrest andFor Dor
Reinvesti/ation on the sa,e da- that the- posted bail. heir bail bonds li?e!ise e=pressl- contained a
stipulation that the- !ere not !aivin/ their ri/ht to Auestion the validit- of their arrest.
$)
On the date of
their arrai/n,ent, petitioners refused to enter their plea due to the fact that the issue on the le/alit- of
their arrest is still pendin/ !ith the Court. hus, !hen the court a Auo entered a plea of not /uilt- for
the,, there !as no valid !aiver of their ri/ht to preclude the, fro, raisin/ the sa,e !ith the Court of
"ppeals or this Court. he postin/ of bail bond !as a ,atter of i,perative necessit- to avert their
incarcerationB it should not be dee,ed as a !aiver of their ri/ht to assail their arrest. he rulin/ to
!hich !e have returned in People v. Red
$9
stated:
= = = he present defendants !ere arrested to!ards the end of &anuar-, #*$*, on the Island and
Province of MarinduAue b- order of the 1ud/e of the Court of Dirst Instance of 2ucena, a-abas, at a
ti,e !hen there !ere no court sessions bein/ held in MarinduAue. In vie! of these circu,stances and
the nu,ber of the accused, it ,a- properl- be held that the furnishin/ of the bond !as pro,pted b- the
sheer necessit- of not re,ainin/ in detention, and in no !a- i,plied their !aiver of an- ri/ht, such as
the su,,ar- e=a,ination of the case before their detention. hat the- had no intention of !aivin/ this
ri/ht is clear fro, their ,otion of &anuar- $8, #*$*, the sa,e da- on !hich the- furnished a bond, and
the fact that the- rene!ed this petition on Debruar- $8, #*$*, pra-in/ for the sta- of their arrest for lac?
of the su,,ar- e=a,inationB the first ,otion bein/ denied b- the court on &anuar- $), #*$* 5(.R. No.
88@%7, pa/e 76, and the second re,ainin/ undecided, but !ith an order to have it presented in .oac,
MarinduAue.
herefore, the defendants herein cannot be said to have !aived the ri/ht /ranted to the, b- section #8,
(eneral Order No. 97, as a,ended b- "ct No. 8%)$.
he rest of the issues raised b- the petitioners ,a- be /rouped into t!o, !hich are: 5#6 the procedural
aspect, i.e., !hether the prosecution and the court a Auo properl- observed the reAuired procedure in the
instant case, and, 5$6 the substantive aspect, !hich is !hether there !as probable cause to pursue the
cri,inal cases to trial.
he procedural aspect:
Petitioners contend that the- !ere denied due process as the- !ere unable to sub,it their counter'
affidavits and !ere not accorded the ri/ht to a preli,inar- investi/ation. Considerin/ that the
co,plaint of "tt-. Pe;a !as filed in Septe,ber #**7, the rule then applicable !as the #*79 Rules of
Cri,inal Procedure.
he provisions of the #*79 Rules of Cri,inal Procedure relevant to the issue are Sections #, 85a6 and
*5a6 of Rule ##$, to !it:
Section #. Definition. Preli,inar- investi/ation is an inAuir- or proceedin/ for the purpose
of deter,inin/ !hether there is sufficient /round to en/ender a !ell founded belief that a
cri,e co/ni0able b- the Re/ional rial Court has been co,,itted and that the respondent is
probabl- /uilt- thereof, and should be held for trial.
Sec. 8. Procedure. E=cept as provided for in Section @ hereof, no co,plaint or infor,ation
for an offense co/ni0able b- the Re/ional rial Court shall be filed !ithout a preli,inar-
investi/ation havin/ been first conducted in the follo!in/ ,anner:
5a6 he co,plaint shall state the ?no!n address of the respondent and be
acco,panied b- affidavits of the co,plainant and his !itnesses as !ell as other
supportin/ docu,ents, in such nu,ber of copies as there are respondents, plus t!o
5$6 copies for the official file. he said affidavits shall be s!orn to before an- fiscal,
state prosecutor or /overn,ent official authori0ed to ad,inister oath, or, in their
absence or unavailabilit-, a notar- public, !ho ,ust certif- that he personall-
e=a,ined the affiants and that he is satisfied that the- voluntaril- e=ecuted and
understood their affidavits.
Sec. *. Cases not fallin/ under the ori/inal 1urisdiction of the Re/ional rial Courts nor
covered b- the Rule on Su,,ar- Procedure.
5a6 Chere filed !ith the fiscal.J If the co,plaint is filed directl- !ith the fiscal or
state prosecutor, the procedure outlined in Section 85a6 of this Rule shall be
observed. he fiscal shall ta?e appropriate action based on the affidavits and other
supportin/ docu,ents sub,itted b- the co,plainant. 5underscorin/ supplied6
he cri,e to !hich petitioners !ere char/ed !as defined and penali0ed under second para/raph of
"rticle #@$ in relation to "rticle #@# of the Revised Penal Code.
"rt. #@$. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. J he penalt- of prision
correccional in its ,ediu, and ,a=i,u, periods and a fine of not ,ore than P9,%%% pesos shall be
i,posed upon:
#. "n- private individual !ho shall co,,it an- of the falsifications enu,erated in the ne=t
precedin/ article in an- public or official docu,ent or letter of e=chan/e or an- other ?ind of
co,,ercial docu,entB and
$. "n- person !ho, to the da,a/e of a third part-, or !ith the intent to cause such da,a/e, shall
in an- private docu,ent co,,it an- of the acts of falsification enu,erated in the ne=t
precedin/ article.
"n- person !ho shall ?no!in/l- introduce in evidence in an- 1udicial proceedin/ or to the da,a/e of
another or !ho, !ith the intent to cause such da,a/e, shall use an- of the false docu,ents e,braced in
the ne=t precedin/ article or in an- of the fore/oin/ subdivisions of this article, shall be punished b-
the penalt- ne=t lo!er in de/ree.
Prision correccional in its ,ediu, and ,a=i,u, periods translates to i,prison,ent of $ -ears, )
,onths and # da-.
$+
he ne=t lo!er in de/ree to prision correccional is arresto ,a-or in its ,a=i,u,
period to prision correccional in its ,ini,u, period !hich translates to ) ,onths and # da- to $ -ears
and ) ,onths
$@
of i,prison,ent. Since the cri,e co,,itted is not covered b- the Rules of Su,,ar-
Procedure,
$7
the case falls !ithin the e=clusive 1urisdiction of the first level courts but appl-in/ the
ordinar- rules. In such instance, preli,inar- investi/ation as defined in Section #, Rule ##$ of the #*79
Rules of Cri,inal Procedure is not applicable since such section covers onl- cri,es co/ni0able b- the
RC. hat !hich is stated in Section *5a6 is the applicable rule.
>nder this Rule, !hile probable cause should first be deter,ined before an infor,ation ,a- be filed in
court, the prosecutor is not ,andated to reAuire the respondent to sub,it his counter'affidavits to
oppose the co,plaint. In the deter,ination of probable cause, the prosecutor ,a- solel- rel- on the
co,plaint, affidavits and other supportin/ docu,ents sub,itted b- the co,plainant. If he does not find
probable cause, the prosecutor ,a- dis,iss outri/ht the co,plaint or if he finds probable cause or
sufficient reason to proceed !ith the case, he shall issue a resolution and file the correspondin/
infor,ation.
he co,plaint of respondent, verbati,, is as follo!s:
COMP2"IN G "DDID"VI
I, M"(D"2ENO M. PEK", Dilipino, of le/al a/e, !ith address at .r/-. >ba-,
Pulupandan, Ne/ros Occidental, after havin/ been s!orn in accordance !ith la! hereb-
depose and state:
#. I a, the Plaintiff in Civil Case No. @9) pendin/ !ith the Re/ional rial Court of .a/o
Cit- entitled I"tt-. Ma/daleno M. Pe;a v. >rban .an?, et alI I,pleaded therein as
defendants of the board of the ban?, na,el-, eodoro .orlon/an, Delfin (on0ales, &r.,
.en1a,in De 2eon, P. Siervo Di0on, Eric 2ee, .en 2i, &r., Cora0on .e1asa and "rturo
Manuel.5underlinin/ ours6
$. I filed the said case to collect ,- fees as a/ent of >rban .an?, Inc.5hereinafter referred
to as the Iban?I6 in riddin/ a certain parcel of land in Pasa- Cit- of sAuatters and intruders.
" certified true cop- of the Co,plaint in the said case is hereto attached as "nne= I"I.
8. In the Motion to Dis,iss dated #$ March #**+ 5a certified true cop- of !hich is attached
as "nne= I.I6, "ns!er dated $7 October #**+ 5"nne= ICI6, and Pre'rial .rief dated $7
&anuar- #**@ 5"nne= IDI6 filed b- the ban? and the respondent ,e,bers of the board, the
said respondents used as evidence the follo!in/ docu,ents:
a. 2etter dated #* Dece,ber #**) supposedl- si/ned b- a certain 3er,an Ponce and &ulie
"bad for Isabela Su/ar Co,pan- 5ISC6 5a cop- of !hich is attached as "nne= IEI6, !hich
states:
Dece,ber #*, #**)
>rban .an?
>rban "venue, Ma?ati
Metro Manila
(entle,en:
his has reference to -our propert- located a,on/ Ro=as .oulevard, Pasa-
Cit- !hich -ou purchased fro, Isabela Su/ar Co,pan- under a Deed of
"bsolute Sale e=ecuted on Dece,ber #, #**).
In line !ith our !arranties as the Seller of the said propert- and our
underta?in/ to deliver to -ou the full and actual possession and control of said
propert-, free fro, tenants, occupants or sAuatters and fro, an- obstruction or
i,pedi,ent to the free use and occupanc- of the propert- and to prevent the
for,er tenants or occupants fro, enterin/ or returnin/ to the pre,ises. In vie!
of the transfer of o!nership of the propert- to >rban .an?, it ,a- be necessar-
for >rban .an? to appoint "tt-. Pe;a li?e!ise as its authori0ed representative
for purposes of holdin/F,aintainin/ continued possession of the said propert-
and to represent >rban .an? in an- court action that ,a- be instituted for the
above,entioned purposes.
It is understood that an- attorne-<s fees, cost of liti/ation and an- other char/es
or e=penses that ,a- be incurred relative to the e=ercise b- "tt-. Pe;a of his
above,entioned duties shall be for the account of Isabela Su/ar Co,pan- and
an- loss or da,a/e that ,a- be incurred to third parties shall be ans!erable b-
Isabela Su/ar Co,pan-.
Ver- trul- -ours,
Isabela Su/ar Co,pan-
.-:
3ERM"N PONCE
&>2IE "."D
b. Me,orandu, dated @ Dece,ber #**) supposedl- e=ecuted b- a certain Maril-n On/ on
behalf of ISC, a cop- of !hich is hereto attached as anne= IDI, !hich states:
Dece,ber @, #**)
o: "4. COR" .E&"S"
Dro,: M"RI24N (. ON(
RE: IS".E2" S>("R CO., INC.
"tt-. Ma/daleno M. Pe;a, !ho has been assi/ned b- Isabela Su/ar Co,pan-
inc. to ta?e char/e of inspectin/ the tenants !ould li?e to reAuest an authorit-
si,ilar to this fro, the .an? to ne! o!ners. Can -ou please issue so,ethin/
li?e this toda- as he 5unreadable6 this.
b. 2etter dated * Dece,ber #**) supposedl- e=ecuted b- the sa,e Maril-n On/, a cop- of
!hich is hereto attached as "nne= I(I, !hich states:
Dece,ber *, #**)
"tt-. ed .orlon/an
>R."N ."NL OD 3E P3I2IPPINES
M"L"I, MERO M"NI2"
"ttention: Mr. ed .orlon/an
Dear Mr. .orlon/an
I !ould li?e to reAuest for an authorit- fro, >rban .an? per attached
i,,ediatel- G as the tenants are Auestionin/ authorit- of the people !ho are
helpin/ us to ta?e possession of the propert-.
Maril-n On/
c. Me,orandu, dated $% Nove,ber #**), cop- of !hich is attached as anne= I3I, !hich
states:
MEMOR"ND>M
o: "tt-. Ma/adaleno M. Pe;a
Director
Dro,: EnriAue C. Montilla III
President
Date: $% Nove,ber #**)
4ou are hereb- directed to recover and ta?e possession of the propert- of the
corporation situated at Ro=as .oulevard covered b- C No. 987$ of the
Re/istr- of Deeds for Pasa- Cit-, i,,ediatel- upon the e=piration of the
contract of lease over the said propert- on $* Nove,ber #**). Dor this purpose,
-ou are authori0ed to en/a/e the services of securit- /uards to protect the
propert- a/ainst intruders. 4ou ,a- also en/a/e the services of a la!-er in case
there is a need to /o to court to protect the said propert- of the corporation. In
addition, -ou ,a- ta?e !hatever steps or ,easures are necessar- to ensure our
continued possession of the propert-.
ENRIE>E C. MONI22" III
President
). he respondent ,e,ber of the board of the ban? used and introduced the aforestated
docu,ents as evidence in the civil case ?no!in/ that the sa,e are falsified. he- used thae
said docu,ents to 1ustif- their refusal to pa- ,- a/ent<s fees, to ,- da,a/e and pre1udice.
9. he #* Dece,ber #**) letter 5"nne= MEI6 is a falsified docu,ent, in that the person !ho
supposedl- e=ecuted the letter on behalf of ISC, a certain 3er,an Ponce and &ulie "bad did
not actuall- affi= their si/natures on the docu,ent. he e=ecution of the letter !as ,erel-
si,ulated b- ,a?in/ it appear that Ponce and "bad e=ecuted the letter on behalf of ISC
!hen the- did not in fact do so.
+. No persons b- the na,e of 3er,an Ponce and &ulie "bad !ere ever stoc?holders,
officers, e,plo-ees or representatives of ISC. In the letter, 3er,an Ponce !as represented
to be the President of ISC and &ulie "bad, the Corporate Secretar-. 3o!ever, as of #*
Dece,ber #**), the real President of plaintiff !as EnriAue Montilla, III and Cristina
Montilla !as the Corporate Secretar-. " cop- of the Minutes of the Re/ular Meetin/ of ISC
for the -ear #**), durin/ !hich Montilla, et al. Cere elected is hereto attached as "nne=
III. On the otherhand, a list of the stoc?holders of ISC on or about the ti,e of the
transaction is attached as "nne= I&I.
@. he sa,e holds true !ith respect to the Me,orandu, dated @ Dece,ber #**) and athe
letter dated * Dece,ber #**) alle/edl- !ritten b- a ceratin Maril-n On/. Nobod- b- the
said na,e !as ever a stoc?holder of ISC.
7. 2astl-, !ith respect to the supposed Me,orandu, issued b- EnriAue Montilla, III his
si/nature thereon !as ,erel- for/ed b- respondents. EnriAue Montilla III, did not affi= his
si/nature on an- such docu,ent.
*. I a, e=ecutin/ this affidavit for the purpose of char/in/ eodoro C. .orlon/an, Cora0on
M. .e1asa and "rturo E. Manuel, Delfin C. (on0ales &r., .en1a,in 2. De 2eon, P. Siervo
3. Di0on and Eric 2ee, !ith the cri,e of use of falsified docu,ents under "rtilce #@$,
para/raph $, of the Revised Penal Code.5underlinin/ ours6
#%. I a, li?e!ise e=ecutin/ this affidavit for !hatever le/al purpose it ,a- serve.
D>R3ER "DDI"N S"4E3 N">(3.
S/d. M"(D"2ENO M. PEK"
It is evident that in the affidavit'co,plaint, specificall- in para/raph #, respondent ,erel- introduced
and identified Ithe board of the ban?, na,el-, eodoro .orlon/an, &r., Delfin (on0ales, &r., .en1a,in
De 2eon, P. Siervo Di0on, Eric 2ee, .en 2i,, &r., Cora0on .e1asa and "rturo Manuel, Sr.I 3o!ever, in
the accusator- portion of the co,plaint !hich is para/raph nu,ber *, Mr. .en 2i,, &r. !as not
included a,on/ those char/ed !ith the cri,e of use of falsified docu,ents under "rticle #@$,
para/raph $, of the Revised Penal Code. he o,ission indicates that respondent did not intend to
cri,inall- i,plicate Mr. .en 2i,, &r., even as he !as ac?no!led/ed to be a ,e,ber of the board. "nd
there !as no e=planation in the Resolution and Infor,ation b- the Cit- Prosecutor !h- Mr. .en 2i,,
&r. !as included. Moreover, as can be /leaned fro, the bod- of the co,plaint and the specific
aver,ents therein, Mr. .en 2i,, &r. !as never ,entioned.
he Cit- Prosecutor should have cautiousl- revie!ed the co,plaint to deter,ine !hether there !ere
inconsistencies !hich ou/ht to have been brou/ht to the attention of the respondent or, on his o!n,
considered for due evaluation. It is a bi/ ,ista?e to brin/ a ,an to trial for a cri,e he did not co,,it.
Prosecutors are endo!ed !ith a,ple po!ers in order that the- ,a- properl- fulfill their assi/ned role
in the ad,inistration of 1ustice. It should be reali0ed, ho!ever, that !hen a ,an is hailed to court on a
cri,inal char/e, it brin/s in its !a?e proble,s not onl- for the accused but for his fa,il- as !ell.
herefore, it behooves a prosecutor to weigh the evidence carefully and to deliberate thereon to
determine the existence of a prima facie case before filing the information in court. Anything less
would be a dereliction of duty.
$*
"tt-. Pe;a, in his Second Manifestation
8%
dated #+ &une #***, averred that petitioners, includin/ Mr.
.en 2i,, &r., !ere alread- estopped fro, raisin/ the fact that Mr. .en 2i,, &r. !as not a ,e,ber of the
board of directors of >rban .an?, as the latter participated and appeared throu/h counsel in Civil Case
No. @9) !ithout raisin/ an- opposition. 3o!ever, this does not detract fro, the fact that the Cit-
Prosecutor, as previousl- discussed, did not carefull- scrutini0e the co,plaint of "tt-. Pe;a, !hich did
not char/e Mr. .en 2i,, &r. of an- cri,e.
Chat tainted the procedure further !as that the &ud/e issued a !arrant for the arrest of the petitioners,
includin/, Mr. .en 2i,, &r. despite the filin/ of the O,nibus Motion to Euash, Recall Carrants of
"rrest andFor Dor Reinvesti/ation raisin/ a,on/ others the issue that Mr. .en 2i,, &r., !as not even a
,e,ber of the board of directors. Cith the filin/ of the ,otion, the 1ud/e is put on alert that an
innocent person ,a- have been included in the co,plaint. In the Order
8#
dated #8 Nove,ber #**7, in
den-in/ the ,otion to Auash, &ud/e Pri,itivo .lanca ruled that:
Courts in resolvin/ a ,otion to Auash cannot consider facts contrar- to those alle/ed in the infor,ation
or !hich do not appear on the face of the infor,ation because said ,otion is h-pothethical ad,ission
of the facts alle/ed in the infor,ation = = =. 5citations o,itted.6
Ce cannot accept as ,ere oversi/ht the ,ista?e of respondent 1ud/e since it !as at the e=pense of
libert-. his cannot be condoned.
In the issuance of a !arrant of arrest, the ,andate of the Constitution is for the 1ud/e to personall-
deter,ine the e=istence of probable cause:
Section $, "rticle III of the Constitution provides:
Section $. he ri/ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects a/ainst
unreasonable searches and sei0ures of !hatever nature and for an- purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search !arrant or !arrant of arrest shall issue e=cept upon probable cause to be deter,ined personall-
b- the 1ud/e after e=a,ination under oath or affir,ation of the co,plainant and the !itnesses he ,a-
produce, and particularl- describin/ the place to be searched and the persons or thin/s to be sei0ed.
Corollar- thereto, Section *5b6 of the #*79 Rules of Cri,inal Procedure provides:
Sec. 9. Cases not falling under the original jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts nor covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
(a) x x x.
(b) here filed directly !ith the "unici#al Trial Court. $ %f the
com#laint or information is filed directly !ith the "unici#al Trial
Court& the #rocedure #rovided for in Section '(a) of this Rule shall
li(e!ise be observed. %f the judge finds no sufficient ground to hold
the res#ondent for trial& he shall dismiss the com#laint or
information. )ther!ise& he shall issue a !arrant of arrest after
#ersonally examining in !riting and under oath the com#lainant and
his !itnesses in the form of searching *uestions and ans!ers.
Enshrined in our Constitution is the rule that INnOo = = = !arrant of arrest shall issue e=cept upon
probable cause to be deter,ined personall- b- the 1ud/e after e=a,ination under oath or affir,ation of
the co,plainant and the !itnesses he ,a- produce, and particularl- describin/ = = = the persons = = =
to be sei0ed.I
8$
Interpretin/ the !ords Ipersonal deter,ination,I !e said in Soliven v. Ma?asiar
88
that
it does not thereb- ,ean that 1ud/es are obli/ed to conduct the personal e=a,ination of the
co,plainant and his !itnesses the,selves. o reAuire thus !ould be to undul- laden the, !ith
preli,inar- e=a,inations and investi/ations of cri,inal co,plaints instead of concentratin/ on hearin/
and decidin/ cases filed before the,. Rather, !hat is e,phasi0ed ,erel- is the e=clusive and personal
responsibilit- of the issuin/ 1ud/e to satisf- hi,self as to the e=istence of probable cause. o this end,
he ,a-: 5a6 personall- evaluate the report and the supportin/ docu,ents sub,itted b- the prosecutor
re/ardin/ the e=istence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a !arrant of arrestB or 5b6 if on
the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, disre/ard the prosecutorPs report and reAuire the
sub,ission of supportin/ affidavits of !itnesses to aid hi, in deter,inin/ its e=istence. Chat he is
never allo!ed to do is to follo! blindl- the prosecutorPs bare certification as to the e=istence of
probable cause. Much ,ore is reAuired b- the constitutional provision. &ud/es have to /o over the
report, the affidavits, the transcript of steno/raphic notes if an-, and other docu,ents supportin/ the
prosecutorPs certification. "lthou/h the e=tent of the 1ud/ePs personal e=a,ination depends on the
circu,stances of each case, to be sure, he cannot 1ust rel- on the bare certification alone but ,ust /o
be-ond it. his is because the !arrant of arrest issues not on the stren/th of the certification standin/
alone but because of the records !hich sustain it.
8)
3e should even call for the co,plainant and the
!itnesses to ans!er the courtPs probin/ Auestions !hen the circu,stances !arrant.
89

"n arrest !ithout a probable cause is an unreasonable sei0ure of a person, and violates the privac- of
persons !hich ou/ht not to be intruded b- the State.
8+
Measured a/ainst the constitutional ,andate and established rulin/s, there !as here a clear abdication
of the 1udicial function and a clear indication that the 1ud/e blindl- follo!ed the certification of a cit-
prosecutor as to the e=istence of probable cause for the issuance of a !arrant of arrest !ith respect to
all of the petitioners. he careless inclusion of Mr. .en 2i,, &r., in the !arrant of arrest /ives flesh to
the bone of contention of petitioners that the instant case is a ,atter of persecution rather than
prosecution.
8@
On this /round, this Court ,a- en1oin the cri,inal cases a/ainst petitioners. "s a
/eneral rule, cri,inal prosecutions cannot be en1oined. 3o!ever, there are reco/ni0ed e=ceptions
!hich, as su,,ari0ed in Brocka v. nrile,
87
are:
a. o afford adeAuate protection to the constitutional ri/hts of the accusedB
8*
b. Chen necessar- for the orderl- ad,inistration of 1ustice or to avoid oppression or
,ultiplicit- of actionsB
)%
c. Chen there is a pre1udicial Auestion !hich is sub !udiceB
)#
d. Chen the acts of the officer are !ithout or in e=cess of authorit-B
)$
e. Chere the prosecution is under an invalid la!, ordinance or re/ulationB
)8
f. Chen double 1eopard- is clearl- apparentB
))
/. Chere the court had no 1urisdiction over the offenseB
)9
h. Chere it is a case of persecution rather than prosecutionB
)+
i. Chere the char/es are ,anifestl- false and ,otivated b- the lust for ven/eanceB
)@
and
1. Chen there is clearl- no prima facie case a/ainst the accused and a ,otion to Auash on that
/round has been denied.
)7

T/+ ()4(-a#-,5+ a(1+0-6
Petitioners !ere char/ed !ith violation of par. $, "rticle #@$ of the Revised Penal Code or Introduction
of Dalsified Docu,ent in a 1udicial proceedin/. he ele,ents of the offense are as follo!s:
#. hat the offender ?ne! that a docu,ent !as falsified b- another person.
$. hat the false docu,ent is e,braced in "rticle #@# or in an- subdivisions Nos. # or $ of
"rticle #@$.
8. hat he introduced said docu,ent in evidence in an- 1udicial proceedin/.
)*

he falsit- of the docu,ent and the defendants< ?no!led/e of its falsit- are essential ele,ents of the
offense. he Office of the Cit- Prosecutor filed the Infor,ations a/ainst the petitioners on the basis of
the Co,plaint'"ffidavit of respondent "tt-. Pe;a, attached to !hich !ere the docu,ents contained in
the Motion to Dis,iss filed b- the petitioners in Civil Case No. @9). "lso included as attach,ents to
the co,plaint !ere the "ns!ers, Pre'rial .rief, the alle/ed falsified docu,ents, cop- of the re/ular
,eetin/s of ISCI durin/ the election of the .oard of Directors and the list of ISCI Stoc?holders.
9%
.ased on these docu,ents and the co,plaint'affidavit of "tt-. Pe;a, the Cit- Prosecutor concluded that
probable cause for the prosecution of the char/es e=isted. On the stren/th of the sa,e docu,ents, the
trial court issued the !arrants of arrest.
his Court, ho!ever, cannot find these docu,ents sufficient to support the e=istence of probable cause.
Probable cause is such set of facts and circu,stances as !ould lead a reasonabl- discreet and prudent
,an to believe that the offense char/ed in the Infor,ation or an- offense included therein has been
co,,itted b- the person sou/ht to be arrested. In deter,inin/ probable cause, the avera/e ,an !ei/hs
the facts and circu,stances !ithout restorin/ to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of !hich he
has no technical ?no!led/e. 3e relies on co,,on sense. " findin/ of probable cause needs onl- to rest
on evidence sho!in/ that, ,ore li?el- than not, a cri,e has been co,,itted and that it !as co,,itted
b- the accused. Probable cause de,ands ,ore than suspicionB it reAuires less than evidence that !ould
1ustif- conviction.
9#

"s enunciated in .alta0ar v. People,
9$
the tas? of the presidin/ 1ud/e !hen the Infor,ation is filed !ith
the court is first and fore,ost to deter,ine the e=istence or non'e=istence of probable cause for the
arrest of the accused.
he purpose of the ,andate of the 1ud/e to first deter,ine probable cause for the arrest of the accused
is to insulate fro, the ver- start those falsel- char/ed !ith cri,es fro, the tribulations, e=penses and
an=iet- of a public trial.
98

Ce do not see ho! it can be concluded that the docu,ents ,entioned b- respondent in his co,plaint'
affidavit !ere falsified. In his co,plaint, "tt-. Pe;a stated that 3er,an Ponce, &ulie "bad and Maril-n
On/, the alle/ed si/natories of the Auestioned letters, did not actuall- affi= their si/natures thereinB and
that the- !ere not actuall- officers or stoc?holders of ISCI.
9)
3e further clai,ed that EnriAue
Montilla<s si/nature appearin/ in another ,e,orandu, addressed to respondent !as for/ed.
99
hese
aver,ents are ,ere assertions !hich are insufficient to !arrant the filin/ of the co,plaint or !orse the
issuance of !arrants of arrest. hese aver,ents cannot be considered as proceedin/ fro, the personal
?no!led/e of herein respondent !ho failed to, basicall-, alle/e that he !as present at the ti,e of the
e=ecution of the docu,ents. Neither !as there an- ,ention in the co,plaint'affidavit that herein
respondent !as fa,iliar !ith the si/natures of the ,entioned si/natories to be able to conclude that
the- !ere for/ed. Chat "tt-. Pe;a actuall- stated !ere but s!eepin/ assertions that the si/natories are
,ere du,,ies of ISCI and that the- are not in fact officers, stoc?holders or representatives of the
corporation. "/ain, there is no indication that the assertion !as based on the personal ?no!led/e of the
affiant.
he reason for the reAuire,ent that affidavits ,ust be based on personal ?no!led/e is to /uard a/ainst
hearsa- evidence. " !itness, therefore, ,a- not testif- as !hat he ,erel- learned fro, others either
because he !as told or read or heard the sa,e. Such testi,on- is considered hearsa- and ,a- not be
received as proof of the truth of !hat he has learned.
9+
3earsa- is not li,ited to oral testi,on- or
state,entsB the /eneral rule that e=cludes hearsa- as evidence applies to !ritten, as !ell as oral
state,ents.
9@
he reAuire,ent of personal ?no!led/e should have been strictl- applied considerin/ that herein
petitioners !ere not /iven the opportunit- to rebut the co,plainant<s alle/ation throu/h counter'
affidavits.
Euite noticeable is the fact that in the letter dated #* Dece,ber #**) of 3er,an Ponce and &ulie "bad,
neither of the t!o ,ade the representation that the- !ere the president or secretar- of ISCI. It !as onl-
"tt-. Pe;a !ho asserted that the t!o ,ade such representation. 3e alle/ed that Maril-n On/ !as never
a stoc?holder of ISCI but he did not present the stoc? and transfer boo? of ISCI. "nd, there !as neither
alle/ation nor proof that Maril-n On/ !as not connected to ISCI in an- other !a-.lawphil Moreover,
even if Maril-n On/ !as not a stoc?holder of ISCI, such !ould not prove that the docu,ents she
si/ned !ere falsified.
he Court ,a- not be co,pelled to pass upon the correctness of the e=ercise of the public prosecutor<s
function !ithout an- sho!in/ of /rave abuse of discretion or ,anifest error in his findin/s.
97
Considerin/, ho!ever, that the prosecution and the court a Auo co,,itted ,anifest errors in their
findin/s of probable cause, this Court therefore annuls their findin/s.
Our pronounce,ent in &i,ene0 v. &i,ene0
9*
as reiterated in .alta0ar v. People is apropos:
It is = = = i,perative upon the fiscal or the 1ud/e as the case ,a- be, to relieve the accused fro, the
pain of /oin/ throu/h a trial once it is ascertained that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a pri,a
facie case or that no probable cause e=ists to for, a sufficient belief as to the /uilt of the accused.
"lthou/h there is no /eneral for,ula or fi=ed rule for the deter,ination of probable cause since the
sa,e ,ust be decided in the li/ht of the conditions obtainin/ in /iven situations and its e=istence
depends to a lar/e de/ree upon the findin/ or opinion of the 1ud/e conductin/ the e=a,ination, such a
findin/ should not disre/ard the facts before the 1ud/e nor run counter to the clear dictates of reasons.
he 1ud/e or fiscal, therefore, should not /o on !ith the prosecution in the hope that so,e credible
evidence ,i/ht later turn up durin/ trial for this !ould be a fla/rant violation of a basic ri/ht !hich the
courts are created to uphold. It bears repeatin/ that the 1udiciar- lives up to its ,ission b- visuali0in/
and not deni/ratin/ constitutional ri/hts. So it has been before. It should continue to be so.
On the fore/oin/ discussion, !e find that the Court of "ppeals erred in affir,in/ the findin/s of the
prosecutor as !ell as the court a Auo as to the e=istence of probable cause. he cri,inal co,plaint
a/ainst the petitioners should be dis,issed.
7!ERE"ORE, the petition is hereb- GRANTED. he Decision of the Court of "ppeals dated $%
&une $%%%, in C"'(.R. SP No. )*+++, is REERSED and SET ASIDE. he e,porar- Restrainin/
Order dated $ "u/ust $%%% is hereb- ,ade per,anent. "ccordin/l-, the Municipal rial Court in
Cities, Ne/ros Occidental, .a/o Cit-, is hereb- DIRECTED to DISMISS Cri,inal Case Nos. ++78,
++7), ++79 and ++7+.
SO ORDERED.