TEODORO C.

BORLONGAN,
JR., CORAZON M. BEJASA,
- versus -
MAGDALENO M. PEA
G.R. No. 143591



PEREZ, J.:

The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the Court of
Appeals, in its Decision
[1]
dated 20 June 2000 in CA-G! "# $o %&''',
is correct when it dis(issed the petition for certiorarifiled )* petitioners
Teodoro C +orlon,an, Jr, Cora-on . +e/asa, Arturo 0 .anuel, Jr,
+en/a(in de 1eon, # "iervo 2 Di-on, Delfin C Gon-ales, Jr, 0ric 1 1ee
and +en 3u 1i(, Jr, and ruled that the .unicipal Trial Court in Cities
4.TCC5, +a,o Cit*, did not ,ravel* a)use its discretion in den*in, the
(otion for reinvesti,ation and recall of the warrants of arrest in Cri(inal
Case $os ''67, ''6%, ''68, and ''6'

The factual antecedents of the case are as follows9

!espondent Att* .a,daleno . #e:a 4Att* #e:a5 instituted a civil
case for recover* of a,ent;s co(pensation and e<penses, da(a,es, and
attorne*;s fees
[2]
a,ainst =r)an +an> and herein petitioners, )efore the
!e,ional Trial Court 4!TC5 of $e,ros ?ccidental, +a,o Cit* The case was
raffled to +ranch '2 and was doc>eted as Civil Case $o @8% Att* #e:a
anchored his clai( for co(pensation on the Contract of A,enc*
[7]
alle,edl*
entered into with the petitioners, wherein the for(er undertoo> to perfor(
such acts necessar* to prevent an* intruder and sAuatter fro( unlawfull*
occup*in, =r)an +an>;s propert* located alon, !o<as
+oulevard, #asa* Cit* #etitioners filed a .otion to Dis(iss
[%]
ar,uin, that
the* never appointed the respondent as a,ent or counsel Attached to the
(otion were the followin, docu(ents9 15 a 1etter
[8]
dated 1& Dece()er
1&&% si,ned )* 2er(an #once and Julie A)ad on )ehalf of Bsa)ela "u,ar
Co(pan*, Bnc 4B"CB5, the ori,inal owner of the su)/ect propert*C 25 an
unsi,ned 1etter
[']
dated @ Dece()er 1&&% addressed to Cora-on +e/asa
fro( .aril*n G ?n,C 75 a 1etter
[@]
dated & Dece()er 1&&% addressed to
Teodoro +orlon,an, Jr and si,ned )* .aril*n G ?n,C and %5 a
.e(orandu(
[6]
dated 20 $ove()er 1&&% fro( 0nriAue .ontilla BBB "aid
docu(ents were presented in an atte(pt to show that the respondent was
appointed as a,ent )* B"CB and not )* =r)an +an> or )* the petitioners

Bn view of the introduction of the a)ove-(entioned docu(ents,
Att* #e:a filed his Co(plaint-Affidavit
[&]
with the ?ffice of the Cit*
#rosecutor, +a,o Cit*
[10]
2e clai(ed that said docu(ents were falsified
)ecause the alle,ed si,natories did not actuall* affi< their si,natures, and
the si,natories were neither stoc>holders nor officers and e(plo*ees of
B"CB
[11]
Dorse, petitioners introduced said docu(ents as evidence )efore
the !TC >nowin, that the* were falsified

Bn a !esolution
[12]
dated 2% "epte()er 1&&6, the Cit* #rosecutor
found pro)a)le cause for the indict(ent of petitioners for four 4%5 counts of
the cri(e of Bntroducin, Ealsified Docu(ents, penali-ed )* the second
para,raph of Article 1@2 of the !evised #enal Code The Cit* #rosecutor
concluded that the docu(ents were falsified )ecause the alle,ed si,natories
untruthfull* stated that B"CB was the principal of the respondentC that
petitioners >new that the docu(ents were falsified considerin, that the
si,natories were (ere du((iesC and that the docu(ents for(ed part of the
record of Civil Case $o @8% where the* were used )* petitioners as
evidence in support of their (otion to dis(iss, and then adopted in their
answer and in their #re-Trial +rief
[17]
"u)seAuentl*, the correspondin,
Bnfor(ations
[1%]
were filed with the .TCC, +a,o Cit* The cases were
doc>eted as Cri(inal Case $os ''67, ''6%, ''68, and ''6' Thereafter,
Jud,e #ri(itivo +lanca issued the warrants
[18]
for the arrest of the
petitioners

?n 1 ?cto)er 1&&6, petitioners filed an ?(ni)us .otion to Fuash,
!ecall Darrants of Arrest andGor Eor !einvesti,ation
[1']
#etitioners insisted
that the* were denied due process )ecause of the non-o)servance of the
proper procedure on preli(inar* investi,ation prescri)ed in the !ules of
Court "pecificall*, the* clai(ed that the* were not afforded the ri,ht to
su)(it their counter-affidavit Then the* ar,ued that since no such counter-
affidavit and supportin, docu(ents were su)(itted )* the petitioners, the
trial /ud,e (erel* relied on the co(plaint-affidavit and attach(ents of the
respondent in issuin, the warrants of arrest, also in contravention with
the !ules of Court #etitioners further pra*ed that the infor(ation )e
Auashed for lac> of pro)a)le cause .oreover, one of the accused, i.e., +en
1i(, Jr, is not even a director of =r)an +an>, contrar* to what co(plainant
stated 1astl*, petitioners posited that the cri(inal cases should have )een
suspended on the ,round that the issue )ein, threshed out in the civil case is
a pre/udicial Auestion

Bn an ?rder
[1@]
dated 17 $ove()er 1&&6, the .TCC denied the
o(ni)us (otion pri(aril* on the ,round that preli(inar* investi,ation was
not availa)le in the instant case H which fell within the /urisdiction of the
first-level court The court, li>ewise, upheld the validit* of the warrant of
arrest, sa*in, that it was issued in accordance with the !ules of Court
+esides, the court added, petitioners could no lon,er Auestion the validit* of
the warrant since the* alread* posted )ail The court also )elieved that the
issue involved in the civil case was not a pre/udicial Auestion, and, thus,
denied the pra*er for suspension of the cri(inal proceedin,s 1astl*, the
court was convinced that the Bnfor(ations contained all the facts necessar*
to constitute an offense

#etitioners i((ediatel* instituted a special civil action
for Certiorari and #rohi)ition with #ra*er for Drit of #reli(inar*
Bn/unction and Te(porar* !estrainin, ?rder 4T!?5 )efore the Court of
Appeals, ascri)in, ,rave a)use of discretion a(ountin, to lac> or e<cess of
/urisdiction on the part of the .TCC in issuin, and not recallin, the
warrants of arrest, reiteratin, the ar,u(ents in their o(ni)us (otion
[16]
The*, li>ewise, Auestioned the court;s conclusion that )* postin, )ail,
petitioners alread* waived their ri,ht to assail the validit* of the warrants of
arrest

?n 20 June 2000, the Court of Appeals dis(issed the petition
[1&]
Thus, petitioners filed the instant petition for review on certiorari under
!ule %8 of the !ules of Court, raisin, the followin, issues9

A Dhere the offense char,ed in a cri(inal co(plaint is not
co,ni-a)le )* the !e,ional Trial Court and not covered )* the
!ule on "u((ar* #rocedure, is the findin, of pro)a)le cause
reAuired for the filin, of an Bnfor(ation in courtI

Bf the alle,ations in the co(plaint-affidavit do
not esta)lish pro)a)le cause, should not the investi,atin,
prosecutor dis(iss the co(plaint, or at the ver* least,
reAuire the respondent to su)(it his counter-affidavitI

+ Can a co(plaint-affidavit containin, (atters which are
not within the personal >nowled,e of the co(plainant )e
sufficient )asis for the findin, of pro)a)le causeI

C Dhere there is offense char,ed in a cri(inal co(plaint
is not co,ni-a)le )* the !e,ional Trial Court and not
covered )* the !ule on "u((ar* #rocedure, and the
record of the preli(inar* investi,ation does not show the
e<istence of pro)a)le cause, should not the /ud,e refuse to
issue a warrant of arrest and dis(iss the cri(inal case, or
at the ver* least, reAuire the accused to su)(it his
counter-affidavit in order to aid the /ud,e in deter(inin,
the e<istence of pro)a)le causeI

D Can a cri(inal prosecution )e restrainedI

0 Can this 2onora)le Court itself deter(ine the e<istence
of pro)a)le causeI
[20]

?n the other hand, respondent contends that the issues raised )*
the petitioners had alread* )eco(e (oot and acade(ic when the latter
posted )ail and were alread* arrai,ned
?n 2 Au,ust 2000, this Court issued a T!?
[21]
en/oinin, the /ud,e
of the .TCC fro( proceedin, in an* (anner with Cri(inal Case $os
''67 to ''6', effective durin, the entire period that the case is pendin,
)efore, or until further orders of, this Court

De will first discuss the issue of (ootness

The issues raised )* the petitioners have not )een (ooted )* the
fact that the* had posted )ail and were alread* arrai,ned

Bt appears fro( the records that upon the issuance of the warrant of
arrest, petitioners i((ediatel* posted )ail as the* wanted to avoid
e()arrass(ent, )ein, then the officers of =r)an +an> ?n the scheduled
date for the arrai,n(ent, despite the petitioners; refusal to enter a plea, the
court a quo entered a plea of J$ot Guilt*K for the(

The erstwhile rulin, of this Court was that postin, of )ail
constitutes a waiver of an* irre,ularit* in the issuance of a warrant of arrest,
that has alread* )een superseded )* "ection 2', !ule 11% of the !evised
!ule of Cri(inal #rocedure The 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, without previousl*
invo>in, his o)/ections thereto
[22]

As held in Okabe v. Hon. Gutierrez9
[27]

Bt )ears stressin, that "ection 2', !ule 11% of the
!evised !ules on Cri(inal #rocedure is a new one,
intended to (odif* previous rulin,s of this Court that an
application for )ail or the ad(ission to )ail )* the accused
shall )e considered as a waiver of his ri,ht to assail the
warrant issued for his arrest on the le,alities or
irre,ularities thereon The new rule has reverted to the
rulin, of this Court in People v. Red The new rule is
curative in nature )ecause precisel*, it was desi,ned to
suppl* defects and cur) evils in procedural rules 2ence,
the rules ,overnin, curative statutes are applica)le
Curative statutes are )* their essence retroactive in
application +esides, procedural rules as a ,eneral rule
operate retroactivel*, even without e<press provisions to
that effect, to cases pendin, at the ti(e of their effectivit*,
in other words to actions *et undeter(ined at the ti(e of
their effectivit* +efore the appellate court rendered its
decision on Januar* 71, 2001, the !evised !ules on
Cri(inal #rocedure was alread* in effect Bt )ehoved the
appellate court to have applied the sa(e in resolvin, the
petitioner;s petition for certiorari and her (otion for
partial reconsideration

.oreover, considerin, the conduct of the
petitioner after postin, her personal )ail )ond, it cannot
)e ar,ued that she waived her ri,ht to Auestion the findin,
of pro)a)le cause and to assail the warrant of arrest issued
a,ainst her )* the respondent /ud,e There (ust )e clear
and convincin, proof that the petitioner had an actual
intention to relinAuish her ri,ht to Auestion the e<istence
of pro)a)le cause Dhen the onl* proof of intention rests
on what a part* does, his act should )e so (anifestl*
consistent with, and indicative of, an intent to voluntaril*
and uneAuivocall* relinAuish the particular ri,ht that no
other e<planation of his conduct is possi)le < < <

2erein petitioners filed the ?(ni)us .otion to Fuash, !ecall
Darrants of Arrest andGor Eor !einvesti,ation on the sa(e da* that the*
posted )ail Their )ail )onds li>ewise e<pressl* contained a stipulation that
the* were not waivin, their ri,ht to Auestion the validit* of their arrest
[2%]
?n 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,
with the Court Thus, when the court a quo entered a plea of not ,uilt* for
the(, there was no valid waiver of their ri,ht to preclude the( fro( raisin,
the sa(e with the Court of Appeals or this Court The postin, of )ail )ond
was a (atter of i(perative necessit* to avert their incarcerationC it should
not )e dee(ed as a waiver of their ri,ht to assail their arrest The rulin, to
which we have returned in People v. Red
[28]
stated9

< < < The present defendants were arrested towards the end of
Januar*, 1&2&, on the Bsland and #rovince of .arinduAue )* order
of the /ud,e of the Court of Eirst Bnstance of 1ucena, Ta*a)as, at a
ti(e when there were no court sessions )ein, held in .arinduAue
Bn view of these circu(stances and the nu()er of the accused, it
(a* properl* )e held that the furnishin, of the )ond was pro(pted
)* the sheer necessit* of not re(ainin, in detention, and in no wa*
i(plied their waiver of an* ri,ht, such as the su((ar*
e<a(ination of the case )efore their detention That the* had no
intention of waivin, this ri,ht is clear fro( their (otion of Januar*
27, 1&2&, the sa(e da* on which the* furnished a )ond, and the
fact that the* renewed this petition on Ee)ruar* 27, 1&2&, pra*in,
for the sta* of their arrest for lac> of the su((ar* e<a(inationC the
first (otion )ein, denied )* the court on Januar* 2%, 1&2& 4G!
$o 77@06, pa,e 65, and the second re(ainin, undecided, )ut with
an order to have it presented in +oac, .arinduAue

Therefore, the defendants herein cannot )e said to have
waived the ri,ht ,ranted to the( )* section 17, General ?rder $o
86, as a(ended )* Act $o 70%2

The rest of the issues raised )* the petitioners (a* )e ,rouped into
two, which are9 415 the procedural aspect, i.e., whether the prosecution and
the court a quo properl* o)served the reAuired procedure in the instant case,
and, 425 the su)stantive aspect, which is whether there was pro)a)le cause
to pursue the cri(inal cases to trial

THE PROCEDURAL ASPECT:

#etitioners contend that the* were denied due process as the* were
una)le to su)(it their counter-affidavits and were not accorded the ri,ht to
a preli(inar* investi,ation Considerin, that the co(plaint of Att* #e:a
was filed in "epte()er 1&&6, the rule then applica)le was the 1&68 !ules of
Cri(inal #rocedure

The provisions of the 1&68 !ules of Cri(inal #rocedure relevant to
the issue are "ections 1, 74a5 and &4a5 of !ule 112, to wit9

"ection 1 Definition #reli(inar* investi,ation
is an inAuir* or proceedin, for the purpose of deter(inin,
whether there is sufficient ,round to en,ender a well
founded )elief that a cri(e co,ni-a)le )* the !e,ional
Trial Court has )een co((itted and that the respondent is
pro)a)l* ,uilt* thereof, and should )e held for trial

"ec 7 #rocedure 0<cept as provided for in
"ection @ hereof, no co(plaint or infor(ation for an
offense co,ni-a)le )* the !e,ional Trial Court shall )e
filed without a preli(inar* investi,ation havin, )een first
conducted in the followin, (anner9

4a5 The co(plaint shall state the >nown address of the
respondent and )e acco(panied )* affidavits of the
co(plainant and his witnesses as well as other supportin,
docu(ents, in such nu()er of copies as there are
respondents, plus two 425 copies for the official file The
said affidavits shall )e sworn to )efore an* fiscal, state
prosecutor or ,overn(ent official authori-ed to
ad(inister oath, or, in their a)sence or unavaila)ilit*, a
notar* pu)lic, who (ust certif* that he personall*
e<a(ined the affiants and that he is satisfied that the*
voluntaril* e<ecuted and understood their affidavits

"ec & Cases not fallin, under the ori,inal
/urisdiction of the !e,ional Trial Courts nor covered )*
the !ule on "u((ar* #rocedure

4a5 Dhere filed with the fiscalL Bf the co(plaint is filed
directl* with the fiscal or state prosecutor, the procedure
outlined in "ection 74a5 of this !ule shall )e o)served
The fiscal shall ta>e appropriate action )ased on the
affidavits and other supportin, docu(ents su)(itted )*
the co(plainant 4underscorin, supplied5


The cri(e to which petitioners were char,ed was defined and
penali-ed under second para,raph of Article 1@2 in relation to Article 1@1
of the !evised #enal Code

Art 1@2 Falsification by private individual and use of
falsified documents. L The penalt* of prision
correccional in its (ediu( and (a<i(u( periods and a
fine of not (ore than #8,000 pesos shall )e i(posed
upon9

1 An* private individual who shall co((it an* of the
falsifications enu(erated in the ne<t precedin, article in
an* pu)lic or official docu(ent or letter of e<chan,e or
an* other >ind of co((ercial docu(entC and

2 An* person who, to the da(a,e of a third part*, or with
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

An* person who shall >nowin,l* introduce in evidence in
an* /udicial proceedin, or to the da(a,e of another or
who, with the intent to cause such da(a,e, shall use an*
of the false docu(ents e()raced in the ne<t precedin,
article or in an* of the fore,oin, su)divisions of this
article, shall )e punished )* the penalt* ne<t lower in
de,ree


Prision correccional in its (ediu( and (a<i(u( periods
translates to i(prison(ent of 2 *ears, % (onths and 1 da*
[2']
The ne<t
lower in de,ree to prision correccional is arresto mayor in its (a<i(u(
period to prision correccional in its (ini(u( period which translates to %
(onths and 1 da* to 2 *ears and % (onths
[2@]
of i(prison(ent "ince the
cri(e co((itted is not covered )* the !ules of "u((ar* #rocedure,
[26]
the
case falls within the e<clusive /urisdiction of the first level courts )ut
appl*in, the ordinar* rules Bn such instance, preli(inar* investi,ation as
defined in "ection 1, !ule 112 of the 1&68 !ules of Cri(inal #rocedure is
not applica)le since such section covers onl* cri(es co,ni-a)le )* the
!TC That which is stated in "ection &4a5 is the applica)le rule

=nder this !ule, while pro)a)le cause should first )e deter(ined
)efore an infor(ation (a* )e filed in court, the prosecutor is not (andated
to reAuire the respondent to su)(it his counter-affidavits to oppose the
co(plaint Bn the deter(ination of pro)a)le cause, the prosecutor (a*
solel* rel* on the co(plaint, affidavits and other supportin, docu(ents
su)(itted )* the co(plainant Bf he does not find pro)a)le cause, the
prosecutor (a* dis(iss outri,ht the co(plaint or if he finds pro)a)le cause
or sufficient reason to proceed with the case, he shall issue a resolution and
file the correspondin, infor(ation

Bt is evident that in the affidavit-co(plaint, specificall* in para,raph
1, respondent (erel* introduced and identified Jthe )oard of the )an>,
na(el*, Teodoro +orlon,an, Jr, Delfin Gon-ales, Jr, +en/a(in De 1eon, #
"iervo Di-on, 0ric 1ee, +en 1i(, Jr, Cora-on +e/asa and Arturo .anuel,
"rK 2owever, in the accusator* portion of the co(plaint which is
para,raph nu()er &, Mr. Be L!", Jr was not included a(on, those
char,ed with the cri(e of use of falsified docu(ents under Article 1@2,
para,raph 2, of the !evised #enal Code The o(ission indicates that
respondent did not intend to cri(inall* i(plicate .r +en 1i(, Jr, even as
he was ac>nowled,ed to )e a (e()er of the )oard And there was no
e<planation in the !esolution and Bnfor(ation )* the Cit* #rosecutor wh*
.r +en 1i(, Jr was included .oreover, as can )e ,leaned fro( the )od*
of the co(plaint and the specific aver(ents therein, .r +en 1i(, Jr was
never (entioned

The Cit* #rosecutor should have cautiousl* reviewed the
co(plaint to deter(ine whether there were inconsistencies which ou,ht to
have )een )rou,ht to the attention of the respondent or, on his own,
considered for due evaluation Bt is a )i, (ista>e to )rin, a (an to trial for
a cri(e he did not co((it

#rosecutors are endowed with a(ple powers in order that the* (a*
properl* fulfill their assi,ned role in the ad(inistration of /ustice Bt should
)e reali-ed, however, that when a (an is hailed to court on a cri(inal
char,e, it )rin,s in its wa>e pro)le(s not onl* for the accused )ut for his
fa(il* as well Therefore, it beooves a prosecutor to !ei" te evidence
carefully and to deliberate tereon to determine te e#istence of a prima
facie case before filin" te information in court. $nytin" less !ould be a
dereliction of duty
[2&]

Att* #e:a, in his "econd .anifestation
[70]
dated 1' June 1&&&,
averred that petitioners, includin, .r +en 1i(, Jr, were
alread* estopped fro( raisin, the fact that .r +en 1i(, Jr was not a
(e()er of the )oard of directors of =r)an +an>, as the latter participated
and appeared throu,h counsel in Civil Case $o @8% without raisin, an*
opposition 2owever, this does not detract fro( the fact that the Cit*
#rosecutor, as previousl* discussed, did not carefull* scrutini-e the
co(plaint of Att* #e:a, which did not char,e .r +en 1i(, Jr of an*
cri(e

Dhat tainted the procedure further was that the Jud,e issued a
warrant for the arrest of the petitioners, includin,, .r +en 1i(, Jr despite
the filin, of the ?(ni)us .otion to Fuash, !ecall Darrants of Arrest andGor
Eor !einvesti,ation raisin, a(on, others the issue that .r +en 1i(, Jr,
was not even a (e()er of the )oard of directors Dith the filin, of the
(otion, the /ud,e is put on alert that an innocent person (a* have )een
included in the co(plaint Bn the ?rder
[71]
dated 17 $ove()er 1&&6, in
den*in, the (otion to Auash, Jud,e #ri(itivo +lanca ruled that9

Courts in resolvin, a (otion to Auash cannot
consider facts contrar* to those alle,ed in the infor(ation
or which do not appear on the face of the infor(ation
)ecause said (otion is h*pothethical ad(ission of the
facts alle,ed in the infor(ation < < < 4citations o(itted5

De cannot accept as (ere oversi,ht the (ista>e of respondent
/ud,e since it was at the e<pense of li)ert* This cannot )e condoned

Bn the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the (andate of the Constitution
is for the /ud,e to personall* deter(ine the e<istence of pro)a)le cause9

"ection 2, Article BBB of the Constitution provides9

"ection 2 The ri,ht of the people to )e secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects a,ainst unreasona)le
searches and sei-ures of whatever nature and for an*
purpose shall )e inviola)le, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue e<cept upon pro)a)le cause to
)e deter(ined personall* )* the /ud,e after e<a(ination
under oath or affir(ation of the co(plainant and the
witnesses he (a* produce, and particularl* descri)in, the
place to )e searched and the persons or thin,s to )e
sei-ed

Corollar* thereto, "ection &4)5 of the 1&68 !ules of Cri(inal
#rocedure provides9

"ec & Cases not fallin, under the ori,inal /urisdiction of
the !e,ional Trial Courts nor covered )* the !ule on
"u((ar* #rocedure

4a5 < < <

4)5 Dhere filed directl* with the .unicipal Trial Court
L Bf the co(plaint or infor(ation is filed directl* with
the .unicipal Trial Court, the procedure provided for in
"ection 74a5 of this !ule shall li>ewise )e o)served Bf the
/ud,e finds no sufficient ,round to hold the respondent for
trial, he shall dis(iss the co(plaint or infor(ation
?therwise, he shall issue a warrant of arrest after
personall* e<a(inin, in writin, and under oath the
co(plainant and his witnesses in the for( of searchin,
Auestions and answers


0nshrined in our Constitution is the rule that J[n]o < < < warrant of
arrest shall issue e<cept upon pro)a)le cause to )e deter(ined personall* )*
the /ud,e after e<a(ination under oath or affir(ation of the co(plainant
and the witnesses he (a* produce, and particularl* descri)in, < < < the
persons < < < to )e sei-edK
[72]
Bnterpretin, the words Jpersonal
deter(ination,K we said in%oliven v. &akasiar
[77]
that it does not there)*
(ean that /ud,es are o)li,ed to conduct the personal e<a(ination of the
co(plainant and his witnesses the(selves To reAuire thus would )e to
undul* laden the( with preli(inar* e<a(inations and investi,ations of
cri(inal co(plaints instead of concentratin, on hearin, and decidin, cases
filed )efore the( !ather, what is e(phasi-ed (erel* is the e<clusive and
personal responsi)ilit* of the issuin, /ud,e to satisf* hi(self as to the
e<istence of pro)a)le cause To this end, he (a*9 4a5 personall* evaluate
the report and the supportin, docu(ents su)(itted )* the prosecutor
re,ardin, the e<istence of pro)a)le cause and, on the )asis thereof, issue a
warrant of arrestC or 4)5 if on the )asis thereof he finds no pro)a)le cause,
disre,ard the prosecutorMs report and reAuire the su)(ission of supportin,
affidavits of witnesses to aid hi( in deter(inin, its e<istence Dhat he is
never allowed to do is to #o$$o% &$!'$( )*e +ro,e-.)or/, &0re
-er)!#!-0)!o 0, )o )*e e1!,)e-e o# +ro&0&$e -0.,e .uch (ore is reAuired
)* the constitutional provision J.'2e, *03e )o 2o o3er )*e re+or), )*e
0##!'03!),, )*e )r0,-r!+) o# ,)eo2r0+*!- o)e, !# 0(, 0' o)*er
'o-."e), ,.++or)!2 )*e +ro,e-.)or/, -er)!#!-0)!o Althou,h the e<tent
of the /ud,eMs personal e<a(ination depends on the circu(stances of each
case, to )e sure, he -0o) 4.,) re$( o )*e &0re -er)!#!-0)!o 0$oe &.)
".,) 2o &e(o' !) This is )ecause the warrant of arrest issues not on the
stren,th of the certification standin, alone )ut )ecause of the records which
sustain it
[7%]
2e should even call for the co(plainant and the witnesses to
answer the courtMs pro)in, Auestions when the circu(stances warrant
[78]

An arrest without a pro)a)le cause is an unreasona)le sei-ure of a
person, and violates the privac* of persons which ou,ht not to )e intruded
)* the "tate
[7']


.easured a,ainst the constitutional (andate and esta)lished rulin,s,
there was here a clear a)dication of the /udicial function and a clear
indication that the /ud,e )lindl* followed the certification of a cit*
prosecutor as to the e<istence of pro)a)le cause for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest with respect to all of the petitioners The careless
inclusion of .r +en 1i(, Jr, in the warrant of arrest ,ives flesh to the )one
of contention of petitioners that the instant case is a (atter of persecution
rather than prosecution
[7@]
?n this ,round, this Court (a* en/oin the
cri(inal cases a,ainst petitioners As a ,eneral rule, cri(inal prosecutions
cannot )e en/oined 2owever, there are reco,ni-ed e<ceptions which, as
su((ari-ed in 'rocka v (nrile,
[76]
are9

a To afford adeAuate protection to the constitutional
ri,hts of the accusedC
[7&]

) Dhen necessar* for the orderl* ad(inistration of
/ustice or to avoid oppression or (ultiplicit* of actionsC
[%0]

c Dhen there is a pre/udicial Auestion which is sub
)udiceC
[%1]

d Dhen the acts of the officer are without or in e<cess of
authorit*C
[%2]

e Dhere the prosecution is under an invalid law,
ordinance or re,ulationC
[%7]

f Dhen dou)le /eopard* is clearl* apparentC
[%%]

, Dhere the court had no /urisdiction over the offenseC
[%8]

h Dhere it is a case of persecution rather than
prosecutionC
[%']

i Dhere the char,es are (anifestl* false and (otivated
)* the lust for ven,eanceC
[%@]
and

/ Dhen there is clearl* no prima facie case a,ainst the
accused and a (otion to Auash on that ,round has )een
denied
[%6]

THE SUBSTANT56E ASPECT:

#etitioners were char,ed with violation of par 2, Article 1@2 of the
!evised #enal Code or Bntroduction of Ealsified Docu(ent in a /udicial
proceedin, The ele(ents of the offense are as follows9
1 That the offender >new that a docu(ent was
falsified )* another person
2 That the false docu(ent is e()raced in
Article 1@1 or in an* su)divisions $os 1 or 2 of
Article 1@2
7 That he introduced said docu(ent in
evidence in an* /udicial proceedin,
[%&]


The falsit* of the docu(ent and the defendants; >nowled,e of its
falsit* are essential ele(ents of the offense The ?ffice of the Cit*
#rosecutor filed the Bnfor(ations a,ainst the petitioners on the )asis of the
Co(plaint-Affidavit of respondent Att* #e:a, attached to which were the
docu(ents contained in the .otion to Dis(iss filed )* the petitioners in
Civil Case $o @8% Also included as attach(ents to the co(plaint were the
Answers, #re-Trial +rief, the alle,ed falsified docu(ents, cop* of the
re,ular (eetin,s of B"CB durin, the election of the +oard of Directors and
the list of B"CB "toc>holders
[80]
+ased on these docu(ents and the
co(plaint-affidavit of Att* #e:a, the Cit* #rosecutor concluded that
pro)a)le cause for the prosecution of the char,es e<isted ?n the stren,th of
the sa(e docu(ents, the trial court issued the warrants of arrest

This Court, however, cannot find these docu(ents sufficient to
support the e<istence of pro)a)le cause

#ro)a)le cause is such set of facts and circu(stances as would lead a
reasona)l* discreet and prudent (an to )elieve that the offense char,ed in
the Bnfor(ation or an* offense included therein has )een co((itted )* the
person sou,ht to )e arrested Bn deter(inin, pro)a)le cause, the avera,e
(an wei,hs the facts and circu(stances without restorin, to the cali)rations
of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical >nowled,e 2e relies
on co((on sense A findin, of pro)a)le cause needs onl* to rest on
evidence showin, that, (ore li>el* than not, a cri(e has )een co((itted
and that it was co((itted )* the accused #ro)a)le cause de(ands (ore
than suspicionC it reAuires less than evidence that would /ustif* conviction
[81]

As enunciated in 'altazar v. People,
[82]
the tas> of the presidin,
/ud,e when the Bnfor(ation is filed with the court is first and fore(ost to
deter(ine the e<istence or non-e<istence of pro)a)le cause for the arrest of
the accused

The purpose of the (andate of the /ud,e to first deter(ine
pro)a)le cause for the arrest of the accused is to insulate fro( the ver* start
those falsel* char,ed with cri(es fro( the tri)ulations, e<penses and
an<iet* of a pu)lic trial
[87]

De do not see how it can )e concluded that the docu(ents
(entioned )* respondent in his co(plaint-affidavit were falsified Bn his
co(plaint, Att* #e:a stated that 2er(an #once, Julie A)ad and .aril*n
?n,, the alle,ed si,natories of the Auestioned letters, did not actuall* affi<
their si,natures thereinC and that the* were not actuall* officers or
stoc>holders of B"CB
[8%]
2e further clai(ed that 0nriAue .ontilla;s
si,nature appearin, in another (e(orandu( addressed to respondent was
for,ed
[88]
These aver(ents are (ere assertions which are insufficient to
warrant the filin, of the co(plaint or worse the issuance of warrants of
arrest These aver(ents cannot )e considered as proceedin, fro( the
personal >nowled,e of herein respondent who failed to, )asicall*, alle,e
that he was present at the ti(e of the e<ecution of the docu(ents $either
was there an* (ention in the co(plaint-affidavit that herein respondent was
fa(iliar with the si,natures of the (entioned si,natories to )e a)le to
conclude that the* were for,ed Dhat Att* #e:a actuall* stated were )ut
sweepin, assertions that the si,natories are (ere du((ies of B"CB and that
the* are not in fact officers, stoc>holders or representatives of the
corporation A,ain, there is no indication that the assertion was )ased on
the personal >nowled,e of the affiant

The reason for the reAuire(ent that affidavits (ust )e )ased on
personal >nowled,e is to ,uard a,ainst hearsa* evidence A witness,
therefore, (a* not testif* as what he (erel* learned fro( others either
)ecause he was told or read or heard the sa(e "uch testi(on* is
considered hearsa* and (a* not )e received as proof of the truth of what he
has learned
[8']
2earsa* is not li(ited to oral testi(on* or state(entsC the
,eneral rule that e<cludes hearsa* as evidence applies to written, as well as
oral state(ents
[8@]

The reAuire(ent of personal >nowled,e should have )een strictl*
applied considerin, that herein petitioners were not ,iven the opportunit* to
re)ut the co(plainant;s alle,ation throu,h counter-affidavits

Fuite noticea)le is the fact that in the letter dated 1& Dece()er 1&&%
of 2er(an #once and Julie A)ad, neither of the two (ade the representation
that the* were the president or secretar* of B"CB Bt was onl* Att* #e:a
who asserted that the two (ade such representation 2e alle,ed that
.aril*n ?n, was never a stoc>holder of B"CB )ut he did not present the
stoc> and transfer )oo> of B"CB And, there was neither alle,ation nor proof
that .aril*n ?n, was not connected to B"CB in an* other wa* .oreover,
even if .aril*n ?n, was not a stoc>holder of B"CB, such would not prove
that the docu(ents she si,ned were falsified

The Court (a* not )e co(pelled to pass upon the correctness of
the e<ercise of the pu)lic prosecutor;s function without an* showin, of
,rave a)use of discretion or (anifest error in his findin,s
[86]
Considerin,,
however, that the prosecution and the court a quo co((itted (anifest errors
in their findin,s of pro)a)le cause, this Court therefore annuls their
findin,s

?ur pronounce(ent in *imenez v. *imenez
[8&]
as reiterated in 'altazar
v. People is apropos9

Bt is < < < i(perative upon the fiscal or the /ud,e as the
case (a* )e, 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
pro)a)le cause e<ists to for( a sufficient )elief as to the
,uilt of the accused Althou,h there is no ,eneral for(ula
or fi<ed rule for the deter(ination of pro)a)le cause since
the sa(e (ust )e decided in the li,ht of the conditions
o)tainin, in ,iven situations and its e<istence depends to
a lar,e de,ree upon the findin, or opinion of the /ud,e
conductin, the e<a(ination, such a findin, should not
disre,ard the facts )efore the /ud,e nor run counter to the
clear dictates of reasons The /ud,e or fiscal, therefore,
should not ,o on with the prosecution in the hope that
so(e credi)le evidence (i,ht later turn up durin, trial for
this would )e a fla,rant violation of a )asic ri,ht which
the courts are created to uphold Bt )ears repeatin, that the
/udiciar* lives up to its (ission )* visuali-in, and not
deni,ratin, constitutional ri,hts "o it has )een )efore Bt
should continue to )e so

?n the fore,oin, discussion, we find that the Court of Appeals erred
in affir(in, the findin,s of the prosecutor as well as the court a quo as to
the e<istence of pro)a)le cause The cri(inal co(plaint a,ainst the
petitioners should )e dis(issed

7HERE8ORE, the petition is here)* GRANTED. The Decision
of the Court of Appeals dated 20 June 2000, in CA-G! "# $o %&''',
is RE6ERSED and SET AS5DE The Te(porar* !estrainin, ?rder dated
2 Au,ust 2000 is here)* (ade per(anent Accordin,l*, the .unicipal Trial
Court in Cities, $e,ros ?ccidental, +a,o Cit*, is
here)* D5RECTED to D5SM5SS Cri(inal Case $os ''67, ''6%, ''68
and ''6'

SO ORDERED


CASE D5GEST:
BORLONGAN, JR 6S PENA
GR NO. 143591 9NO6 :3, :;;<=
80-),:
>!espondent .a,daleno #e:a instituted a civil case for recover* of a,ent;s
co(pensation and e<penses, da(a,es, and attorne*;s fees, a,ainst =r)an
+an> and the petitioners, )efore the !e,ional Trial Court 4!TC5 of $e,ros
?ccidental, +a,o Cit*
- !espondent anchored his clai( for co(pensation on the contract of
a,enc*, alle,edl* entered into with the petitioners wherein the for(er
undertoo> to perfor( such acts necessar* to prevent an* intruder and
sAuatter fro( unlawfull* occup*in, =r)an +an>;s propert* located alon,
!o<as +oulevard, #asa* Cit*
- #etitioners filed a .D ar,uin, that the* never appointed the respondent as
a,ent or counsel
-Attached to the .D were the followin, docu(ents9
1 A letter dated Dece()er 1&, 1&&% si,ned )* 2er(an #once and
Julie A)ad on )ehalf of Bsa)ela "u,ar Co(pan*, Bnc 4B"CB5, the
ori,inal owner of the su)/ect propert*C
2 An unsi,ned letter dated Dece()er @, 1&&% addressed to
Cora-on +e/asa fro( .aril*n G ?n,C
7 A letter dated Dece()er &, 1&&% addressed to Teodoro
+orlon,an and si,ned )* .aril*n G ?n,C and
% A .e(orandu( dated $ove()er 20, 1&&% fro( 0nriAue
.ontilla BBB
- The a)ove stated docu(ents were presented in an atte(pt to show that the
respondent was appointed as a,ent )* B"CB and not )* =r)an +an> or )*
the petitioners
- !espondent #e:a filed his Co(plaint-Affidavit with the ?ffice of the Cit*
#rosecutor, +a,o Cit* 2e clai(ed that said docu(ents were falsified
)ecause the alle,ed si,natories did not actuall* affi< their si,natures, and
the si,natories were neither stoc>holders nor officers and e(plo*ees of
B"CB Dorse, petitioners introduced said docu(ents as evidence )efore the
!TC >nowin, that the* were falsified
-Cit* #rosecutor;s !eport 4"ept 27, 1&&65 9 Bn the report, the #rosecutor
concluded that the petitioners were pro)a)l* ,uilt* of four 4%5 counts of the
cri(e of Bntroducin, Ealsified Docu(ents penali-ed )* the second
para,raph of Article 1@2 of the !evised #enal Code 4!#C5 The Cit*
#rosecutor concluded that the docu(ents were falsified )ecause the alle,ed
si,natories untruthfull* stated that B"CB was the principal of the respondentC
that petitioners >new that the docu(ents were falsified considerin, that the
si,natories were (ere du((iesC and that the docu(ents for(ed part of the
record of Civil Case $o @8% where the* were used )* petitioners as
evidence in support of their (otion to dis(iss, adopted in their answer and
later, in their #re-Trial +rief "u)seAuentl*, the correspondin, Bnfor(ations
were filed with the .unicipal Trial Court in Cities 4.TCC5, +a,o Cit*
The cases were doc>eted as Cri(inal Cases $os ''67, ''6%, ''68, and
''6' Thereafter, Jud,e #ri(itivo +lanca issued the warrants for the arrest
of the petitioners
-#etitioners 4?ct N1, 1&&65 filed an ?(ni)us .F 9 The* insist that the*
were denied due process )ecause of the non-o)servance of a proper
procedure on preli(inar* investi,ation prescri)ed in the !ules of CourtC
since no such counter-affidavit and supportin, docu(ents were su)(itted
)* the petitioners, the trial /ud,e (erel* relied on the co(plaint-affidavit
and attach(ents of the respondent in issuin, the warrants of arrest, also in
contravention of the !ules .oreover the* clai( that the respondent;s
affidavit was not )ased on the latter;s personal >nowled,e and therefore
should not have )een used )* the court in deter(inin, pro)a)le cause
-?n the sa(e da* that the ?(ni)us .F was filed, the petitioners posted
)ail Their )ail )onds e<pressl* provided that the* do not intend to waive
their ri,ht to Auestion the validit* of their arrest ?n the date of arrai,n(ent,
the petitioners refused to enter their plea, for the o)vious reason that the
le,alit* of their infor(ation and their arrest was *et to )e settled )* the
court
-.TCC;s answer 4in response to ?(ni)us .F filed )* petitioners59 The*
upheld the validit* of the warrant of arrest, sa*in, that it was issued in
accordance with the !ules +esides, 4accordin, to the .TCC5 petitioners
could no lon,er Auestion the validit* of the warrant since the* alread*
posted )ail
5,,.e:
15 D?$ petitioners were deprived of their ri,ht to due process of law
)ecause of the denial of their ri,ht to preli(inar* investi,ation and to
su)(it their counter-affidavitC
25 D?$ the Bnfor(ations char,in, the petitioners were validl* filed and the
warrants for their arrest were properl* issuedC
75 D?$ this Court can, itself, deter(ine pro)a)le causeC and
%5 D?$ the petitioners postin, a )ail constitutes a waiver of their ri,ht to
Auestion the validit* of their arrest
R.$!2: #etition ,rantedC .TCC is ordered to dis(iss cri(inal cases
a,ainst petitioners
RD:
Eor issues nu()ered 1 and 79
-The followin, sections of !ule 112 of the 1&68 !ules of Cri(inal
#rocedure are relevant to the aforesaid issues9
J"0CTB?$ 1 Definition H #reli(inar* investi,ation is an inAuir* or
proceedin, for the purpose of deter(inin, whether there is sufficient
,round to en,ender a well-founded )elief that a cri(e co,ni-a)le )* the
!e,ional Trial Court has )een co((itted and that the respondent is
pro)a)l* ,uilt* thereof, and should )e held for trial O
"0C 7 #rocedure H 0<cept as provided for in "ection @ hereof, no
co(plaint or infor(ation for an offense co,ni-a)le )* the !e,ional Trial
Court shall )e filed without a preli(inar* investi,ation havin, )een first
conducted in the followin, (anner9
4a5 The co(plaint shall state the >nown address of the respondent and )e
acco(panied )* affidavits of the co(plainant and his witnesses as well as
other supportin, docu(ents, in such nu()er of copies as there are
respondents, plus two 425 copies of the official file The said affidavits shall
)e sworn to )efore an* fiscal, state prosecutor or ,overn(ent official
authori-ed to ad(inister oath, or, in their a)sence or unavaila)ilit*, a notar*
pu)lic, who (ust certif* that he personall* e<a(ined the affiants and that
he is satisfied that the* voluntaril* e<ecuted and understood their affidavits
O
"0C & Cases not fallin, under the ori,inal /urisdiction of the !e,ional
Trial Courts not covered )* the !ule on "u((ar* #rocedure H
4a5 Dhere filed with the fiscal H Bf the co(plaint is filed directl* with the
fiscal or state prosecutor, the procedure outlined in "ection 7 4a5 of this !ule
shall )e o)served The Eiscal shall ta>e appropriate action )ased on the
affidavits and other supportin, docu(ents su)(itted )* the co(plainantK
-!ecords show that the prosecutor relied (erel* on the affidavits su)(itted
)* the co(plainant and did not reAuire the petitioners to su)(it their
answer 2e should not )e faulted for doin, such as this is sanctioned )* the
rules .oreover, he is not (andated to reAuire the su)(ission of counter-
affidavits #ro)a)le cause (a* then )e deter(ined on the )asis alone of the
affidavits and supportin, docu(ents of the co(plainant, without infrin,in,
on the constitutional ri,hts of the petitioners
-!e,ardin, the issuance of the warrant of arrest, petitioners contend that the
warrants were ille,all* issued as the* were solel* )ased on the affidavits of
the co(plainant "ection 2 of Article BBB of the Constitution underscores the
e<clusive and personal responsi)ilit* of the issuin, /ud,e to satisf* hi(self
of the e<istence of pro)a)le cause +ut the /ud,e is not reAuired to
personall* e<a(ine the co(plainant and his witnesses Eollowin,
esta)lished doctrine and procedure, he shall 415 personall* evaluate the
report and the supportin, docu(ents su)(itted )* the prosecutor re,ardin,
the e<istence of pro)a)le cause, and on the )asis thereof, he (a* alread*
(a>e a personal deter(ination of the e<istence of pro)a)le causeC and 425 if
he is not satisfied that pro)a)le cause e<ists, he (a* disre,ard the
prosecutor;s report and reAuire the su)(ission of supportin, affidavits of
witnesses to aid hi( in arrivin, at a conclusion as to the e<istence of
pro)a)le cause There is no provision or procedural rule which (a>es the
su)(ission of counter-affidavits (andator* )efore the /ud,e could
deter(ine pro)a)le cause
Eor issue nu()er 29
- Eor the issuance of a warrant of arrest, pro)a)le cause has )een defined as
the e<istence of such facts and circu(stances that would lead a reasona)l*
discreet and prudent person to )elieve that an offense has )een co((itted
)* the person sou,ht to )e arrested Bt is one of the reAuisites for a warrant
of arrest to )e valid
- ?n the )asis of the a)ove-stated docu(ents 4in the facts5 and on the
stren,th of the affidavit e<ecuted )* the respondent, the prosecutor
concluded that pro)a)le cause e<ists These sa(e affidavit and docu(ents
were used )* the trial court in issuin, the warrant of arrest
-The "C finds the co(plaint-affidavit and attach(ents insufficient to
support the e<istence of pro)a)le cause The respondent;s clai(s of the
falsit* of the docu(ents were (ere assertions
- Bt (ust )e e(phasi-ed that the affidavit of the co(plainant, or an* of his
witnesses, shall alle,e facts within their 4affiants5 personal >nowled,e The
alle,ation of the respondent that the si,natures were falsified does not
Aualif* as personal >nowled,e $owhere in said affidavit did respondent
state that he was present at the ti(e of the e<ecution of the docu(ents
$either did he clai( that he was fa(iliar with the si,natures of the
si,natories 2e si(pl* (ade a )are assertion
-A findin, of pro)a)le cause need not )e )ased on clear and convincin,
evidence, or on evidence )e*ond reasona)le dou)t Bt does not reAuire that
the evidence would /ustif* conviction $onetheless, althou,h the
deter(ination of pro)a)le cause reAuires less than evidence which would
/ustif* conviction, it should at least )e (ore than (ere suspicion Dhile
pro)a)le cause should )e deter(ined in a su((ar* (anner, there is a need
to e<a(ine the evidence with care to prevent (aterial da(a,e to a potential
accused;s constitutional ri,ht to li)ert* and the ,uarantees of freedo( and
fair pla*, and to protect the "tate fro( the )urden of unnecessar* e<penses
in prosecutin, alle,ed offenses and holdin, trials arisin, fro( false,
fraudulent or ,roundless char,es
D5SCUSS5ON O8 THE BORLONGAN CASE
The "upre(e Court handed down a (onu(ental decision on $ove()er
2@,200@ a)out the conduct of #reli(inar* Bnvesti,ation The case in point
is +orlon,an, et al versus #e:a, et al 4G.R. No. 143591=
Bn this case, the "upre(e Court ruled, a(on, others, that9
1 A !espondent is not accorded and therefore can not clai( the ri,ht to
#reli(inar* Bnvesti,ation in cases not co,ni-a)le )* the !e,ional Trial
CourtC
2 An interpretation of the Pfindin, of pro)a)le causePC
7 The "upre(e Court can deter(ine pro)a)le cause without intrudin, into
the do(ain of the #rosecutorsC
% That an Bnfor(ation filed without an* evidence to sustain Ppro)a)le
causeP can not )e a valid source of a Darrant of Arrest An* Darrant of
Arrest issued on the )asis of that Bnfor(ation is not valid
The factual settin, of the case is )efore the a(end(ent of the !ules of
Cri(inal #rocedure as to the Pcases that are su)/ect to #reli(inar*
Bnvesti,ationP and Pthose who can conduct #reli(inar* Bnvesti,ationP The
!ules cited in the instant case is that ?ld !ule when onl* cases co,ni-a)le
)* the !e,ional Trial Court are su)/ect to #reli(inar* Bnvesti,ation and that
Jud,es of the first level courts can still conduct #reli(inar* Bnvesti,ation
$ow, even cases under the ?ri,inal Jurisdiction of the first level as lon, as
the penalt* is (ore than four 4%5 *ears are su)/ect to #reli(inar*
Bnvesti,ation Also, /ud,es of the first level courts are no lon,er authori-ed
to conduct #reli(inar* Bnvesti,ation
This case ste((ed fro( an Bnfor(ation filed )* a Govern(ent #rosecutor
The "upre(e Court said9
JBn a !esolution
?1@[12]
dated "epte()er 27, 1&&6, the Cit* #rosecutor
concluded that the petitioners were pro)a)l* ,uilt* of four 4%5 counts of the
cri(e of Bntroducin, Ealsified Docu(ents penali-ed )* the second
para,raph of Article 1@2 of the !evised #enal Code 4!#C5 The Cit*
#rosecutor concluded that the docu(ents were falsified )ecause the alle,ed
si,natories untruthfull* stated that B"CB was the principal of the respondentC
that petitioners >new that the docu(ents were falsified considerin, that the
si,natories were (ere du((iesC and that the docu(ents for(ed part of the
record of Civil Case $o @8% where the* were used )* petitioners as
evidence in support of their (otion to dis(iss, adopted in their answer and
later, in their #re-Trial +rief
?:@[17]
"u)seAuentl*, the correspondin,
Bnfor(ations
?3@[1%]
were filed with the .unicipal Trial Court in Cities
4.TCC5, +a,o Cit* The cases were doc>eted as Cri(inal Cases $os ''67,
''6%, ''68, and ''6' Thereafter, Jud,e #ri(itivo +lanca issued the
warrants
?4@[18]
for the arrest of the petitioners
?1@[12] The dispositive portion of which reads9
Dherefore, Bn view of all the fore,oin,, undersi,ned finds pro)a)le cause
that the cri(e of Bntroducin, Ealsified Docu(ents in evidence under par 2,
Article 1@2, !#C 4% counts5 had )een co((itted and that respondents
Teodoro +orlon,an, Delfin Gon-ale-, Jr, +en/a(in de 1eon, # "iervo
Di-on, 0ric 1ee, +en 1i(, Jr, Cora-on +e/asa, and Arturo .anuel are
pro)a)l* ,uilt*
1et Bnfor(ations )e filed with the .unicipal Trial Court in Cities, Cit* of
+a,o, #hilippines
"? !0"?1Q0D 4Bd at 110-11%5
!espondents (ove to Auash the four 4%5 Bnfor(ation filed on the ,round,
a(on, others, that P)*e( %ere 'e!e' '.e +ro-e,, &e-0.,e o# )*e o>
o&,er30-e o# )*e +ro+er +ro-e'.re o +re$!"!0r( !3e,)!20)!o
+re,-r!&e' ! )*e R.$e, o# Co.r). S+e-!#!-0$$(, )*e( -$0!"e' )*0) )*e(
%ere o) 0##or'e' )*e r!2*) )o ,.&"!) )*e!r -o.)er>0##!'03!). T*e( )*e
0r2.e' )*0) ,!-e o ,.-* -o.)er>0##!'03!) 0' ,.++or)!2 'o-."e),
%ere ,.&"!))e' &( )*e +e)!)!oer,, )*e )r!0$ 4.'2e "ere$( re$!e' o )*e
-o"+$0!)>0##!'03!) 0' 0))0-*"e), o# )*e re,+o'e) ! !,,.!2 )*e
%0rr0), o# 0rre,), 0$,o ! -o)r03e)!o o# )*e Rules. Pe)!)!oer,
#.r)*er +r0(e' )*0) )*e !#or"0)!o &e A.0,*e' #or $0-B o# +ro&0&$e
-0.,e. L0,)$(, +e)!)!oer, +o,!)e' )*0) )*e -r!"!0$ -0,e ,*o.$' *03e
&ee ,.,+e'e' o )*e 2ro.' )*0) )*e !,,.e &e!2 )*re,*e' o.) ! )*e
-!3!$ -0,e !, 0 +re4.'!-!0$ A.e,)!o.C
PBn an ?rder
?1@[1@]
dated $ove()er 17, 1&&6, the court denied the o(ni)us
(otion pri(aril* on the ,round that preli(inar* investi,ation was not
availa)le in the instant case L which fell within the /urisdiction of the
.TCC The court, li>ewise, upheld the validit* of the warrant of arrest,
sa*in, that it was issued in accordance with the !ules +esides, the court
added, petitioners could no lon,er Auestion the validit* of the warrant since
the* alread* posted )ail The court also )elieved that the issue involved in
the civil case was not a pre/udicial Auestion, and thus, denied the pra*er for
suspension of the cri(inal proceedin,s 1astl*, the court was convinced that
the Bnfor(ations contained all the facts necessar* to constitute an offense
#etitioners su)seAuentl* instituted a special civil action for Certiorari and
#rohi)ition with #ra*er for Drit of #reli(inar* Bn/unction and T!?, )efore
the CA ascri)in, ,rave a)use of discretion a(ountin, to lac> or e<cess of
/urisdiction on the part of the .TCC in issuin, and not recallin, the
warrants of arrest, reiteratin, the ar,u(ents in their o(ni)us (otion
?:@
[16]
The*, li>ewise, Auestioned the court;s conclusion that )* postin, )ail,
petitioners alread* waived their ri,ht to assail the validit* of the warrant of
arrest
?n June 20, 2000, the CA dis(issed the petition
?3@[1&]
2ence, the instant
petition for review on certiorari under !ule %8 of the !ules of Court
#etitioners now raise )efore us the followin, issues9
A Dhere the offense char,ed in a cri(inal co(plaint is not
co,ni-a)le )* the !e,ional Trial Court and not covered )* the
!ule on "u((ar* #rocedure, is the findin, of pro)a)le cause
reAuired for the filin, of an Bnfor(ation in courtI
Bf the alle,ations in the co(plaint-affidavit do not esta)lish pro)a)le cause,
should not the investi,atin, prosecutor dis(iss the co(plaint, or at the ver*
least, reAuire the respondent to su)(it his counter-affidavitI
+ Can a co(plaint-affidavit containin, (atters which are not within the
personal >nowled,e of the co(plainant )e sufficient )asis for the findin, of
pro)a)le causeI
C Dhere the offense char,ed in a cri(inal co(plaint is not co,ni-a)le )*
the !e,ional Trial Court and not covered )* the !ule on "u((ar*
#rocedure, and the record of the preli(inar* investi,ation does not show
the e<istence of pro)a)le cause, should not the /ud,e refuse to issue a
warrant of arrest and dis(iss the cri(inal case, or at the ver* least, reAuire
the accused to su)(it his counter-affidavit in order to aid the /ud,e in
deter(inin, the e<istence of pro)a)le causeI
D Can a cri(inal prosecution )e restrainedI
0 Can this 2onora)le Court itself deter(ine the e<istence of pro)a)le
causeI
?4@[20]P
The dispositive portion reads9
D20!0E?!0, pre(ises considered, the ?(ni)us .otion to Fuash, !ecall
Darrants of Arrest andGor Eor reinvesti,ation is here)* denied
"et arrai,n(ent of the accused on Dece()er 1, 1&&6 at 6970 o;cloc> in the
(ornin,
"? ?!D0!0D
?n the issue, whether or not the !espondent is denied due process of law
when he was not a)le to su)(it his Counter Affidavit )ecause there was
no Pre$!"!0r( 53e,)!20)!o the "upre(e Court ruled9
+$s !ill be discussed belo!, te petitioners could not validly claim te ri"t
to preliminary investi"ationP
< < < < < < <
Petitioners !ere car"ed !it te offense defined and penalized by te
second para"rap of $rticle ,-.
[1]/012
of te Revised Penal Code. 3e
penalty imposable is arresto mayor in its ma#imum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, or four 456 monts and one 4,6 day to
t!o 4.6 years and four 456 monts. Clearly, te case is co"nizable by te
&unicipal 3rial Court and preliminary investi"ation is not mandatory.
[2]/072
?1@[78] Article 1@2
An* person who shall >nowin,l* introduce in evidence in an* /udicial
proceedin, or to the da(a,e of another or who, with the intent to cause
such da(a,e, shall use an* of the false docu(ents e()raced in the ne<t
precedin, article or in an* of the fore,oin, su)divisions of this article, shall
)e punished )* the penalt* ne<t lower in de,ree
8n li"t of te fore"oin", it appears tat te proper procedure !as follo!ed
by te prosecutor in determinin" probable cause for te filin" of te
informations, and by te trial court )ud"e in determinin" probable cause for
te issuance of te !arrants of arrest. 3o reiterate, preliminary
investi"ation !as not mandatory, and te submission of counter9affidavit
!as not necessary.
?:@[7'] :illanueva v. *ud"e $lmazan, 76% #hil @@', @6% 420005C ;el
Rosario, *r. v. *ud"e 'artolome, 77@ #hil 770, 777 41&&@5
The 2onora)le "upre(e Court rationali-ed that Ponl* in cases co,ni-a)le
)* the !e,ional Trial CourtP can there )e a ri,ht to CPre$!"!0r(
53e,)!20)!oC. 4! )*e e% R.$e o%, e3e -0,e, -o2!D0&$e &( )*e #!r,)
$e3e$ -o.r),, +ro3!'e' )*0) )*e +e0$)( !, "ore )*0 #o.r 94= (e0r,,
Pre$!"!0r( 53e,)!20)!o !, reA.!re', e(phasis )* 10GA12ADR5
Conversel*, with that pronounce(ent of the "upre(e Court, !) -0 &e ,0!'
)*0) )*e re#.,0$ )o -o'.-) Pre$!"!0r( 53e,)!20)!o %*e 30$!'$(
!3oBe' &( 0 Re,+o'e) 9$!Be %*e *e ,e0,o0&$( #!$e' 0 Mo)!o #or
Pre$!"!0r( 53e,)!20)!o %!)*! #!3e 95= '0(, #ro" )*e #!$!2 o# 0
5#or"0)!o 0, 0 re,.$) o# 0 5NEUEST 0' )*e -o.r) 'e!e, ,.-*
MOT5ON= 5S A DEN5AL O8 DUE PROCESS 9Ro$!)o Go C0,e=.
As to the definition 4!ule of Thu()5 of the P#!'!2 o# Pro&0&$e C0.,eC
&( )*e Pro,e-.)or 0' )*e C#!'!2 o# Pro&0&$e C0.,e #or )*e +.r+o,e
o# !,,.0-e o# 0 70rr0) o# Arre,), Court ruled9
+3rue, a findin" of probable cause need not be based on clear and
convincin" evidence, or on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. 8t does not
require tat te evidence !ould )ustify conviction. <oneteless, altou"
te determination of probable cause requires less tan evidence !ic
!ould )ustify conviction, it sould at least be more tan mere suspicion.
[1]
/1,2
=ile probable cause sould be determined in a summary manner, tere
is a need to e#amine te evidence !it care to prevent material dama"e to a
potential accused>s constitutional ri"t to liberty and te "uarantees of
freedom and fair play, and to protect te %tate from te burden of
unnecessary e#penses in prosecutin" alle"ed offenses and oldin" trials
arisin" from false, fraudulent or "roundless car"es.
[2]/1.2
8t is, terefore,
imperative for te prosecutor to relieve te accused from te pain and
inconvenience of "oin" trou" a trial once it is ascertained tat no
probable cause e#ists to form a sufficient belief as to te "uilt of te
accused.+
[3]/102
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
Probable cause, for purposes of filin" a criminal information, as been
defined as suc facts as are sufficient to en"ender a !ell9founded belief tat
a crime as been committed and tat te accused is probably "uilty tereof.
[1]/0?2
8t is te e#istence of suc facts and circumstances as !ould e#cite te
belief in a reasonable mind, actin" on te facts !itin te kno!led"e of te
prosecutor, tat te person car"ed !as "uilty of te crime for !ic e is
to be prosecuted.
[2]/0@2
$ findin" of probable cause needs only to rest on
evidence so!in" tat, more likely tan not, a crime as been committed
and tat it !as committed by te accused.
[3]/5A2
On te oter and, !e ave defined probable cause for te issuance of a
!arrant of arrest as te e#istence of suc facts and circumstances tat
!ould lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe tat an
offense as been committed by te person sou"t to be arrested.
[4]/5,2
3o accord respect to te discretion "ranted to te prosecutor and for
reasons of practicality, tis Court, as a rule, does not interfere !it te
prosecutor>s determination of probable cause. Oter!ise, courts !ould be
s!amped !it petitions to revie! te prosecutor>s findin"s in suc
investi"ations.
[5]/5.2
8n te same !ay, te "eneral rule is tat tis Court does
not revie! te factual findin"s of te trial court, !ic include te
determination of probable cause for te issuance of a !arrant of arrest.
[6]
/502
8t is only in e#ceptional cases !en tis Court may set aside te
conclusions of te prosecutor and te trial )ud"e on te e#istence of
probable cause, tat is, !en it is necessary to prevent te misuse of te
stron" arm of te la! or to protect te orderly administration of )ustice.
[7]
/552
3e facts obtainin" in te present case !arrant te application of te
e#ception.
This case opens the e*es of the #rosecutor not to hide under the /o) of
Pfindin, pro)a)le causeP and let the Jud,e decide Dhen, in the findin, of
the #rosecutor, there is want evidence, the "upre(e Court ,rants hi( that
(antle of authorit* to dis(iss the case The 2onora)le "upre(e Court ,ives
the reason for this9 P
+to prevent material dama"e to a potential accused>s constitutional ri"t to
liberty and te "uarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect te %tate
from te burden of unnecessary e#penses in prosecutin" alle"ed offenses
and oldin" trials arisin" from false, fraudulent or "roundless car"es.
[1]
/1.2
8t is, terefore, imperative for te prosecutor to relieve te accused from
te pain and inconvenience of "oin" trou" a trial once it is ascertained
tat no probable cause e#ists to form a sufficient belief as to te "uilt of te
accused.+
?:@[87]