TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, JR., et. al., vs MAGDALENO M. PEA, et. al.

G.R. No. 143591 November 23, 2007

NACHURA, J.

JUDGE TO PERSONALLY DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE: The

Constitution underscores the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy
himself of the existence of probable cause. But the judge is not required to personally examine
the complainant and his witnesses.

PROBABLE CAUSE: Probable cause has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is
probably guilty thereof. It is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the
belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the
person charged was guilty of the crime for which he is to be prosecuted.

PROBABLE CASUE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST: probable cause for
the issuance of a warrant of arrest as the existence of such facts and circumstances that would
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed
by the person sought to be arrested.

ELEMENTS OF INTRODUCTION OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENT IN A JUDICIAL

PROCEEDING: Violation of Par. 2, Article 172 of the RPC or Introduction of Falsified Document
in a Judicial Proceeding provides the following elements: (1) That the offender knew that a
document was falsified by another person; (2) That the false document is embraced in Article
171 or in any subdivisions No. 1 or 2 of Article 172; and (3) That he introduced said document in
evidence in any judicial proceeding.

RULING: NO. True, a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing
evidence, or on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It does not require that the evidence would
justify conviction. Nonetheless, although the determination of probable cause requires less than
evidence which would justify conviction, it should at least be more than mere suspicion. While
probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the
evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accuseds constitutional right to
liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect the State from the burden of
unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false,
fraudulent or groundless charges

Considering that the respondent failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support his claim that
the documents were falsified, it follows that the introduction of the questioned documents in Civil
Case No. 754 is not an offense punished by any provision of the Revised Penal Code or any
other law.

FACTS: Respondent Pea instituted a civil case for recovery of agents compensation and
expenses, damages, and attorneys fees, against Urban Bank and the petitioners. The claim is
based on the compensation on the contract of agency entered into with the petitioners wherein
the former undertook to perform such acts necessary to prevent any intruder and squatter from
unlawfully occupying Urban Banks property located along Roxas Boulevard.

Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that they never appointed the respondent as agent
or counsel and attached to the motion several documents. Said documents were presented in
an attempt to show that the respondent was appointed as agent by ISCI and not by Urban Bank
or by the petitioners.

In view of the introduction of the above-mentioned documents, Pea filed his Complaint-Affidavit
to the city prosecutor claiming that said documents were falsified because the alleged
signatories did not actually affix their signatures, and the signatories were neither stockholders
nor officers and employees of ISCI. Worse, petitioners introduced said documents as evidence
before the RTC knowing that they were falsified.

The City Prosecutor concluded that the petitioners were probably guilty of four (4) counts of the
crime of Introducing Falsified Documents penalized by the second paragraph of Article 172 of
the Revised Penal Code Subsequently, the corresponding information was filed to the court and
the judge issued a warrant of arrest.

ISSUE: Whether or not probable cause exists?