PEOPLE VS GABO case Digest

FACTS:

This is an appeal for certiorari to SC on the grounds that the Court of Appeals patently and grossly
abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in adapting the Equipoise Rule.

A fire broke out in a manufacturing plant called Sanyoware Plastic Products Manufacturing Corporation
located Bulacan. Investigation conducted and accused Samson Cua Ting, Wilson Cua Ting, Edward Yao,
Willy Tan, Carol Ortega, John Doe and Peter Doe, all employees of Sanyoware, of DESTRUCTIVE ARSON.

The state Prosecutor submitted Sworn statements of their witnesses which was also DENIED by the
accused in their Counter-Affidavit.

After the Preliminary investigation, The State Prosecutor issued a resolution with recommending that an
Information for Destructive Arson be filed against Wilson Ting, Edward Yao, Willy So Tan, and Carol
Ortega. Recommending the case against Samson Ting be dismissed. An INFORMATION was filed to the
RTC.

Prior to the Arraignment of respondents and before the warrant of arrest could be issued, the accused
filed a MOTION TO CONDUCT HEARING TO DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE and to HOLD IN ABEYANCE
THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST PENDING DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE. The RTC
Judge DISMISSED the case as Ordained under Section 6 of the Rule 112of the Revised Rule of Criminal
Procedure. The RTC applied the Equipoise Rule in its DISMISSAL.

The "equipoise doctrine" is the rule which states that when the evidence of the prosecution and the
defense are so evenly balanced the appreciation of such evidence calls for tilting of the scales in favor of
the accused.

The prosecutor filed for Motion for Reconsideration but got DENIED, filed for Petition for Certiorari in CA
but DISMISSED. Filled for Motion for Reconsideration but got DENIED. Now, filed for SC.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT THE RTC JUDGE’S GROUND OF THE ABSENSE OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST IN THIS CASE VALID TO ITS DISMISSAL?

HELD:

YES. Under Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, the RTC Judge upon the filling of an
information has an option of 1) to dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish
probable cause 2) if he or she finds probable cause, issue a warrant of arrest and 3) in case of doubt as
to the existence of probable cause, order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within 5 days
from notice , the issue to be resolved by the court within 30 days from the filing the information.
 The judge is required to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting
evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause.

The absence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is a ground for the
dismissal of the case, the same does not result in the acquittal of the said accused.