iii. Probable Cause

JUDGMENT WITHOUT TRIAL

A decision rendered without a full-blown trial. Examples include judgment by confession and judgment upon a compromise.

Q: In 1986, PCGG sequestered the properties of Corp A. Among these properties were 9 parcels of land. In 1988, the Province of X, through Mayor A, sold the properties via a tax delinquency in an auction whereby the Province of X was the sole bidder. PCC filed a complaint for the annulment of the tax sale. Pending the civil case, PCGG, Corp A and the Province of X later on entered in a Compromise Agreement wherein a corporation would be created with Province of X holding 49% of the shares and 51% by Corp A through PCGG. Province of X’ former mayor, B, filed a complaint before the Ombudsman against A on the ground of undue injury allegedly suffered by the Province of X as a result of the disadvantageous terms of the Compromise Agreement it entered into with the PCGG and Corp A. The Ombudsman then filed two Informations against B for violation of Sections 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019. Is there a probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest and Informations against B?

A: NO. There is no probable cause to hold respondents guilty of unlawful acts. B were charged before the Sandiganbayan with violations of Sections 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019. The law provides for the corrupt practices of a public officer declared to be unlawful:

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. xxx xxx xxx

(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.

Here, at the time B entered into the Compromise Agreement, the Province of X did not enjoy any vested right over the subject properties. This is because Y’s petition to annul the tax delinquency sale, from which the Province of X’ alleged right over the properties could arise, had yet to be decided with finality. In fact, it is even possible that the Province of X would later be adjudged to have no entitlement over the subject properties in the pending case for annulment of the tax delinquency sale. Hence, it could not have injured a right or interest that did not exist.

Who may conduct determination of existence of probable cause

Instances When Probable Cause Needs To Be Established

The Prosecutor shall Certify Under Oath in the Information that:

• He or she, or an authorized officer personally examined the complainant and his witnesses;
• There is reasonable ground that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof;
• The accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence against him/her; and
• The accused was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence (Rule 112, Sec. 4).

Note: Under Sec. 1 Rule 112, the investigating prosecutor is tasked to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is herein guilty. If he finds probable cause, he executes a certification at the bottom of the information. However, such certification by itself is ineffective and not binding to the court. It cannot be the sole basis for the finding of probable cause of the trial judge. (Samuel Lee v. KBC Bank N.V., G.R. No. 164673, 2010).

DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST

(See discussion under Preliminary Investigation)

Pendency of a motion for reconsideration, motion for reinvestigation, or petition for review is not a cause for the quashal of a warrant of arrest previously issued because the quashal of a warrant of arrest may only take place upon the finding that no probable cause exists. (Aguinaldo vs Ventus, GR No.176033, 2015)

The probable cause determination of a warrantless arrest is based on information that the arresting officer possesses at the time of the arrest and not on the information acquired later. (People vs Pestilos, GR No. 182601, 2014)

Note: Section 6 of Rule 112 specifically provides that before a warrant of arrest or a commitment order may be issued by the judge, there must first be a judicial determination of probable cause by the judge himself. In one case, it was held that a motion for judicial declaration of probable cause is moot and academic when a warrant of arrest is subsequently issued. (Hao v. People, G.R. No. 183345, 2014)

Probable Cause for Search Warrant of Arrest v. Search Warrant

Note: Failure to raise an objection to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment and active participation in the trial of the case results to the petitioner’s submission to the jurisdiction of the court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest. An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. (People v. Lugnasin, G.R. No. 208404, 2016).

Effect of a Finding of Probable Cause

It merely binds the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt (Vilarosa v. OMB, G.R. No. 221418, January 23, 2019).

Remedies of the Accused Who Believes that there is No Probable Cause to Hold Him for Trial:

• Motion to dismiss on such ground
• Motion for the determination of probable cause.

Note: Under the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases, a motion for judicial determination of probable cause is a prohibited motion (A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC)

Where an information has already been filed in court and the Secretary of Justice reversed the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause, what should the trial court do upon the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss?

The judge should make his/her own assessment of the evidence and not just rely on the conclusion of the prosecutor; otherwise the court becomes a mere rubber stamp.

“Once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case, [either] dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. (Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373, 1987)

Hearsay Statements may be the basis of Probable Cause

Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is merely preliminary and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. (Estrada v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212140-41, 2015)