4. Determination by the Prosecutor

MTC Judges No Longer Authorized to Conduct Preliminary Investigation

By implication, Municipal Trial Court judges in Manila and in chartered cities have not been granted the authority to conduct Preliminary Investigation, as the officers authorized to do so are the prosecutors

NOTE: A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, which took effect on 3 October 2005, amended Rules 112 and 114 by removing the conduct of preliminary investigation from judges of the first level courts. Thus, only the ff. officers are authorized to conduct PI:

• Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
• National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
• Other officers as may be authorized by law. (Conquilla v. Bernardo, A.M. No. MTJ-09-1737, 2011)

NOTE: Although courts must respect the executive determination of probable cause, the trial courts may still independently determine probable cause. They are not irrevocably bound to the determination of probable cause by the prosecutor and the DOJ.

The trial court actually has the following options upon the filing of a criminal information: (1) immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause; (2) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause; and (3) order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days from notice in case of doubt as to the existence of probable cause. Indeed, the RTC is allowed to dismiss the charge of estafa against Ang notwithstanding the executive determination of probable cause by the prosecutor. If we were to construe otherwise, we would be contradicting the basic principle that "once an information is filed in RTC, any disposition of the case rests already in the sound discretion of the court." (Anlud Metal Recycling Corporation v. Ang, G.R. No. 182157, 2015).

Other Officers Who are Authorized by Law to Determine Probable Cause