DIOSDADO JOSE ALLADO and ROBERTO L. MENDOZA, vs. HON. ROBERTO C. DIOKNO, Presiding Judge, Br. 62, Regional Trial Court, Makati, Metro Manila, and PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-CRIME COMMISSION.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 113630
- Promulgated: 1994-05-05
- Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
Doctrine
Probable cause determination is a judicial function; the judge alone must independently evaluate the evidence and cannot be bound by the prosecutor's preliminary inquiry or certification. (¶51, ¶59)
A finding of probable cause need not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt but must be based on facts and circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a prudent and cautious person's belief that the accused is probably guilty; mere uncorroborated or improbable assertions (e.g., implausible confessions without corpus delicti) do not suffice. (¶30, ¶33, ¶34, ¶59)
The Bill of Rights protects personal liberty against arbitrary prosecution; when prosecution threatens fundamental rights without sufficient basis, equitable relief (certiorari/prohibition/injunction) is appropriate to prevent misuse of criminal process. (¶64, ¶66, ¶67)
Facts
Petitioners Atty. Diosdado Jose Allado and Atty. Roberto L. Mendoza sought relief against issuance of an arrest warrant in Crim. Case No. 94-1757 before the RTC of Makati; the Court reviewed the lower-court record and prosecutor's materials. (¶2, ¶32, ¶67)
The prosecution relied heavily on a sworn statement of Security Guard Umbal who allegedly confessed participation in the kidnapping and murder of Van Twest; no human remains were recovered and corpus delicti was not established. (¶33, ¶34)
The petition invoked the protection of the Bill of Rights against arbitrary prosecution and argued lack of probable cause; petitioners initially obtained a TRO on 28 February 1994. (¶4, ¶64, ¶67)
The Court examined whether the respondent judge properly found probable cause to issue the arrest warrant and whether the record supported that finding. (¶31, ¶32, ¶51, ¶59)
Issues
Whether the judge properly determined that probable cause existed to issue the warrant of arrest. (Whether the judge's finding of probable cause was supported by the record.)
Whether the petitioners' constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights warranted injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the criminal process. (Whether protection against arbitrary governmental action applied.)
Ruling
The Court held that the respondent judge's finding of probable cause was unsupported by the record and that the judge failed to show how he arrived at his conclusion; the finding was set aside. (¶32, ¶51, ¶59)
The Court ruled that the Bill of Rights prevails over the State's power to prosecute when enforcement would be arbitrary; it granted the petition, made the TRO permanent, set aside the warrant, and enjoined the respondent judge from further proceedings in Crim. Case No. 94-1757. (¶64, ¶67)
Keywords
G.R. No. 113630, probable cause, due process clause, warrant of arrest, information for subversion, kidnapping with murder, extrajudicial confession, search warrant, illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, carnapping, usurpation of authority, preliminary investigation, motion for inhibition, criminal proceedings, legal keywords, legal doctrines, statutory references, case law citations, legal terms, key concepts