HUBERT J. P. WEBB, vs. HONORABLE RAUL E. DE LEON, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 258, HONORABLE ZOSIMO V. ESCANO, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 259, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ZENON L. DE GUIA, JOVENCITO ZUÑO, LEONARDO…
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 121234
- Promulgated: 1995-08-23
- Ponente: Puno, J.
Doctrine
A preliminary investigation should determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-grounded belief that a crime cognizable by the RTC has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof.
A finding of probable cause need only rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed by the suspects; it requires more than bare suspicion but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The decision whom to prosecute pertains to the executive branch; the prosecutor's authority in instituting prosecutions is not solely a judicial prerogative.
Facts
Petitioners sought certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to annul warrants of arrest, enjoin proceedings, dismiss the criminal case, or include Jessica Alfaro as an accused.
On 19 June 1994 the NBI filed a complaint with DOJ charging petitioners with rape with homicide for killings on 30 June 1991 at the Vizconde residence.
During the preliminary investigation the NBI presented sworn statements, notably the 22 May 1995 sworn statement of principal witness Maria Jessica M. Alfaro and statements of former housemaids and other witnesses.
The Court found the petitions without merit and dismissed them for lack of showing of grave abuse of discretion by the respondents.
Issues
Whether the Warrants of Arrest issued by respondent judges in Criminal Case No. 95-404 should be annulled.
Whether respondents should be enjoined from conducting further proceedings in the criminal case.
Whether the criminal case should be dismissed or Jessica Alfaro be included as one of the accused.
Ruling
The petitions were dismissed for lack of showing of grave abuse of discretion by the respondents; the Court found no merit in petitioners' claims.
The DOJ panel did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding probable cause against the petitioners; probable cause requires showing that more likely than not a crime was committed by the suspects and need not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.