Probable cause

"xxx.

PROBABLE CAUSE has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.43 The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty.44 It is merely based on OPINION AND REASONABLE BELIEF;45 that is, the belief that the act or omission complained of CONSTITUTES THE OFFENSE CHARGED. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect TO STAND TRIAL. It is NOT A PRONOUNCEMENT OF GUILT. 46

The EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT of the government is accountable for the PROSECUTION OF CRIMES, its principal obligation being the FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE LAWS Lof the land. A necessary component of the power to execute the laws is the RIGHT TO PROSECUTE their violators,47 the responsibility of which is thrust upon the DOJ. Hence, the determination of whether or not probable cause exists to warrant the prosecution in court of an accused is consigned and entrusted to the DOJ. And by the nature of his office, a public prosecutor is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion.

Put simply, PUBLIC PROSECUTORS under the DOJ have a WIDE RANGE OF DISCRETION, the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by (public) prosecutors.48 And this Court has consistently adhered to the POLICY OF NON-INTERFERENCE IN THE CONDUCT OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS, and to leave to the investigating prosecutor SUFFICIENT LATITUDE OF DISCRETION in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of an information against the supposed offender.49

But this is NOT to discount the possibility of the commission of ABUSES on the part of the prosecutor. It is entirely possible that the investigating prosecutor MAY ERRONEOUSLY EXERCISE THE DISCRETION LODGED IN HIM by law. This, however, does NOT render his act amenable to CORRECTION AND ANNULMENT by the EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY OF CERTIORARI, absent any showing of GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.50

Prescinding from the above, the court's duty in an appropriate case, therefore, is confined to a determination of whether the assailed executive determination of probable cause was done WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION resulting from a GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. For courts of law to grant the extraordinary writ of certiorari, so as to justify the reversal of the finding of whether or not there exists probable cause to file an information, the one seeking the writ must be able to establish that the investigating prosecutor exercised his power in an ARBITRARY AND DESPOTIC MANNER by reason of PASSION OR PERSONAL HOSTILITY, and it must be PATENT AND GROSS as would amount to an EVASION or to a UNILATERAL REFUSAL TO PERFORM THE DUTY enjoined or to act in contemplation of law. Grave abuse of discretion is not enough.51 Excess of jurisdiction signifies that he had jurisdiction over the case but has transcended the same or acted without authority.52

Applying the foregoing disquisition to the present petition, the reasons of the Assistant City Prosecutor in dismissing the criminal complaints for falsification and mutilation, as affirmed by the DOJ, is determinative of whether or not he committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Xxx."


G.R. No. 170723, March 3, 2008

GLORIA PILAR S. AGUIRRE, petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MICHELINA S. AGUIRRE-OLONDRIZ, PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, DR. JUVIDO AGATEP and DR. MARISSA B. PASCUAL, respondents.


https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html