OKABE V. GUTIERREZ
Facts:
Charged for Estafa, Petitioner filed a verified motion
for judicial determination of probable cause and to defer
proceedings/arraignment, alleging that the only documents appended to the
Information submitted by the investigating prosecutor were respondent Maruyamas
affidavit-complaint for estafa and the resolution of the
investigating prosecutor; the affidavits of the witnesses of the complainant,
the respondents counter-affidavit and the other evidence adduced by the parties
were not attached thereto. The
petitioner further alleged that the documents submitted by the investigating
prosecutor were not enough on which the trial court could base a finding of
probable cause for estafa against her.
The court denied the petitioners
motions on the following grounds:
(a) Based on its personal examination and
consideration of the Information, the affidavit-complaint of respondent
Maruyama and the resolution of the investigating prosecutor duly approved by
the city prosecutor, the court found probable cause for the petitioners arrest.
Since the petitioners motion for a determination of probable cause was made
after the court had already found probable cause and issued a warrant for the
petitioners arrest, and after the latter filed a personal bail bond for her
provisional liberty, such motion was a mere surplusage;
In denying her motion for a
determination of probable cause, she posits that the respondent judge acted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
If the RTC judge may rely
on investigating prosecutor’s resolution in the determination of probable cause
for the arrest of the accused.
HELD:
NO. In determining the existence or
non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused, the judge should
not rely solely on the said report.[The judge should consider not only the
report of the investigating prosecutor but also the affidavit/affidavits and
the documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the accused
and his witnesses, as well as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during
the preliminary investigation, if any, submitted to the court by the
investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information. The duty to make
such determination is personal
and exclusive to the issuing judge. He
cannot abdicate his duty and rely on the certification of the investigating
prosecutor that he had conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with
law and the Rules of Court, as amended, and found probable cause for the filing
of the Information.
The task of the presiding judge
when the Information is filed with the court is first and foremost to determine
the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused. Probable cause is meant such set of
facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man
to believe that the offense charged in the Information or any offense included
therein has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. The purpose of
the mandate of the judge to first determine probable cause for the arrest of
the accused is to insulate from the very start those falsely charged of crimes
from the tribulations, expenses and anxiety of a public trial.
Under Section 6, Rule 112 of the
Rules of Court in relation to Section 2, Article III
of the 1987 Constitution, the judge must make a personal determination of the
existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused. Under Section 1, Rule 112 of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure, the investigating prosecutor, in conducting a
preliminary investigation of a case cognizable by the RTC, is tasked to
determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and the respondent therein is probably guilty
thereof and should be held for trial. A
preliminary investigation is for the purpose of securing the innocent against
hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an open
and public accusation of a crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public
trial.
If the investigating prosecutor
finds probable cause for the filing of the Information against the respondent,
he executes a certification at the bottom of the Information that from the
evidence presented, there is a reasonable ground to believe that the offense
charged has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. Such certification of the
investigating prosecutor is, by itself, ineffective. It is not binding on the trial court. Nor may the RTC rely on the said
certification as basis for a finding of the existence of probable cause for the
arrest of the accused.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento