Common sense

After an Information is filed in the trial court charging persons with a crime and the prosecution subsequently files a motion to withdraw the Information on the ground of lack of probable cause based on the resolution of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the trial court should make an independent assessment and determine whether or not probable cause exist before proceeding with the trial. This is the rule applied in this case of Lilia and Berto.

The case stemmed from the killing of the 20 year old Franco, the son of Domeng. Based on the sworn statement of an eyewitness by the name of Rina who declared that he saw three male persons perpetrate the crime, Lando and Rey were charged with the crime of murder in an Information filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) after they were later identified as the perpetrators of the killing. The two accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.

During their trial, two more witnesses surfaced in the persons of Nesty and Dan, father and son, who testified that they saw Lily, the Barangay Chairperson, hand a gun to Rey saying “Gusto ko malinis ang trabaho, walang bulilyaso baka makaligtas na naman si Domeng”. According to them they only learned the following day that instead of Domeng, Franco his son was killed. Dan also testified that Rey asked him to turn over the gun to Lily but he refused. He also said that Lily instructed him to monitor the activities of Domeng the intended victim.

On the basis of these testimonies and the additional statement of Rina an Amended Information was filed including Lily, Berto and another woman by the name of Cora as accused. Subsequently however, Rina, Nesty and Dan recanted their testimonies. So on June 11, 2002, the DOJ issued a resolution instructing the Prosecutor to withdraw the Information for murder against the accused including Lily and Berto holding that the testimonies of the prosecution were not credible due to their recantation. The RTC thus issued an order withdrawing the Information against the accused.

But when Domeng elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, the latter held that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the withdrawal of the Information without making an independent evaluation of the evidence on the merits. This ruling was sustained by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile two new witnesses, Binoy and Al, were presented by the prosecution in the hearing of the petition for bail filed by Lily. Binoy testified that on the fateful day, he heard gunshots and saw three men ran towards Lily’s van. Al on the other hand testified that Lily asked him to contact a hired killer. Based on these testimonies the RTC denied Lily’s petition for bail.

Subsequently however, a new branch of the RTC to which the case was re-raffled issued an order dismissing the case for murder against the accused including Lily and Berto after evaluation of the evidence as ordered by the CA and the SC. The Presiding judge of the new branch based his order on the (1) incredibility of the earlier statement of Rina, Nesty and Dan because of their subsequent recantation; (2) the improbability that Dan and Nesty saw and heard the conversation of Lily and Berto in view of the physical set up of Lily’s residence or building; (3) the lack of or insufficiency of the evidence at the level of the prosecution for purposes of determining probable cause; and (4) the incredibility of the testimonies of Binoy and Al because of the absence of corroborating evidence.

On a petition for certiorari filed by Domeng however, the CA reversed and set aside this order of the RTC. The CA ruled that there was probable cause against Lily and Berto necessitating a full blown trial to unearth the truth behind the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Was the CA correct?

No. The first task of a Presiding Judge when an Information is filed with the court is to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused. Probable cause is such set of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent and discreet man to believe that the offense charged in an Information has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. In determining probable cause the average man weighs the facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. Probable cause demands more than suspicion; it requires less evidence that would justify conviction.

In this case the RTC reviewed anew the records of the case and made an independent evaluation of the evidence presented to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause after its first order of dismissal was set aside. After such evaluation, the court found no probable cause based on the four grounds above enumerated. Thus it did not err in finding that no probable cause existed. Neither did it gravely abuse its discretion. There was no hint of whimsicality, or of gross or patent abuse as would amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty required by law or to act at all in contemplation of law, on the part of the presiding Judge. The purpose of first determining probable cause is to insulate from the very start those falsely charged with crimes from the tribulations, expenses and anxiety of public trial (Santos and Bunda vs. Orda, Jr. G.R. 189402, May 6, 2010). 

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

E-mail at: [email protected]