Auroa A. Sales Vs. Benjamin D. Adapon, et al.
G.R. No. 171420. October 5, 2016

1.    AURORA, a US immigrant who has resided in said country since 1980, filed a complaint charging RESPONDENTS with the crime of use of falsified documents under Article 172, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. And since AURORA was in USA, she authorized Jerico B. Sales, her son-in-law, for the purpose of instituting the criminal proceedings against petitioners.

Notwithstanding that the totality of the evidence presented already established probable cause to indict the respondents for the violation of Article 172, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, Prosecutor Cuevas dismissed the instant complaint on the ground that it was impossible for him to proceed with the preliminary investigation without the appearance of AURORA who will be subjected to some clarificatory questions on certain matters.

Explain the nature and purposes of the preliminary investigation.


A preliminary investigation is in effect a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of the case; sufficient proof of the guilt of the criminal respondent must be adduced so that when the case is tried, the trial court may not be bound, as a matter of law, to order an acquittal. Although a preliminary investigation is not a trial and is not intended to usurp the function of the trial court, it is not a casual affair; the officer conducting the same investigates or inquiries into the facts concerning the commission of the crime with the end in view of determining whether or not an information may be prepared against the accused. After all, the purpose of preliminary investigation is not only 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; it is just as well 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. More importantly, in the appraisal of the case presented to him for resolution, the duty of a prosecutor is more to do justice and less to prosecute.


2.    Using the information in no. 1, was the Prosecutor correct in dismissing the complaint?


No.

The personal presence of the petitioner at the clarificatory hearing was unnecessary to establish probable cause against the respondents, and requiring it was legally untenable.

Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the 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. A finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether or not there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction.

In addition, the offense of falsification complained of was a public offense the charges for which could be initiated by anyone, as opposed to a private crime whose institution could be made only by particular individuals.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

JR HAULING SERVICES AND OSCAR MAPUE, PETITIONERS, VS. GAVINO L. SOLAMO, RAMIL JERUSALEM, ARMANDO PARUNGAO, RAFAEL CAPAROS, JR., NORIEL SOLAMO, ALFREDO SALANGSANG, MARK PARUNGAO AND DEAN V. CALVO, RESPONDENTS.

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018