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