Juris. Probable Cause. PI

55.
It is a basic rule in criminal procedure that the complaint or

information must sufficiently state the acts and omissions complained of as
constituting the offense (Section 6, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure). The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense must
be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used
in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding
to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances (People vs. Dasmariñas, G.R. No. 203986, 04 October 2017). The
allegations of facts constituting the offense charged are substantial matters and the
right of an accused to question his conviction based on facts not alleged in the
information cannot be waived (Braga vs. People, G.R. No. 214497, 18 April 2017).
56. Relevant to the case bar is the case of Saturnino C. Ocampo vs. Hon.
Ephrem S. Abando et. al. (G.R. No.176830; February 11, 2014) wherein the
Honorable Supreme Court reiterated the foregoing legal doctrine, to wit:
“A preliminary investigation is "not a casual affair." It is

conducted to protect the innocent from the embarrassment, expense
and anxiety of a public trial.” (emphasis supplied)
57. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Yecyec et al.
(G.R. No. 183551, 12 November 2014), the Supreme Court ruled that:
“This broad prosecutorial power is, however, not unfettered,

because just as public prosecutors are obliged to bring forth before
the law those who have transgressed it, THEY ARE ALSO
CONSTRAINED TO BE CIRCUMSPECT IN FILING
CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE INNOCENT.” (emphasis
supplied)
58. In Gerry Salapuddin vs. Court of Appeals et al. (G.R. No. 184681, 25
February 2013), the Honorable Supreme Court ruled:
“The reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the

direction and control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or
unfounded prosecutions by private persons xxx. Prosecuting officers
under the power vested in them by the law, not only have the
authority but also the duty of prosecuting persons who, according
to the evidence received from the complainant, are shown to be
guilty of a crime committed within the jurisdiction of their office.
They have equally the duty not to prosecute when the evidence
adduced is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
This broad authority of prosecutors, however, is circumscribed

by the requirement of a conscientious conduct of a preliminary
investigation for offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is at
least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day. This rule is intended to
guarantee the right of every person to be free from "the
inconvenience, expense, ignominy and stress of defending
himself/herself in the course of a formal trial, until the reasonable
probability of his or her guilt has been passed upon" and to guard
the State against the "burden of unnecessary expense and effort in
prosecuting alleged offenses and in holding trials arising from
false, frivolous or groundless charges.”
Hence, even at this stage, the investigating prosecutors are

duty-bound to sift through all the documents, objects, and
testimonies to determine what may serve as a relevant and
competent evidentiary foundation of a possible case against the
accused persons. They cannot defer and entirely leave this
verification of all the various matters to the courts. Otherwise, the
conduct of a preliminary investigation would be rendered
worthless; the State would still be forced to prosecute frivolous suits
and innocent men would still be unnecessarily dragged to defend
themselves in courts against groundless charges. Indeed, while
prosecutors are not required to determine the rights and liabilities
of the parties, a preliminary investigation still constitutes a realistic
judicial appraisal of the merits of the case so that the investigating
prosecutor is not excused from the duty to weigh the evidence
submitted and ensure that what will be filed in court is only such
criminal charge that the evidence and inferences can properly
warrant.” (emphasis supplied)
59. Similarly, the Honorable Supreme Court in Rhodora Ledesma vs.

Court of Appeals and Maximiano Asuncion (G.R. No. 113216, 05 September
1997), held:
“The primary objective of a preliminary investigation is to free

a respondent from the inconvenience, expense, ignominy and stress
of defending himself/herself in the course of a formal trial, until the
reasonable probability of his or her guilt has been passed upon in a
more or less summary proceeding by a competent officer designated
by law for that purpose. Secondarily, such summary proceeding
also protects the state from the burden of unnecessary expense and
effort in prosecuting alleged offenses and in holding trials arising
from false, frivolous or groundless charges.” (emphasis supplied)
60. The ruling in the case of Susan Cabahug vs. People of the
Philippines, et al. (G.R. No. 132816, 05 February 2002) is analogically applicable
in the instant case, to wit:
“While it is the function of the Ombudsman to determine

whether or not the petitioner should be subjected to the expense,
rigors and embarrassment of trial, he cannot do so arbitrarily. This
seemingly exclusive and unilateral authority of the Ombudsman
must be tempered by the Court when powers of prosecution are in
danger of being used for persecution. Dismissing the case against
the accused for palpable want of probable cause not only spares her
the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial, but also prevents
needless waste of the courts time and saves the precious resources
of the government.
We cannot overemphasize the admonition to agencies tasked

with the preliminary investigation and prosecution of crimes that
the very purpose of a preliminary investigation is to shield the
innocent from precipitate, spiteful and burdensome
prosecution. They are duty-bound to avoid, unless absolutely
necessary, open and public accusation of crime not only to spare
the innocent the trouble, expense and torment of a public trial, but
also to prevent unnecessary expense on the part of the State for
useless and expensive trials. THUS, WHEN AT THE OUTSET
THE EVIDENCE CANNOT SUSTAIN A PRIMA FACIE CASE
OR THAT THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO
FORM A SUFFICIENT BELIEF AS TO THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED, THE
PROSECUTION MUST DESIST FROM INFLICTING ON ANY
PERSON THE TRAUMA OF GOING THROUGH A TRIAL .”
(emphasis supplied)
61. Based on all of the foregoing, it is most respectfully submitted that the
instant case against me should be dismissed outright. Our Constitution, as the
embodiment of the sovereign will, affords every person a presumption of
innocence. As a respondent in the instant case, I am provided with this
constitutionally mandated presumption of innocence. I have in my favor the
presumption of innocence, which the Bill of Rights guarantees.
62. Unless there is probable cause, which is absent in the case at bar, the
instant criminal case against me should be dismissed. The burden of proof is on the
complainant, and unless it discharges that burden, I as the respondent need not
even offer evidence on my behalf, and I would be entitled to the dismissal of the
criminal complaint against me. (Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan and People, G.R. No.
126995 October 6, 1998). In the case at bar, complainant Munar miserably failed
to show that there is probable cause to charge me for the crimes of Grave Coercion
and Grave Threats.

Juris. Probable Cause. PI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Juris. Probable Cause. PI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Juris. Probable Cause. PI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

55.

It is a basic rule in criminal procedure that the complaint or

“A preliminary investigation is "not a casual affair." It is

“This broad prosecutorial power is, however, not unfettered,

“The reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the

This broad authority of prosecutors, however, is circumscribed

Hence, even at this stage, the investigating prosecutors are

59. Similarly, the Honorable Supreme Court in Rhodora Ledesma vs.

“The primary objective of a preliminary investigation is to free

“While it is the function of the Ombudsman to determine

We cannot overemphasize the admonition to agencies tasked

You might also like