SEVERINO C. BALTAZAR vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ARMANDO C. BAUTISTA G.R. No. 174016 July 28, 2008 THIRD DIVISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45

SEVERINO C. BALTAZAR vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ARMANDO C. BAUTISTA

G.R. No. 174016   July 28, 2008

THIRD DIVISION  CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45

Facts:

          A silver/gray colored car traveling from the direction of Calumpit and going towards the direction of Pulilan Public Market, suddenly hit a pedicab. Because of the impact, the passengers of the pedicab – Erlinda Baltazar and her son, Rolando Baltazar – were thrown out of the pedicab.  Witnesses Cristobal Atienza and Louie Reyes claimed in their respective sworn statements that after hitting the pedicab, they saw the car stop, maneuver into reverse, and run over the hapless victims, before fleeing the crime scene.  As a result, Erlinda Baltazar died while Rolando Baltazar suffered injuries.

In the course of the investigation of the incident, Police Officer Santos of PNP, traced the ownership of the car which bumped the pedicab and discovered that the registered owner thereof was a certain Celso Bautista, who had already sold the said vehicle to private respondent Armando Bautista.  PO1 Santos then went to private respondent’s residence where he recovered the car stained with blood.

Consequently, petitioner Severino C. Baltazar, one of the children of the deceased Erlinda Baltazar and brother of the injured Rolando Baltazar, filed with the MTC two separate criminal complaints against private respondent, one for the Murder of Erlinda Baltazar and the other for Frustrated Murder for the injuries suffered by Rolando Baltazar.

Hon. Horacio Viola, Jr., Presiding Judge of the MTC, conducted the requisite preliminary investigation, and upon its termination, issued his Resolution recommending, inter alia, the dismissal of the Murder charge against private respondent in view of the admission of his nephew, Joel Santos, in a sworn statement, that he was the one driving the car when the deadly incident occurred. The records of the cases were eventually transmitted to the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan for appropriate action.

Upon receipt of the case records by the Provincial Prosecutor, petitioner prayed for and was granted by the said Office a reinvestigation.  By a Resolution the Provincial Prosecutor reversed the findings of Judge Viola, Jr. and found probable cause to merit the indictment of private respondent for the murder of Erlinda Baltazar. It was raffled to the sala of Hon. Judge Crisanto Concepcion, Presiding Judge of Branch 12 of the RTC. Acting on the said criminal case, Judge Concepcion issued an Order for the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of private respondent.

Then private respondent filed a Motion for Reinvestigation before the RTC, Branch 12. The same was denied in the order of the RTC. Then private respondent filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a Petition for Review of the Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor finding probable cause that he committed the murder of Erlinda Baltazar.

About a year later, on the strength of the warrant of arrest issued by the RTC, private respondent was apprehended and detained pending trial. Private respondent was set to be arraigned however; Judge Concepcion postponed the arraignment upon motion of private respondent who invoked the pendency of his Petition for Review with the DOJ.  Private respondent’s rescheduled arraignment again did not push through because he presented before the RTC a copy of the Resolution issued by Acting DOJ Secretary reversing the findings of the Provincial Prosecutor. Pursuant to the Resolution, a Motion to Withdraw Information was filed by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor with the RTC and was granted by Judge Concepcion in an Order issued.

Issue:

          Whether or not the Judge is bound by the finding of probable cause by a prosecutor

Ruling:

           The Supreme Court held that Under Section 1, Rule 112[43] of the Revised Rules of Court, 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 that 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, as well as for 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.

The preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not bind the Judge.  It merely assists him in making the determination of probable cause for issuance of the warrant of arrest.  The Judge does not have to follow what the Prosecutor presents to him.  By itself, the Prosecutor’s certification of probable cause is ineffectual.  It is the report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor’s certification which are material in assisting the Judge in making his determination.

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 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.  In determining probable cause, the average man weighs the facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge.  He relies on common sense.  A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused.  Probable cause demands more than suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction. The purpose of the mandate of the judge to first determine probable cause for the arrest of the accused, such as in the case at bar, is to insulate from the very start those falsely charged with crimes from the tribulations, expenses and anxiety of a public trial.