Preliminary Investigation under Rule 112, Section 2 – Determination of Existence of Probable Cause

Preliminary investigation is a crucial stage in criminal procedure that serves to protect an individual from the inconvenience, expense, and stigma of an unjust criminal prosecution. This process determines whether there exists probable cause to hold the respondent for trial. Below is an exhaustive discussion of the rules, jurisprudence, and principles governing the determination of probable cause in a preliminary investigation under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

I. Definition and Purpose of Preliminary Investigation

Preliminary Investigation is defined as an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. (Rule 112, Sec. 1, Rules of Court)
It is not a trial on the merits, and its purpose is merely probable cause, not guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
It is a right granted to an individual under the 1987 Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 14(2)), considered part of due process and a substantive right.

II. What is Probable Cause?

Probable cause refers to such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. It is based on:

Actual facts and circumstances, not mere conjecture or speculation.
A reasonable belief that the accused is linked to the crime.

Case law definitions:

In People v. Castillo (G.R. No. 206698, April 20, 2015), the Supreme Court explained that probable cause does not require absolute certainty but only enough reason to believe that the respondent committed the offense.
In Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Gonzales (G.R. No. 180974, October 13, 2010), it was held that probable cause does not mean proof beyond reasonable doubt but only the probability of guilt.

III. Nature of Determination of Probable Cause

There are two types of probable cause:

Executive Determination of Probable Cause: Done by prosecutors during preliminary investigation to decide whether to file a case in court.
Judicial Determination of Probable Cause: Done by judges to determine whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.

Focus of this discussion: Executive determination of probable cause under Rule 112.

IV. Procedure for Determination of Probable Cause in Preliminary Investigation

1. Filing of Complaint or Information (Sec. 3(a))

A preliminary investigation is initiated by filing a complaint with the prosecutor's office, accompanied by the affidavits of witnesses, other supporting evidence, and certification of non-forum shopping.
The respondent is notified and afforded the right to submit a counter-affidavit.

2. Five-Day Period to Decide (Sec. 3(b))

Upon receipt of the complaint and counter-affidavits, the investigating prosecutor must resolve whether there is probable cause within ten (10) days from submission of the case.

3. Submissions of Evidence (Sec. 3(c))

The parties are allowed to present supporting evidence. The prosecutor evaluates whether there is a sufficient basis to proceed with criminal charges.

4. Resolution of the Prosecutor (Sec. 4)

If probable cause is found, the prosecutor files the Information with the appropriate court.
If no probable cause is found, the case is dismissed.

V. Role of the Prosecutor in Determining Probable Cause

The determination of probable cause is an executive function exclusively vested in the prosecutor or investigating officer. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized this principle:

In Albay Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Gutierrez (G.R. No. 198973, June 27, 2018), the Court clarified that courts cannot interfere with the prosecutor's determination of probable cause unless there is clear evidence of grave abuse of discretion.

The prosecutor's discretion includes:

Examining affidavits and evidence.
Weighing facts and circumstances of the case.
Deciding whether to file the case in court.

VI. Key Principles in Determining Probable Cause

Well-Founded Belief:
- Probable cause requires a reasonable belief that the respondent committed the crime. It does not require certainty or proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Ex Parte Nature:
- Preliminary investigation can be conducted even if the respondent fails to submit a counter-affidavit or participate in the proceedings.
No Right to Cross-Examination:
- The respondent has no right to confront witnesses during the investigation. The proceedings are summary in nature.
No Control Over Prosecutor’s Discretion:
- Courts cannot interfere in the prosecutor’s determination unless there is grave abuse of discretion.

VII. Remedies Against Determination of Probable Cause

Motion for Reconsideration:
- A respondent may file a motion for reconsideration with the prosecutor if dissatisfied with the resolution.
Petition for Review:
- If the motion for reconsideration is denied, the respondent may elevate the case to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Certiorari:
- If the prosecutor's finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed with the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.

VIII. Jurisprudence on Probable Cause in Preliminary Investigation

Lack of Probable Cause:
- In Allado v. Diokno (G.R. No. 113630, May 5, 1994), the Supreme Court ruled that the filing of an Information without probable cause violates due process.
Sufficiency of Evidence:
- In Burgos v. Chief of Staff (G.R. No. L-64261, December 26, 1984), the Court stressed that mere suspicion is not enough to establish probable cause.
Grave Abuse of Discretion:
- In Drilon v. CA (G.R. No. 109087, January 11, 1999), the Court emphasized that certiorari is warranted if the prosecutor gravely abuses discretion in finding probable cause.

IX. Conclusion

The determination of probable cause in preliminary investigation under Rule 112 is a delicate balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring justice is served. Prosecutors must base their findings on facts, evidence, and the law, while courts must respect their discretion unless there is grave abuse. This process serves as a safeguard against unwarranted and baseless prosecutions while ensuring offenders are held accountable.