Topic: Non-Interference of the Court in Finding Probable Cause by Prosecutor; Exceptions

(Preliminary Investigation - Rule 112, Criminal Procedure)

1. General Rule: Prosecutorial Discretion in Finding Probable Cause

Under the Philippine criminal justice system, the determination of probable cause during the preliminary investigation is an executive function vested in the public prosecutor or investigating officer. Courts generally cannot interfere in the prosecutor’s discretion to determine probable cause. This is rooted in the doctrine of the separation of powers, where the courts respect the executive department’s prerogative in prosecuting crimes.

The prosecutor’s authority includes:

Determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and
Identifying whether the accused is likely guilty thereof, justifying the filing of an information.

This principle is enshrined in Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and supported by jurisprudence.

2. Exceptions: Instances When the Court May Interfere

Despite the general rule, there are recognized exceptions where the courts may intervene in the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause. These exceptions arise when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the prosecutor. The courts may step in under the following circumstances:

To Correct Grave Abuse of Discretion by the Prosecutor
Grave abuse of discretion occurs when the prosecutor acts in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical, or when the decision is not based on law or evidence. In such cases, the aggrieved party may seek judicial relief through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
- Example: Ilusorio v. Ilusorio-Bildner (G.R. No. 139789, 2001)
  The Supreme Court ruled that courts may review the prosecutor’s findings when there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion in the determination of probable cause.
To Prevent Manifest Injustice
The court may interfere if the prosecutor’s decision would result in a miscarriage of justice, such as where a blatantly frivolous charge is filed or where a patently meritorious case is dismissed.
- Example: People v. Ligon (G.R. No. 215656, 2017)
  The court stepped in to prevent injustice when the prosecutor’s dismissal of the case lacked substantial basis and was arbitrary.
When the Prosecutor Fails to Observe Due Process
If the prosecutor fails to follow the proper procedures during the preliminary investigation (e.g., denying the respondent a chance to submit a counter-affidavit or evidence), the court may intervene.
- Due process violations undermine the integrity of the finding of probable cause and allow judicial interference.
In Cases of Political Harassment or Bad Faith
If the prosecutor’s action is motivated by political harassment, malice, or bad faith, the courts can step in to safeguard the rights of the accused.
- Example: Guerrero v. CA (G.R. No. 107211, 1997)
  The Supreme Court nullified the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause after finding that the charges were filed to harass the accused.
When There is a Clear Lack of Evidence
The courts can intervene if the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause is patently unsupported by evidence.
- Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman (G.R. No. 210903, 2016)
  The Supreme Court nullified the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause due to an evident lack of factual basis.
Interference by Special Law or Jurisdiction
Certain laws or rules give the courts specific authority to review findings of probable cause. For example:
- In cases involving public officials investigated by the Ombudsman, the court may review findings of probable cause under RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989).
- Judicial Review under the Constitution, in conjunction with the Bill of Rights, when constitutional rights are violated.

3. Nature and Scope of Judicial Review

Judicial review of the prosecutor’s findings of probable cause is limited to determining whether there was grave abuse of discretion. The courts do not substitute their judgment for that of the prosecutor. The review focuses on procedural and jurisdictional errors, not on the merits of the case.

Key distinctions:

Probable Cause for Filing an Information (Executive): Determined by the prosecutor based on evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation.
Probable Cause for Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest (Judicial): Determined exclusively by the judge after the filing of the information.

4. Limitations on Court Intervention

Even in exceptional circumstances, courts must observe the following limitations:

Presumption of Regularity: Prosecutorial findings are presumed valid and regular unless there is clear proof of grave abuse of discretion.
Non-Intrusion into the Merits: The court cannot weigh the evidence as if conducting its own preliminary investigation.
Prompt Action: Interventions must be timely to avoid undue delay in criminal proceedings.

5. Remedies Available to the Aggrieved Party

If the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the aggrieved party may avail the following legal remedies:

Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65): Filed with the proper court to annul the prosecutor’s resolution.
Motion for Reconsideration: Filed before the prosecutor to reconsider the finding of probable cause.
Petition for Review: Filed with the Secretary of Justice or the Office of the Ombudsman, depending on jurisdiction.
Injunction or Prohibition: Filed to prevent enforcement of the prosecutor’s resolution.

6. Relevant Jurisprudence

Ledesma v. CA (G.R. No. 166780, 2006)
The Supreme Court reiterated that courts should not supplant the prosecutor’s findings of probable cause unless there is grave abuse of discretion.
Estrada v. Ombudsman (G.R. Nos. 212140-41, 2015)
The Court emphasized that judicial review of prosecutorial discretion is limited to instances of grave abuse of discretion.
Uy v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 105965, 1999)
The Court ruled that judicial interference is justified when the prosecutor’s actions amount to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment.
People v. CA and Espinosa (G.R. No. 126005, 1997)
It was held that courts may review the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause if it is manifestly erroneous or unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion

The doctrine of non-interference by the courts in the prosecutor’s determination of probable cause ensures that the executive branch can fulfill its duty to prosecute crimes without undue judicial encroachment. However, exceptions exist to correct grave abuse of discretion, prevent injustice, and ensure adherence to due process. Courts are cautious in exercising their power of judicial review to maintain the balance of powers and respect the prosecutor’s mandate.