Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information in court,

exists when the facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a
crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof
(Aguilar vs. Department of Justice, et. al., G.R. No. 197522, September 11,
2013).

While it is true that the institution of a criminal action depends upon the
sound discretion of the fiscal, the latter has equally the duty not to prosecute
when the evidence adduced is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
This broad authority of prosecutors is circumscribed by the requirement of a
conscientious conduct of preliminary investigation to guarantee the right of
every person to be free from the inconvenience, expense, ignominy and stress
of defending himself/herself of a formal trial, until the reasonable probability
of his or her guilt has been passed upon. Hence, even at the stage of
preliminary investigation, prosecutors are duty bound to sift through all the
documents, objects, and testimonies to determine what may serve as 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 (Salapuddin vs. The Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
184681, 25 February 2013, paraphrasing and emphasis ours).

Amora, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-58973-76, 20 July 1982) where it
was stated that there could be no falsification if the acts of the accused are
consistent with good faith, thus there was no criminal intent.

The conduct of a preliminary investigation, the determination of probable

cause is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor (People vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 126005, 21 January 1999). Probable cause is defined as
such facts and circumstances that will engender a well-founded belief that a
crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof
and should be held for trial. Because a public prosecutor is the one
conducting a preliminary investigation, he determines the existence of
probable cause. Consequently, the decision to file a criminal information in
court or to dismiss a complaint depends on his sound discretion (Sanrio
Company Limited vs. Lim, 546 SCRA 303, 312-313, 19 February 2008).
Glaxosmitkline Philippines, Inc. vs. Khalid Mehmood Malik (499 SCRA 268,
274, citing Tam Wing vs. Makasiar, 350 SCRA 475) thus:

“(b)y the nature of his office, the investigating prosecutor is under no

compulsion to file criminal information where no clear legal justification has
been shown and where he is not convinced that he has the quantum of
evidence to support the averments. Prosecuting officers have the duty not to
prosecute when, after investigation or reinvestigation, they are convinced that
the evidence adduced was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case. This
is as it should be. For, the determination of the persons to be prosecuted rests
primarily with the prosecutor who is vested with discretion in the discharge
of this function. Hence, the question of whether or not to dismiss a complaint
is within the purview of the functions of the prosecutor and, ultimately, that
of the Secretary of Justice.”

In criminal prosecution, the court is always guided by evidence that is

tangible, verifiable and in harmony with the usual course of human
experience and not by mere conjecture or speculation. While guilt should not
escape, innocence should not suffer (People of the Philippines vs. Junnifer
Laurente, G.R. No. 129594, 7 March 2001).

G.R. No. 126005 January 21, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ALYNN PLEZETTE DY, petitioners,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, BILLY CERBO and JONATHAN CERBO,
respondents.

Indeed, the public prosecutor has broad discretion to determine whether

probable cause exists and to charge those whom be or she believes to have
committed the crime as defined by law. Otherwise stated, such official has the
quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case list be
filed in court.11 Thus, in Crespo v. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462, June 30, 1987, we
ruled:

It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either

commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted
under the direction and control of the fiscal. The institution of a
criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal.
He may or may not file the complaint or information, follow or
not follow that presented by the offended party, according to
whether the evidence, in his opinion, is sufficient or not to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 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. . . . 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.

Jurisprudence Preliminary investigation

[G.R. No. 147932. January 25, 2006.]
LAILA G. DE OCAMPO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY
OF JUSTICE, MAGDALENA B. DACARRA, and ERLINDA P. ORAYAN,
respondents.
To repeat, what is determined during preliminary investigation is only
probable cause, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. 25 As implied by the
words themselves, "probable cause" is concerned with probability, not
absolute or moral certainty
[G.R. No. 186652. October 6, 2010.]
ATTY. ALICE ODCHIGUE-BONDOC, petitioner, vs. TAN TIONG BIO
A.K.A. HENRY TAN, respondent.

A preliminary investigation thus partakes of an investigative or inquisitorial

power for the sole purpose of obtaining information on what future action of
a judicial nature may be taken.

First Women's Credit Corporation v. Perez

G.R. No. 169026, June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 774, 777

It is settled that the determination of whether probable cause exists to warrant

the prosecution in court of an accused should be consigned and entrusted to
the Department of Justice, as reviewer of the findings of public prosecutors.
The court's duty in an appropriate case is confined to a determination of
whether the assailed executive or judicial determination of probable cause
was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to want of jurisdiction. This is consistent with the general rule that
criminal prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed by injunction,
preliminary or final, albeit in extreme cases, exceptional circumstances have
been recognized. The rule is also consistent with this Court's policy of non-
interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and of leaving to the
investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the exercise of
determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish
probable cause for the filing of an information against a supposed offender.

UCPB v. Looyuko
G.R. No. 156337, September 28, 2007, 534 SCRA 322, 331 citing
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Tonda, 392 Phil. 797, 814
Consistent with this policy, courts do not reverse the Secretary of Justice's
findings and conclusions on the matter of probable cause except in clear cases
of grave abuse of discretion.
xxx xxx xxx
In other words, judicial review of the resolution of the Secretary of Justice is
limited to a determination of whether there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction considering that full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the executive branch in the
determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation. Courts
are not empowered to substitute their judgment for that of the executive
branch; it may, however, look into the question of whether such exercise has
been made in grave abuse of discretion.

[G.R. No. 172796. July 13, 2009.]

SPS. ARTEMIO and ESPERANZA ADUAN, petitioners, vs. LEVI CHONG,
respondent.
It is hornbook principle that the term "grave abuse of discretion" means such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. 15 The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act
at all in contemplation of law.

[G.R. No. 171435. July 30, 2008.]

ANTHONY T. REYES, petitioner, vs. PEARLBANK SECURITIES, INC.,
respondent.
Suffice it to say that it is indubitably within the discretion of the prosecutor
to determine who must be charged with what crime or for what offense.

Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been
defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that
a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof.
(Sy v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 166315, 14 December 2006, 511
SCRA 92, 96; Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 154685, 27 November 2006, 508 SCRA 215, 224;
Cabrera v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 157835, 27 July 2006, 496 SCRA 771, 782;
Osorio v. Desierto, G.R. No. 156652, 13 October 2005, 472 SCRA 559,
573; Sarigumba v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 154239-41, 16 February
2005, 451 SCRA 533, 550; Quiambao v. Desierto, G.R. No. 149069, 20
September 2004, 438 SCRA 495, 508; Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, 444
Phil. 499, 531 (2003); Fabia v. Court of Appeals, 437 Phil. 389, 398-399
(2002); Domalanta v. Commission on Elections, 390 Phil. 46, 62-63
(2000); Webb v. Hon. De Leon, 317 Phil. 758, 779-780 (1995); Pilapil v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101978, 7 April 1993, 221 SCRA 349, 360)
The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import
absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.
Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient
evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act
or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.

A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more
likely than not a crime has been committed by the suspects. It need not be
based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, not on evidence establishing
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing
absolute certainty of guilt. 20 In determining probable cause, the average man
weighs 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. 21 What is determined is whether there is sufficient ground
to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that
the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not
require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a
conviction.

These findings of probable cause fall within the jurisdiction of the prosecutor
or fiscal in the exercise of executive power, which the courts do not interfere
with unless there is grave abuse of discretion. The determination of its
existence lies within the discretion of the prosecuting officers after conducting
a preliminary investigation upon complaint of an offended party. Thus, the
decision whether to dismiss a complaint or not is dependent upon the sound
discretion of the prosecuting fiscal. (Public Utilities Department v. Hon.
Guingona, Jr., 417 Phil. 798, 804 (2001); Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon, 361
Phil. 900, 907 (1999) He may dismiss the complaint forthwith, if he finds
the charge insufficient in form or substance or without any ground. Or he
may proceed with the investigation if the complaint in his view is sufficient
and in proper form. To emphasize, the determination of probable cause for
the filing of information in court is an executive function, one that properly
pertains at the first instance to the public prosecutor and, ultimately, to the
Secretary of Justice, who may direct the filing of the corresponding
information or move for the dismissal of the case (Advincula v. Court of
Appeals, 397 Phil. 641, 650 (2000); Punzalan v. Dela Peña, G.R. No.
158543, 21 July 2004, 434 SCRA 601) Ultimately, whether or not a
complaint will be dismissed is dependent on the sound discretion of the
Secretary of Justice. 24 And unless made with grave abuse of discretion,
findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review.

For this reason, the Court considers it sound judicial policy to refrain from
interfering in the conduct of preliminary investigations and to leave the
Department of Justice ample latitude of discretion in the determination of
what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the
prosecution of supposed offenders. Consistent with this policy, courts do not
reverse the Secretary of Justice's findings and conclusions on the matter of
probable cause except in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion (First
Women's Credit Corporation v. Perez, G.R. No. 169026, 15 June 2006,
490 SCRA 774, 777)

D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Esguerra, 328 Phil. 1168, 1181 (1996).

By grave abuse of discretion is meant, such capricious and whimsical exercise
of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion
must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.

[G.R. No. 154920. August 15, 2003.]

RODNEY HEGERTY, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and
ALLAN NASH, respondents.

The City Prosecutor had the duty to determine whether there was a prima
facie case for estafa based on sufficient evidence that would warrant the filing
of an information.
A public prosecutor, by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file
a criminal information where no clear legal justification has been shown, and
no sufficient evidence of guilt nor prima facie case has been presented by the
petitioner.
We need only to stress that the determination of probable cause during a
preliminary investigation or reinvestigation is recognized as an executive
function exclusively of the prosecutor. An investigating prosecutor is under
no obligation to file a criminal action where he is not convinced that he has
the quantum of evidence at hand to support the averments. Prosecuting
officers have equally the duty not to prosecute when after investigation or
reinvestigation they are convinced that the evidence adduced was not
sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Thus, the determination of the
persons to be prosecuted rests primarily with the prosecutor who is vested
with discretion in the discharge of this function.

[G.R. No. 163656. April 27, 2007.]

MARINA B. SCHROEDER, petitioner, vs. ATTYS. MARIO A. SALDEVAR
and ERWIN C. MACALINO, respondents.
In our criminal justice system, the public prosecutor exercises wide latitude
of discretion in determining whether a criminal case should be filed in court.
Courts must respect the exercise of such discretion when the information filed
against the person charged is valid on its face, and no manifest error or grave
abuse of discretion can be imputed to the public prosecutor (People v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 126005, January 21, 1999, 301 SCRA 475, 493)

[G.R. No. 166888. January 31, 2007.]

FIRST WOMEN'S CREDIT CORPORATION and SHIG KATAYAMA,
petitioners, vs. HON. ROMMEL O. BAYBAY, in his capacity as the ACTING
PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 65, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT,
MAKATI CITY [SIC], * RAMON P. JACINTO, JAIME C. COLAYCO, ANTONIO
P. TAYAO and GLICERIO PEREZ, respondents.
It is settled that the determination of whether probable cause exists to warrant
the prosecution in court of an accused should be consigned and entrusted to
the Department of Justice, as reviewer of the findings of public prosecutors.
26 The court's duty in an appropriate case is confined to a determination of
whether the assailed executive or judicial determination of probable cause
was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to want of jurisdiction. This is consistent with the general rule that
criminal prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed by injunction,
preliminary or final, 27 albeit in extreme cases, exceptional circumstances
have been recognized. 28 The rule is also consistent with this Court's policy
of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and of leaving
to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the exercise
of determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish
probable cause for the filing of an information against a supposed offender.
29

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

Cruz vs. Cruz, 515 SCRA 89 (2007)

Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be
held for trial.
The investigating prosecutor is vested with the duty of (a) preparing a
resolution holding the respondent for trial and filing the corresponding
information or (b) dismissing the case should he find that no probable cause
exists against respondent.

Paredes vs. Calilung, 517 SCRA 369 (2007)

Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt,
neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely,
not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt, but it certainly
demands more than bare suspicion and can never be left to presupposition,
conjecture, or even convincing logic.

Although it is entirely possible that the investigating prosecutor may

erroneously exercise the discretion lodged in him by law, this does not render
his act amenable to correction and annulment by the extraordinary remedy
of certiorari, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess of jurisdiction. (*USE THIS)

AAA vs. CArbonell, 524 SCRA 496

It is well-settled that a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear
and convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt; Probable cause is that
which engenders a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and
that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial

Tilendo vs. Ombudsman, 533 SCRA 331

The presence or absence of the elements of the crimes, which are by their
nature evidentiary and defense matters, can be best passed upon after a trial
on the merits - a preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and
exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence

Gonzales vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation

537 SCRA 255
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and
circumstance as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the
facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor; A finding of probable cause
merely binds over the suspect to stand trial – it is not a pronouncement of
guilt.

Rep vs. Desierto, 512 SCRA 57; De Chavez vs. Office of the Ombudsman,
514 SCRA 638; Magbanua vs. Junsay, 515 SCRA 419; Schroeder vs.
Saldevar, 522 SCRA 624; Gonzales vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking
Corporation, 537 SCRA 255

The wide latitude in determining the existence of probable cause or the lack
of it cannot be exercised arbitrarily; A finding of probable cause needs only to
rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been
committed and was committed by the suspects

Boiser vs. People, 543 SCRA 436 (2008)

A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more
likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect
– probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt,
neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and
definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt

Tan vs. Ballena, 557 SCRA 229; Baltazar vs. People, 560 SCRA 278 (2008)
A prosecutor alone determines the sufficiency of evidence that will establish
probable cause justifying the filing of a criminal information against the
respondent, but by way of exception, judicial review is allowed where
respondent has clearly established that the prosecutor committed grave
abuse of discretion.

Baltazar vs. People, 560 SCRA 278 (2008)

As defined under the law, a preliminary investigation is an inquiry or a
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 and should be held for trial

Reyes vs. Pearlbank Security, Inc. 560 SCRA 518 (2008)

By grave abuse of discretion is meant, such capricious and whimsical exercise
of judgment as is equivalent to the lack of jurisdiction

Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc. vs, Lim, 573 SCRA 25

The filing with the Court of Appeals of a petition for review under Rule 43 to
question the Justice Secretary’s resolution regarding the determination of
probable cause is an improper remedy – the remedy of the aggrieved party is
to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Chan vs. Secretary of Justice , 548 SCRA 337 (2008)

Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt,
as the investigating officer acts upon reasonable belief – probable cause
implies probability of guilt and requires more that bare suspicion but less
than evidence which would justify a conviction

Albay Accredited Constructors Association, Inc. vs. Desierto, 480 SCRA

520 (20060
The ultimate purpose of preliminary investigation is “to secure the innocent
against the hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecutions, and to protect him
from open and public accusation of crime, form the trouble, expenses and
anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the State from useless and
expensive prosecutions.

In certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the inquiry is

limited essentially on whether or not the public respondent acted without or
in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion

Glaxosmithekline Philippines, Inc. vs. Khalid Mehmood Malik, 499 SCRA

268 (2006)
The prosecutor’s findings on what constitutes sufficient evidence as will
establish probable cause for the filing of the corresponding complaint or
information against an offender are not subject to review by the courts unless
shown to have been made with grave abuse of discretion

Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, exists when the facts are sufficient
to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is
probably guilty thereof. To engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and
to determine if the suspect is probably guilty of the same, the elements of the crime charged should,
in all reasonable likelihood, be present. This is based on the principle that every crime is defined
by its elements, without which there should be, at the most, no criminal offense.61 G.R. No. 197567,
November 19, 2014, GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, JR.,
vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, LEONARDO B. ROMAN, ROMEO L. MENDIOLA, PASTOR
P. VICHUACO, AURORA J. TIAMBENG, and NUMERIANO G. MEDINA, citing Alberto v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 182130 and 182132, June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 104, 131.

A mere allegation is not evidence. Allegations are never equivalent to

proof and a bare charge cannot be equated with liability (Matnubay vs.
Garcia, 330 SCRA 236). The complainant in a criminal charge has the
burden to prove the allegation by convincing evidence to warrant the
indictment of the respondent (Ilesorio vs. Ilusorio, 540 SCRA 182)
 G.R. No. 185493 February 2, 2011

LtC. ROBERTO K. GUILLERGAN (Ret.), Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

The elements of falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article 172 are: 1) the offender is a
private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position;
2) the offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171; 18 and 3) the
falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document.19

G.R. No. 186030 March 21, 2012

NORMA DELOS REYES VDA. DEL PRADO, EULOGIA R. DEL PRADO,

NORMITA R. DEL PRADO and RODELIA R. DEL PRADO, Petitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

(DEFENSE OF GOOD FAITH NOT APPLICABLE)

Even granting that the present petition may be admitted, we find

no cogent reason to reverse the CA decision appealed from, considering
that the elements of the crime of falsification under Art. 171, par. 4 of the
Revised Penal Code, in relation to Art. 172 thereof, were duly proved
during the proceedings below. Said elements are as follows:

(a) The offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a

narration of facts;
(b) The offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts
narrated by him; and
(c) The facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false.[21]

These elements are based on the provisions of Art. 172, in relation

to Art. 171, par. 4, of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:

Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical

minister. – The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall
be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his
official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
 xxx

4. Making untruthful statements in narration of facts;

xxx

Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. –

The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of
not more than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:

1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the
next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any
other kind of commercial document; and
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such
damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification
enumerated in the next preceding article.

xxx

G.R. Nos. 216007-09, December 08, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LUZVIMINDA S. VALDEZ AND THE

SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION), Respondent.

The time-honored principle is that penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in
favor of the accused.38 When there is doubt on the interpretation of criminal laws, all must be resolved in
favor of the accused.