ROLITO GO y TAMBUNTING vs.

COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: An information was filed charging herein petitioner Rolito Go for murder before the Regional Trial Court of Metro Manila. Petitioner oluntaril! presented himself together with his two law!ers to the police upon obtaining "nowledge of being hunted b! the latter. #owe er$ he was immediatel! detained and denied his right of a preliminar! in estigation unless he e%ecutes and sings a wai er of the pro isions of Article &'( of the Re ised Penal Code. )pon omnibus motion for immediate release on recogni*ance or on bail and proper preliminar! in estigation on the ground that his warrantless arrest was unlawful and no preliminar! in estigation was conducted before the information was filed$ which is iolati e of his rights$ the same was granted but later on re ersed b! the lower court and affirmed b! the Court of Appeals. The appellate court in sustaining the decision of the lower court held that petitioner+s warrantless arrest was alid in iew of the fact that the offense was committed$ the petitioner was clearl! identified and there e%ists alid information for murder filed against petitioner. #ence$ the petitioner filed this present petition for re iew on certiorari before the Supreme Court. ,SS)-.S: The issues assailed in the case at bar are the following: &. whether or not the warrantless arrest of herein petitioner was lawful$ and '. whether or not petitioner wai ed his right to preliminar! in estigation. R)/,0G: The general rule on arrest pro ides that the same is legitimate if effected with a alid warrant. #owe er$ there are instances specificall! enumerated under the law when a warrantless arrest ma! be considered lawful. 1espite that$ the warrantless arrest of herein petitioner Rolito Go does not fall within the terms of said rule. The police were not present at the time of the commission of the offense$ neither do the! ha e personal "nowledge on the crime to be committed or has been committed not to mention the fact that petitioner was not a prisoner who has escaped from the penal institution. ,n iew of the abo e$ the allegation of the prosecution that petitioner needs to sign a wai er of the pro isions of Article &'( of the Re ised Penal Code before a preliminar! in estigation ma! be conducted is baseless. ,n this connection$ petitioner has all the right to as" for a preliminar! in estigation to determine whether is probable cause that a crime has been committed and that petitioner is probabl! guilt! thereof as well as to pre ent him from the hassles$ an%iet! and aggra ation brought b! a criminal proceeding. This reason of the accused is substantial$ which he should not be depri ed of. 2n the other hand$ petitioner did not wai e his right to ha e a preliminar! in estigation contrar! to the prosecutor+s claim. The right to preliminar! in estigation is deemed wai ed when the accused fails to in o"e it before or at the time of entering a pleas at arraignment. The facts of the case show that petitioner insisted on his right to preliminar! in estigation before his arraignment and he$ through his counsel denied answering 3uestions before the court unless the! were afforded the proper preliminar! in estigation. For the abo e reasons$ the petition was granted and the ruling of the appellate court was set aside and nullified. The Supreme Court howe er$ contrar! to petitioner+s allegation$ declared that failure to accord the right to preliminar! in estigation did not impair the alidit! of the information charging the latter of the crime of murder.

F,/A1AMS P#ARMA$ ,0C.$ petitioner$ This is a petition for re iew under Rule 4( of the Rules of Court see"ing to annul and set aside the resolution& dated Ma! '5$ &556 of the Court of Appeals den!ing petitioner7s petition for certiorari and its resolution' dated 8anuar! '9$ &55: den!ing petitioner7s motion for reconsideration. The antecedent facts follow. Petitioner Filadams Pharma$ ,nc. ;Filadams< was a corporation engaged in the business of selling medicines to wholesalers. Pri ate respondent Antonio Feria was its sales representati e from 0o ember 9$ &559 until his dismissal on March 5$ &554. ,n an audit conducted sometime between March &= to '>$ &554$ respondent Feria was found accountable for P4&$699.=& representing unsold but unreturned stoc"s and samples$ unremitted collections and unli3uidated cash ad ances. Filadams alleged that these shortages and accountabilities were admitted b! respondent through his wife and counsel in a conference held at its office but despite repeated demands$ respondent failed to settle them to its damage and pre?udice.9 ,n his defense$ respondent denied the charge. #e a erred that$ although he was an agent of the corporation$ he was not the trustee of its products. The cash ad ances were spent$ as intended$ for promoting the products of the compan! and it was onl! the une%pended amount that was supposed to be returned b! wa! of li3uidation. The cash rebates were properl! gi en to the customers concerned although the same were gi en in "ind$ as re3uested b! the customers. ,n a spot chec" conducted in his area in 8anuar! and Februar! of &554$ the stoc" o erages in his possession were segregated and returned to the compan! but he was not gi en the returned goods slip ;RGS<. #e also returned arious items or medicines on March &4$ &554 amounting to P&5$>&(.45 but what was reflected in the in entor! report was onl! P:$&:(.9=. #e maintained that he neither misappropriated nor con erted the sub?ect sums of mone! for his personal use or benefit. ,f e er$ his obligation was purel! ci il in nature and the compan! in fact accepted his partial pa!ment of P9$=== through his wife in a conference held at petitioner+s office on September &9$ &554.4 ,n a repl!@affida it$ the internal auditor of Filadams asserted that respondent occupied a position of trust and confidence. #e was not gi en a new cash ad ance but merel! a replenishment of the used re ol ing fund. The cash rebates were ne er recei ed b! the customer as confirmed b! the customer himself. Respondent signed the ph!sical in entor! report so he could not claim that he made returns that were not recorded. Pa!ing bac" the amount of P9$=== to the compan! was an ac"nowledgment of his stoc" shortages and proof of his breach of trust and confidence resulting in the compan!7s damage and pre?udice.( The Assistant Cit! Prosecutor of Aue*on Cit! dismissed the complaint@affida it for lac" of cause of action: A careful e%amination of the affida it complaint plus the repl! affida it of complainant failed to state the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action. Bhile complainant states that their audit resulted in Feria7s misappropriation of the compan!7s products$ unremitted collections$ unreturned ad ances and unsubmitted sales proceeds in the total amount of P4&$699.=&$ the specifics of the misappropriation$ ;i.e.$ CineligibleD. . . when committed$ where committed$ how much per act of misappropriation or was the misappropriation a one@act dealECineligibleD< were all conclusions a general recitals ;sic< of the fact of commission.omission followed b! the personal conclusion of guilt b! the complainant which are not sustained b! admissible e idence.>

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied b! &st Assistant Cit! Prosecutor Gerona who ruled that there was no Fmanifest error or gra e abuse of discretion to ?ustif! re ersal$ alteration or modification of the challenged resolution.F6 Petitioner appealed to the Secretar! of 8ustice under the &559 Re ised Rules on Appeals from Resolutions in Preliminar! ,n estigations or Rein estigations.: Gut the 1epartment of 8ustice ;128<$ through the 2ffice of the Chief State Prosecutor$5 also dismissed the appeal: Bhile it is an undisputed fact that respondent incurred some accountabilities with Filadams during the duration of his emplo!ment$ as shown b! respondent7s pa!ment of the amount of P9$===.== on September &9$ &554$ mere ac"nowledgment b! respondent of these accountabilities does not of itself establish that estafa under par. & ;b< was committed. Bhat is apparent from the e idence adduced is the necessit! for the parties to sit down together and ma"e an accounting of the alleged accountabilit!. Complainant failed to present an! e idence of con ersion of the propert! to the benefit of the respondent or of some other person. Respondent7s failure to return the goods or cash ad ances in this case is not sufficient proof of con ersion. ,f at all$ respondent7s liabilit! to the compan! is purel! ci il in nature as the acts complained of do not constitute the crime of estafa.&= 2n the ground of gra e abuse of discretion$ Filadams filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule >( of the Rules of Court see"ing to annul the abo e@3uoted decision of the 128 dismissing its appeal and affirming the resolution of the Assistant Cit! Prosecutor of Aue*on Cit!. The Court of Appeals denied the petition on two grounds: ;&< the proper remed! for the petitioner was a petition for re iew under Rule 4( and not a petition for certiorari inasmuch as certiorari was a ailable onl! if there was no appeal or an! plain$ speed! and ade3uate remed! in the ordinar! course of law$ and ;'< assuming that a petition for certiorari was proper$ the 128 decision was not mar"ed b! gra e abuse of discretion.&& #ence$ the petitioner filed the instant petition see"ing to annul the decision of the Court of Appeals and raising the following issues: ,B#-T#-R 2R 02T APP-A/ A01 02T C-RT,2RAR, ,S T#- PR2P-R R-M-1H ,0 ASSA,/,0G T#- TB2 R-S2/)T,20S 2F T#- C#,-F STAT- PR2S-C)T2R F,01,0G T#AGS-0C- 2F PR2GAG/- CA)S-. ,,B#-T#-R 2R 02T G2T# T#- C#,-F STAT- PR2S-C)T2R A01 T#- C2)RT 2F APP-A/S #AI- C2MM,TT-1 A ;S,C< GRAI- AG)S- 2F 1,SCR-T,20 ,0 1,SR-GAR1,0G T#- G),1-/,0-S S-T GH T#,S #20. S)PR-M- C2)RT ,0 1-T-RM,0,0G T#- -J,ST-0C- 2F A PR2GAG/- CA)S- T2 BARRA0T T#- F,/,0G 2F A0 ,0F2RMAT,20 ,0 C2)RT.&' Gefore an!thing else$ we need to clarif! some ground rules. This case was ele ated to the Court of Appeals b! wa! of a petition on certiorari under Rule >( of the &556 Rules of Ci il Procedure. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that the proper remed! was petition for re iew under Re ised Circular 0o. &@5&$ now embodied in Rule 49 of the &556 Rules of Ci il Procedure. Rule 49 applies to Fappeals from ?udgments or final orders of the Court of Ta% Appeals and from awards$ ?udgments$ final orders or resolutions of or authori*ed b! an! 3uasi@?udicial agenc! in the e%ercise of 3uasi@?udicial functions to the Court of Appeals.F&9 The 3uestion is: was the 2ffice of the Prosecutor of Aue*on Cit! a 3uasi@ ?udicial agenc! whose resolutions were appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 49K ,n Gautista s. Court of Appeals$&4 we ruled: Petitioner submits that a prosecutor conducting a preliminar! in estigation performs a 3uasi@?udicial function$ citing Co?uangco . PCGG$ Loh . Court of Appeals$ Anda!a . Pro incial Fiscal of Surigao del 0orte and Crespo . Mogul. ,n these cases this Court held that the power to conduct preliminar! in estigation is 3uasi@?udicial in nature. Gut this statement holds true onl! in the sense that$ li"e 3uasi@?udicial bodies$ the prosecutor is an office in the e%ecuti e department e%ercising powers a"in to those of a court. #ere is where the similarit! ends. A closer scrutin! will show that preliminar! in estigation is er! different from other 3uasi@?udicial proceedings. A 3uasi@?udicial bod! has been defined as Fan organ of go ernment other than a court and other than a legislature which affects the rights of pri ate parties through either ad?udication or rule@ma"ing.F ,n /u*on 1e elopment Gan" . /u*on 1e elopment Gan" -mplo!ees$ we held that a oluntar! arbitrator$ whether acting solel! or in a panel$ en?o!s in law the status of a 3uasi@?udicial agenc!$ hence his decisions and awards are appealable to the Court of Appeals. This is so because the awards of oluntar! arbitrators become final and e%ecutor! upon the lapse of the period to appealM and since their awards determine the rights of parties$ their decisions ha e the same effect as ?udgments of a court. Therefore$ the proper remed! from an award of a oluntar! arbitrator is a petition for re iew to the Court of Appeals$ following Re ised Administrati e Circular 0o. &@5($ which pro ided for a uniform procedure for appellate re iew of all ad?udications of 3uasi@?udicial entities$ which is now embodied in Rule 49 of the &556 Rules of Ci il Procedure. 2n the other hand$ the prosecutor in a preliminar! in estigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. #e does not e%ercise ad?udication nor rule@ma"ing functions. Preliminar! in estigation is merel! in3uisitorial$ and is often the onl! means of disco ering the persons who ma! be reasonabl! charged with a crime and to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information. ,t is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose e%cept that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to belie e that the accused is guilt! thereof. Bhile the fiscal ma"es that determination$ he cannot be said to be acting as a 3uasi@court$ for it is the courts$ ultimatel!$ that pass ?udgment on the accused$ not the fiscal. #ence$ the 2ffice of the Prosecutor is not a 3uasi@?udicial bod!M necessaril!$ its decisions appro ing the filing of a criminal complaint are not appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 49. Since the 2RSP ;2ffice of the Regional State Prosecutor< has the power to resol e appeals with finalit! onl! where the penalt! prescribed for the offense does not e%ceed prision correccional$ regardless of the imposable fine$ the onl! remed! of petitioner$ in the absence of gra e abuse of discretion$ is to present her defense in the trial of the case. Bith our ruling in Gautista that the 2ffice of the Prosecutor was not co ered b! the appellate process under Rule 49 of the Rules of Court$ what then was petitioner7s remed! from the resolution of the Assistant Prosecutor dismissing his complaintK Gased on the &559 Re ised Rules on Appeals from Resolutions in Preliminar! ,n estigations or Rein estigations N now the '=== 0PS&( Rule on Appeals N the petitioner could appeal to the Secretar! of 8ustice. ,n this case$ the petitioner did appeal to the Secretar! of 8ustice but his appeal was dismissed. #is motion for reconsideration was also dismissed. Since there was no more appeal or other remed! a ailable in the ordinar! course of law$ the petitioner correctl! filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on the ground of gra e abuse of discretion. The ne%t 3uestion now arises: was the Court of Appeals correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that there was no gra e abuse of discretion on the part of the 128 ;in dismissing the petitioner7s appeal$ thus affirming the resolution of the Assistant Cit! Prosecutor<K The Court of Appeal+s cr!ptic ruling on this matter read: #is ruling that Fin the crime of estafa under Art. 9&( par. & ;b<$ it is an essential element that there be proof of misappropriation or con ersionF$ is not inconsistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court in ,lagan s. Court of Appeals$ '95 SCRA (6($ on which petitioner relies that the operati e act in the perpetration of estafa under the said article and paragraph is the failure of the agent to turn o er or deli er to his principal the amounts he collected despite the dut! to do so.&>

To determine whether there was probable cause warranting the filing of the information for estafa through misappropriation or with abuse of confidence&6$ the presence of the following elements assumes critical importance: &. that mone!$ goods$ or other personal propert! is recei ed b! the offender in trust$ or on commission$ or for administration$ or under an! other obligation in ol ing the dut! to ma"e deli er! of$ or to return$ the sameM '. that there is a misappropriation or con ersion of such mone! or propert! b! the offender or denial on his part of such receiptM 9. that such misappropriation or con ersion or denial is to the pre?udice of anotherM and$ 4. that there is a demand made b! the offended part! on the offender.&: The first$ third and fourth elements were dul! established b! the complaint@affida its and were not disputed b! the parties. Bhat was disputed was whether the element of misappropriation$ the most important element of the crime charged$ was shown b! the affida its to engender a well@founded belief that a crime was committed and the respondent was probabl! guilt! thereof.&5 ,n o"ing ,lagan s. Court of Appeals$'= petitioner contends that it is the mere failure to turn o er or to deli er to the principal the amounts collected$ despite the dut! to do so$ that constitutes the operati e fact in the crime of estafa through unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence. ,n short$ the mere failure of respondent Feria to turn o er the stoc" shortages$ mone! collections$ cash ad ances and unused cash rebates$ despite demand and the dut! to do so$ constituted prima facie e idence of misappropriation. The essence of estafa under Article 9&( ;&<;b< of the Re ised Penal Code is the appropriation or con ersion of mone! or propert! recei ed$ to the pre?udice of the owner thereof. ,t ta"es place when a person actuall! appropriates the propert! of another for his own benefit$ use and en?o!ment. The failure to account$ upon demand$ for funds or propert! held in trust is circumstantial e idence of misappropriation.'& For e%ample$ in an agenc! for the sale of ?ewelr!$ it is the agent7s dut! to return the ?ewelr! upon demand of the owner and the failure to do so is e idence of con ersion of the propert! b! the agent.'' ,n other words$ the demand for the return of the thing deli ered in trust and the failure of the accused to account for it are circumstantial e idence of misappropriation. #owe er$ this presumption is rebuttable. ,f the accused is able to satisfactoril! e%plain his failure to produce the thing deli ered in trust$ he ma! not be held liable for estafa.'9 1id pri ate respondent Feria satisfactoril! e%plain his failure to produce the goods deli ered to him in trust as well as turn o er his collections upon demand b! the petitionerK #is own counter@affida it showed that he did not. #e claimed that he returned arious items sometime in March$ &554 amounting to P&5$>&(.45. #e$ howe er$ neither presented an! supporting e idence nor clarified wh! he failed to account for his collections. #is e%planations$ on the other hand$ regarding his unli3uidated cash ad ances and unused cash rebates were also inade3uate inasmuch the! were self@ser ing and unsubstantiated.'4 ,n its repl!@affida it$ petitioner was able to contro ert the e%planations of respondent. The unrecorded returns claimed b! respondent were belied b! the ph!sical in entor! report prepared and signed b! both the warehouseman and respondent himself. Respondent admitted that he was gi en chec"s for cash rebates to particular customers. Since the rebates gi en to customers were in the form of goods$ as admitted b! the respondent himself$ wh! did he therefore not return the chec"s gi en to himK Bith respect to the unli3uidated cash ad ances$ petitioner clarified that it was incorrect for respondent to allege that he had alread! li3uidated his cash ad ances when he was gi en another P&$(== after his first cash ad ance of P'$(==. The truth was that he was gi en another P&$(== not because he had alread! li3uidated his first cash ad ance of P'$(== but because it was the compan!7s practice to replenish the re ol ing fund to its original amount. Therefore$ the release of a new cash ad ance was not proof of li3uidation of his pre ious cash ad ances. The in entor! clearl! showed in fact that he still had not li3uidated his cash ad ances.'( ,n the face of petitioner+s full! documented e idence ;in entor! reports$ receipts$ balances of accountabilities$ computations of short.o er samples$ ?ob description and demand letter addressed to respondent<$ all respondent Feria could offer were a lame denial and an unsubstantiated$ off@tangent e%planation. #e offered absolutel! no clarification concerning the unremitted collections and unreturned$ unused chec" rebates. The rule that Fthe failure to account$ upon demand$ for funds or propert! held in trust is circumstantial e idence of misappropriationF applies without doubt in the present case. Since a preliminar! in estigation is merel! a determination of Fwhether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well@founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probabl! guilt! thereof$ and should be held for trial$F'> we find the documented allegations in the complaint@affida it and repl!@affida it of petitioner Filadams sufficient to generate such well@founded belief. Bhile it is this Court+s general polic! not to interfere in the conduct of preliminar! in estigations$ lea ing the in estigating officers sufficient discretion to determine probable cause$'6 we ha e nonetheless made some e%ceptions to the general rule$ such as: &. when necessar! to afford ade3uate protection to the constitutional rights of the accusedM '. when necessar! for the orderl! administration of ?ustice or to a oid oppression or multiplicit! of actionsM 9. when there is a pre?udicial 3uestion which is sub ?udiceM 4. when the acts of the officer are without or in e%cess of authorit!M (. where the prosecution is under an in alid law$ ordinance or regulationM >. when double ?eopard! is clearl! apparentM 6. where the court has no ?urisdiction o er the offenseM :. where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecutionM 5. where the charges are manifestl! false and moti ated b! the lust for engeanceM

&=. when there is clearl! no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to 3uash on that ground has been denied.': ;emphasis ours< From the records$ it is clear to us that a prima facie case for estafa e%ists. The dismissal of petitioner+s complaint@affida it and the 1287s affirmance thereof on appeal was a patent error constituting gra e abuse of discretion within the ambit of e%ception no. 4 abo e. B#-R-F2R-$ the petition is hereb! GRA0T-1. The resolution of the Court of Appeals dated Ma! '5$ &556 finding no gra e abuse of discretion and its resolution dated 8anuar! '9$ &55: den!ing petitioner7s motion for reconsideration are hereb! R-I-RS-1 and S-T AS,1-M and the resolution of the 1epartment of 8ustice through the Chief State Prosecutor dated 8anuar! :$ &556 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and affirming the resolution of the Assistant Cit! Prosecutor of Aue*on Cit! dated Februar! ':$ &55( dismissing petitioner7s complaint for estafa against pri ate respondent Antonio Feria is hereb! A00)//-1 for gra e abuse of discretion. DR. BENITA F. OSORIO, Petitioner vs. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, as O !"#s an, HON. PRIMO C. MIRO, as De$"ty O !"#s an %or t&e 'isayas, HON. 'IRGINIA PALANCA(SANTIAGO, O !"#s an Dire)tor %or t&e 'isayas, an# HON. SAMUEL MALA*ARTE, O !"#s an Investi+atin+ Prose)"tor %or t&e 'isayas, Res$on#ents.

This is a petition for re iew on certiorari under Rule 4( of the Rules of Court assailing the &9 1ecember '==' 1ecision& of the Court of Appeals in CA@G.R. SP 0o. >6(&& which affirmed in toto the &' 8anuar! '==& Resolution of the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Iisa!as in 2MG@I,S@Crim@5:@=:&&$ as well as the order dated &6 8ul! '==& den!ing petitioner+s motion for reconsideration. This instant petition originated from a letter@complaint dated '6 8anuar! &55: b! Geatri* /. Tenorio$ addressed to the 2mbudsman Aniano A. 1esierto$ accusing petitioner 1r. Genita 2sorio$ principal of 1r. Cecilio Putong 0ational #igh School ;formerl! Gohol 0ational #igh School< of committing the following acts': &. Failure to account for the rentals of the school facilitiesM '. 0on@remittance to the school trust funds of mone! from the sale of old newspapers to the school and appropriation of the said amount to herselfM 9. Read!@made bidding with supplier of school@needed materialsM 4. 1ouble mandator! collection supposedl! for the Go! and Girl Scouts of the Philippines$ from all students of Gohol 0ational #igh School and non@remittance of all the contributions to GSP and GSPM (. Treatment of mone! from the school canteen as her personal mone!M >. Conspirac! with treasure hunters in digging under the main ground of the school building for Hamashita treasuresM 6. Falsification of tra el document to claim bigger representation allowancesM and :. 2ther improper acts. Acting on the complaint$ the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Manila$ on '5 8anuar! &55:$ re3uested the 0ational Gureau of ,n estigation ;0G,< to conduct an in estigation to erif! the alleged anomalies at the 1r. Cecilio Putong 0ational #igh School. Bithout dela!$ the 0G, conducted an in estigation. 2n && Februar! &55:$ the 0G, submitted the results of the in estigation which !ielded the following findings: a< that petitioner 2sorio authori*ed the sale of newspapers$ but did not remit the proceeds thereof to the schoolM and b< that she issued a memorandum through which students were charged more than the allowable fees for their membership with Go! and Girl Scouts of the Philippines. The 0G, suggested to the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Iisa!as that it as" the assistance of the Commission on Audit ;C2A< since the reported irregularities necessitated the conduct of proper auditing. 2n &6 Februar! &55:$ the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Manila re3uested audit specialists from the C2A to conduct a thorough in estigation on the alleged anomalies at the 1r. Cecilio Putong 0ational #igh School. Meanwhile on => March &55:$ the 0G, submitted a follow@up report reiterating the findings stated in its pre ious report. 2n =( 8une &55:$ C2A auditors Anita G. Auitara$ Ma. Iioleta /uala /uta and 1iana G. Tabinas submitted the report of their findings. The 0G, and C2A findings were forwarded b! the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Manila to the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Iisa!as for appropriate action. The ad erse findings made b! the C2A were summari*ed b! the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Iisa!as as follows9: Allegation no. &: F0o accounting of rentals of the school facilities.F C2A findings disclosed that no official receipt ;2R< was issued b! the school from the rentals of its facilities and as such no recording were reflected in the boo"s. Allegation no. ': FMone! from the sale of old newspapers was not remitted to the school trust funds but poc"eted b! 1r. Genita 2sorioF O Proceeds from the sale of old newspapers totaling P'$>'&.6( were not receipted$ recorded and accounted for in the boo"s of the agenc!$ instead these were allegedl! turned o er to the school principal.

Allegation no. 9: FPractice read!@made bidding with supplier of school@needed materialsF O Supplies and materials were purchased from the same supplier and were deli ered before the can ass papers were prepared$ thereb! casting doubts as to the regularit! of the procurement. Allegation no. 4: F1ouble mandator! collection of GSP and GSP membership of all students of G0#S$ and not all contribution were remitted to GSP and GSP but poc"eted b! 1r. Genita 2sorioF O ;i< students were assessed for membership fees of Girl and Go! Scouts of the Philippines in e%cess of the rates authori*ed b! 1-CS 2rder 0o. '6 and regardless of gender. The total amount irregularl! collected was P'='$':'.==. ;ii< An additional fee of P&.==$ or a total of P>5: was collected from the fourth !ear students in the school !ear &556@&55: without a stated purpose and authorit! from the 1-CS. Further$ the donation paid b! all students for the P0RC was in e%cess of the rate authori*ed b! the 1-CS and actuall! remitted to the P0RC$ resulting in e%cessi e collection of P&($:&=.==. Allegation no. (: FMone! of the school canteen was treated as her personal mone!F O Although recorded in the boo"s as Trust /iabilit!$ collections from the canteen operations were not remitted intact$ instead$ dail! e%penses.purchases were deducted therefrom. /i"ewise$ e%penses incurred for the canteen operations totaling P'>5$:5=.5' were not recorded in the boo"s. Further$ a cash boo" was not maintained to record the total sales and e%penses incurred during the da!$ hence$ the actual sales for the da! could not be ascertained. Allegation no. >: FConspiring with treasure hunters in digging under main school building for Hamashita treasuresF O 0o ad erse findings. Allegation no. 6: FFalsification of tra el document to claim representation allowanceF O This allegation could not be confirmed because the amount of dail! per diem claimed was in accordance with e%isting regulations. Allegation no. :: F2ther improper actsF O M22- ;Maintenance and 2ther 2perating -%penses< funds were utili*ed in the purchase of construction materials totaling P:'$6&6.6( for the construction of a modern guardhouse$ in iolation of Section &4( of GAAM$ Iol. ,$ while the beautification pro?ects costing P49$945.(= were gi en priorit! instead of the repair of the dilapidated windows and classrooms$ resulting in the wasteful utili*ation of go ernment funds. After e aluating the report of the C2A auditors$ the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Iisa!as was con inced that allegations no. & to no. 4 were dul! substantiated while the rest of the allegations were not. ,t found prima facie case of fi e ;(< counts of Mal ersation of Public Funds against petitioner on the proceeds of the sale of the school+s old newspapers on fi e occasions$ i.e.$ on &( March &559$ =& September &556$ =' 1ecember &556$ && 1ecember &556 and =6 8anuar! &55:. ,t also found prima facie e idence for iolations of Section 9;e< of Republic Act 0o. 9=&5$ two ;'< counts for the alleged irregularit! in the purchase of school supplies$ as e idenced b! the purchase orders issued b! petitioner dated =5 8ul! &556 and &> 8ul! &556$ and another three ;9< counts in relation to the assessment for membership fees of the Girl and Go! Scouts of the Philippines$ which was in e%cess of the rates authori*ed under the 1epartment of -ducation Culture and Sports 2rder 0o. '6. Petitioner+s co@respondent$ Mr. 0estor Robles$ Suppl! 2fficer of the said school$ was also found to ha e committed four ;4< counts of Mal ersation of Public Funds in relation to his failure to account for the proceeds of the rentals of the school facilities. ,t doc"eted the criminal case as 2MG@I,S@CR,M@ 5:@=:&&. Gased on the same findings the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman also filed an administrati e case against petitioner which was doc"eted as 2MG@I,S@A1M@5:@=>&6. Thereafter$ the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Iisa!as directed the C2A in estigating auditors to submit a sworn affida it of their report and additional e idence necessar! for the preliminar! in estigation of the cases.4 2n &6 1ecember &55:$ the in estigating auditors submitted a sworn affida it. ,n an order dated '6 8anuar! &555$ the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Iisa!as issued an order placing petitioner and Mr. 0estor Robles under pre enti e suspension. 2n =( Februar! &555$ the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Iisa!as ordered petitioner and Mr. 0estor Robles to file their respecti e counter@affida its to the complaint. 2n =& March &555$ upon receipt of the order to file counter@affida it and the order of pre enti e suspension$ petitioner filed with the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Iisa!as a 8oint Motion for Reconsideration and Recall of the 2rder of Pre enti e Suspension. /ater$ on &( March &555$ petitioner and co@respondent Robles submitted their respecti e counter@affida its$ den!ing participation in the alleged irregularities. ,n a resolution dated &' 8anuar! '==&$ the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Iisa!as found probable cause against petitioner for fi e ;(< counts of Mal ersation of Public Funds and fi e ;(< counts of iolations of Section 9;e< of Rep. Act 0o. 9=&5$ as amended. Prima facie e idence was also found against Mr. 0estor Robles for four ;4< counts of mal ersation of public funds. 2n =6 March '==&$ petitioner filed with the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Iisa!as a motion for reconsideration and the 1eferral of the Filing or Recall of the Filed ,nformation. Meanwhile$ the necessar! ,nformations were filed against the petitioner and Robles before the Regional Trial Courts of Tagbilaran Cit!$ Granches 4 and 46$ respecti el!. Their respecti e arraignments were both deferred on the basis of pending Motions for Reconsideration before the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Iisa!as. The 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Iisa!as denied petitioner+s motion for reconsideration in its order dated &6 8ul! '==&. This denial prompted petitioner to file before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari under Rule >( of the Rules of Court interposing the following grounds: &. Respondents committed abuse of discretion when it ruled that the! no longer needed to conduct clarificator! hearing considering that the conduct of the same is discretionar! on their part. '. Respondent committed abuse of discretion in filing the 3uestioned information considering that there is want of e idence establishing probable cause against herein petitioner. ,n a decision dated &9 1ecember '=='$ the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and affirmed in toto the Resolution dated &' 8anuar! '==&$ as well as the order dated &6 8ul! '==& of the 2mbudsman. #ence$ the instant appeal b! certiorari.

Petitioner raises the following issues: &. Bhether the Court of Appeals is correct in ruling that the #onorable 2ffice of the 2mbudsman did not commit an! gra e abuse of discretion when it opted not to conduct a clarificator! hearing in the case of herein petitioner. '. Bhether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the other issues raised b! herein petitioner on certiorari are purel! 3uestions of e idence and not of law. At the outset$ it must be pointed out that the remed! a ailed b! petitioner is flawed. The title of this petition shows that petitioner filed the petition under Rule 4( of the Rules of Court. The remed! from resolutions of the 2mbudsman in preliminar! in estigations of criminal cases is a petition for certiorari under Rule >(. ,n -strada . 1esierto$( we held that the remed! of aggrie ed parties from resolutions of the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman finding probable cause in criminal cases or non@administrati e cases$ when tainted with gra e abuse of discretion$ is to file an original action for certiorari with this Court and not with the Court of Appeals. G! a ailing of the wrong remed!$ the petition should be dismissed outright. 0e ertheless$ we will consider the present petition as one filed under Rule >( of the Rules of Court since a perusal of the contents re eals that petitioner is imputing gra e abuse of discretion on the part of the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman when it issued the Resolution dated &' 8anuar! '==& and the 2rder dated &6 8ul! '==&$ finding probable cause for the filing of ,nformations against petitioner and co@accused Robles. 2n the first issue raised b! petitioner$ she bewails respondent court+s ruling decreeing that a clarificator! hearing in the instant criminal case is optional on the part of the in estigating prosecutor. Petitioner belie es that without a clarificator! hearing$ it is impossible for the in estigating prosecutor to resol e numerous irreconcilable issues and arri e at a lawful indictment. ,n particular$ petitioner faults the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman+s finding of probable cause to charge her for fi e ;(< counts of Mal ersation relati e to the sale of old newspapers. She insists that the two ;'< gate passes issued b! her$ allowing utilit! wor"er Pergentina Gaa! to lea e the school premises in order to sell the old newspapers of the school$ do not support the fact that would lead to the conclusion that she recei ed and misappropriated the proceeds of the sale$ thus ma"ing her answerable for mal ersation. She said that the two gate passes merel! pro e that she appro ed the departure of the utilit! wor"er from the school campus in order to sell the old newspapers. She added that since the pieces of e idence submitted to the in estigating prosecutor are susceptible to e3ui ocal interpretation$ he should ha e conducted a clarificator! hearing. ,n finding probable cause for the indictment of petitioner for mal ersation$ the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Iisa!as ratiocinated: 2n allegation no. ' abo e$ the e idence on record tends to support a well@founded belief that the crime of Mal ersation of Public Funds$ on fi e ;(< counts$ was committed and that herein respondent 1r. Genita F. 2sorio is guilt! thereof. ,n spite of the strong protestation b! respondent 2sorio against accusation that she recei ed the proceeds from the sale of the school+s old newspapers$ e%isting documentar! e idence loudl! tells howe er that she must ha e actuall! recei ed such proceeds. She had allowed one Pergentina Gaa! to go out ;of school premises< and to sell old newspapers as shown b! her written re3uest for the purpose and an appro ed gate pass ;Anne%es ,@& P ,@'$ C2A Report$ pp. &(9@&(4$ records<. This in fact she has admitted though allegedl! on onl! two occasions. #er denials that she ne er recei ed from Mrs. Gaa! the newspaper proceeds and that she ne er bothered to as" about the same allegedl! because she was made to understand it would be used to purchase floor wa%$ librar! ,1 cards and others$ are simpl! unbelie able under the normal course of e ents gi en the circumstances of this case. The said Mrs. Gaa! is ?ust a mere school utilit! wor"er. The respondent$ on the other hand$ is the school principal who is naturall! e%pected to ha e as"ed about the proceeds from the newspapers the sale of which she had authori*ed. Mrs. Gaa! could not ha e "ept for herself such proceeds "nowing that her selling the newspapers was with the "nowledge and authorit! of the respondent principal. /ogic$ therefore$ tells us that sub?ect proceeds were turned o er to and recei ed b! the respondent contrar! to her disclaimer. There were se eral occasions ;i.e.$ on March &($ &559$ September =&$ &556$ 1ecember ='$ &556$ 1ecember &&$ &556 and 8anuar! =6$ &55:< that said Mrs. Gaa! had sold newspapers of the school as disclosed in the abo e@mentioned C2A Report. Since the audit e%amination found no record of receipt of such proceeds in the boo"s of accounts of the school$ it is onl! logical to presume that on e er! such occasion the respondent had put to her personal use the said proceeds.> 2n the indictment for iolations of Section 9;e< of Rep. Act 0o. 9=&5$ it ruled: 2n allegation no. 9$ probable cause e%ists to warrant an indictment for Iiolation of Sec. 9;e< of R.A. 0o. 9=&5$ as amended$ on two ;'< counts$ against respondent 1r. Genita F. 2sorio. Goth respondents 1r. Genita F. 2sorio and 0estor Robles in effect contended that their school has a PGAC ;Pre@3ualification$ Gids and Awards Committee< which conducts the bidding through which s!stem the school+s procurements are made$ hence$ not being members of said committee$ the! should not be held liable for whate er irregularit! in the purchases of the school. This argument holds no water$ especiall! for respondent 2sorio$ under the present case. The irregularit! alleged to ha e mar"ed the school+s purchase transactions is the manner b! which such transactions$ were made to appear to ha e been legall! underta"en through personal can ass in order to fa or a particular supplier. ,t is therefore irrele ant whether or not the herein respondents are members of the PGAC$ because there was no bidding to tal" about in the 3uestioned transactions. Further$ the transactions referred to are those made under the incumbenc! of the present Suppl! 2fficer #ilaria -. #ora$ not those during the time of respondent Robles as then Suppl! 2fficer. #ence$ the respondents+ emphasis on transactions purportedl! regularl! entered into during respondent Robles+s time as Suppl! 2fficer has no bearing on the allegation against them. There is enough e idence to sustain the foregoing allegation as against respondent 2sorio. ,t ade3uatel! appears from the e idence on record that purchases for school supplies.materials were made directl! from certain fa ored supplier.s without the benefit of bidding. There is no other manner of concluding it but this wa! when herein respondent 1r. Genita F. 2sorio issued Purchase 2rder 0o. '5 dated 8ul! =5$ &556$ when in fact the items ;construction materials< with a total price of P9$6((.== sub?ect thereof were alread! earlier deli ered to the school as per unnumbered 1eli er! Receipt of Gutalid Traders dated 8une &6$ &556 and inspected on the same date the said P2 ;purchase order< was issued as per ,nspection Report dated 8ul! =5$ &556$ dul! noted b! the same respondent. Additional documentar! e idence consisting of Purchase 2rder 0o. =9= dated 8ul! &>$ &556$ for certain items with a total price of P9$(6(.== and three ;9< 1eli er! Receipts of Tantrade Corporation dated 8une 9$ ( P &:$ &556$ which similarl! indicate an apparent irregularit! as those first mentioned$ would show another instance of anomalous transaction. 2n allegation no. 4$ there is prima facie e idence against respondent 1r. Genita F. 2sorio for Iiolation of Sec. 9;e< of R.A. 0o. 9=&5$ as amended ;otherwise "nown as The Anti@Graft and Corrupt Practices Act<$ on three ;9< counts. ;i< 1-CS 2rder 0o. '6$ s. &55($ dated Ma! '4$ &55( ;Anne% M. C2A Report$ supra<$ er! clearl! specifies the amounts of contributions for the Go! Scouts and Girl Scouts of the Philippines at P'=.== and P'(.==$ respecti el!$ among others$ allowed to be collected during enrollment period. 0otwithstanding this definite directi e$ the herein respondent Principal issued two ;'< Memoranda dated March &4$ &55> and March &=$ &556 re: -nrollment Guidelines for SH &55>@&556 P SH &556@&55:$ respecti el!$ instructing the collection of fees of$ among others$ P'>.== ;GSP< and P9&.== ;GSP< for SH &55>@&556 and P9=.== ;GSP< and P9&.== ;GSP< for SH &556@&55: ;Anne%es 2@& to 9 P P@& to 9$ respecti el!$ C2A Report$ pp.

&>:@&69$ records<. The foregoing issuance of the respondent in absolute defiance of the specific directi e of the 1-CS 2rder mentioned$ demonstrates e ident bad faith or gross ine%cusable negligence causing undue in?ur! to the students of 1r. Cecilio Putong 0ational #igh School arising from the collection of contributions from them in e%cess of the amounts legall! allowed.6 Bith these opposing pieces of e idence adduced b! the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Iisa!as and the petitioner$ we belie e that the former did not gra el! abuse its discretion when it found probable cause against petitioner. Section & of Rule &&' of the Rules of Criminal Procedure pro ides: Preliminar! in estigation is an in3uir! 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 probabl! guilt! thereof$ and should be held for trial. The foregoing pro ision sets forth the purpose of preliminar! in estigation which is to determine whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well@founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probabl! guilt! thereof. Subsection ;e< of Section 9 and of the same rule pro ides: ;e< The in estigating officer ma! set a hearing if there are facts and issues to be clarified from a part! or a witness. The parties can be present at the hearing but without the right to e%amine or cross@e%amine. The! ma!$ howe er$ submit to the in estigating officer 3uestions which ma! be as"ed to the part! or witness concerned. ,n accordance with Section 4 of Rule &&' of the Rules of Court$ the in estigating prosecutor shall prepare the resolution and information if he finds cause to hold the respondent for trial. #e shall certif! under oath that he$ or as shown b! the record$ an authori*ed officer$ has personall! e%amined the complaint and his witnesses$ that there is reasonable ground to belie e that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probabl! guilt! thereof. ,t is the call of the in estigating prosecutor$ in the e%ercise of his sound discretion$ whether to conduct a clarificator! hearing or not. As correctl! pointed out b! the Court of Appeals$ the term Fma!F under Subsection ;e< of Section 9 of Rule &&' is merel! permissi e and operates to confer discretion upon the in estigating prosecutor to conduct a clarificator! hearing or not.: ,f he belie es that the e idence before him is sufficient to support a finding of probable cause$ he ma! not hold a clarificator! hearing. As held in Bebb . 1e /eon:5 . . . The decision to call witnesses for clarificator! 3uestions is addressed to the sound discretion of the in estigator and the in estigator alone. ,f the e idence on hand alread! !ields a probable cause$ the in estigator need not hold a clarificator! hearing. 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 probabl! guilt! thereof.&= ,t is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is$ or ma! be$ well founded$ such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinar! caution and prudence to belie e$ or entertain an honest or strong suspicion$ that a thing is so.&& The term does not mean Factual and positi e causeF nor does it import absolute certaint!. Gearing in mind the inferior 3uantum of e idence needed to support a finding of probable cause$ we find that the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman was well within its discretion in refusing to conduct clarificator! hearing. ,t has found enough e idence to establish probable cause$ a fortiori rendering the conduct of a clarificator! hearing unnecessar!. The consistent and general polic! of the Court is not to interfere with the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman+s e%ercise of its in estigator! and prosecutor! powers.&' The rule is based not onl! upon respect for the in estigator! and prosecutor! powers granted b! the Constitution to the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman but upon practicalit! as well.&9 2therwise$ the functions of the courts will be grie ousl! hampered b! innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of in estigator! proceedings conducted b! the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman with regard to complaints filed before it$ in much the same wa! that the courts would be e%tremel! swamped if the! would be compelled to re iew the e%ercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorne!s each time the! decide to file an ,nformation in court or dismiss a complaint b! a pri ate complainant.&4 The Court cannot interfere with the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman+s discretion in determining the ade3uac! or inade3uac! of the e idence before it. The in estigation is ad isedl! called preliminar!$ as it is !et to be followed b! the trial proper. The occasion is not for the full and e%hausti e displa! of the parties+ e idence but for the presentation of such e idence onl! as ma! engender a well@founded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probabl! guilt! of the offense.&( #ence$ in the absence of a clear case of abuse of discretion$ this Court will not interfere with the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman+s discretion in the conduct of preliminar! in estigation. Anent the second issue$ petitioner protests the ruling of the Court of Appeals holding that the other issues raised b! her are purel! 3uestions of e idence and not of law. She maintains that she properl! raised issues which were purel! 3uestions of law in as much as she is in3uiring into the propriet! of the filing of the criminal complaint of Mal ersation and iolation of Section 9;e< of Rep. Act 0o. 9=&5$ premised on the proper interpretation of the elements of the laws she is being charged with. 2n the charges of mal ersation$ petitioner opines that she cannot be indicted thereof considering that it is not the function of her office$ as principal of the school$ to recei e and account for the funds of the school. 2ne essential element of the crime of mal ersation is that the accused is Fha ing custod! or control of funds or propert! b! reason of the duties of her office.F Since she does not ha e direct responsibilit! for the "eeping and accounting of the school funds$ in this case the proceeds of the sale of the old newspapers$ then she could not be charged with the said crime absent of such element. The Court of Appeals$ on the other hand$ opines that petitioner+s argument that there is no probable cause to indict her of mal ersation and iolation of Section 9;e< of Rep. Act 0o. 9=&5 are matters of e idence which could not be legall! in3uired into at the preliminar! stage of the case. Be agree with the Court of Appeals. The claims of petitioner that she did not recei e and ha e control of the sub?ect funds$ as well as the absence of the elements of the crime of Section 9;e< of Rep. Act 0o. 9=&5$ are undoubtedl! e identiar! matters that are to be entilated in a full@blown trial and not during the preliminar! in estigation. The presence and absence of the elements of the crime$ which are b! their nature e identiar! and defense matters$ can be best passed upon after a trial on the merits.&> As earlier pointed out$ the established rule is that a preliminar! in estigation is not the occasion for the full and e%hausti e displa! of the parties+ e idence.&6 ,t is for the presentation of such e idence onl! as ma! engender a well@ founded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probabl! guilt! thereof. B#-R-F2R-$ premises considered$ the instant petition is hereb! 1,SM,SS-1 for lac" of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA@G.R. SP 0o. >6(&& dated &9 1ecember '==' affirming in toto the resolution dated &' 8anuar! '==& and the order dated &6 8ul! '==& issued b! the 2ffice of the 2mbudsman@Iisa!as is hereb! AFF,RM-1.

Casti,,o v 'i,,a,"T#- FACTSQ: ,n &56& the preliminar! in estigation now in 3uestion was conducted b! respondent 8udge of the Circuit Criminal Court. #e did so with respect to a complaint dated 8ul! 5$ &56& and the 8oint Affida it dated 8ul! '&$ &56& filed directl! with his Court b! Montes and de Sil a against /aconico. The complaint charged the latter with estafa in the amount of P&$===.==. The in estigation culminated in the issuance b! respondent 8udge of an order on 8ul! ':$ &56& issuing an arrest warrant against /aconico and ordering Ri*al Pro incial Fiscal to file the corresponding information against the respondent before the court of competent ?urisdiction within TB-0TH@F2)R ;'4< hours from receipt of order pursuant to Section >$ Rule &9( of the Rules of Court$ in relation to Section &9$ Rule &&' of &5>4 Rules of Court. 0otice of the 2rder was ser ed on the petitioner@Pro incial Fiscal of Ri*al$ on 8ul! '5$ &56&$ but he failed to file the information re3uired within the time appointed$ or at an! time thereafter. Conse3uentl!$ on 2ctober &$ &56&$ he was directed b! #is #onor to e%plain within ten ;&=< da!s Rwh! he should not be punished for contempt of court for dela!ing the speed! administration of ?ustice for disobe!ing a lawful order of the Court.S The Fiscal filed a motion for reconsideration$ but this was denied. #ence$ this petition for certiorari and prohibition was presented b! petitioner Fiscal$ see"ing annulment of the aforesaid orders. Qman! !ears ha e passed during which Circuit Criminal Courts were abolished$ as alread! the petitioner Fiscal+s public ser ice was ended b! compulsor! retirement$ and the respondent+s stint as 8udge$ ended b! his promotion to a higher court. Sa madaling sabi nung nag@decide ang SC sa "asong ito$halos '= !ears ang lumipas. T#- ,SS)-: B20 there was gra e abuse of discretion amounting to lac" of ?urisdiction on #is #onor+s part to see" to foreclose the petitioner fiscal+s prerogati e to conduct his own preliminar! in estigation to determine for himself the e%istence or non@e%istence of probable cause$ and to re3uire him to show cause for not filing the information within twent!@four ;'4< hours$ on the sole basis of the 8udge+s conclusions. The 8udge is mista"en. ,t is the fiscal who is gi en b! law Fdirection and controlF of all criminal actions. &> ,t is he who initiates all prosecutions in the name of the People of the Philippines$ b! information or complaint$ against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense in ol ed. &6 ,t is he ;or other public prosecutor<$ therefore$ who is primaril! responsible for ascertaining through a preliminar! in3uir! or proceeding Fwhether there is reasonable ground to belie e that an offense has been committed and the accused is probabl! guilt! thereof.F &: That function$ to repeat$ is not ?udicial but e%ecuti e. Bhen a preliminar! in estigation is conducted b! a ?udge$ the ?udge performs a non@?udicial function$ as an e%ception to his usual ?udicial duties. The assignment of that function to ?udges of inferior courts and to a er! limited e%tent to courts of first instance was dictated b! Fnecessit! and practical considerations$F and the conse3uent polic!$ as we said in Salta$ was that Fwhere er there were enough fiscals or prosecutors to conduct preliminar! in estigations$ courts were to lea e that ?ob which is essentiall! e%ecuti e to them.F ,t follows that the conclusions deri ed b! a ?udge from his own in estigation cannot be superior to and conclusi el! binding on the fiscal or public prosecutor$ in whom that function is principall! and more logicall! lodged. These considerations argue against gi ing the term FreferF used in Section &9 of the former Rule &&'@which pro ided that if the ?udge$ after conducting a preliminar! in estigation finds probable cause against a defendant$F ... be shall issue a warrant for his arrest$ and thereafter refer the case to the fiscal for the filing of the corresponding informationF@the effect of imposing upon the fiscal the mandator! dut! to file an information merel! upon such reference being madeM and this$ e en without regard to the fact that in its ordinar! sense$ the word FreferF con e!s no such import nor connotes an! compulsion. And it was no doubt on account of these ob ious considerations that$ as Salta further obser es$ Section 96 of Gatas Pambansa Glg. &'5 reiteratedF the remo al from 8udges of Metropolitan Trial Courts in the 0ational Capital Region of the authorit! to conduct preliminar! in estigationsF and FSection ' of Rule &&' of the &5:( Rules on Criminal Procedure no longer authori*es Regional Trial 8udges to conduct preliminar! in estigations.F ,t ma! not be amiss to point out$ in this connection$ that the &5:: Amendments to the &5:( Rules on Criminal Procedure ;Sec. ($ Rule &&'< e%plicitl! pro ide inter alia that F;s<hould the pro incial or cit! fiscal disagree with the findings of the in estigating ?udge on the e%istence of probable cause$ the fiscal7s ruling shall pre ail.F &5 Ge it noted$ howe er$ that once the fiscal files an information with the Court and the Court thereb! ac3uires ?urisdiction o er the case$ the case ma! not be dismissed at the fiscal7s instance e%cept onl! b! consent of the Court$ which ma! grant or withhold it in its discretion. '= ,t was therefore gra e abuse of discretion amounting to lac" of ?urisdiction on #is #onor7s part to see" to foreclose the petitioner fiscal7s prerogati e to conduct his own preliminar! in estigation to determine for himself the e%istence or none%istence of probable cause$ and to re3uire him to show cause for not filing the information within twent!@four ;'4< hours$ on the sole basis of the 8udge7s conclusions. The fiscal was not bound to a blind$ uncritical and una oidable acceptance of those conclusions. #e had the dut! to satisf! himself of the e%istence of probable cause$ and could not shir" or be made to e ade it b! an unreasoning and indiscriminate reliance on the ?udge7s in estigation. PEOPLE vs. INTING Facts: Mrs. -ditha Garba filed a letter@complaint against 2,C@Ma!or 1ominador Regalado of Tan?a!$ 0egros 2riental with the C2M-/-C for allegedl! transferring her$ a permanent 0ursing Attendant$ Grade ,$ in the office of the Municipal Ma!or to a er! remote baranga! and without obtaining prior permission or clearance from C2M-/-C as re3uired b! law. After a preliminar! in estigation of Garba+s complaint$ Att!. /ituanas found a prima facie case. #ence$ on September '>$ &5::$ he filed with the respondent trial court a criminal case for iolation of section '>&$ Par. ;h<$ 2mnibus -lection Code against the 2,C@Ma!or. ,n an 2rder dated September 9=$ &5::$ the respondent court issued a warrant of arrest against the accused 2,C Ma!or. #owe er$ in an order dated 2ctober 9$ &5:: and before the accused could be arrested$ the trial court set aside its September 9=$ &5:: order on the ground that Att!. /ituanas is not authori*ed to determine probable cause pursuant to Section '$ Article ,,, of the &5:6 Constitution. The trial court later on 3uashed the information. #ence$ this petition. ,ssue: 1oes a preliminar! in estigation conducted b! a Pro incial -lection Super isor in ol ing election offenses ha e to be coursed through the Pro incial Prosecutor$ before the Regional Trial Court ma! ta"e cogni*ance of the in estigation and determine whether or not probable cause e%istsK #eld: The &5:6 Constitution empowers the C2M-/-C to conduct preliminar! in estigations in cases in ol ing election offenses for the purpose of helping the 8udge determine probable cause and for filing an information in court. This power is e%clusi e with C2M-/-C. The e ident constitutional intendment in bestowing this power to the C2M-/-C is to insure the free$ orderl! and honest conduct of elections$ failure of which would result in the frustration of the true will of the people and ma"e a mere idle ceremon! of the sacred right and dut! of e er! 3ualified citi*en to ote. To di est the C2M-/-C of the authorit! to in estigate and prosecute offenses committed b! public officials in relation to their office would thus seriousl! impair its effecti eness in achie ing this clear constitutional mandate. Gearing these principles in mind$ it is apparent that the respondent trial court misconstrued the constitutional pro ision when it 3uashed the information filed b! the Pro incial -lection Super isor.