The insertion of the judges determination of the existence of probable

cause in the 1987 Constitution serves to underscore the exclusive and

personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence
of probable cause. He is proscribed from delegating this task of investigation
to any other person. He must do it personally.- Justice Florenz Regalado p.
405 Remedial Law Compendium, Eleventh Ed.

Pursuant to the aforementioned provision, the RTC judge, upon the filing of
an Information, has the following options: (1) dismiss the case if the evidence
on record clearly failed to establish probable cause; (2) if he or she finds
probable cause, issue a warrant of arrest; and (3) in case of doubt as to the
existence of probable cause, order the prosecutor to present additional
evidence within five days from notice, the issue to be resolved by the court
within thirty days from the filing of the information.
It bears stressing that the judge is required to personally evaluate the
resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may
immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to
establish probable cause. This, the RTC judge clearly complied with in this
case.
(ELVIRA
O.
ONG vs.
JOSE CASIM GENIO, G.R. No. 182336, December 23, 2009)

The RTC judge was within his powers to dismiss the case against petitioner
HPG officers. Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides
that the judge "may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record
clearly fails to establish probable cause." The CA should have denied the
People's petition for special civil action of certiorari that assails the conectness of the order of dismissal since Section 1 of Rule 65 provides that
such action is available only when "there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."
The fact, however, is that Section 1, Rule 122 of the same rules provides that
an appeal may be taken in a criminal action from a judgment or final order
like the RTC's order dismissing the case against petitioner HPG officers for
lack of probable cause. It is a final order since it disposes of the case,
terminates the proceedings, and leaves the court with nothing further to do
with respect to the case against petitioner HPG officers. The Court had made
a similar pronouncement in Santos v. Orda, Jr. Of course, the People may

refile the case if new evidence adduced in another preliminary investigation

will support the filing of a new information against them. But that is another
matter. For now, the CA clearly erred in not denying the petition for being a
wrong remedy. (P/C INSP. LAWRENCE B. CAJIPE, P/C INSP. JOELL.
MENDOZA, P/C INSP. GERARDO B. BALATUCAN, PO3 JOLITO P.
MAMANAO, JR., P03 FERNANDO REYS. GAPUZ, PO2 EDUARDO G.
BLANCO, PO2 EDWIN SANTOS and PO1 JOSIL REY I. LUCENA vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 203605, April 23, 2014)

Crespo v. Mogul instructs in a very clear manner that once a complaint or

information is filed in court, any disposition of the case as to its dismissal, or
the conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound discretion of
the said court, as it is the best and sole judge of what to do with the case
before it. While the resolution of the prosecutorial arm is persuasive, it is not
binding on the court. It may therefore grant or deny at its option a motion to
dismiss or to withdraw the information based on its own assessment of the
records of the preliminary investigation submitted to it, in the faithful
exercise of judicial discretion and prerogative, and not out of subservience to
the prosecutor.65 x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
The conclusions of the RTC which led to the dismissal of the information
against respondents cannot, in any sense, be characterized as outrageously
wrong or manifestly mistaken, or whimsically or capriciously arrived at. The
worst that may perhaps be said of it is that it is fairly debatable, and may
even be possibly erroneous. But they cannot be declared to have been made
with grave abuse of discretion.44
Based on Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, the RTC judge, upon the
filing of an Information, has the following options: (1) dismiss the case if the
evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable cause; (2) if he or she
finds probable cause, issue a warrant of arrest; and (3) in case of doubt as to
the existence of probable cause, order the prosecutor to present additional
evidence within five days from notice, the issue to be resolved by the court
within thirty days from the filing of the information.45
The judge is required to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor
and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the
evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. 46 To this Courts
mind, the RTC had complied with its duty of personally evaluating the
supporting evidence of the prosecution before arriving at its decision of

dismissing the case against respondents. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

represented by Chief State Prosecutor JOVENCITO ZUO, State Prosecutor
GERONIMO SY and Prosecution Attorney IRWIN MARAYA, Petitioners,
vs.
HON. BASILIO R. GABO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional
Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch II and WILSON CUA TING, EDWARD
NGO YAO, WILLY SO TAN and CAROL FERNAN ORTEGA, Respondents. G.R. No.
161083
August 3, 2010

[ He only performed a task he was called upon to do, and his judgment on
the matter although erroneous cannot be regarded as capricious and
whimsical. Thus, he did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.]
As to the requirement to discuss elements of crime
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. 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. 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.20
It must be mentioned, though, that in order to arrive at probable cause, the
elements of the crime charged should be present.
The elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of
the Revised Penal Code are:
1. the offender is a private individual;

2. he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter

of his liberty;
3. the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and
4. in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances are
present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b) it
is committed by simulating public authority; or (c) any serious physical
injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill
him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or
a public officer.
All elements were sufficiently averred in the complaint-affidavit were
sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime may have been
committed and petitioner may have committed it. Respondent, an office
worker, claimed that she and her friend were taken at gunpoint by two men
and forcibly boarded into a vehicle. They were detained for more than 24hours. Whether or not the accusations would result in a conviction is another
matter. It is enough, for purposes of the preliminary investigation that the
acts complained of constitute the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention.
[The issues upon which the charges are built pertain to factual matters that cannot be threshed out conclusively during the preliminary stage
of the case. Precisely, there is a trial for the presentation of prosecution's evidence in support of the charge. The validity and merits of a
partys defense or accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the
preliminary investigation level. 22 By taking into consideration the defenses raised by petitioner, the Investigating Prosecutor already went into
the strict merits of the case. As aptly stated by the appellate court:]
The determination as to what exactly constitutes a plain, speedy and adequate remedy rests on judicial discretion and depends on the
particular circumstances of each case. There are many authorities that subscribe to the view that it is the inadequacy, and not the mere
absence, of all other legal remedies, and the danger of a failure of justice without it, that must usually determine the propriety of the writ. An
adequate remedy is a remedy which is equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient, not merely a remedy which at some time in the future will
bring about a revival of the judgment of the lower court complained of in the certiorari proceeding, but a remedy which would promptly relieve
the petitioner from the injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of the inferior court, tribunal, board or officer. 28
n the case at bar, we hold that the prosecution's evidence treads on shaky ground. We detest drug addiction in our society. However, we
have the duty to protect appellant where the evidence presented show "insufficient factual nexus" of her participation in the commission of
the offense charged.

As Justice Brandeis warned long ago, "the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in
the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning without
understanding."