II. WHO DETERMINES PROBABLE CAUSE?
discretion to determine whether probable cause exits and
People vs CA (GR NO: 126005, Jan 21, 1999)
Facts:
Jonathan Cerbo was charged in an information for
murder in connection with the fatal shooting of Rosalind
Dy inside the office of his father, Billy Cerbo. The
information was amended to include Billy Cerbo as co
accused with his son Jonathan. Trial judge dismissed the
case against Billy for lack of sufficient evidence and file a
new one charging Jonathan only. The private
prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration was denied hence,
this case resorts to court of appeals. The appellant court,
ruled that RTC has the authority to reverse the
prosecutor’s finding on probable cause and dismiss the
information.
Issue:
Whether or not Appellant Court decision is
correct?
Held:
The determination of Probable Cause to hold a
person for trial is a function that belongs to the public
prosecutor, the correctness of the exercise of which is a
matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be
compelled to pass upon. Public prosecutor has broad
to charge those whom he or she believes to have
committed the crime as defined by law.
A judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of
arrest if he or she deems that there is no probable cause
for doing so. Contrary to this principle, the judge should
not override the public prosecutor’s determination of
probable cause to hold an accused for trial, on the ground
that the evidence presented to substantiate the issuance
of an arrest warrant was insufficient, as in the present
case. Here, Public prosecutors do not decide whether
there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of the guilty of
the person charged but there merely 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.
Evidentiary matters must be presented and heard
during the trial. Therefore , if the information is valid on its
face, and there is no showing of manifest error, grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the public prosecutor, the
trial court should respect such determination, this does not
prejudice the guilt or innocence of the private respondent
Billy Cerbo but courts should not dismiss the case for the
reason of want of evidence specially when the information
was valid on its face and no showing that of irregularity or
manifest error in the performance of prosecutor’s duty.