Section 2.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized.

G.R. No. 143591 November 23, 2007

TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, JR., CORAZON M. BEJASA, ARTURO E. MANUEL, JR., ERIC L. LEE,
P. SIERVO H. DIZON, BENJAMIN DE LEON, DELFIN C. GONZALEZ, JR., and BEN YU LIM,
JR., Petitioners,
vs.
MAGDALENO M. PEÑA and HON. MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., as Judge Designate of the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bago City, Respondents.

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:

For review is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated June 20, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 49666
dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Teodoro C. Borlongan, Jr., Corazon M. Bejasa,
Arturo Manuel, Jr., Benjamin de Leon, P. Siervo Dizon, Delfin C. Gonzalez, Jr., Eric Lee and Ben T. Lim,
Jr.

The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows:

RESPONDENT MAGDALENO PEÑA instituted a civil case for recovery of agent’s compensation and
expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees,2 against Urban Bank and the petitioners, before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Bago City. The case was raffled to Branch 62 and was docketed
as Civil Case No. 754. Respondent anchored his claim for compensation on the contract of
agency3 allegedly entered into with the petitioners wherein the former undertook to perform such
acts necessary to prevent any intruder and squatter from unlawfully occupying Urban Bank’s
property located along Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City.

PETITIONERS filed a Motion to Dismiss4 arguing that they never appointed the respondent as agent or
counsel. Attached to the motion were the following documents: 1) a letter 5 dated December 19, 1994
signed by Herman Ponce and Julie Abad on behalf of Isabela Sugar Company, Inc. (ISCI), the original
owner of the subject property; 2) an unsigned letter6 dated December 7, 1994 addressed to Corazon Bejasa
from Marilyn G. Ong; 3) a letter7 dated December 9, 1994 addressed to Teodoro Borlongan and signed by
Marilyn G. Ong; and 4) a Memorandum 8 dated November 20, 1994 from Enrique Montilla III. Said
documents were presented in an attempt to show that the respondent was appointed as agent by ISCI and
not by Urban Bank or by the petitioners.

In view of the introduction of the above-mentioned documents, respondent Peña filed his Complaint-
Affidavit9 with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Bago City.10 He claimed that said documents were
falsified because the alleged signatories did not actually affix their signatures, and the signatories
were neither stockholders nor officers and employees of ISCI. 11 Worse, petitioners introduced said
documents as evidence before the RTC knowing that they were falsified.

In a Resolution12 dated September 23, 1998, the City Prosecutor concluded that the petitioners were
probably guilty of four (4) counts of the crime of Introducing Falsified Documents penalized by the
second paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The City Prosecutor concluded that
the documents were falsified because the alleged signatories untruthfully stated that ISCI was the
principal of the respondent; that petitioners knew that the documents were falsified considering that the
signatories were mere dummies; and that the documents formed part of the record of Civil Case No. 754
where they were used by petitioners as evidence in support of their motion to dismiss, adopted in their
answer and later, in their Pre-Trial Brief.13 Subsequently, the corresponding Informations 14 were filed with
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Bago City. The cases were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos.
6683, 6684, 6685, and 6686. Thereafter, Judge Primitivo Blanca issued the warrants 15 for the arrest of the
petitioners.

On October 1, 1998, petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash, Recall Warrants of Arrest and/or
For Reinvestigation.16 Petitioners insisted that they were denied due process because of the non-
observance of the proper procedure on preliminary investigation prescribed in the Rules of Court.
Specifically, they claimed that they were not afforded the right to submit their counter-affidavit. They then
argued that since no such counter-affidavit and supporting documents were submitted by the
petitioners, the trial judge merely relied on the complaint-affidavit and attachments of the
respondent in issuing the warrants of arrest, also in contravention of the Rules. Petitioners further
prayed that the information be quashed for lack of probable cause. Lastly, petitioners posited that the
criminal case should have been suspended on the ground that the issue being threshed out in the civil case
is a prejudicial question.

In an Order17 dated November 13, 1998, the court denied the omnibus motion primarily on the ground
that preliminary investigation was not available in the instant case --- which fell within the jurisdiction of the
MTCC. The court, likewise, upheld the validity of the warrant of arrest, saying that it was issued in
accordance with the Rules. Besides, the court added, petitioners could no longer question the validity of
the warrant since they already posted bail. The court also believed that the issue involved in the civil case
was not a prejudicial question, and thus, denied the prayer for suspension of the criminal proceedings.
Lastly, the court was convinced that the Informations contained all the facts necessary to constitute an
offense.

Petitioners subsequently instituted a special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for
Writ of

Preliminary Injunction and TRO, before the CA ascribing grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the MTCC in issuing and not recalling the warrants of arrest,
reiterating the arguments in their omnibus motion.18 They, likewise, questioned the court’s conclusion
that by posting bail, petitioners already waived their right to assail the validity of the warrant of
arrest.

On June 20, 2000, the CA dismissed the petition.19 Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners now raise before us the following issues:

A.

Where the offense charged in a criminal complaint is not cognizable by the Regional Trial Court and not
covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, is the finding of probable cause required for the filing of an
Information in court?

If the allegations in the complaint-affidavit do not establish probable cause, should not the investigating
prosecutor dismiss the complaint, or at the very least, require the respondent to submit his counter-
affidavit?

B.

Can a complaint-affidavit containing matters which are not within the personal knowledge of the
complainant be sufficient basis for the finding of probable cause?

C.

Where the offense charged in a criminal complaint is not cognizable by the Regional Trial Court and not
covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, and the record of the preliminary investigation does not show
the existence of probable cause, should not the judge refuse to issue a warrant of arrest and dismiss the
criminal case, or at the very least, require the accused to submit his counter-affidavit in order to aid the
judge in determining the existence of probable cause?

D.

Can a criminal prosecution be restrained?

E.

Can this Honorable Court itself determine the existence of probable cause? 20

On August 2, 2000, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) 21 enjoining the judge of the
MTCC from proceeding in any manner with Criminal Cases Nos. 6683 to 6686, effective during the entire
period that the case is pending before, or until further orders of, this Court.

With the MTCC proceedings suspended, we now proceed to resolve the issues raised.

Respondents contend that the foregoing issues had become moot and academic when the petitioners
posted bail and were arraigned.

We do not agree.

It appears that upon the issuance of the warrant of arrest, petitioners immediately posted bail as they
wanted to avoid embarrassment being then the officers of Urban Bank. On the scheduled date for the
arraignment, despite the petitioners’ refusal to enter a plea, the court entered a plea of "Not Guilty."
The earlier ruling of this Court that posting of bail constitutes a waiver of the right to question the validity of
the arrest has already been superseded by Section 26,22 Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Furthermore, the principle that the accused is precluded from questioning the legality of his
arrest after arraignment is true only if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial, without
previously invoking his objections thereto.23

Records reveal that petitioners filed the omnibus motion to quash the information and warrant of arrest, and
for reinvestigation, on the same day that they posted bail. Their bail bonds likewise expressly contained a
stipulation that they were not waiving their right to question the validity of their arrest. 24 On the date of the
arraignment, the petitioners refused to enter their plea, obviously because the issue of the legality of the
information and their arrest was yet to be settled by the Court. This notwithstanding, the court entered a
plea of "Not Guilty." From these circumstances, we cannot reasonably infer a valid waiver on the part of the
petitioners, as to preclude them from raising the issue of the validity of the arrest before the CA and
eventually before this Court.

In their petition filed before this Court, petitioners prayed for a TRO to restrain the MTCC from proceeding
with the criminal cases (which the Court eventually issued on August 2, 2000). Thus, we confront the
question of whether a criminal prosecution can be restrained, to which we answer in the affirmative.

As a general rule, the Court will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction, preliminary or final, to enjoin or
restrain criminal prosecution. However, the following exceptions to the rule have been recognized: 1) when
the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; 2) when
it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; 3)
when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice; 4) when the acts of the officer are without or in
excess of authority; 5) where the prosecution is

under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; 6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent; 7) where the
Court has no jurisdiction over the offense; 8) where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; 9)
where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and 10) when there is
clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied.25

Considering that the issues for resolution involve the validity of the information and warrant of arrest, and
considering further that no waiver of rights may be attributed to the petitioners as earlier discussed, we
issued a TRO on August 2, 2000 to give the Court the opportunity to resolve the case before the criminal
prosecution is allowed to continue. The nature of the crime and the penalty involved (which is less than 4
years of imprisonment), likewise, necessitate the suspension of the case below in order to prevent the
controversy from being mooted.

We now proceed with the main issues, viz.: 1) whether petitioners were deprived of their right to due process
of law because of the denial of their right to preliminary investigation and to submit their counter-affidavit;
2) whether the Informations charging the petitioners were validly filed and the warrants for their arrest were
properly issued; and 3) whether this Court can, itself, determine probable cause.

As will be discussed below, the petitioners could not validly claim the right to preliminary investigation. Still,
petitioners insist that they were denied due process because they were not afforded the right to submit
counter-affidavits which would have aided the court in determining the existence of probable
cause.26 Petitioners also claim that the respondent’s complaint-affidavit was not based on the latter’s
personal knowledge; hence, it should not have been used by the court as basis in its finding of probable
cause.27 Moreover, petitioners aver that there was no sufficient evidence to prove the elements of the crime.
Specifically, it was not established that the documents in question were falsified; that petitioners were the
ones who presented the documents as evidence; and that petitioners knew that the documents were indeed
falsified.28 Petitioners likewise assert that at the time of the filing of the complaint-affidavit, they had not yet
formally offered the documents as evidence; hence, they could not have "introduced" the same in
court.29 Considering the foregoing, petitioners pray that this Court, itself, determine whether or not probable
cause exists.30

The pertinent provisions of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure,31 namely, Sections 1, 3 (a) and 9(a) of
Rule 112, are relevant to the resolution of the aforesaid issues:

SECTION 1. Definition. – Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of

determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime cognizable by
the Regional Trial Court has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should
be held for trial.32

SEC. 3. Procedure. – Except as provided for in Section 7 hereof, no complaint or information for an offense
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court shall be filed without a preliminary investigation having been first
conducted in the following manner:

(a) The complaint shall state the known address of the respondent and be accompanied by affidavits of the
complainant and his witnesses as well as other supporting documents, in such number of copies as there
are respondents, plus two (2) copies of the official file. The said affidavits shall be sworn to before any
fiscal, state prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or
unavailability, a notary public, who must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is
satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. 33

SEC. 9. Cases not falling under the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts not covered by the Rule
on Summary Procedure. –

(a) Where filed with the fiscal. – If the complaint is filed directly with the fiscal or state prosecutor, the
procedure outlined in Section 3 (a) of this Rule shall be observed. The Fiscal shall take appropriate action
based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant. 34

Petitioners were charged with the offense defined and penalized by the second paragraph of Article 172 35 of
the Revised Penal Code. The penalty imposable is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, or four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months.
Clearly, the case is cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court and preliminary investigation is not mandatory. 36

Records show that the prosecutor relied merely on the complaint-affidavit of the respondent and did not
require the petitioners to submit their counter-affidavits. The prosecutor should not be faulted for taking this
course of action, because it is sanctioned by the Rules. To reiterate, upon the filing of the complaint and
affidavit with respect to cases cognizable by the MTCC, the prosecutor shall take the appropriate action
based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant. It means
that the prosecutor may either dismiss the complaint if he does not see sufficient reason to proceed
with the case, or file the information if he finds probable cause. The prosecutor is not mandated to
require the submission of counter-affidavits. Probable cause may then be determined on the basis
alone of the affidavits and supporting documents of the complainant, without infringing on the
constitutional rights of the petitioners.

On the other hand, for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge must personally determine the
existence of probable cause. Again, the petitioners insist that the trial judge erred in issuing the warrant
of arrest without affording them their right to submit their counter-affidavits.

Section 2, Article III of the Constitution provides:

SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after

examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy
himself of the existence of probable cause. But the judge is not required to personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall (1) personally
evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the
existence of probable cause, and on the basis thereof, he may already make a personal
determination of the existence of probable cause; and (2) if he is not satisfied that probable cause
exists, he may disregard the prosecutor’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits
of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.37

In determining probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest in the case at bench, we find nothing
wrong with the procedure adopted by the trial judge --- he relied on the resolution of the prosecutor, as
well as the supporting documents submitted by the respondent. There is no provision of law or
procedural rule which makes the submission of counter-affidavits mandatory before the judge can
determine whether or not there exists probable cause to issue the warrant.

In light of the foregoing, it appears that the proper procedure was followed by the prosecutor in
determining probable cause for the filing of the informations, and by the trial court judge in
determining probable cause for the issuance of the warrants of arrest. To reiterate, preliminary
investigation was not mandatory, and the submission of counter-affidavit was not necessary.1âwphi1

However, notwithstanding the proper observance of the procedure laid down by the Rules, a closer scrutiny
of the records reveals that the Informations should not have been filed and the warrants of arrest should
not have been issued, because of lack of probable cause.

PROBABLE CAUSE, for purposes 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 the accused
is probably guilty thereof.38 It is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the
belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the
person charged was guilty of the crime for which he is to be prosecuted. 39 A finding of probable cause
needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it
was committed by the accused.40
On the other hand, we have defined PROBABLE CAUSE for the issuance of a warrant of arrest as the
existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.41

To accord respect to the discretion granted to the prosecutor and for reasons of practicality, this Court, as
a rule, does not interfere with the prosecutor’s determination of probable cause. Otherwise, courts would
be swamped with petitions to review the prosecutor’s findings in such investigations. 42 In the same way,
the general rule is that this Court does not review the factual findings of the trial court, which include the
determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. 43 It is only in exceptional cases
when this Court may set aside the conclusions of the prosecutor and the trial judge on the existence of
probable cause, that is, when it is necessary to prevent the misuse of the strong arm of the law or to
protect the orderly administration of justice.44 The facts obtaining in the present case warrant the
application of the exception.

Petitioners were charged with violation of par. 2, Article 172 of the RPC or Introduction of Falsified
Document in a Judicial Proceeding. The elements of the offense are as follows:

1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person.

2. That the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any subdivisions No. 1 or 2 of Article
172.

3. That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding. 45

The falsity of the document and the defendant’s knowledge of its falsity are essential elements of the
offense.46

The Office of the City Prosecutor filed the Informations against the petitioners on the basis of the complaint-
affidavit of the respondent, together with the following attached documents: the motion to dismiss and
answer filed by the petitioners in Civil Case No. 754; petitioners’ pre-trial brief in said case; the alleged
falsified documents; a copy of the minutes of the regular meeting of ISC during the election of the board;
and the list of stockholders of ISC.47 On the basis of these documents and on the strength of the affidavit
executed by the respondent, the prosecutor concluded that probable cause exists. These same affidavit
and documents were used by the trial court in issuing the warrant of arrest.

Contrary to the findings of the MTCC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, we find the complaint-affidavit
and attachments insufficient to support the existence of probable cause. Specifically, the respondent
failed to sufficiently establish prima facie that the alleged documents were falsified. In support of his
claim of falsity of the documents, the private respondent stated in his complaint-affidavit that Herman
Ponce, Julie Abad and Marilyn Ong, the alleged signatories of the questioned letters, did not actually affix
their signatures; and that they were not actually officers or stockholders of ISCI.48 He further claimed that
Enrique Montilla’s signature appearing in another memorandum addressed to respondent was
forged.49 These are mere assertions, insufficient to warrant the filing of the complaint or the issuance of the
warrant of arrest.

It must be emphasized that the affidavit of the complainant, or any of his witnesses, shall allege facts within
their

(affiants) personal knowledge. The allegation of the respondent that the signatures of Ponce, Abad, Ong
and Montilla were falsified does not qualify as personal knowledge. Nowhere in said affidavit did respondent
state that he was present at the time of the execution of the documents. Neither did he claim that he was
familiar with the signatures of the signatories. He simply made a bare assertion that the signatories were
mere dummies of ISCI and they were not in fact officers, stockholders or representatives of the corporation.
At the very least, the affidavit was based on respondent’s "personal belief" and not "personal
knowledge."50 Considering the lack of personal knowledge on the part of the respondent, he could have
submitted the affidavit of other persons who are qualified to attest to the falsity of the signatures appearing
in the questioned documents. One cannot just claim that a certain document is falsified without further
stating the basis for such claim, i.e., that he was present at the time of the execution of the document or he
is familiar with the signatures in question. Otherwise, this could lead to abuse and malicious prosecution.
This is actually the reason for the requirement that affidavits must be based on the personal knowledge of
the affiant. The requirement assumes added importance in the instant case where the accused were not
made to rebut the complainant’s allegation through counter-affidavits.

Neither can the respondent find support in the documents attached to his complaint-affidavit. The minutes
of the regular meeting, as well as the list of stockholders, could have possibly shown that the signatories
were not officers or stockholders of the corporation. However, they did not at all show that the questioned
documents were falsified. In the letter allegedly signed by Ponce and Abad, there was no representation
that they were the president and corporate secretary of ISCI. Besides, the mere fact that they were not
officers or stockholders of ISCI does not necessarily mean that their signatures were falsified. They still
could have affixed their signatures as authorized representatives of the corporation.
True, a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence, or on evidence
beyond reasonable doubt. It does not require that the evidence would justify conviction. Nonetheless,
although the determination of probable cause requires less than evidence which would justify conviction, it
should at least be more than mere suspicion. 51 While probable cause should be determined in a
summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a
potential accused’s constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect
the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials
arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges.52 It is, therefore, imperative for the prosecutor to
relieve the accused from the pain and inconvenience of going through a trial once it is ascertained that no
probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused. 53

Considering that the respondent failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support his claim that the documents
were falsified, it follows that the introduction of the questioned documents in Civil Case No. 754 is not an
offense punished by any provision of the Revised Penal Code or any other law. The petitioners should not
be burdened with court proceedings, more particularly a criminal proceeding, if in the first place, there is no
evidence sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that an offense was committed.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated June 20, 2000, in
CA-G.R. SP No. 49666 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Temporary Restraining Order dated August
2, 2000 is hereby made permanent. Accordingly, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, City of Bago, is
ORDERED to DISMISS Criminal Case Nos. 6683-86.

SO ORDERED.