It bears to remind the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Salonga

vs. Paño1, where it was held that it is imperative upon the fiscal or the judge
as the may be, to relieve the accused from the pain of going through a trial
once it is ascertained that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima
facie case or that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to
the guilt of the accused. The judge or fiscal, therefore, should not go
on with the prosecution in the hope that some credible evidence
might later turn up during trial for this would be a flagrant violation of
a basic right which the courts are created to uphold. It bears repeating
that the judiciary lives up to its mission by vitalizing and not denigrating
constitutional rights. So it has been before. It should continue to be so.

-----------------------

It has to be emphasized that: “A preliminary

investigation serves not only the purposes of the State.
More important, it is a part of the guarantee of
freedom and fair play, which are birthrights of all
who live in our country. It is, therefore, imperative
upon the fiscal or the judge as the case may be, to
relieve the accused from the pain of going through a
trial once it is ascertained that the evidence is
insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or that no
probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as
to the guilt of the accused. Although there is no
general formula or fixed rule for the determination of
probable cause since the same must be decided in the
light of the conditions obtaining in given situations and
its existence depends to a large degree upon the finding
or opinion of the judge conducting the examination, such

1
134 SCRA 438
 a finding should not disregard the facts before the judge
nor run counter to the clear dictates of reasons.” 2

---------------------------

The Court, in Salonga vs. Cruz Pano, 3 sums up the purpose and nature

of a preliminary investigation and the duty of the prosecutor in connection

therewith, thus:

“The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the

innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution and to

protect him from an open and public accusation of crime, from the

trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the

state from useless and expensive trials. (Trocio v. Manta, 118 SCRA

241, citing Hashim v. Boncan, 71 Phil. 216) The right to a preliminary

investigation is a statutory grant, and to withhold it would be to

transgress constitutional due process. (See People v. Oandasa, 25

SCRA 277) However, in order to satisfy the due process clause it is not

enough that the preliminary investigation serves not only the purposes

of the State. More important, it is a part of the guarantees of freedom

and fair play which are birthrights of all who live in our country. It is,

therefore, imperative upon the fiscal or the judge as the case my be, to
2
La Chemise Lacoste vs. Fernandez, 129 SCRA 391; Ortiz vs. Palaypayon, 234 SCRA 391.
3
134 SCRA 438.
 relieve the accused from the pain of going through a trial once it is

ascertained that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case

or that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as the guilt of

the accused. Although there is no general formula or fixed rule for the

determination of probable cause since the same must be decided in the

light of the conditions obtaining in given situations and its existence

depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge

conducting the examination, such a finding should not disregard the

facts before the judge nor run counter to the clear dictates of reason.

(See La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. v. Fernandez, 129 SCRA 391) The

judge or fiscal, therefore, should not go on with the prosecution in the

hope that some credible evidence might later turn up during the trial for

this would be a flagrant violation of a basic right which the courts are

created to uphold. It bears repeating that the judiciary lives up to its

mission by vitalizing and not denigrating constitutional rights. So it

has been before. It should continue to be so. (Mercado v. Court of

First Instance of Rizal, 116 SCRA 93)”4 (underscoring ours)

4
Ibid., pp. 461-462.
 ---------------

Because of this, the Honorable Office should not allow itself to be used

by complainant for the purpose of harassing respondent. After all,

preliminary investigation, apart from its purpose of making an initial

determination of probable cause benefits respondent against any malicious

prosecution. In one case,5 the Supreme Court reminded officers handling

preliminary investigation of their duty, as follows: “They should never forget

that the purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the innocent

against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect one from

an open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble, expense and

anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the State from useless and

expensive trials. It is, therefore, imperative upon such agencies to relieve any

person from the trauma of going through a trial once it is ascertained that the

evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or that no probable cause

exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.”

“The function of a preliminary investigation is to determine whether

there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has

5
Venus vs. Desierto, 298 SCRA 196 (1998)
been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be

held for trial. As a rule, courts cannot interfere with the prosecutor’s

discretion and control of the criminal prosecution. While prosecuting

officers have the authority to prosecute persons shown to be guilty of a

crime, they have equally the legal duty not to prosecute when after an

investigation, the evidence adduced is not sufficient to establish a prima

facie case.”6 (emphasis supplied)

6
Alonzo vs. Concepcion, 448 SCRA 329 (2005)