People of the Philippines and Alynn Plezette Dy Vs. Billy Cerbo and Jonathan Cerbo G.R. No. 126005. January 21, 1999

People of the Philippines and Alynn Plezette Dy Vs. Billy Cerbo and Jonathan Cerbo G.R. No. 126005. January 21, 1999

Panganiban

Isses
What is  required, rather, is that the judge must have sufficient supporting documents (such as the complaint, affidavits, counter-affidavits, sworn statements of witnesses or transcript of stenographic notes, if any) upon which to make his independent judgment, or at the very least, upon which to  verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause. This Court has consistently held that a judge fails in his bounden duty if he relies merely on the certification or the report of the investigating officer.
 * Executive Determination of Probable Cause
 * Such investigation is not part of the trial.  A full and exhaustive presentation of the parties’ evidence is not required, but only such as may engender a well-grounded belief than an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.  By reason of the abbreviated nature of preliminary investigations, a dismissal of the charges as a result thereof is not equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of acquittal.  Hence, no double jeopardy attaches.
 * Judicial Determination of Probable Cause
 * First, Whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be held for trial is what the prosecutor passes upon.  The judge, on the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused, i.e., whether there is a necessity for placing him under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.  Thus, even if both should base their findings on one and the same proceedings or evidence, there should be no confusion as to their distinct objectives.
 * Second, since their objectives are different, the judge cannot rely solely on the report of the prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
 * Obviously and understandably, the contents of the prosecutor’s report will support his own conclusion that there is reason to charge the accused of an offense and hold him for trial.  However, the judge must decide independently.  Hence, he must have supporting evidence, other than the prosecutor’s bare report upon which to legally sustain his own findings on the existence or non-existence of probable cause to issue an arrest order.
 * Parenthetically, the prosecutor could ease the burden of the judge and speed up the litigation process by forwarding to the latter not only the information and his bare resolution, but also so much of the  records and the evidence on hand as to enable His Honor to make his personal and separate judicial finding on whether to issue a warrant of arrest.
 * Lastly, it is not required that the complete or entire records of the case during the preliminary investigation be submitted to and examined by the judge.
 * Inapplicability of Allado and Salonga
 * On the other hand, the Court noted in Allado the "undue haste in the filing of the Information and the inordinate interest of the government” in pursuing the case; and in Salonga, “xxx the failure of the prosecution to show that the petitioner was probably guilty of conspiring to commit the crime, the initial disregard of petitioner’s constitutional rights [and] the massive and damaging publicity made against him.”
 * In other words, while the respective sets of evidence before the prosecutors in Allado and Salonga were “utterly insufficient” to support a finding of probable cause, the same cannot be said of the present case.
 * Motion Without Requisite Notice
 * The motion to quash the warrant of arrest in the present case being pro forma, inasmusch as the requisite copy and notice were not duly served upon the adverse party, the trial court had no authority to act on it.

Decisions
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Nabunturan, Davao, which is ordered to reinstate the amended Information against Private Respondent Billy Cerbo and to proceed with judicious speed in hearing the case. No costs.