Inspector Palomo recommended that a preliminary investigation be

VILLA
conducted and that an Information for each count of murder be
filed against the 19 individuals.[12]
[ G.R. No. 187094, February 15, 2017 ]
On February 2, 2007, Investigating Prosecutor Antonio Ll. Lapus, Jr.
LIZA L. MAZA, SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TEODORO A. CASIÑO, AND issued a subpoena[13] requiring petitioners to testify at the hearings
RAFAEL V. MARIANO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. EVELYN A. TURLA, IN scheduled on February 16 and 23, 2007.
HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
OF PALAYAN CITY, BRANCH 40, FLORO F. FLORENDO, IN HIS On March 9, 2007, petitioners filed a Special Appearance with
CAPACITY AS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, Motion to Quash Complaint/Subpoena and to Expu[ng]e Supporting
ANTONIO LL. LAPUS, JR., EDISON Affidavits.[14] They argue that the Provincial Prosecutor had no
jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation since no valid
complaint was filed against them.[15] They also claimed that, "the
V. preliminary investigation conducted was highly irregular, and that
the subpoena issued against [them] was patently defective
RAFANAN, AND EDDIE C. GUTIERREZ,IN THEIR CAPACITY AS amounting to a denial of their rights to due process."[16]
MEMBERS OF THE PANEL OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS, AND
RAUL M. GONZALEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, On July 13, 2007, the panel of investigating prosecutors, composed
RESPONDENTS. of Antonio Ll. Lapus, Jr., Eddie C. Gutierrez, and Edison V. Rafanan,
denied petitioners' motion and ordered the submission of their
DECISION counter-affidavits.[17]

Petitioners filed their respective counter-affidavits.[18] They also filed

LEONEN, J.:
a (1) Motion to conduct Clarificatory Hearing and to Allow [them] to
Upon filing of an information in court, trial court judges must Submit Written Memorandum,[19] and a (2) Joint Supplemental
determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause based Counter-Affidavit on Common Legal Grounds in Support of their
on their personal evaluation of the prosecutor's report and its Prayer to Dismiss the Case,[20] both dated August 21, 2007.
supporting documents. They may dismiss the case, issue an arrest
warrant, or require the submission of additional evidence. However, On October 23, 2007, the panel issued an Order[21] again denying the
they cannot remand the case for another conduct of preliminary motion. Petitioners moved for reconsideration,[22] which was denied
investigation on the ground that the earlier preliminary investigation by the panel in the Resolution[23] dated November 14, 2007.
was improperly conducted.
The panel of prosecutors issued on April 11, 2008 a Joint
Prohibition[1]
This is a Petition for Certiorari and with a Prayer for the Resolution,[24] reviewed and approved by Officer-in-charge
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order ,and/or Writ of Provincial Prosecutor Floro F. Florendo (Prosecutor Florendo). The
Preliminary Injunction. Petitioners seek to have the Orders[2] dated panel found probable cause for murder in the killing of Carlito
July 18, 2008[3] and December 2, 2008[4] of the Regional Trial Court, Bayudang and Jimmy Peralta, and for kidnapping with murder in the
Palayan City, Branch 40 in Criminal Case Nos. 1879-P and 1880-P killing of Danilo Felipe, against the nineteen 19 suspects. However,
nullified and set aside and the criminal cases against them the panel considered one of the suspects, Julie Flores Sinohin, as a
dismissed. state witness. The panel recommended that the corresponding
Informations be filed against the remaining suspects.[25] On the
Petitioners Liza L. Maza, Saturnino C. Ocampo, Teodoro A. Casiño, same day, two (2) Informations[26] for murder were filed before the
and Rafael V. Mariano (petitioners) are former members of the Regional Trial Court of Palayan City, Branch 40 in Nueva Ecija,
House of Representatives. Liza represented Gabriela Women's Party (Palayan cases) and an Information[27] for kidnapping with murder
(Gabriela), Saturnino and Teodoro represented Bayan Muna Party- was filed in Guimba, Nueva Ecija (Guimba case).
List (Bayan Muna), while Rafael represented Anakpawis Party-List
(Anakpawis).[5] Petitioners filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable
Cause with Prayer to Dismiss the Case Outright on the Guimba case.
In three letters[6] all dated December 14, 2006, Police Senior This was opposed by the panel of investigating prosecutors and
Inspector Arnold M. Palomo (Inspector Palomo), Deputy Provincial Prosecutor Florendo.[28] After the hearing on the motion and
Chief of the Nueva Ecija Criminal Investigation and Detection Team, submission of the parties' memoranda, Judge Napoleon R. Sta.
referred to the Provincial Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Romana issued an Order[29] dated August 5, 2008, dismissing the
Ecija, three (3) cases of murder against petitioners and 15 other case for lack of probable cause.[30]
persons.[7]
On April 21, 2008, petitioners also filed a Motion for Judicial
Inspector Palomo named 19 individuals, including Petitioners, who Determination of Probable Cause with Prayer to Dismiss the Case
were allegedly responsible for the death of Carlito Bayudang, Jimmy Outright[31] on the Palayan cases. They requested the court to move
Peralta, and Danilo Felipe.[8] His findings show that the named forward with the presented evidence and decide if there were
individuals conspired, planned, and implemented the killing of the probable cause and, consequently, dismiss the case outright if there
supporters of AKBAYAN Party List (AKBAYAN), a rival of Bayan were none.[32]
Muna and Gabriela.[9] Carlito Bayudang and Danilo Felipe were
AKBAYAN community organizers,[10] whereas Jimmy Peralta was The panel of investigating prosecutors and Prosecutor Florendo
mistaken for a certain Ricardo Peralta, an AKBAYAN supporter.[11] opposed the motion.[33] Petitioners filed their Reply[34] on May 12,
2008.

1
 Judge Turla further held:
On April 25, 2008 and May 12, 2008, the motion was heard by the
Regional Trial Court of Palayan City, Branch 40.[35] Thereafter, both In this case, the undue haste in filing of the information against
parties submitted their respective memoranda.[36] movants cannot be ignored. From the gathering of evidence until
the termination of the preliminary investigation, it appears that the
On July 18, 2008, Presiding Judge Evelyn A. Atienza-Turla (Judge state prosecutors were overly-eager to file the case and to secure a
Turla) issued an Order[37] on the Palayan cases. Judge Turla held that warrant of arrest of [petitioners] without bail and their consequent
"the proper procedure in the conduct of the preliminary detention. There can be no gainsaying the fact that the task of
investigation was not followed in [the Palayan] cases"[38] due to the ridding society of criminals and misfits and sending them to jail in
following: the hope that they. will in the future reform and be productive
members of the community rests both on the judiciousness of
First, the records show that the supposed principal witnesses for the judges and the prudence of the prosecutors. There is however, a
prosecution were not presented before the panel of prosecutors, standard in the determination of the existence of probable cause.
much less subscribed their supposed affidavits before them. The determination has not measured up to that standard in this
case.[40]
The marginal note of one of the panel member, Asst. Prov'l Pros. Judge Turla added that her order of remanding the Palayan cases
Eddie Gutierrez said it all, thus: "I concur with the conclusion but I back to the provincial prosecutors "for a complete preliminary
would have been more than satisfied if witnesses for the investigation is not a manifestation of ignorance of law or a willful
prosecution were presented." abdication of a duty imposed by law ... but due, to the peculiar
circumstances obtaining in [the cases] and not just 'passing the
Second, the charge against [petitioners] is Murder (two counts), a buck' to the panel of prosecutors[.]"[41]
non-bailable offense. The gravity of the offense alone, not to
mention the fact that three of the movants are incumbent Party-List The dispositive portion reads:
Representatives while the other one was a former Party-List
Representative himself, whose imprisonment during the pendency WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court hereby resolves
of the case would deprive their constituents of their duly-elected to:
representatives should have merited a deeper and more thorough
preliminary investigation. SET ASIDE the "Joint Resolution" of the Nueva Ecija Provincial
1.) Prosecutor's Office dated, April 11, 2008 finding probable cause
The panel of prosecutors, however, did nothing of the sort and for two (2) counts of Murder against the herein movants; and,
instead swallowed hook, line and sinker the allegations made by ORDER the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija to
Isabelita Bayudang, Cleotilde Peralta[,] and Alvaro Juliano, and conduct the preliminary investigation on the incidents subject
2.)
principally hinges on the affidavit of Julie Sinohin, a supposed "co- matter hereof in accordance with the mandates of Rule 112 of
conspirator" of the movants, which were all not "subscribed or the Rules of Court.
sworn" before the said panel.
SO ORDERED.[42] (Emphasis in the original)
Given the foregoing circumstances, this Court for all practical Petitioners moved for partial reconsid ration[43] of the July 18, 2008
purposes will do an even worse job than what the panel of Order, praying for the outright dismissal of the Palayan cases
prosecutors did, by accepting in its entirety the findings of the said against them for lack of probable cause.[44] The Motion was denied
panel ,despite its obvious flaws. This practice should not be by Judge Turla in an Order dated December 2, 2008.[45]
condoned.
Hence, on March 27, 2009, petitioners filed this Petition for
.... Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction against
Third, [petitioners'] filing of a motion for reconsideration of the Judge Evelyn A. Turla, Prosecutors Floro F. Florendo, Antonio Ll.
resolution of the preliminary investigation conducted by the panel Lapus, Jr., Edison V. Rafanan, and Eddie C. Gutierrez, and Justice
of prosecutors is allowed by the rules.... Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez (respondents).[46]

.... Petitioners pray that the July 18, 2008 and December 2, 2008 Orders
of Judge Turla be set aside and annulled and that the murder cases
Strictly speaking, the filing of a "Motion for Reconsideration" is an against them be dismissed for failure to show probable cause. They
integral part of the preliminary investigation proper. There is no also ask for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or
dispute that the two (2) Informations for murder were writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin Judge Turla from remanding
filed without first affording the movants their right to file a motion the cases to the provincial prosecutors, and "the respondent
for reconsideration. The denial thereof is tantamount to a denial of prosecutors from conducting further preliminary investigation [on]
the right itself to a preliminary investigation. This fact alone already these cases."[47]
renders preliminary investigation conducted in this case incomplete.
The inevitable conclusion is that the movants were not only Petitioners claim that they "have no plain, speedy[,] and adequate
effectively denied the opportunity to file a "Motion for remedy in the ordinary course of law[.]"[48] They also contend that
Reconsideration" of the "Joint Resolution" dated April 11, 2008 "[r]espondents' actions will certainly cause grave and irreparable
issued by the panel of prosecutors assigned in these cases, but were damage to [their] constitutional rights unless injunctive relief is
also deprived of their right to a full preliminary investigation afforded them through the issuance of a writ of preliminary
preparatory to the filing of the Information against them. injunction and/or temporary restraining order[.]"[49]
(Emphasis in the original, citation omitted).[39]
They allege that Judge Turla acted with grave abuse of discretion

2
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE IS NOT A PRONOUNCEMENT OF
[I] WHEN SHE SHIRKED FROM HER CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO GUILT BUT MERELY BINDS A SUSPECT TO STAND TRIAL.
DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST PETITIONERS AND
INSTEAD REMANDED THE CASES TO THE OFFICE OF THE
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR DESPITE LACK OF EVIDENCE. V.

[II] WHEN SHE DID NOT DISMISS THE CASES DESPITE THE LACK OF THE ISSUE OF ADMISSIBILITY OR INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IS
EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST PETITIONERS. PROPERLY ADDRESSED DURING THE TRIAL ON THE MERITS OF THE
CASE AND NOT DURING THE EARLY STAGE OF PRELIMINARY
[III] WHEN SHE REFUSED TO RULE ON THE ISSUE OF FAILURE OF INVESTIGATION.[57]
THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT PETITIONERS Respondents claim that the petition before this Court violates the
ARE PRINCIPALS BY INDUCEMENT. principle of hierarchy of courts. They contend that petitioners
should have filed their petition before the Court of Appeals since it
[IV] FOR IGNORING THE ISSUE OF INADMISSIBILITY OF also exercises original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and
PROSECUTiON EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF prohibition. According to respondents, petitioners failed to justify a
THE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE.[50] direct resort to this Court.[58]
Petitioners claim that Judge Turla's order of remanding the case
back to the prosecutors had no basis in law, jurisprudence, or the Respondents also allege that respondent Secretary Gonzalez was
rules. Since she had already evaluated the evidence submitted by wrongly impleaded. There was no showing that he exercised judicial
the prosecutors along with the Informations, she should have or quasi-judicial functions, for which certiorari may be issued.[59]
determined the existence of probable cause for the issuance of
arrest warrants or the dismissal of the Palayan cases.[51] On the allegation that Judge Turla reneged on her constitutional
duty to determine robable cause, respondents counter that she did
Petitioners assert that under the Rules of Court, in case of doubt on not abandon her mandate.[60] Her act of remanding the cases to the
the existence of probable cause, Judge Turla could "order the public prosecutors "is a confirmation of her observance of the well-
prosecutor to present additional evidence [or] set the case for settled principle that such determination of probable cause is an
hearing so she could make clarifications on the factual issues of the exclusive executive function of the prosecutorial arm of our
case."[52] government."[61]

Moreover, petitioners argue that the setting aside of the Joint Furthermore, respondent prosecutors' finding of probable cause is
Resolution establishes the non-existence of probable cause against correct since evidence against petitioners show that more likely
them. Thus, the cases against them should have been dismissed.[53] than not, they participated in the murder of the alleged
victims.[62] The prosecutors' finding is not a final declaration of their
Petitioners aver that the documents submitted by the prosecution guilt. It merely engages them to trial.[63]
are neither relevant nor admissible evidence.[54] The documents "do
not establish the complicity of the petitioner party-list Finally, respondents argue that the "issue of admissibility or
representatives to the death of the supposed victims."[55] inadmissibility of evidence is properly addressed during the trial on
the merits of the case and not during the early stage of preliminary
On May 29, 2009, respondents filed their Comment[56] through the investigation."[64]
Office of the Solicitor General, raising the following arguments:
Petitioners filed their Reply[65] on September 24, 2009. Aside from
I reiterating their allegations and arguments in the petition, they
added that direct invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction was
THE PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR VIOLATING THE allowed as their petition involved legal questions.[66] Moreover, the
HIERARCHY OF COURTS. inclusion of Secretary Gonzalez as nominal party-respondent was
allowed under Rule 65, Section 5[67] of the Rules of Court.[68]

II We resolve the following issues:

RESPONDENT JUDGE'S ACTION IN REMANDING THE CASES FOR First, whether petitioners violated the principle of hierarchy of
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS A RECOGNITION OF THE courts in bringing their petition directly before this Court;
EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS TO
DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR PURPOSES OF FILING Second, whether respondent Judge Turla gravely abused her
APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL INFORMATION. discretion when she remanded the Palayan cases to the Provincial
Prosecutor for the conduct of preliminary investigation; and

III. Finally, whether admissibility of evidence can be ruled upon m

preliminary investigation.
THE PROSECUTION RIGHTLY FOUND PROBABLE CAUSE TO
WARRANT THE FILING OF THE INDICTMENTS.
I

IV. This petition is an exception to the principle of hierarchy of courts.

3
This Court thoroughly explained the doctrine of hierarchy of courts clarity of the threat to fundamental constitutional rights outweigh
in The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections:[69] the necessity for prudence. The doctrine relating to constitutional
issues of transcendental importance prevents courts from the
The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was paralysis of procedural niceties when clearly faced with the need for
created by this court to ensure that every level of the judiciary substantial protection.
performs its designated roles in an effective and efficient manner.
Trial courts do not only determine the facts from the evaluation of ....
the evidence presented before them. They are likewise competent
to determine issues of law which may include the validity of an Third, cases of first impression warrant a direct resort to this court.
ordinance, statute, or even an executive issuance in relation to the In cases of first impression, no jurisprudence yet exists that will
Constitution. To effectively perform these functions, they are guide the lower courts on this matter. In Government of the United
territorially organized into regions and then into branches. Their States v. Purganan, this court took cognizance of the case as a
writs generally reach within those territorial boundaries. matter of first impression that may guide the lower courts:
Necessarily, they mostly perform the all-important task of inferring
the facts from the evidence as these are physically presented before In the interest of justice and to settle once and for all the important
them. In many instances, the facts occur within their territorial issue of bail in extradition proceedings, we deem it best to take
jurisdiction, which properly present the 'actual case' that makes ripe cognizance of the present case. Such proceedings constitute a
a determination of the constitutionality of such action. The matter of first impression over which there is, as yet, no local
consequences, of course, would be national in scope. There are, jurisprudence to guide lower courts.
however, some cases where resort to courts at their level would not ....
be practical considering their decisions could still be appealed
before the higher courts, such as the Court of Appeals. Fourth, the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this
court. In Drilon v. Lim, this court held that:
The Court of Appeals is primarily designed as an appellate court that
reviews the determination of facts and law made by the trial courts. ... it will be prudent for such courts, if only out of a becoming
It is collegiate in nature. This nature ensures more standpoints in the modesty, to defer to the higher judgment of this Court in the
review of the actions of the trial court. But the Court of Appeals also consideration of its validity, which is better determined after a
has original jurisdiction over most special civil actions. Unlike the thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with the
trial courts, its writs can have a nationwide scope. It is competent to concurrence of the majority of those who participated in its
determine facts and, ideally, should act on constitutional issues that discussion.
may not necessarily be novel unless there are factual questions to ....
determine.
Fifth, ... Exigency in certain situations would qualify as an exception
This court, on the other hand, leads the judiciary by breaking new for direct resort to this court.
ground or further reiterating - in the light of new circumstances or in
the light of some confusions of bench or bar - existing precedents. Sixth, the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ...
Rather than a court of first instance or as a repetition of the actions
of the Court of Appeals, this court promulgates these doctrinal ....
devices in order that it truly performs that role.
Seventh, [there is] no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
In other words, the Supreme Court's role to interpret the the ordinary course of law[.]
Constitution and act in order to protect constitutional rights when
these become exigent should not be emasculated by the doctrine in ... The lack of other sufficient remedies in the course of law alone is
respect of the hierarchy of courts. That has never been the purpose sufficient ground to allow direct resort to this court.
of such doctrine.
Eighth, the petition includes questions that are "dictated by public
Thus, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule. This welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the
court has "full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to
jurisdiction [over] special civil actions for certiorari ... filed directly be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an
with it for exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the inappropriate remedy." In the past, questions similar to these which
nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the petition." As this court ruled on immediately despite the doctrine of hierarchy of
correctly pointed out by petitioners, we have provided exceptions courts included citizens' right to bear arms, government contracts
to this doctrine: involving modernization of voters' registration lists, and the status
and existence of a public office.
First, a direct resort to this court is allowed when there are genuine
issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most ....
immediate time. A direct resort to this court includes availing of the
remedies of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality It is not, however, necessary that all of these exceptions must occur
of actions of both legislative and executive branches of the at the same time to justify a direct resort to this court.[70](Emphasis
government. supplied, citations omitted)
In First United Constructors Corp. v. Poro Point Management Corp.
.... (PPMC), et al.,[71] this Court reiterated that it "will not entertain a
direct invocation of its jurisdiction unless the redress desired cannot
A second exception is when the issues involved are of be obtained in the appropriate lower courts, and exceptional and
transcendental importance. In these cases, the imminence and compelling circumstances justify the resort to the extraordinary

4
remedy of a writ of certiorari."[72] Court clarified this concept in Napoles v. De Lima:[75]

In this case, the presence of compelling circumstances warrants the During preliminary investigation, the prosecutor determines the
exercise of this Court's jurisdiction. At the time the petition was existence of probable cause for filing an information in court or
filed, petitioners were incumbent party-list representatives. The dismissing the criminal complaint. As worded in the Rules of Court,
possibility of their arrest and incarceration should the assailed the prosecutor determines during preliminary investigation whether
Orders be affirmed, would affect their representation of their "there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a
constituents in Congress. crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for trial." At this stage, the
Although the circumstances mentioned are no longer present, the determination of probable cause is an executive function. Absent
merits of this case necessitate this Court's exercise of jurisdiction. grave abuse of discretion, this determination cannot be interfered
with by the courts. This is consistent with the doctrine of separation
of powers.
II
On the other hand, if done to issue an arrest warrant, the
The remand of the criminal cases to the Provincial Prosecutor for determination of probable cause is a judicial function. No less than
the conduct of another preliminary investigation is improper. the Constitution commands that "no ... warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the
Petitioners assert that the documents submitted along with the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
Informations are sufficient for Judge Turla to rule on the existence complainant and the witnesses he may produce[.]" This requirement
of probable cause. If she finds the evidence inadequate, she may of personal evaluation by the judge is reaffirmed in Rule 112, Section
order the prosecutors to present additional evidence. Thus, 5 (a) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure[.]
according to petitioners, Judge Turla's action in remanding the case
to the prosecutors for further preliminary investigation lacks legal ....
basis.
Therefore, the determination of probable cause for filing an
Petitioners' contention has merit. information in court and that for issuance of an arrest warrant are
different. Once the information is filed in court, the trial court
Rule 112, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure acquires jurisdiction and "any disposition of the case as to its
provides: dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the
sound discretion of the Court."[76] (Citations omitted)
RULE 112 In De Lima v. Reyes,[77] this Court further held:

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION The courts do not interfere with the prosecutor s conduct of a
preliminary investigation. The prosecutor s determination of probable
.... cause is solely within his or her discretion. Prosecutors are given a
wide latitude of discretion to determine whether an information
SEC. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue. - should be filed in court or whether the complaint should be
dismissed.[78] (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
(a) By the Regional Trial Court. - Within ten (10) days from the filing Thus, when Judge Turla held that the prosecutors' conduct of
of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate preliminary investigation was "incomplete"[79] and that their
the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He determination of probable cause "has not measured up to [the]
may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly standard,"[80] she encroached upon the exclusive function of the
fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall prosecutors. Instead of determining probable cause, she ruled on
issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order when the the propriety of the preliminary investigation.
complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 6 of this
Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge In Leviste v. Hon. Alameda, et al.:[81]
may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five
(5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court [T]he task of the presiding judge when the Information is filed with
within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or the court is first and foremost to determine the existence or non-
information. existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused.
A plain reading of the provision shows that upon filing of the
information, the trial court judge has the following options: (1) What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal
dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence
probable cause; (2) issue a warrant of arrest or a commitment order of probable cause. But the judge is not required to personally
if findings show probable cause; or (3) order the prosecutor to examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following established
present additional evidence if there is doubt on the existence of doctrine and procedure, he shall (1) personally evaluate the report
probable cause.[73] and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor
regarding the existence of probable cause, and on the basis thereof,
The trial court judge's determination of probable cause is based on he may already make a personal determination of the existence of
her or his personal evaluation of the prosecutor's resolution and its probable cause; and (2) if he is not satisfied that probable cause
supporting evidence. The determination of probable cause by the exists, he may disregard the prosecutor's report and require the
trial court judge is a judicial function, whereas the determination of submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
probable cause by the prosecutors is an executive function.[74] This arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable
cause.[82] (Citations omitted)

5
Regardless of Judge Turla's assessment on the conduct of the
preliminary investigation, it was incumbent upon her to determine
the existence of probable cause against the accused after a personal
evaluation of the prosecutors' report and the supporting
documents. She could even disregard the report if she found it
unsatisfactory, and/or require the prosecutors to submit additional
evidence. There was no option for her to remand the case back to
the panel of prosecutors for another preliminary investigation. In
doing so, she acted without any legal basis.

III

The admissibility of evidence cannot be ruled upon in a preliminary

investigation.

In a preliminary investigation,

...the public prosecutors do not decide whether there is evidence

beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the person charged; they
merely determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that
respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for
trial.[83]
To emphasize, "a preliminary investigation is merely preparatory to
a trial[;] [i]t is not a trial on the merits."[84] Since "it cannot be
expected that upon the filing of the information in court the
prosecutor would have already presented all the evidence necessary
to secure a conviction of the accused,"[85] the admissibility or
inadmissibility of evidence cannot be ruled upon in a preliminary
investigation.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed

Orders dated July 18, 2008 and December 2, 2008 of the Regional
Trial Court, Palayan City, Branch 40 in Criminal Case Nos. 1879-P and
1880-P are SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the Regional Trial
Court, Palayan City, Branch 40 for further proceedings with due and
deliberate dispatch in accordance with this Decision.

SO ORDERED.