WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing premises, the consolidated petitions are GRANTED and

accordingly the assailed Joint Decision dated January 9, 2004 (administrative aspect of the cases
filed by the private respondents) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Consequently, the administrative charges against petitioners are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
He posits that these pieces of evidence, taken together, more than satisfy the required quantum of
proof to hold the respondents administratively liable for grave misconduct.
For his part, Mendoza argues that since the affidavits failed to categorically state that the
complainants personally witnessed the transfer of money from Alingasa to Erederos and eventually
to him, his participation in the anomalous scheme has not been sufficiently shown; hence, he should
not have been found liable.
In the present case, the CA found no substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the
respondents are guilty of the administrative charges against them. Mere allegation and speculation
is not evidence, and is not equivalent to proof. Since the Deputy Ombudsmans findings were found
wanting by the CA of substantial evidence, the same shall not bind this Court.
15

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. And 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 accuseds 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. 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.49