Constitutional Law II : Searches & Seizures (Chapter 10)

Xavier University (Ateneo de Cagayan) - College of Law

Farhanna B. Mapandi (Block A)

30 BORLONGAN, JR VS PENA

GR NO. 143591 (NOV 23, 2007)

NACHURA, J.

Facts:

-Respondent Magdaleno Pea instituted a civil case for recovery of agents compensation and expenses, damages, and
attorneys fees, against Urban Bank and the petitioners, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Bago
City.

- Respondent anchored his claim for compensation on the contract of agency, 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 Banks property located along Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City.

- Petitioners filed a MD arguing that they never appointed the respondent as agent or counsel.

-Attached to the MD were the following documents:

1. A letter 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 letter dated December 7, 1994 addressed to Corazon Bejasa from Marilyn G. Ong;

3. A letter dated December 9, 1994 addressed to Teodoro Borlongan and signed by Marilyn G. Ong; and

4. A Memorandum dated November 20, 1994 from Enrique Montilla III.

- The above stated 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.

- Respondent Pea filed his Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Bago City. 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. Worse, petitioners introduced said documents as evidence
before the RTC knowing that they were falsified.

-City Prosecutors Report (Sept 23, 1998) : In the report, the 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. Subsequently, the corresponding Informations were filed with the
 Constitutional Law II : Searches & Seizures (Chapter 10)
Xavier University (Ateneo de Cagayan) - College of Law
Farhanna B. Mapandi (Block A)

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 for the arrest of the petitioners.

-Petitioners (Oct `1, 1998) filed an Omnibus MQ : They insist that they were denied due process because of the non-
observance of a proper procedure on preliminary investigation prescribed in the Rules of Court; 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.
Moreover they claim that the respondents affidavit was not based on the latters personal knowledge and therefore
should not have been used by the court in determining probable cause.

-On the same day that the Omnibus MQ was filed, the petitioners posted bail. Their bail bonds expressly provided that
they do not intend to waive their right to question the validity of their arrest. On the date of arraignment, the petitioners
refused to enter their plea, for the obvious reason that the legality of their information and their arrest was yet to be
settled by the court.

-MTCCs answer (in response to Omnibus MQ filed by petitioners): They upheld the validity of the warrant of arrest,
saying that it was issued in accordance with the Rules. Besides, (according to the MTCC) petitioners could no longer
question the validity of the warrant since they already posted bail.

Issue:

1) WON 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) WON the Informations charging the petitioners were validly filed and the warrants for their arrest were properly
issued;

3) WON this Court can, itself, determine probable cause; and

4) WON the petitioners posting a bail constitutes a waiver of their right to question the validity of their arrest.

Ruling: Petition granted; MTCC is ordered to dismiss criminal cases against petitioners.

RD:

For issues numbered 1 and 3:

-The following sections of Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure are relevant to 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.

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:
 Constitutional Law II : Searches & Seizures (Chapter 10)
Xavier University (Ateneo de Cagayan) - College of Law
Farhanna B. Mapandi (Block A)

(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.

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.

-Records show that the prosecutor relied merely on the affidavits submitted by the complainant and did not require the
petitioners to submit their answer. He should not be faulted for doing such as this is sanctioned by the rules. Moreover,
he 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.

-Regarding the issuance of the warrant of arrest, petitioners contend that the warrants were illegally issued as they were
solely based on the affidavits of the complainant. Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution underscores 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 prosecutors 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. There is no provision or procedural rule which makes the submission of counter-affidavits mandatory
before the judge could determine probable cause.

For issue number 2:

- For the issuance of a warrant of arrest, probable cause has been defined 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. It is one of the requisites for a warrant of arrest to be valid.

- On the basis of the above-stated documents (in the facts) 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.

-The SC finds the complaint-affidavit and attachments insufficient to support the existence of probable cause. The
respondents claims of the falsity of the documents were mere assertions.

- 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 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
 Constitutional Law II : Searches & Seizures (Chapter 10)
Xavier University (Ateneo de Cagayan) - College of Law
Farhanna B. Mapandi (Block A)

the documents. Neither did he claim that he was familiar with the signatures of the signatories. He simply made a bare
assertion

-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. 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.