Facts: Petitioners are all charged as co-conspirators in the anomalous Priority

Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam. On June 4, 2014, the Ombudsman issued
a Joint Order denying, among others, the MR filed by petitioners. This led to the filing
of the 4 petitions before this Court. On July 3, 2014, resolving Criminal Case, "along
with several other related cases," the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution finding
probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against "all the accused," stating
that the filing of a motion for judicial determination of probable cause was a mere
superfluity given that it was its bounden duty to personally evaluate the resolution
of the Ombudsman and the supporting evidence before it determines the existence
or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused.

WON there is grave abuse of discretion in judicially determining the existence of

probable cause?

NO. Once the public prosecutor (or the Ombudsman) determines probable cause and
thus, elevates the case to the trial court (or the Sandiganbayan), a judicial
determination of probable cause is made in order to determine if a warrant of arrest
should be issued ordering the detention of the accused. As discussed in the case of
People vs Castillo,

There are two kinds of determination of probable case: executive and judicial.
The executive determination of probable cause is one made during preliminary
investigation. It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who
is given a broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to
charge those whom he believes to have committed the crime as defined by law
and thus should be held for trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi-
judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed in
court. Whether or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public
prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment of the
existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itself does
not and may not be compelled to pass upon.