1.

Preliminary Investigation

People v. Castillo

Facts:
Sarino , one of the registered owners of a piece of land located infront of SM Bacoor leased the
property to Pepito Aquino and Samoy who subleased it to several stallholders. Meija, the Municipal
Building Official of Bacoor sent notices of violation of the National Building Code for lack of building
permits and certificates of occupancy. Due to repeated failure to comply, a task force from Bacoor
Municipal Hall effected a closure of the stalls and installed galvanized iron fences.
Aquino and Samoy filed before the Ombudsman a complaint against Castillo, the municipal
mayor and Mejia for violation of Sec 3 e and f of RA 3019 “Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. In
2000, Ombudsman dismissed the case.
In 2001, Sarino filed a complaint against Castillo and Mejia before Ombudsman charging them
with Sec 3 e and f RA 3019 and RA 6713 alleging that construction of galvanized fenced tantamount
to unlawful taking of their property. It was also dismissed by Ombudsman for being moot and
academic due to Castillo’s reelection as Mayor.
In 2003, Office of the Ombudsman through the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed an Info
against respondents for violation of Sec 3 e RA 3019 before Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan declared
that probable cause exists and directed issuance of warrants of arrest and hold departure order.
Respondents moved for reinvestigation of the case where the prosecutor amended the info.
The respondents filed Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause which SB denied. It then
dismissed the case upon motion for reco by the respondents as it was a rehash of the previous
dismissed case. Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a motion for reco but was denied. Hence the
petition.
Petitioner contends that after Sandiganbayan issued warrants against respondents, the responsibility
of making new determination of probable cause shifted back to the Ombudsman as prosecutor when
they moved for reinvestigation. Ombudsman must the decide whether respondents shall continue to
be held in trial. The Sandiganbayan is bereft of authority to overturn the Ombudsman’s findings.

Issue: Did the Sandiganbayan erred in coverturning the Ombudsman’s determination of probable
cause resulting in the dismissal of the case against respondents?

Ruling: YES.

There are two kinds of determination of probable cause: executive and judicial:
 Executive determination of probable cause - 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.
 Judicial determination of probable cause - one made by the judge to ascertain whether a
warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. The judge must satisfy himself that
based on the evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under custody in
order not to frustrate the ends of justice.

Corollary to the principle that a judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if he or she deems
that there is no probable cause for doing so, the judge in turn should not override the public prosecutor's
determination of probable cause to hold an accused for trial.

It must be stressed that in our criminal justice system, the public prosecutor exercises a wide latitude of
discretion in determining whether a criminal case should be filed in court, and that courts must respect
the exercise of such discretion when the information filed against the person
charged is valid on its face.

Thus, absent a finding that an information is invalid on its face or that the prosecutor committed manifest
error or grave abuse of discretion, a judge's determination of probable cause is limited only to the judicial
kind.

Nature and objective of 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. The Sandiganbayan and all courts for that matter should always remember the
judiciary's standing policy on non-interference in the Office of the Ombudsman's exercise of its
constitutionally mandated powers.