Manebo v.

Acosta

FACTS:

 A complaint for Murder was filed against respondents Acosta and Sapiandante before the
Special Action Unit (SAU) of the NBI.
 The accused were allegedly responsible for the death of Dimatulac for having shot the latter
several times on the head and body, which occurrence was witnessed by Sardia.
 The SAU recommended the filing of a murder case against respondents and a certain John Doe
was referred to the OCSP and DOJ for P.I.
 Both accused Acosta and Sapiandante denied the accusations against them.
 The State Prosecutor issued a Joint Resolution approved by the Chief State Prosecutor for the
Information of murder, which in turn was filed before the RTC.
 Respondents filed their MFR which was denied. They likewise appeared before the DOJ
Secretary.
 In the meantime, the murder case was transferred to the RTC of Manila. Alias warrants of
arrest were issued.
 The DOJ Secretary issued his Resolution reversing the appeal and ordered the dismissal of the
case against respondents for lack of quantum of proof sufficient to indict them for the offense
charged.
 The Prosecutor then filed a Motion to Withdraw the Information.
 Petitioner filed before the Office of the President, which in turn, dismissed the appeal and
affirmed in toto the resolution of the DOJ Secretary.
 Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 43 with the CA, which the latter
dismissed for lack of merit.

ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the OP, which adopted the finding of the DOJ
Secretary that there was no probable cause to indict respondents for murder

HELD:

 Yes. Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as
would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong
suspicion that the person charged is guilty of the crime subject of the investigation.
 To determine probable cause, there is need to conduct a Preliminary Investigation.
 Preliminary Investigation- constitutes a realistic appraisal of the merits of a case. Its
purpose:
- To determine whether a crime has been committed; and
- There is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof.
 It is a means of discovering which person or persons may be reasonably charged with a crime.
Its conduct is executive in nature.
 In the case at hand, the DOJ committed manifest error in finding no probable cause to charge
respondents with the crime of murder. Its finding that:
- The DOJ Secretary found Flordeliza's description of respondent Acosta different from the
latter's physical attributes. He then ruled that Flordeliza's delayed testimony, coupled with
her erroneous description of respondent Acosta, cast a cloud of doubt on her credibility;
- The DOJ did not give credence to Sardia’s testimony as it pointed out that it Sardia was
not in the police report and his testimony was belated.
 The Court was not persuaded with such reasonings:
- Flordeliza’s belated filing cannot be taken against her as it was a natural reaction of a
human being who had witnessed a traumatic event; and that Flordeliza was able to
positively identified the respondent Acosta;
- The failure of the police report to mention Sardia’s name as witness would not detract the
fact that he saw respondent Acosta with an unidentified man running away from a get-
away vehicle. The Court noted that police blotter is not conclusive proof of the truth of
 such entries and should not be given undue significance or probative value for they are
usually incomplete and inaccurate.
 In a preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor MERELY determines whether there is
probable cause or sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.