Labaya, Paolo Bernabe E.
Maza v. Turla 10. The petitioners argued that:
Month, date, year | Ponencia, J. | Topic
PETITIONERS: Liza Maza, Saturnino Ocampo, Teodoro Casino,
Rafael Mariano
RESPONDENTS: Evelyn Turla, Floro Florendo, Antonio Lapus,
Edison Rafanan, Eddie Gutierrez, Raul Gonzales
DOCTRINE/s: Admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence cannot be
ruled upon in preliminary investigation
FACTS:
1. Petitioners were members and former members of the House of
Representatives
2. Petitioners and 15 others were accused to be involved in the murder
of 3 people. In a letter by Police Senior Inspector Arnold Palomo to
the Provincial Prosecutor of Cabanatuan.
3. In the said letter, Palomo named petitioners and 16 other people (1
became state witness) of conspiring and killing Carlito Bayudang,
Danilo Felipe, and Jimmy Peralta
4. The first 2 were members of Akbayan party while Jimmy Peralta was
mistaken for Ricardo Peralta, a supporter of Akbayan. According to
said letter, the partylist which the petitioners belong to respectively
were rivals to Anakbayan. Palomo further recommended that a
preliminary investigation be conducted and that an information for
each count of murder be filed against these individuals.
5. Eventually, informations for murder were filed against petitioners by
the panel of investigating prosecutors, herein respondents. These
informations were raffled to RTC of Palayan City, Nueva Ecija
Branch 40 which was being presided by Respondent Evelyn Turla
6. Petitioners filed a motion for judicial determination of probable
cause and if no probable cause existed, a dismissal of the case
7. Respondent Turla gave due course to the petition. She found that the
informations and preliminary investigation procedure were tainted
with irregularities that she directed the Panel to conduct the
preliminary investigation in accordance with prescribed procedure.
8. Petitioners moved for partial reconsideration parying for an outright
dismissal of the case. This was denied by Judge Turla,
9. Hence, a petition for certiorari was filed by petitioners.
a. The order of remanding the case had no basis in law,
jurisprudence, or rules. Since she had evaluated the evidence
already along with the informations, she should have
determined the existence of probable cause
b. Under the RoC, in case of doubt on the existence of probable
cause, Judge Turla could order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence or set the case for hearing so she could
make clairifications on the factual issues
c. Petitioners aver that the document submitted by the
prosecution are neither relevant nor admissible evidence.
The documents do not establish the complicity of the
petitioner party-list representatives to the death of the
supposed victims
ISSUE/s:
1. Whether admissibility of evidence can be ruled upon in preliminary
investigation - NO
RULING: WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
Assailed order is SET ASIDE. The case is Remanded to RTC
RATIO:
1. The admissibility of evidence cannot be ruled upon in a preliminary
investigation.
2. In a PI, the public prosecutors do not decide whether there is
evidence beyond reasonable doubt; 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
3. A PI is merely preparatory to a trial; it is not trial on the merits.
Since it cannot be expected that upon filing of the information in
court the prosecutor would have already presented all the evidence
necessary to secure a conviction, the admissibility or inadmissibility
cannot be ruled upon in a PI