TITLE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES -VS.

SHELDON ALCANTARA Y LI, JUNNELYN ILLO

Y YAN, NATIVIDAD ZULUETA Y YALDUA, MA. REYNA OCAMPO Y CRUZ, MAILA TO Y
MOVILLON, MA. VICTORIA GONZALES Y DEDIOS, ELENA PASCUAL Y ROQUE, MARY
ANGELIN ROMERO Y BISNAR AND NOEMI VILLEGAS Y BATHAN
DATE: July 4, 2018
PONENTE: Justice Tijam
HEADING: Issuance of Warrant of Arrest

APPELLEE: SHELDON ALCANATA Y LI et al.

APPELLANT: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

On September 20, 2011, the CIDG-WCPD received information that Pharaoh KTV
was involved in sexual exploitation. They conducted surveillance and an operation.
Senior Police Officer 3 Leopoldo Platilla posed as a customer and entered Pharaoh. He
was led to the 3rd floor by the receptionist and met Junnelyn Illo, the floor manager.
They selected companions, paid for a VIP room, and were told they could avail of "extra
services." The raid was initiated, resulting in the arrest of floor managers, including the
respondents.

Women working there were rescued, but they later withdrew their statements.
Respondents denied involvement in prostitution.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

INFORMATION FILED: Violation of Section 4(a) and (e), in relation to Section 6(c) of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9208, also known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.

NATURE OF THE CASE: PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI FILED BY

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL (OSG), ASSAILING THE DECISION DATED APRIL 26, 2013 OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS (CA) IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 123672 DISMISSING THE PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY THE OSG, WHICH AFFIRMED THE ORDER DATED
OCTOBER 20, 2011 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC) OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH
145, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11-2408.

1. Present: Petition filed before the Supreme Court, seeking review of the CA's
decision.
2. April 26, 2013: CA dismisses the Petition for Certiorari, affirming the RTC's ruling
of no probable cause.
3. OSG files a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, alleging grave abuse of
discretion by Judge Calpatura.
 4. October 20, 2011: RTC issues an order dismissing the case for lack of probable
cause, ordering the release of the respondents.
5. Respondents file an Urgent Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause
before RTC, Makati City, Branch 145 presided by Judge Carlito B. Calpatura.
6. Information charging respondents with qualified trafficking is filed in court.
7. October 4, 2011: Assistant State Prosecutor issues a resolution finding probable
cause for charging respondents with trafficking under R.A. No. 9208.

ISSUES
ISSUE(S) ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONERS
Whether Judge Calpatura can determine No. The OSG asserted that the
the existence of probable cause responsibility for determining probable
cause to proceed with a trial rests with
the public prosecutor. The accuracy of
this determination is a matter beyond the
purview of the trial court.

HELD/RATIO

JUDGE CALPATURA CAN PERSONALLY DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF

PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING A WARRANT OF ARREST.

 The ruling is based on Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, which explicitly grants the Regional Trial Court judge the authority to
personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence
within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information.
 The court clarified that there are two kinds of determination of probable cause -
executive and judicial. The executive determination is made during preliminary
investigation by the public prosecutor. The judicial determination is made by the
judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the
accused.
 While the judge can personally determine probable cause, it does not grant the
judge the authority to act as an appellate court for purposes of questioning the
prosecutor's determination. The proper remedy to challenge the prosecutor's
finding of probable cause is to appeal to the Secretary of Justice.
 Courts cannot override the prosecutor's determination or substitute their own
judgment for that of the latter. They also cannot order the prosecution of the
accused when the prosecutor has not found a prima facie case. This underscores
the independence of the prosecutor in determining sufficient evidence for filing
an information.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 26,
2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 123672 is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
Branch 145 in Criminal Case No. 11-2408 for appropriate proceedings.