Case Digest: Senator Leila M. De Lima vs. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017 (Probable Cause)

      Rule 112, Preliminary Investigation, Probable Cause | Criminal Procedure


Facts:

Leila M. De Lima, who was the Secretary of the Department of Justice, and Rafael Marcos Z. Rages, who was the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Corrections, are accused of conspiring with Ronnie P. Dayan, an employee of the Department of Justice, to commit illegal drug trading from November 2012 to March 2013. De Lima and Rages used their power and authority to demand money from high-profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison to support De Lima's senatorial bid in the May 2016 election. Inmates, using mobile phones and electronic devices, traded and trafficked dangerous drugs and gave the proceeds to De Lima through Ragos and Dayan. The accused received ₱5,000,000.00 on November 24, 2012, ₱5,000,000.00 on December 15, 2012, and ₱100,000.00 weekly "tara" from high-profile inmates.

Leila de Lima filed a motion to quash the case, citing lack of jurisdiction, lack of authority on the part of the Department of Justice Panel, charging more than one offense, and hearsay testimony.

Despite this, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against de Lima and her co-accused. 

The Philippine National Police arrested de Lima, and she filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, a writ of prohibition, and an order for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction.


Issue:

WoN the respondent gravely abused her discretion in finding probable cause to issue the Warrant of Arrest against petitioner.


Held: DISMISSED.

There is certainly no indication that respondent judge deviated from the usual procedure in finding probable cause to issue the petitioner's arrest. Personal determination of the existence of probable cause by the judge is required before a warrant of arrest may issue. 
It must be emphasized that in determining the probable cause to issue the warrant of arrest against the petitioner, respondent judge evaluated the Information and "all the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation conducted in this case."

Notably, for purposes of determining the propriety of the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is tasked to merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of the guilt of the accused. She is given wide latitude of discretion in the determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. A finding of probable cause to order the accused's arrest does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.

Thus, probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties.

Verily, the admissibility of evidence, their evidentiary weight, probative value, and the credibility of the witness are matters that are best left to be resolved in a full-blown trial, not during a preliminary investigation where the technical rules of evidence are not applied nor at the stage of the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Thus, the better alternative is to proceed to the conduct of trial on the merits for the petitioner and the prosecution to present their respective evidence in support of their allegations.


Principle:

Sec.5(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court required the respondent judge to evaluate the prosecutor's resolution and its supporting evidence within a limited period of only ten (10) days, viz.:

SEC. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue. -

(a) By the Regional Trial Court. - Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to Section 6 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or information.

——




Recit Version

Facts: 
Leila M. De Lima, former Secretary of the Department of Justice in the Philippines, and Rafael Marcos Z. Rages, former Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Corrections, have been accused of conspiring to commit illegal drug trading with the help of Ronnie P. Dayan, an employee of the Department of Justice. De Lima and Rages allegedly demanded money from high-profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison to support De Lima's senatorial bid in the 2016 election. Despite De Lima filing a motion to quash the case, the Regional Trial Court found probable cause for warrants of arrest against her and her co-accused. De Lima was later arrested, and she filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, a writ of prohibition, and an order for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction.

Issue:

WoN the respondent gravely abused her discretion in finding probable cause to issue the Warrant of Arrest against petitioner.


Held: DISMISSED.

There is certainly no indication that respondent judge deviated from the usual procedure in finding probable cause to issue the petitioner's arrest. A finding of probable cause to order the accused's arrest does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.

Thus, probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties.

Verily, the admissibility of evidence, their evidentiary weight, probative value, and the credibility of the witness are matters that are best left to be resolved in a full-blown trial, not during a preliminary investigation where the technical rules of evidence are not applied nor at the stage of the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Thus, the better alternative is to proceed to the conduct of trial on the merits for the petitioner and the prosecution to present their respective evidence in support of their allegations.

Popular posts from this blog

Election Laws: Requirements Before Election

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE ELECTION A. Registration Registration of Voters The right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo, among others, the process of registration. Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage .  It is not a qualification for such right.  R.A. No. 8189, the Voter's Registration Act of 1996 (approved June 11, 1996) : Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State to systematize the present method of registration in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act: Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board; Registration Record refers to an ...
Read more

Case Digest: Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, GR. No. 122156, February 3, 1997

Political Law Review | Self-executing Provisions, Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy The GSIS decided to privatize the Manila Hotel by selling 51% of its shares to a qualified bidder through public bidding. In the bidding, the Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC) offered ₱41.58 per share, which was ₱0.58 higher than the ₱41.00 per share offered by a Malaysian firm, Renong Berhad. Despite MPHC being a Filipino-owned corporation and having a higher bid, the GSIS awarded the sale to the Malaysian firm, citing that MPHC failed to match the terms of payment required. MPHC filed a petition, invoking Section 10, second paragraph, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “ In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos .” MPHC argued that the provision is self-executing and GSIS was bound to apply it without need for an enabling law. Whether Section 10, Article XII of the 19...
Read more

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more