Members of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group-Women and Children Protection Division (CIDG-WCPD) raided Pharaoh KTV and arrested the respondents on the basis of surveillance operations and footage provided by “XXX” a television news program. After conducting an entrapment operation, the law enforcers announced their authority and arrested the respondents. Subsequently, a case for 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 was filed against them in court and raffle to the sala fo Judge Calpatura of RTC Branch 145, Makati City.
Acting on the Motion for Determination of Probable Cause, the RTC granted the motion, noting that based on the evidence on record:
There is no evidence that the named women were vulnerable for recruitment, hiring, or to be received or maintained as CLEO for purposes of prostitution or pornography. Second, there is nothing which would indicate that there was sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct being actually performed or about to be performed when the raid took place. Lastly, The marked money used in the entrapment operation was also not marked properly, to indicate that it is to be used in the operation.
Thus, the RTC dismissed the case for lack of probable cause.
The OSG filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which it denied.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC erred in dismissing the case for lack of probable cause.
The Ruling:
Judge Calpatura can personally determine the existence of probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest
Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that:
Sec. 6. 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 if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 7 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 of information.
The fact that Judge Calpatura has jurisdiction to determine probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest has long been settled. In the recent case of Liza L. Maza, et al. v. Hon. Evelyn A. Turla, et al., this Court reiterated that:
Upon filing of an information in court, trial court judges must determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause based on their personal evaluation of the prosecutor’s report and its supporting documents. They may dismiss the case, issue an arrest warrant, or require the submission of additional evidence. x x x.
It must, however, be emphasized that the determination of probable cause has two separate and distinct kinds an executive function and a judicial function. In the case of Mendoza v. People, et al., this Court distinguished the two, thus:
There are two kinds of determination of probable cause: executive and judicial. The executive determination of probable cause is 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. Whether or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon.
The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, is 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. If the judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant.
The difference is clear: The executive determination of probable cause concerns itself with whether there is enough evidence to support an Information being filed. The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. (Citations omitted)
The determination of the judge of the probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest does not mean, however, that the trial court judge becomes an appellate court for purposes of assailing the determination of probable cause of the prosecutor. The proper remedy to question the resolution of the prosecutor as to his finding of probable cause is to appeal the same to the Secretary of Justice. If the Information is valid on its face and the prosecutor made no manifest error or his finding of probable cause was not attended with grave abuse of discretion, such findings should be given weight and respect by the courts.The settled policy of noninterference in the prosecutor’s exercise of discretion requires the courts to leave to the prosecutor the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the purpose of filing an information to the court. Courts can neither override their determination nor substitute their own judgment for that of the latter; they cannot likewise order the prosecution of the accused when the prosecutor has not found a prima facie case.
Judge Calpatura erred when he dismissed the case for lack of probable cause
“Probable cause for purposes of filing a criminal information is defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof.” In the case of People of the Philippines v. Borje, Jr., et al., we held that:
For purposes of filing a criminal information, probable cause has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondents are probably guilty thereof. It is such set of facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the Information, or any offense included therein, has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. x x x.(Citations omitted)
Here, the records do not disclose that the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause was done in a capricious and whimsical manner evidencing grave abuse of discretion. As such, his finding of probable cause, being primarily lodge with him, should not be interfered with by the courts. Clearly, Judge Calpatura erred when he dismissed the case against the respondents for lack of probable cause. To note, Judge Calpatura stated that the prosecution failed to show that there was actual sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct being committed on the day of the raid. Further, Judge Calpatura reasoned that there was no evidence of payment of money for the alleged “extra services,” since the money used to pay the same was not marked, recorded in the logbook and dusted in chemical to make it identifiable.
The said reasons of Judge Calpatura in dismissing the case for lack of probable cause are evidentiary matters which should be properly ventilated during the trial. Thus, it was clearly premature for Judge Calpatura and the CA to make a definitive finding that there was no illegal trafficking of persons simply for the reason that no actual sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct was committed at the time of the raid, and the police authorities failed to mark the money used to pay for the alleged “extra services.” To reiterate, “the presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be best passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.”
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.
SO ORDERED.
TIJAM, J.:
Peralta,** Del Castillo,*** (Acting Chairperson), and Gesmundo,**** JJ., concur.
Leonardo-De Castro,* (Acting Chairperson), J., on official leave.
G.R. No. 207040, July 4, 2018, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, 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, RESPONDENTS.
Citations omitted.