FACTS:

The case involves the murder of Cheasare Armani "Chase" Callo Claridad. Chase's lifeless body was found parked between vehicles at a residential house in Quezon City. The complaint for murder was filed against Philip Ronald P. Esteban, who was seen with Chase shortly before his body was discovered. Chase's mother alleges that Philip is responsible for Chase's death. Witnesses heard cries for help around the time Chase's body was discovered. The investigation revealed that the Estebans were illegally parking their cars at the crime scene. The security guard discovered blood smears and a cellular phone covered in blood. The scene-of-the-crime operations team conducted an investigation at the crime scene.

In this case, the petitioner seeks to charge Philip and Teodora with murder for the killing of Chase. The National Bureau of Investigation conducted an investigation and found evidence such as a sketch, photographs of the crime scene, recovered cadaver, bloodstained t-shirt, blood smears, and a bloodied Nokia N90 mobile phone. The Office of the City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint due to lack of evidence, motive, and sufficient circumstantial evidence to charge Philip. Teodora was also not charged due to insufficient evidence. The Secretary of Justice affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, citing lack of probable cause and doubts in the identification of Philip as the driver of the car. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner's appeal, and the Supreme Court denies the petition for review.

In a separate case, the respondents were charged with estafa before the Office of the City Prosecutor. The Secretary of Justice affirmed the finding of probable cause. The Court of Appeals dismissed the respondents' petition for certiorari, ruling that the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court agrees with the Court of Appeals' ruling.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the lack of certifications in the affidavits of the witnesses is a violation of Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and renders the circumstantial evidence against the respondent inadmissible.

2. Whether the affidavits and statements provided by the complainant's witnesses are admissible in evidence.

3. Whether the remaining pieces of circumstantial evidence, when taken as a whole, are sufficient to establish probable cause against the respondents.

4. Whether the dismissal of the complaint for murder against the respondents by the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Quezon City was based on lack of competent evidence and whether the Secretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion in finding probable cause against the respondents.

RULING:

1. Yes. The lack of the requisite certifications in the affidavits of the witnesses is a violation of Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The certifications are mandatory and were designed to avoid self-serving and unreliable evidence from being considered for purposes of the preliminary investigation. The rationale for requiring the affidavits of witnesses to be sworn before a competent officer is to ensure that the affidavits supporting the factual allegations have been sworn before a competent officer and that the affiants have voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. In this case, out of the total of 16 statements/affidavits, only 9 were sworn to before a competent officer. Therefore, the circumstantial evidence that the victim was last seen in the company of the respondent must be established by competent evidence in accordance with the rules on preliminary investigation.

2. The affidavits and statements provided by the complainant's witnesses are inadmissible in evidence because they were not sworn to before a competent officer. Private documents must be proved as to their due execution and authenticity before they may be received in evidence.

3. The remaining pieces of circumstantial evidence, when taken as a whole, do not lead to a finding of probable cause against the respondents. These pieces of evidence only establish that a crime occurred, but fail to prove the presence of the respondents at the scene of the crime or their involvement in the commission of the crime.

4. The Court held that the findings of the Secretary of Justice, who found probable cause against the respondents and reversed the dismissal by the OCP of the complaint for murder, should be given deference and not undone by the Court of Appeals (CA) unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. In this case, there was no showing of grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, the CA's decision affirming the Secretary of Justice's finding of probable cause was also affirmed. The petition for review on certiorari was denied and the decision of the CA was upheld.

PRINCIPLES:

• Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof.

• The role and object of preliminary investigation is to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecutions and to protect the State from useless and expensive prosecutions.

• The three purposes of a preliminary investigation are: (1) to inquire concerning the commission of a crime and the connection of the accused with it; (2) to preserve the evidence and keep the witnesses within the control of the State; and (3) to determine the amount of bail if the offense is bailable.

• 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.

• A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed, and that it was committed by the accused.

• The determination of the existence of probable cause lies within the discretion of the public prosecutor.

• The public prosecutor is afforded a wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of a preliminary investigation.

• Courts do not reverse the Secretary of Justice's findings and conclusions on the matter of probable cause except in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion.

• Judicial review is permitted where the respondent in the preliminary investigation clearly establishes that the public prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion.

• The trial court may ultimately resolve the existence or non-existence of probable cause by examining the records of the preliminary investigation when necessary for the orderly administration of justice.

• Circumstantial evidence must be sufficient to constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion that a crime has been committed and that the respondents are probably guilty thereof. It must be consistent with the hypothesis that the respondents were probably guilty of the crime and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that they were innocent.

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the following requirements are met: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

The certifications in the affidavits of witnesses submitted during the preliminary investigation are mandatory and designed to ensure that the affidavits have been sworn before a competent officer and that the affiants voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. The lack of certifications violates Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.

Unsworn statements or declarations are self-serving and are not admissible in evidence as proof of the facts asserted. They have a hearsay character and are generally inadmissible.

• Private documents must be proved as to their due execution and authenticity before they may be received in evidence.

• Circumstantial evidence, when taken as a whole, must lead to a finding of probable cause to establish the guilt of the accused.

• Probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, but care should be taken to prevent material damage to a potential accused's constitutional right to liberty and to protect the State from unnecessary expenses arising from false or groundless charges.

• Grave abuse of discretion requires the abuse of discretion to be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. It involves exercising power in an arbitrary and despotic manner due to passion or hostility.