View full case

WILSON FENIX v. THE CA & PEOPLE

FACTS:

The case involves a criminal charge of serious illegal detention filed against the petitioners and another individual, Ong. The charge was based on the complaint of Doble, a public officer who alleged that he was detained for more than three days.

The case began with the filing of an information before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), supported by the affidavit and supplemental affidavit of Doble and the affidavit of Arlene Sernal-Doble. Petitioners and Ong filed a petition for review of the resolution before the Department of Justice (DOJ), but it was denied. They then filed a motion to dismiss before the RTC, seeking a personal evaluation of the evidence and probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants.

The RTC dismissed the case for lack of probable cause, noting the failure of the panel to give serious consideration to the counter-affidavits of Ong and Santiago, as well as the recantation of Santos. The court also considered the affidavit of Bishop Bacani as important evidence. The panel filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) despite being filed late. The CA admitted the petition and reinstated the Information for serious illegal detention, ruling that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners and Ong filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.

In May 2009, the petitioners brought their case before the court, raising various issues for consideration. Initially, the petition was denied in a court resolution dated February 15, 2010. However, it was reinstated on August 18, 2010, following the grant of the petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

Upon the court's order, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Manifestation in Lieu of Comment on November 24, 2010. The OSG abandoned its previous legal theory and instead urged the court to give the petition due course based on its merit. The OSG argued that the trial court, in dismissing Criminal Case No. 05-1768, acted within its authority under Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. It considered various factors such as the recantation of a witness, the refusal of the panel to consider certain counter-affidavits, and the submission of an affidavit by Bishop Bacani. According to the OSG, the trial court's actions were in line with its mandate and did not constitute an unlawful intrusion into the executive functions of the panel.

Despite the court's orders, the Department of Justice (DOJ) failed to file a comment on the petition, leading the court to deem it waived. Consequently, the court's resolution dated February 13, 2013, granted due course to the petition.

The sole issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. 15-1768.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the judge has the power to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest in accordance with the Constitution and the Rules of Court.

  2. Whether or not the judge's determination of probable cause is solely based on the prosecutor's certification.

  3. Whether the failure of the respondents to appear at the scheduled clarificatory hearing rendered the preliminary investigation proceedings void.

  4. Whether there was probable cause to order the arrest of the petitioners for serious illegal detention.

  5. Whether there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in dismissing the criminal charge of serious illegal detention.

RULING:

  1. The judge has the power to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest in accordance with the Constitution and the Rules of Court. The power of the judge to determine probable cause is enshrined in Section 2, Article III of the Constitution and Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The judge's determination should be based on a personal evaluation of the evidence against the accused and should not be influenced by the prosecutor's certification.

  2. The judge's determination of probable cause is not solely based on the prosecutor's certification. The judge may consider other evidence, such as counter-affidavits, recantations, and affidavits, in making the determination. The judge is not compelled to follow the prosecutor's certification and is tasked with making an independent assessment of the evidence presented.

  3. The failure of the respondents to appear at the scheduled clarificatory hearing did not render the preliminary investigation proceedings void. The conduct of a clarificatory hearing is not indispensable and is optional on the part of the investigating prosecutor. Its purpose is only to aid the investigating prosecutor in determining the existence of probable cause. The absence of a clarificatory hearing does not invalidate the proceedings, and the investigating prosecutor may resolve a complaint based on the evidence already presented by the parties.

  4. The Supreme Court found that there was no probable cause to order the arrest of the petitioners for serious illegal detention. The Court considered the affidavit of Bishop Bacani, which was neither controverted nor denied by Doble or his witnesses. The statement of Bishop Bacani, as well as the complaints and recantation affidavit of Doble and Santos, indicated that Doble and Santos sought sanctuary voluntarily and were not detained against their will. The RTC correctly dismissed the criminal charge of serious illegal detention.

  5. The Court held that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in dismissing the criminal charge. The RTC received and examined all sets of evidence, including those of the petitioners and Ong, and made a valid determination that there was no probable cause. The CA's grant of due course to the petition for certiorari eventually allowed for the appropriate resolution of the case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The power of the judge to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is enshrined in Section 2, Article III of the Constitution.

  • The judge's determination of probable cause should be based on a personal evaluation of the evidence against the accused, and should not be influenced by the prosecutor's certification.

  • The judge may consider other evidence, such as counter-affidavits, recantations, and affidavits, in making the determination of probable cause.

  • The judge is not compelled to follow the prosecutor's certification and is tasked with making an independent assessment of the evidence presented.

  • The clarificatory hearing in a preliminary investigation is not mandatory and is optional on the part of the investigating prosecutor.

  • The absence of a clarificatory hearing does not invalidate the preliminary investigation proceedings.

  • An investigating prosecutor may resolve a complaint even without a clarificatory hearing based on the evidence already presented.

  • Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he or she was prosecuted.

  • To determine the existence of probable cause, the Court is not required to conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation. It is sufficient that the judge personally evaluates the resolution of the prosecutor and the supporting documents submitted, and determines that there is no probable cause.