TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, JR., CORAZON M. BEJASA, ARTURO E. MANUEL, JR.

, ERIC
L. LEE, P. SIERVO H. DIZON, BENJAMIN DE LEON, DELFIN C. GONZALEZ, JR., and BEN
YU LIM, JR., Petitioners, vs. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA and HON. MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR.,
as Judge Designate of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bago City, Respondents.

G.R. No. 143591 November 23, 2007

CAUTION: Notwithstanding the proper observance of the procedure laid down by the Rules,
a closer scrutiny of the records reveals that the Informations should not have been filed and
the warrants of arrest should not have been issued, because of lack of probable cause.

 Respondent Pena instituted a civil case for recovery of agent’s compensation and expenses,
damages and attorney’s fees against Urban Bank and petitioners before the RTC. He claimed
that he entered into a contract of agency with the petitioners wherein the former undertook to
perform such acts necessary to prevent any intruder and squatter from unlawfully occupying
Urban Bank’s property located along Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City.

 Petitioners filed a MTD saying they never appointed respondent Pena as agent or counsel
and submitted the several documents (letters and memorandum) as evidence that
respondent was appointed NOT by Urban Bank, but by ISCI.

 Atty Pena claims that the documents (signatures therein) were falsified. He subsequently filed
his Complaint-Affidavit with the City Prosecutor.

 City Prosecutor found probable cause against petitioners for 4 counts of Introducing Falsified
Documents and the Informations were filed before MTCC Bago City. Warrants of arrest were
issued for the petitioners / accused.

 Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash and insisted they were denied due process
because of the non-observance of a proper procedure on preliminary investigation
prescribed in the Rules of Court; since no such counter-affidavit and supporting documents
were submitted by the petitioners, the trial judge merely relied on the complaint-affidavit and
attachments of the respondent in issuing the warrants of arrest, also in contravention of the
Rules. Moreover they claim that the respondent’s affidavit was not based on the latter’s
personal knowledge and therefore should not have been used by the court in determining
probable cause.

 On the same day that the Omnibus MQ was filed, the petitioners posted bail. Their bail bonds
expressly provided that they do not intend to waive their right to question the validity of their
arrest. On the date of arraignment, the petitioners refused to enter their plea, for the obvious
reason that the legality of their information and their arrest was yet to be settled by the court.

 MTCC denied the omnibus motion primarily on the ground that preliminary investigation was
not available in the instant case --- which fell within the jurisdiction of the MTCC, upheld the
validity of the warrant of arrest and said that petitioners could no longer question the validity
of the warrant since they already posted bail. Lastly, the court was convinced that the
Informations contained all the facts necessary to constitute an offense.

ISSUE + RULING: Whether petitioners were deprived of their right to due process of law
because of the denial of their right to preliminary investigation and to submit their
counter-affidavit; and Whether this Court itself can determine probable cause

NO to both. The pertinent provisions of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, 31 namely, Sections
1, 3 (a) and 9(a) of Rule 112, are relevant to the resolution of the aforesaid issues:
SECTION 1. Definition. – Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of determining whether
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been
committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.32
SEC. 3. Procedure. – Except as provided for in Section 7 hereof, no complaint or information for an offense cognizable by
the Regional Trial Court shall be filed without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted in the following
manner:
(a) The complaint shall state the known address of the respondent and be accompanied by affidavits of the complainant
and his witnesses as well as other supporting documents, in such number of copies as there are respondents, plus two
(2) copies of the official file. The said affidavits shall be sworn to before any fiscal, state prosecutor or government official
authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, a notary public, who must certify that he personally
examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. 33
SEC. 9. Cases not falling under the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts not covered by the Rule on Summary
Procedure.
(a) Where filed with the fiscal. – If the complaint is filed directly with the fiscal or state prosecutor, the procedure outlined in
Section 3 (a) of this Rule shall be observed. The Fiscal shall take appropriate action based on the affidavits and other
supporting documents submitted by the complainant.

Petitioners were charged with the offense defined and penalized by the second paragraph of
Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty imposable is arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or 4 months and 1 day to 2) years and 4
months. Clearly, the case is cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court and preliminary investigation
is not mandatory.

Upon the filing of the complaint and affidavit with respect to cases cognizable by the MTCC, the
prosecutor shall take the appropriate action based on the affidavits and other supporting
documents submitted by the complainant. It means that the prosecutor may either dismiss the
complaint if he does not see sufficient reason to proceed with the case, or file the information if he
finds probable cause. The prosecutor is not mandated to require the submission of counter-
affidavits. Probable cause may then be determined on the basis alone of the affidavits and
supporting documents of the complainant, without infringing on the constitutional rights of the
petitioners.

Petitioners also contend that the warrants were illegally issued as they were solely based on the
affidavits of the complainant. Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution underscores the exclusive
and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable
cause. But the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.
Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall (1) personally evaluate the report and the
supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause,
and on the basis thereof, he may already make a personal determination of the existence of
probable cause; and (2) if he is not satisfied that probable cause exists, he may disregard the
prosecutor’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. There is no provision or procedural
rule which makes the submission of counter-affidavits mandatory before the judge could
determine probable cause.

HOWEVER......... Notwithstanding the proper observance of the procedure laid down by the
Rules, a closer scrutiny of the records reveals that the Informations should not have been
filed and the warrants of arrest should not have been issued, because of lack of probable
cause.

ISSUE + RULING: Whether the Informations charging the petitioners were validly filed and
the warrants for their arrest were properly issued;

NO, the Informations were invalidly filed and the arrest warrants were not properly issued.

Petitioners were charged with violation of par. 2, Article 172 of the RPC or Introduction of
Falsified Document in a Judicial Proceeding. The elements of the offense are as follows:
1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person.
 2. That the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any subdivisions No. 1 or
2 of Article 172.
3. That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding.

Contrary to the findings of the MTCC, we find the complaint-affidavit and attachments
insufficient to support the existence of probable cause. Specifically, the respondent failed to
sufficiently establish prima facie that the alleged documents were falsified. In support of his
claim of falsity of the documents, the private respondent stated the alleged signatories of the
questioned letters, did not actually affix their signatures; and that they were not actually
officers or stockholders of ISCI. These are mere assertions, insufficient to warrant the filing of
the complaint or the issuance of the warrant of arrest. These are mere assertions, insufficient
to warrant the filing of the complaint or the issuance of the warrant of arrest.

One cannot just claim that a certain document is falsified without further stating the basis for
such claim, i.e., that he was present at the time of the execution of the document or he is
familiar with the signatures in question. Otherwise, this could lead to abuse and malicious
prosecution.

True, a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence, or on
evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It does not require that the evidence would justify
conviction. Nonetheless, although the determination of probable cause requires less than
evidence which would justify conviction, it should at least be more than mere
suspicion.51 While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a
need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused’s
constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect the
State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding
trials arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges.