496

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

AAA vs. Carbonell

G.R. No. 171465. June 8, 2007.

AAA, petitioner, vs. HON.
ANTONIO
A.
CARBONELL, in his capacity as Presiding Judge,
Branch 27, Regional Trial Court, San Fernando City,
La Union and ENGR. JAIME O. ARZADON,
respondents.
*

**

Actions; Certiorari; Appeals; A petition for review on

certiorari under Rule 45 may be considered a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 where it is alleged that the
respondents abused their discretion in their questioned
actions.A petition for review oncertiorari under
_______________

497

VOL. 524, JUNE 8, 2007

497
AAA vs. Carbonell
Rule 45 is distinct from a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 in that the former brings up for review errors of
judgment while the latter concerns errors of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion is not an allowable
ground under Rule 45. However, a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 may be considered a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 where it is alleged that the
respondents abused their discretion in their questioned
actions, as in the instant case. While petitioner claims to
have brought the instant action under
_______________

THIRD DIVISION.
Pursuant to Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262 (AN ACT

Any person who violates this provision shall suffer the penalty of

DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN

one (1) year imprisonment and a fine of not more than Five Hundred

PROVIDING

Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

**

FOR

PRESCRIBING

PROTECTIVE

PENALTIES

MEASURES

THEREFOR,

AND

FOR
FOR

VICTIMS,
OTHER

Section 63, Rule XI of the RULES AND REGULATIONS

PURPOSES), All records pertaining to cases of violence against women

IMPLEMENTING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262 also provides: During the

and their children including those in the barangay shall be confidential

investigation, prosecution and trial of an offense under the Act, law

and all public officers and employees and public or private clinics or

enforcement officials, prosecution, judges, court personnel and medical

hospitals shall respect the right to privacy of the victim. Whoever

practitioners, as well as parties to the case, shall recognize the right to

publishes or causes to be published, in any format, the name, address,

privacy of the victim-survivor of violence. Law enforcement officers and

telephone number, school, business address, employer, or other

prosecutors shall conduct closed-door investigations and shall not allow

identifying information of a victim or an immediate family member,

the media to have access to any information regarding the victim-

without the latters consent shall be liable to the contempt power of the
court.

survivor. The adult victim, however, may choose to go public or speak

with the media, preferably with the assistance of her counsel.
The barangay officials, law enforcers, prosecutors and court
personnel shall not disclose the names and personal circumstances of the
victim-survivors or complainants or any other information tending to
establish their identities to the media or to the public or compromise her
identity.
It shall be unlawful for any editor, publisher, reporter or columnist
in case of printed materials, announcer or producer in case of television
or radio, director and editor of a film in case of the movie industry, or any
person utilizing try-media or information technology to cause publicity of
the name of identity of the victim-survivor or complainant without her
consent. Identities of children shall not in any way be disclosed to the
public without the conformity of the DSWS officer of the city or province.
Any person who violates this provision shall suffer the penalty of
one (1) year imprisonment and a fine of not more than Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
498

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

98
AAA vs. Carbonell
Rule 45, the grounds raised herein involve an alleged
grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Judge
Carbonell. Accordingly, the Court shall treat the same as a
petition forcertiorari under Rule 65.
Courts; Hierarchy of Courts; It is well-settled that
although the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the
Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue

writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,

habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not
give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court
forum.We must point out the procedural error committed
by petitioner in directly filing the instant petition before
this Court instead of the Court of Appeals, thereby violating
the principle of judicial hierarchy of courts. It is well-settled
that although the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the
Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue
writs
of certiorari,
prohibition,
mandamus, quo
warranto,habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence
does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice
of court forum. In this case, however, the gravity of the
offense charged and the length of time that has passed
since the filing of the complaint for rape, compel us to
resolve the present controversy in order to avoid further
delay.
Searches and Seizures; Warrants of Arrest; Section 2,
Article III of the Constitution does not mandatorily require
the judge to personally examine the complainant and her
witnessesinstead, he may opt to personally evaluate the
report and supporting documents submitted by the
prosecutor or he may disregard the prosecutors report and
require the submission of supporting affidavits of
witnesses.He claims that under Section 2, Article III of
the 1987 Constitution, no warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the

complainant and the witnesses he may produce. However,

in the leading case of Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393
(1988), the Court explained that this constitutional
provision does not mandatorily require the judge to
personally examine the complainant and her witnesses.
Instead, he may opt to personally evaluate the report and
supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor or he
may disregard the prosecutors report and require the
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses.

guilty of the offense chargedis the function of the

investigating prosecutor.
Same; Same; While there are cases where the
circumstances may call for the judges personal examination
of the complainant and his witnesses, it must be emphasized
that such personal examination is not mandatory and
indispensable in the determination of probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrestthe necessity arises only
when there is an utter failure of the evidence to show the
existence of probable cause.True, there are cases where
499
VOL. 524, JUNE 8, 2007
499 the circumstances may call for the judges personal
AAA vs. Carbonell
examination of the complainant and his witnesses. But it
must be emphasized that such personal examination is not
Same; Preliminary Investigation; There is a distinction
mandatory and indispensable in the determination of
between the preliminary inquiry which determines probable
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The
cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the
necessity arises only when there is an utter failure of the
preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether
evidence to show the existence of probable cause.
the offender should be held for trial or be releasedthe
Otherwise, the judge may rely on the report of the
former is made by the judge while the latter is the function
investigating prosecutor, provided that he likewise
of the investigating prosecutor.It is well to remember that
evaluates the documentary evidence in support thereof.
there is a distinction between the preliminary inquiry
Indeed, what the law requires as personal determination on
which determines probable cause for the issuance of a
the part of the judge is that he should not rely solely on the
warrant of arrest and the preliminary investigation proper
report of the investigating prosecutor. In Okabe v.
which ascertains whether the offender should be held for
Gutierrez, 429 SCRA 685 (2004), we stressed that the judge
trial or be released. The determination of probable cause for
should consider not only the report of the investigating
purposes of issuing the warrant of arrest is made by the
prosecutor but also the affidavit and the documentary
judge. The preliminary investigation properwhether or
evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the accused
not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is
and his witnesses, as well as the transcript of stenographic

notes taken during the preliminary investigation, if any,

submitted to the court by the investigating prosecutor upon
the filing of the Information. If the report, taken together
with the supporting evidence, is sufficient to sustain a
finding of probable cause, it is not compulsory that a
500

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

00
AAA vs. Carbonell
personal examination of the complainant and his
witnesses be conducted.
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; It is well-settled that
a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and
convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt; Probable
cause is that which engenders a well-founded belief that a
crime has been committed and that the respondent is
probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.After a
careful examination of the records, we find that there is
sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. The
gravamen of rape is the carnal knowledge by the accused of
the private complainant under any of the circumstances
provided in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended. Petitioner has categorically stated that Arzadon
raped her, recounting her ordeal in detail during the
preliminary investigations. Taken with the other evidence
presented before the investigating prosecutors, such is
sufficient for purposes of establishing probable cause. It is
well-settled that a finding of probable cause need not be

based on clear and convincing evidence beyond reasonable

doubt. Probable cause is that which engenders a wellfounded belief that a crime has been committed and that
the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held
for trial. It does not require that the evidence would justify
conviction.
Same; Same; Where there is ample evidence and
sufficient basis on record to support a finding of probable
cause, it is unnecessary for a judge to take the further step of
examining the complainant and her witnesses, and if he
dismisses the criminal case for alleged lack of probable
cause on the ground that complainant and her witnesses
failed to take the witness stand, he gravely abuses his
discretion.It is clear therefore that respondent Judge
Carbonell gravely abused his discretion in dismissing
Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack of probable cause on the
ground that petitioner and her witnesses failed to take the
witness stand. Considering there is ample evidence and
sufficient basis on record to support a finding of probable
cause, it was unnecessary for him to take the further step of
examining the petitioner and her witnesses. Moreover, he
erred in holding that petitioners absences in the scheduled
hearings were indicative of a lack of interest in prosecuting
the case. In fact, the records show that she has relentlessly
pursued the same.
501

VOL. 524, JUNE 8, 2007

AAA vs. Carbonell

501

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, La Union,
Br. 27.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Wilfredo R. Cortez for petitioner.
M.B. Balloguing and Associates Law Offices for
private respondent Arzadon.

removed her pants and underwear, and inserted his

penis into her vagina. She wept and cried out for help
but to no avail because there was nobody else in the
premises.
Petitioner did not report the incident because
Arzadon threatened to kill her and her family. But
when she discov_______________

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This petition for certiorari assails the December 16,
2005 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27,
San Fernando, La Union in Criminal Case No. 6983,
dismissing the rape case filed against private
respondent Jaime O. Arzadon for lack of probable
cause; and its February 3, 2006 Order denying
petitioners motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner worked as a secretary at the Arzadon
Automotive and Car Service Center from February 28,
2001 to August 16, 2001. On May 27, 2001 at about
6:30 p.m., Arzadon asked her to deliver a book to an
office located at another building but when she
returned to their office, the lights had been turned off
and the gate was closed. Nevertheless, she went inside
to get her handbag.
On her way out, she saw Arzadon standing beside a
parked van holding a pipe. He told her to go near him
and upon reaching his side, he threatened her with the
pipe and forced her to lie on the pavement. He
1

Rollo, pp. 4-18.

Id., at pp. 20-22. Penned by Judge Antonio A. Carbonell.

Id., at pp. 24-26.

502

502

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

AAA vs. Carbonell

ered that she was pregnant as a consequence of the

rape, she narrated the incident to her parents. On July
24, 2002, petitioner filed a complaint for rape against
Arzadon.
On September 16, 2002, Assistant City Prosecutor
Imelda Cosalan issued a Resolution finding probable
cause and recommending the filing of an information
for rape. Arzadon moved for reconsideration and
during the clarificatory hearing held on October 11,
2002, petitioner testified before the investigating
prosecutor. However, she failed to attend the next
hearing hence, the case was provisionally dismissed.
4

On March 5, 2003, petitioner filed another

AffidavitComplaint with a comprehensive account of
the alleged rape incident. The case was assigned to
2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Georgina Hidalgo.
During the preliminary investigation, petitioner
appeared for clarificatory questioning. On June 11,
2003, the investigating prosecutor issued a
Resolution finding that aprima facie case of rape
exists and recommending the filing of the information.
Arzadon moved for reconsideration and requested
that a panel of prosecutors be constituted to review the
case. Thus, a panel of prosecutors was created and
after the clarificatory questioning, the panel issued on
October 13, 2003 a Resolution finding probable cause
and denying Arzadons motion for reconsideration.
An Information for rape was filed before the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, San Fernando, La
Union on February 6, 2004, docketed as Criminal Case
No. 6415. Thereafter, Arzadon filed a Motion to Hold
in Abeyance All Court Proceedings Including the
Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest and to Determine
Probable Cause for the Purpose of Issuing a War-

503

VOL. 524, JUNE 8, 2007

AAA vs. Carbonell

_______________

Id., at pp. 28-29.

Id., at pp. 168-170.

Id., at pp. 31-35.

Id., at pp. 37-38.

Id., at p. 40.

503

rant of Arrest. On March 18, 2004, respondent Judge

Antonio A. Carbonell granted the motion and directed
petitioner and her witnesses to take the witness stand
for determination of probable cause.
Arzadon also appealed the Resolution of the panel
of prosecutors finding probable cause before the
Department of Justice. On July 9, 2004, then Acting
Secretary of Justice Merceditas Gutierrez found no
probable cause and directed the withdrawal of the
Information in Criminal Case No. 6415.
Upon motion for reconsideration by petitioner,
however, Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzales reversed
the July 9, 2004 Resolution and issued another
Resolution finding that probable cause exists. Thus, a
new Information for rape was filed against Arzadon
docketed as Criminal Case No. 6983.
Consequently, Arzadon filed an Urgent Motion for
Judicial Determination of Probable Cause for the
Purpose of Issuing a Warrant of Arrest. In an Order
dated August 11, 2005, respondent Judge Carbonell
granted the motion and directed petitioner and her
witnesses to take the witness stand.
Instead of taking the witness stand, petitioner filed
a motion for reconsideration claiming that the
documentary evidence sufficiently established the
9

10

11

12

13

existence of probable cause. Pending resolution

thereof, she likewise filed a petition with this Court
for the transfer of venue of Criminal Case No. 6983.
The case was docketed as Administrative Matter No.
05-12-756-RTC and entitled Re: Transfer of Venue of
Criminal Case No. 6983, formerly Criminal Case No.
6415, from the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, San
Fernando City, La Union, to any Court in Metro
Manila.
14

Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack of probable cause.

Petitioners motion for
reconsideration was denied hence, this petition.
Petitioner raises the following issues:
16

I
RESPONDENT

JUDGE

ACTED

WITH

GRAVE

ABUSE

OF

DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF

JURISDICTION

WHEN

IT

GRANTED

THE

MOTION

FOR

DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FILED BY THE PRIVATE

_______________

RESPONDENT AND THE SUBSEQUENT DENIAL OF THE MOTION

9

FOR RECONSIDERATION

Id., at pp. 42-46.

10

Id., at pp. 149-156.

11

Id., at pp. 79-82.

12

Id., at p. 85.

13

Id., at pp. 87-90.

14

Records, Vol. 2, pp. 69-78.

II
RESPONDENT

504

504

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

AAA vs. Carbonell

In a Resolution dated January 18, 2006, the Court

granted petitioners request for transfer of venue. The
case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 25, and docketed as Criminal Case No. 06242289. However, the proceedings have been
suspended pending the resolution of this petition.
Meanwhile, on December 16, 2005, respondent
Judge Carbonell issued the assailed Order dismissing

JUDGE

COMMITTED

FURTHER

ACTS

CONSTITUTING GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO

LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ORDERED THE
COMPLAINANT AND WITNESSES TO TAKE THE STAND FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING PROBABLE CAUSE

15

III
RESPONDENT

JUDGE

ACTED

WITH

GRAVE

ABUSE

OF

DISCRETION WHEN HE REFUSED TO INHIBIT FROM FURTHER

HANDLING THE CASE DESPITE WHISPERS OF DOUBT ON HIS
BIAS AND PARTIALITY
IV

and that he was justified in requiring petitioner and

her witnesses to take the witness stand in order to
DISCRETION WHEN IT ISSUED THE ORDER OF FEBRUARY 3,
determine probable cause.
_______________
The issues for resolution are 1) whether the petition
Rollo, p. 98.
should be dismissed for being the wrong mode of
Id., at p. 12.
appeal; and 2) whether respondent Judge Carbonell
505
acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing
VOL. 524, JUNE 8, 2007
505 Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack of probable cause.
AAA vs. Carbonell
The petition has merit.
2006, DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, DESPITE
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is
THE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION OF JANUARY 18, 2006,
distinct from a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in
GRANTING THE TRANSFER OF VENUE
that the former brings up for review errors of
Petitioner contends that the judge is not required to
judgment while the latter concerns errors of
personally examine the complainant and her witnesses
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to
in satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause
lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion
for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. She argues that
is not an allowable ground under Rule 45. However, a
respondent Judge Carbonell should have taken into
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 may be
consideration the documentary evidence as well as the
_______________
transcript of stenographic notes which sufficiently
established the existence of probable cause.
Id., at pp. 230-234.
Arzadon claims that the petition should be
506
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
dismissed outright for being the wrong mode of appeal,
AAA vs. Carbonell
it appearing that the issues raised by petitioner
properly fall under an action for certiorari under Rule
considered a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
65, and not Rule 45, of the Rules of Court.
where it is alleged that the respondents abused their
Respondent Judge Carbonell argues in his
discretion in their questioned actions, as in the instant
Comment that the finding of probable cause by the
case. While petitioner claims to have brought the
investigating prosecutor is not binding or obligatory,
instant action under Rule 45, the grounds raised
RESPONDENT

JUDGE

ACTED

WITH

GRAVE

ABUSE

OF

15

16

17

17

18

herein involve an alleged grave abuse of discretion on

the part of respondent Judge Carbonell. Accordingly,
the Court shall treat the same as a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65.
However, we must point out the procedural error
committed by petitioner in directly filing the instant
petition before this Court instead of the Court of
Appeals, thereby violating the principle of judicial
hierarchy of courts. It is well-settled that although the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the Regional
Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs
of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does
not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice
of court forum. In this case, however, the gravity of
the offense charged and the length of time that has
passed since the filing of the complaint for rape,
compel us to resolve the present controversy in order
to avoid further delay.
We thus proceed to the issue of whether respondent
Judge Carbonell acted with grave abuse of discretion
in dismissing Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack of
probable cause.
We rule in the affirmative.
Respondent Judge Carbonell dismissed Criminal
Case No. 6983 for lack of probable cause on the ground
that petitioner and her witnesses failed to comply with
his orders to take the witness stand. Thus
19

20

_______________

18

People v. Court of Appeals, 438 Phil. 215, 231; 389 SCRA 461, 475

(2002); GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc. v. Principe, G.R. No. 141484,

November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 555, 561-562.
19

Yared v. Ilarde, 391 Phil. 722, 733; 337 SCRA 53, 61 (2000).

20

See Ouano v. PGTT International Investment Corporation, 434 Phil. 28,

35; 384 SCRA 589, 593 (2002).

507

VOL. 524, JUNE 8, 2007

AAA vs. Carbonell
In RESUME therefore, as indubitably borne out by the case record and
considering that the Private Prosecutor, despite several admonitions
contumaciously nay contemptuously refused to comply/obey this Courts
Orders of March 18, 2004, August 11, 2005 and eight (8) other similar
Orders issued in open Court that directed the complainant/witnesses to
take the witness stand to be asked probing/clarificatory questions
consonant with cited jurisprudential rulings of the Supreme Court, this
Court in the exercise of its discretion and sound judgment finds and so
holds that NO probable cause was established to warrant the issuance of
an arrest order and the further prosecution of the instant case.
Record also shows in no unclear terms that in all the scheduled
hearings of the case, the accused had always been present. Acontrario,
the private complainant failed to appear during the last four (4)
consecutive settings despite due notice without giving any explanation,
which to the mind of the Court may indicate an apparent lack of interest
in the further prosecution of this case. That failure may even be
construed as a confirmation of the Defenses contention reflected in the

507

case record, that the only party interested in this case is the Private

The addition of the word personally after the word determined and

prosecutor, prodded by the accuseds alleged hostile siblings to continue

the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1973 Constitution to issue

with the case.

warrants to other responsible officers as may be authorized by law, has

WHEREFORE, premises considered, for utter lack of probable cause,

the instant case is hereby ordered DISMISSED.

21

apparently convinced petitioner Beltran that the Constitution now

requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and his

He claims that under Section 2, Article III of the 1987

Constitution, no warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation
of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
However, in the leading case of Soliven v.
Makasiar, the Court explained that this constitutional
provision does not mandatorily require the judge to
personally examine the complainant and her
witnesses. Instead, he may opt to personally evaluate
the report and supporting documents submitted by the
prosecutor or he may disregard the prosecutors

witnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of

_______________

affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the

22

warrants of arrest. This is not an accurate interpretation.

What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal
responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of
probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause
for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, 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 fiscal regarding
the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant
of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may
disregard the fiscals report and require the submission of supporting
existence of probable cause.

21

Rollo, p. 22.

22

G.R. Nos. L-82585, L-82827, and L-83979, November 14, 1988, 167 SCRA

Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges would by

393.

unduly laden with the preliminary examination and investigation of

criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding

508

508

cases filed before their courts.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

AAA vs. Carbonell

report and require the submission of supporting

affidavits of witnesses. Thus:

23

We reiterated the above ruling in the case of Webb v.

De Leon, where we held that before issuing warrants
of arrest, judges merely determine the probability, not
the certainty, of guilt of an accused. In doing so, judges
do not conduct a de novo hearing to determine the
24

existence of probable cause. They just personally

review the initial determination of the

The necessity arises only when there is an utter failure

of the evidence to show the existence of probable
cause. Otherwise, the judge may rely on the report of
_______________
the investigating prosecutor, provided that he likewise
Id., at p. 398.
evaluates the documentary evidence in support
317 Phil. 758; 247 SCRA 652 (1995).
thereof.
509
Indeed, what the law requires as personal
VOL. 524, JUNE 8, 2007
509 determinationon the part of the judge is that he should
AAA vs. Carbonell
not rely solely on the report of the investigating
prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is
prosecutor. In Okabe v. Gutierrez, we stressed that
supported by substantial evidence.
the judge should consider not only the report of the
It is well to remember that there is a distinction
investigating prosecutor but also the affidavit and the
between the preliminary inquiry which determines
documentary evidence of the parties, the counterprobable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
affidavit of the accused and his witnesses, as well as
and the preliminary investigation proper which
the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the
ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial
preliminary investigaor be released. The determination of probable cause for
_______________
purposes of issuing the warrant of arrest is made by
the judge. The preliminary investigation proper
Id., at p. 793; p. 680.
whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe
People v. Inting, G.R. No. 88919, July 25, 1990, 187 SCRA 788, 792-793.
that the accused is guilty of the offense chargedis
Webb v. De Leon, supra note 24 at p. 794; p. 680.
the function of the investigating prosecutor.
G.R. No. 150185, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 685.
True, there are cases where the circumstances may
510
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
call for the judges personal examination of the
AAA vs. Carbonell
complainant and his witnesses. But it must be
emphasized that such personal examination is not
tion, if any, submitted to the court by the investigating
mandatory and indispensable in the determination of
prosecutor upon the filing of the Information. If the
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
report, taken together with the supporting evidence, is
27

23

24

28

25

25

26

27

26

28

29

sufficient to sustain a finding of probable cause, it is

not compulsory that a personal examination of the
complainant and his witnesses be conducted.
In this case, respondent Judge Carbonell dismissed
Criminal Case No. 6983 without taking into
consideration the June 11, 2003 Resolution of 2nd
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Georgina Hidalgo, the
October 13, 2003 Resolution of the panel of
prosecutors, and the July 1, 2005 Resolution of the
Department of Justice, all of which sustain a finding of
probable cause against Arzadon. Moreover, he failed to
evaluate the evidence in support thereof. Respondent
judges finding of lack of probable cause was premised
only on the complainants and her witnesses absence
during the hearing scheduled by the respondent judge
for the judicial determination of probable cause.
Petitioner narrated in detail the alleged rape
incident both in her Sinumpaang Salaysay dated July
24, 2002 and Complaint-Affidavit dated March 5,
2003. She attended several clarificatory hearings that
were conducted in the instant case. The transcript of
stenographic notes of the hearing held on October 11,
2002 shows that she positively identified Arzadon as
her assailant, and the specific time and place of the
incident. She also claimed that she bore a child as a
result of the rape and, in support of her contentions,
presented the child and her birth certificate as
30

31

32

evidence. In contrast, Arzadon merely relied on the

defense of alibi which is the weakest of all defenses.
_______________

29

Id., at p. 707.

30

Records, Vol. 1, pp. 13-16.

31

Id., at pp. 8-10.

32

Id., at pp. 81-93.

511

VOL. 524, JUNE 8, 2007

AAA vs. Carbonell

After a careful examination of the records, we find that

there is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause.
The gravamen of rape is the carnal knowledge by the
accused of the private complainant under any of the
circumstances provided in Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended. Petitioner has categorically
stated that Arzadon raped her, recounting her ordeal
in detail during the preliminary investigations. Taken
with the other evidence presented before the
investigating prosecutors, such is sufficient for
purposes of establishing probable cause. It is wellsettled that a finding of probable cause need not be
based on clear and convincing evidence beyond
reasonable doubt. Probable cause is that which
engenders a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and that the respondent is probably guilty
33

511

thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require

that the evidence would justify conviction.
It is clear therefore that respondent Judge
Carbonell gravely abused his discretion in dismissing
Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack of probable cause on
the ground that petitioner and her witnesses failed to
take the witness stand. Considering there is ample
evidence and sufficient basis on record to support a
finding of probable cause, it was unnecessary for him
to take the further step of examining the petitioner
and her witnesses. Moreover, he erred in holding that
petitioners absences in the scheduled hearings were
indicative of a lack of interest in prosecuting the case.
In fact, the records show that she has relentlessly
pursued the same.
Needless to say, a full-blown trial is to be preferred
to ferret out the truth. As it were, the incidents of this
case have been pending for almost five years without
having even
34

35

_______________

33

People v. Sabardan, G.R. No. 132135, May 21, 2004, 429 SCRA 9, 19.

34

Sarigumba v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 154239-41, February 16, 2005, 451

SCRA 533, 550.

35

Abugotal v. Tiro, 160 Phil. 884, 890; 66 SCRA 196, 201 (1975).

512

512

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

AAA vs. Carbonell

passed the preliminary investigation stage. Suffice to

say that the credibility of petitioner may be tested
during the trial where the respective allegations and
defenses of the complainant and the accused are
properly ventilated. It is only then that the truth as to
Arzadons innocence or guilt can be determined.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
Orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, San
Fernando, La Union dated December 16, 2005, and
February 3, 2006 dismissing Criminal Case No. 6983
for lack of probable cause are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE, and the Information in the said case is hereby
REINSTATED. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 25,
Manila is DIRECTED to take cognizance of the case
and let the records thereof be REMANDED to the said
court for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario and Nachura,
JJ., concur.
Petition granted, orders reversed and set aside,
Information reinstated.
Notes.The carrying of carton boxes is a common
practice among our people, especially those coming
from the rural areas, and thus by itself does not
constitute probable cause for the peace officer to
search said box. (People vs. Barros, 231 SCRA
557 [1994])

Personal knowledge of facts in arrests without a

warrant must be based upon probable cause, which
means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of
suspicion. Arrest of suspects by officers on the sole
basis of a witness verbal report is violative of such
suspects fundamental right against an unjustified
warrantless arrest. (People vs. Mahusay, 282 SCRA
80 [1997])
o0o