G.R. No.

147065 March 14, 2008

This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeks to set aside the Resolution 1 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) dated September 21, 2000, which dismissed the petition for certiorari assailing the
Resolution of the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) finding probable cause against the
herein petitioner for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The petitioner likewise assails the CA
Resolution dated February 9, 2001 which denied his motion for reconsideration.
The case flows from the following antecedents:
On April 23, 1999, the Chief of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF), then
Police Director Panfilo M. Lacson, referred to the State Prosecutor for appropriate action the
evidence collected by the task force during a buy-bust operation against petitioner Juanito Chan, a
Chinese citizen who was a resident of Binondo, Manila. The evidence consisted of —
EXH "A" – One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline
substance/granules suspected to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride "SHABU," weighing
approximately one (1) kilogram with markings "DLS 04/23/99" placed inside a box of HENNESSY
V.S.O.P. COGNAC.
EXH "B" – Buy-bust money amounting to six thousand pesos (P6,000.00) in twelve (12) pieces of
five hundred peso bill denomination placed at the top of each of the twelve (12) bundles of boodle
money (pieces of paper cut in the same size and shape of a genuine money) placed inside a yellow
paper bag with markings "HAPPY BIRTHDAY."
EXH "C" – one (1) green Hyundai van with plate number ULK 815 used in transporting the
confiscated SHABU.2
The PAOCTF also submitted the following documents to the State Prosecutor: (1) the Joint Affidavit
of Arrest executed by PO3 Danilo L. Sumpay, PO3 Rolly S. Ibañez and SPO1 Ronald C. Parreño,
the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation; (2) booking sheet and arrest report; (3)
receipt for property seized; (4) request for laboratory examination; (5) result of laboratory
examination; (6) request for medical/physical examination; (7) result of medical/physical
examination; (8) request for drug dependency test; (9) receipt for buy-bust money; and (10)
photocopy of buy-bust money.
In their Joint Affidavit of Arrest,3 PO3 Danilo L. Sumpay, PO3 Rolly S. Ibañez and SPO1 Ronald C.
Parreño narrated that, on April 22, 1999, at about 10:30 p.m., their Confidential Informant (CI)
reported to them that a certain Juanito Chan was engaged in the sale of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu in different parts of Metro Manila, and that Chan offered him a handsome
commission if he would find a buyer of shabu. According to them, the CI received a phone call from
Chan later that evening, and the two made a deal for the sale of one kilogram of shabu
worth P600,000.00 at the parking space in front of Fuji Mart Inc., along Timog Avenue, Quezon City
between 5:30 and 7:30 a.m. the following day. They said that based on this information, a buy-bust
operation was organized by the PAOCTF. Hence, on April 23, 1999, at 6:00 a.m., they apprehended
Chan after he turned over to the poseur-buyer a small box containing one self-sealing transparent
plastic bag of white crystalline substance in exchange for the 12 bundles of boodle money (cut bond
paper with a marked P500.00 peso bill on top) which he received from the poseur-buyer.
Petitioner requested a preliminary investigation and waived his rights under Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code.4
Thereafter, Chan submitted his Counter-Affidavit5 denying the charges against him. He claimed that
he was the victim of a frame-up and extortion by the police officers who allegedly demanded P2
million in exchange for his release. He contended that his warrantless arrest was illegal because he
was not committing a crime at that time. He insisted that the supposed sale of drugs never took
place and that the alleged 1 kilo of shabu was just planted by the arresting officers.
After preliminary investigation, State Prosecutor Pablo C. Formaran III issued a Resolution 6 dated
June 17, 1999 recommending the filing of an Information against the petitioner. Prosecutor
Formaran did not give credence to petitioner’s unsubstantiated claim of frame up and extortion. He
said that the defenses and accusation of petitioner were matters of defense that should be threshed
out in court. He further averred that —
In the face of the laboratory findings that the white crystalline substance weighing 935.80 grams,
which appears to have been taken from the possession of the respondent is positive for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, and considering the existence of the buy-bust
money, the undersigned investigating prosecutor finds sufficient ground to engender a well founded
belief that [the] crime charged has been committed and that the herein respondent is probably guilty
thereof and should, therefore, be held for trial.
WHEREFORE, it is recommended that an Information for violation of Section 15, Article III of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, be filed in court against respondent
Juanito Chan y Lim alias Zhang Zhenting.7
Senior State Prosecutor Archimedes V. Manabat recommended the approval of this Resolution. It
was then approved by Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Leonardo Guiyab, Jr., in behalf of the Chief
State Prosecutor.
On June 30, 1999, State Prosecutor Formaran filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon
City an Information, alleging —
That on or about April 23, 1999, in Timog Avenue, Quezon City and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, with deliberate intent and without authority of law, did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer nine hundred
thirty-five point eight (935.80) grams, more or less, of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a
regulated drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.8
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-99-84778, which was raffled to RTC Quezon City,
Branch 224.
On July 8, 1999, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Secretary of the Department of Justice
(Justice Secretary). In a Resolution dated April 25, 2000, then Secretary of Justice Artemio G.
Tuquero denied the petition for review on the ground that there was no reversible error in the
investigating prosecutor’s finding of probable cause. Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the
said ruling, but this was likewise denied in the Resolution dated July 19, 2000.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with Very Urgent Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction
and/or Temporary Restraining Order with the CA, assailing the Resolutions of the Justice Secretary.
The petition prayed, among others, that the appellate court nullify said Resolutions and direct the
withdrawal of the Information.
On September 21, 2000, the CA dismissed the petition. Noting that the RTC had already assumed
jurisdiction over the case, it dismissed the case in accordance with the doctrine laid down in Crespo
v. Mogul9 that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests on
the sound discretion of the court. The CA further held that certiorari will not lie since petitioner may
still avail of a motion to quash or dismiss the Information with the trial court.10
On February 9, 2001, the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.11 Thus, petitioner filed
the instant petition for review on certiorari, ascribing the following errors to the CA:

I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN A MANNER NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
ON THE BASIS OF THIS COURT’S RULING IN THE CASE OF CRESPO VS. MOGUL (151 SCRA
462).

II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN A MANNER NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE
CONSTITUTION, LAW AND THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN NOT
NULLIFYING THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT STATE
PROSECUTOR IN I.S. NO. 99-587, AS WELL AS THE RESOLUTION/INFORMATION ISSUED
PURSUANT THERETO FOR BEING IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF
PETITIONER TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND DEPARTED
FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN NOT
NULLIFYING THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE FOR HAVING BEEN
RENDERED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.12

Petitioner argues that the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari based on the Court’s ruling
in Crespo v. Mogul.13 He argues that Crespo is not applicable to the present case because it involves
a different factual setting. He points out that in said case, it was the provincial fiscal who filed a
motion to dismiss the criminal case pending before the trial court on the basis of the resolution of the
Undersecretary of Justice, whereas here, the issue involves the validity of the preliminary
investigation. He avers that Crespo was superseded by Allado v. Diokno,14 which recognized the
courts’ authority to nullify findings of probable cause by the prosecutor or investigating judge when
due process is violated.15

Petitioner contends that the preliminary investigation was void for being violative of his right to due
process, which includes the right to be heard by an impartial authority. He contends that State
Prosecutor Formaran could not have been objective and impartial in conducting the preliminary
investigation because the latter was a member of the PAOCTF, the agency that initiated the case
against him.16

Petitioner asserts that the petition for certiorari was his speedy and adequate remedy from the ruling
of the Justice Secretary, and not a motion to quash or dismiss the Information, as suggested by the
CA. He insists that the Justice Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion when he affirmed the
State Prosecutor’s finding of probable cause, which was based solely on the Joint Affidavit of Arrest.
He claims that the State Prosecutor ignored certain facts and circumstances which indicate that
there was actually no buy-bust operation but an extortion attempt instead, and capriciously relied on
the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers’ duty.17He posits that such
presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence of an accused. Citing
People v. Sapal,18 petitioner also submits that the police authorities’ undue delay in delivering him to
the proper authorities effectively destroys the presumption of regularity in the performance of their
duties. Petitioner is referring to the 10-hour delay in turning him over to the PNP Crime Laboratory
from the time of his arrest. He alleges that this undue delay confirms the attempted extortion against
him.

Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintain that Allado is an exception to the
general rule which may be invoked only if similar circumstances are shown to exist, and such
circumstances do not exist in this case. They aver that petitioner cannot feign denial of due process
considering that he actively participated in the preliminary investigation and was given the
opportunity to present his side. Respondents dispel petitioner’s doubt as to the partiality of State
Prosecutor Formaran by pointing out that his findings were reviewed by his superiors, even by the
respondent Secretary of Justice.
Respondents contend that petitioner’s claim that he is the victim of frame-up in not worthy of
credence for being unsubstantiated. Likewise, petitioner cannot rely on the failure to deliver him on
time to the proper authorities because there was actually no need to do so since the PAOCTF was
already a convergence of various law enforcement units, namely, the police, the military and the
National Bureau of Investigation.

We deny the petition.

Contrary to petitioner’s view, Crespo subsists and was not superseded by Allado.

Allado, which was punctuated by inordinate eagerness in the gathering of evidence and in the
preliminary investigation, serves as an exception and may not be invoked unless similar
circumstances are clearly shown to exist.19 No such circumstances were established in the present
case.

In Crespo, the Court laid down the rule that once an Information is filed in court, any disposition of
the case rests on the sound discretion of the court. In subsequent cases,20 the Court clarified that
Crespo does not bar the Justice Secretary from reviewing the findings of the investigating prosecutor
in the exercise of his power of control over his subordinates. The Justice Secretary is merely
advised, as far as practicable, to refrain from entertaining a petition for review of the prosecutor’s
finding when the Information is already filed in court. In other words, the power or authority of the
Justice Secretary to review the prosecutor’s findings subsists even after the Information is filed in
court. The court, however, is not bound by the Resolution of the Justice Secretary, but must evaluate
it before proceeding with the trial. While the ruling of the Justice Secretary is persuasive, it is not
binding on courts.21

Albeit the findings of the Justice Secretary are not absolute and are subject to judicial review, this
Court generally adheres to the policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations,
particularly when the said findings are well-supported by the facts as established by the evidence on
record.22 Absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the prosecutor or any other officer
authorized to conduct preliminary investigation, courts as a rule must defer to said officer’s finding
and determination of probable cause, since the determination of the existence of probable cause is
the function of the prosecutor.23 Simply stated, findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to
review, unless made with grave abuse of discretion.24 As held in one case:

The general rule is that the courts do not interfere with the discretion of the public prosecutor in
determining the specificity and adequacy of the averments in a criminal complaint. The
determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information in court is an executive
function which pertains at the first instance to the public prosecutor and then to the Secretary of
Justice. The duty of the Court in appropriate cases is merely to determine whether the executive
determination was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review unless made with grave abuse.25

Thus, the findings of the Justice Secretary may be reviewed through a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 based on the allegation that he acted with grave abuse of discretion.26 This remedy is
available to the aggrieved party.
In dismissing the petition for certiorari, the CA primarily anchored its decision on Crespo,
ratiocinating that it is without authority to restrain the lower court from proceeding with the case since
the latter had already assumed jurisdiction. Such concern is clearly of no moment.

In the petition for certiorari, the CA is not being asked to cause the dismissal of the case in the trial
court, but only to resolve the issue of whether the Justice Secretary acted with grave abuse of
discretion in affirming the finding of probable cause by the investigating prosecutor. Should it
determine that the Justice Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion, it could nullify his
resolution and direct the State Prosecutor to withdraw the Information by filing the appropriate
motion with the trial court. But the rule stands — the decision whether to dismiss the case or not
rests on the sound discretion of the trial court where the Information was filed.
The CA, likewise, opined that the filing of the petition for certiorari was improper since petitioner still
had an available remedy, that is, to file a motion to dismiss or to quash the Information with the trial
court. We do not agree. A petition for certiorari may still be availed of even if there is an available
remedy, when such remedy does not appear to be plain, speedy, and adequate in the ordinary
course of law. The following excerpt from Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals 27 is
instructive —

The determination as to what exactly constitutes a plain, speedy and adequate remedy rests on
judicial discretion and depends on the particular circumstances of each case. There are many
authorities that subscribe to the view that it is the inadequacy, and not the mere absence, of all other
legal remedies, and the danger of a failure of justice without it, that must usually determine the
propriety of the writ. An adequate remedy is a remedy which is equally beneficial, speedy and
sufficient, not merely a remedy which at some time in the future will bring about a revival of the
judgment of the lower court complained of in the certiorari proceeding, but a remedy which would
promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of the inferior
court, tribunal, board or officer.28

However, instead of remanding the case to the CA, we deem it more practical to decide the
substantive issue raised in this petition so as not to further delay the disposition of this case. On this
issue, we hold that the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the
finding of probable cause by the State Prosecutor.
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would lead a
person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person
charged is guilty of the crime subject of the investigation. Being based merely on opinion and
reasonable belief, it does not import absolute certainty.29 Probable cause need not be based on clear
and convincing evidence of guilt, as the investigating officer acts upon reasonable belief. Probable
cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which
would justify a conviction.30

In the case at bench, petitioner is charged with illegal sale of a prohibited drug. A successful
prosecution of this offense requires the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment therefor.31 To our mind, the documentary and object evidence submitted to the
State Prosecutor, particularly the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, the 935.80 grams of shabu, and the buy-
bust money sufficiently establish the existence of probable cause against petitioner for the crime
charged. After all, a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more
likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspect.32 Unless there is a clear and convincing
evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were impelled by any improper motive, or were not
properly performing their duties, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.33
The allegation that the State Prosecutor was not impartial in conducting the preliminary investigation
is merely speculative — a bare allegation unworthy of credence. Such accusation is worthless in
light of our finding that there is, indeed, probable cause against petitioner. Moreover, bias and
partiality can never be presumed.34 The mere fact that State Prosecutor Formaran was also a
member of the PAOCTF is insignificant. The now defunct PAOCTF was created to investigate and
prosecute all crime syndicates. It was a convergence and collaboration of the different agencies of
the government, including the Philippine National Police and the DOJ.35 Unsupported statements of
partiality will not suffice in the absence of contrary evidence that will overcome the presumption that
the State Prosecutor regularly performed his duty.

Petitioner’s allegation of frame-up and extortion is evidentiary in nature, and are matters for his
defense. Evidentiary matters must be presented and heard during the trial.36 They are best left for
the trial court to evaluate and resolve after a full-blown trial on the merits.37 In any case, it is well to
note the Court’s stance on such defense: "This Court is, of course, aware that in some cases, law
enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence in order to, inter alia, harass. But the defense of
frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that
the police officers performed their duties regularly and that they acted within the bounds of their
authority. Besides, the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, is viewed with disfavor for it can just
as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act."38

As a final note, on September 4, 2001, while the case was pending before this Court, petitioner was
arraigned, and pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion for bail which was granted by
Judge Emilio L. Leachon, Jr., Presiding Judge of RTC Quezon City, Branch 224. The bail bond was
fixed at P100,000.00. On March 7, 2003, the RTC ordered the release of petitioner upon payment of
such amount.39

We recognize the courts’ authority to grant bail in cases involving capital offenses after a
determination that evidence of guilt is not strong. But we urge them to be circumspect in exercising
such discretion. In this case, it is glaring that the bail bond fixed by the RTC was exceedingly low
considering that the crime charged is illegal sale of prohibited drug punishable by reclusion perpetua
to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 milllion, with the risk of flight extremely high,
the petitioner being a Chinese citizen. However, upon verification from the Office of the Court
Administrator, we found out that Judge Leachon, Jr. had already retired on October 13, 2003; hence,
he may no longer be called to account disciplinarily for this apparent transgression.

We are, thus, compelled to re-issue a reminder to judges to comply strictly with our guidelines on the
grant of bail in capital offenses, to be conscientious in performing their judicial functions and, at all
times, to be faithful to the law and the rules. They should maintain professional competence, and
abide by the highest standard of integrity and moral uprightness, to ensure the people’s confidence
in the judicial system. In the exercise of its authority to supervise judges and court personnel, this
Court will not hesitate to impose disciplinary sanctions on judges who fail to measure up to these
exacting standards of work ethics and morality.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. Subject to our disquisition on the
propriety of certiorari under Rule 65 as an appropriate remedy, the Resolutions of the Court of
Appeals, dated September 21, 2000 and February 9, 2001, are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.