2B Criminal Procedure Digests

Nieva M. Manebo v. SPO1 Roel D. Acosta and Acosta shot the victim Dimatulac several times in the
Numeriano Sapiandante Head and body causing her instantaneous death.
Date Promulgated: October 28, 2009
Severino Sardia, standing outside of his house heard
G.R. No. 169554 Ponente: Peralta J.
several gunshots and saw two men with firearms run
out of Kaibigan Foundation Inc, Chapel. Two men
Doctrine: Tickler: Rule 112
immediately boarded an owner-type jeep without a
plate number. While backing up the vehicle the
unknown companion of Acosta was recognized as
Sapiandante one of the respondents herein.
Doctrine of the Case
Manebo filed a complaint for the murder of her sister
Preliminary Investigation
Bernadette M. Dimatulac against respondents before
To determine the existence of probable cause, there is
the Special Action Unit (SAU) of the NBI. The SAU
a need to conduct a preliminary investigation. A
recommended the filing of a murder case against
preliminary investigation constitutes a realistic judicial
respondents and a certain John Doe, which was
appraisal of the merits of a case. Its purpose is to
referred to the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor
determine whether (a) a crime has been committed;
(OCSP), DOJ, for preliminary investigation. An
and (b) there is probable cause to believe that the
information for murder was filed before the RTC.
accused is guilty thereof. It is a means of discovering
which person or persons may be reasonably charged
Ruling of Regional Trial Court
with a crime. The conduct of a preliminary investigation
is executive in nature.
Respondents filed a motion for Reconsideration but
was denied. They field their appeal with the DOJ
Probable Cause
The murder case has been then transferred from RTC
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of
of Cabanatuan to RTC of Manila. Warrant of Arrest has
such facts and circumstances as would lead a person
been issued to the Respondents.
of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an
honest and strong suspicion that the person charged is
DOJ Secretary granted the appeal and the resolution
guilty of the crime subject of the investigation. Being
has been reversed. The Chief Prosecutor directed to
based merely on opinion and reasonable belief, it does
move for the withdrawal of the information filed against
not import absolute certainty. Probable cause need not
the respondents.
be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, as
the investigating officer acts upon reasonable belief.
Ruling of the DOJ
Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires
more than bare suspicion but less than evidence to
The DOJ Secretary said that there was no probable
justify a conviction.
cause to indict respondents. In reversing the findings
of the prosecutor, the DOJ Secretary found that the
police report prepared after the killing incident stated
Facts that the person seated beside the victim, who was
watching television when shot, was Liza Gragasan.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari which assails However, the DOJ Secretary continued that more than
the Decision of the Court of Appeals. four months after the incident, a witness appeared in
the person of Flordeliza Bagasan who claimed to be
May 4, 2000 at 6:30 PM in Nueva Ecija, Bernadette M. seated beside, and witnessed the actual shooting of,
Dimatulac, the victim and Flordeliza V. Bagasan were the victim. The DOJ Secretary found Flordeliza's
seated beside each other on a papag watching TV description of respondent Acosta different from the
inside the church of Kaibigan Foundation Inc. when latter's physical attributes. He then ruled that
suddenly a man Identified as SPO1 Roel Acosta, Flordeliza's delayed testimony, coupled with her
Respondent, with an unidentified companion, both with erroneous description of respondent Acosta, cast a
firearms, entered the church premises. Respondent cloud of doubt on her credibility.
Acosta approached Dimatulac and Bagasan and

Justice Moreno
 2B Criminal Procedure Digests

The DOJ Secretary also did not give credence to judicial determination, as the case may be, of probable
witness Sardia's testimony on respondent cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or
Sapiandante's participation in the incident. He found with abuse of discretion amounting to want of
that Sardia was not among those mentioned in the jurisdiction. However, this Court may ultimately resolve
police report, and that his testimony was likewise the existence or non-existence of probable cause by
belatedly executed without any reason given for such examining the records of the preliminary investigation
delay; that fear could not have been Sardia's reason, when necessary for the orderly administration of
since in June 1998, he had already filed a complaint for justice. We find that the present case warrants the
attempted murder against respondent Sapiandante, application of the exception.
which was later dismissed; and that Sardia did not
witness the actual shooting of the victim. Probable cause has been defined as the existence of
such facts and circumstances as would lead a person
The Prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw the of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an
information filed against respondents. Petitioner filed honest and strong suspicion that the person charged is
an appeal with the Office of the President (OP) which guilty of the crime subject of the investigation. Being
was dismissed. After the denial of her Motion for based merely on opinion and reasonable belief, it does
Reconsideration petitioner filed a petition for certiorari not import absolute certainty. Probable cause need not
with the CA. be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, as
the investigating officer acts upon reasonable belief.
Ruling of CA Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires
more than bare suspicion but less than evidence to
The CA said that the OP committed no error in affirming justify a conviction.
the resolution of the DOJ Secretary; that courts will not
interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations To determine the existence of probable cause, there is
and leave to the investigating prosecutor a sufficient a need to conduct a preliminary investigation. A
latitude of discretion in the determination of what preliminary investigation constitutes a realistic judicial
constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish appraisal of the merits of a case. Its purpose is to
probable cause for the filing of information against the determine whether (a) a crime has been committed;
offender. The CA found that all was not lost for and (b) there is probable cause to believe that the
petitioner, since the denial of her petition did not mean accused is guilty thereof.
an automatic dismissal of the information following the
resolution of the DOJ Secretary, as the RTC was In this case, the court find that the DOJ committed
mandated to independently evaluate the merits of the a manifest error in finding no probable cause to
case; and it may agree or disagree with the charge respondents with the crime of murder.
recommendation of the DOJ Secretary, since reliance
on the latter alone would be an abdication of the RTC's While the initial police report stated that the name of
duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. the person who was seated beside the victim when the
latter was shot was Liza Gragasan, such report would
Hence the petition for Review on Certiorari not conclusively establish that Liza Gragasan could not
have been Flordeliza Bagasan, the witness who
Issues executed an affidavit four months after the incident.
Notably, Flordeliza's nickname is Liza, and her
Whether there is probable cause to charge the surname Bagasan sounds similar to Gragasan. Under
respondents for the crime of murder. the rule of idem sonans, two names are said to be
"idem sonantes" if the attentive ear finds difficulty in
distinguishing them when pronounced. The question
whether a name sounds the same as another is not one
Ruling
of spelling but of pronunciation. While the surname
Bagasan was incorrectly written as Gragasan, when
Yes, there is a probable cause to charge the
read, it has a sound similar to the surname Bagasan.
respondents for the crime of murder.
Thus, the presence of Bagasan at the crime scene was
established, contrary to the conclusion arrived at by the
Ordinarily, the determination of probable cause is not
DOJ Secretary.
lodged with this Court. Its duty in an appropriate case
is confined to the issue of whether the executive or

Justice Moreno
 2B Criminal Procedure Digests

The execution of Bagasan's affidavit four months after Sapiandante, which was already dismissed -- is merely
the incident should not be taken against her, as such speculative.
reaction is within the bounds of expected human
behavior. Notably, the police report stated that during As stated in the case, in a preliminary investigation, the
the conduct of the investigation, Bagasan was shocked public prosecutor merely determines whether there is
after the incident and could not possibly be probable cause or sufficient ground to engender a well-
interviewed. Initial reluctance to volunteer information founded belief that a crime has been committed, and
regarding a crime due to fear of reprisal is common that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and
enough that it has been judicially declared as not should be held for trial. Considering the foregoing, we
affecting a witness' credibility. Bagasan’s action find that the CA erred in affirming the DOJ's finding of
revealed a spontaneous and natural reaction of a the absence of probable cause to indict respondents
person who had yet to fully comprehend a shocking for murder.
and traumatic event. Besides, the workings of the
human mind are unpredictable. People react differently Disposition
to emotional stress. There is simply no standard form
of behavioral response that can be expected from WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
anyone when confronted with a strange, startling or Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of
frightful occurrence. Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Secretary of Justice is hereby ORDERED to direct the
The Court did not agree that the DOJ Secretary did not Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila to withdraw the
also find the statements given by Sardia as credible, as Motion to Withdraw the Information for Murder already
the latter was not among those mentioned as a witness filed in the trial court.
in the police report.

The failure of the police report to mention Sardia's

name as a witness would not detract from the fact that
he saw respondent Acosta with an unidentified man
running away from the chapel and riding the waiting
get- away vehicle driven by Sapiandante. Entries in a
police blotter, though regularly done in the course of
the performance of official duty, are not conclusive
proof of the truth of such entries and should not be
given undue significance or probative value for they are
usually incomplete and inaccurate.

The matter of assigning value to the declaration of a

witness is best done by the trial court, which can
assess such testimony in the light of the demeanor,
conduct and attitude of the witness at the trial stage.

Lastly, this Court does not agree to the DOJ

Secretary's finding that since Sardia's affidavit was
also belatedly executed, the same is not credible. As
we have said, witnesses are usually reluctant to
volunteer information about a criminal case or are
unwilling to be involved in or dragged into criminal
investigations due to a variety of valid reasons. Fear of
reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get
involved in a criminal case are sufficient explanations
for a witness' delay in reporting a crime to authorities.

The DOJ ruling -- that fear could not have been the
reason, because as early as 1998 Sardia had already
filed a complaint for attempted murder against

Justice Moreno