GR 123191; (December, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123191 & G.R. No. 123442, December 17, 1998
OSCAR L. GOZOS, et al., and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. HON. PATERNO C. TAC-AN, et al., respondents.
FACTS
An information for murder was filed against several police officers (SPO2 Jaime Blanco, et al.) for the fatal shooting of Gilbert Dyogi during an altercation at a school event. The accused filed a “Motion to Hold Issuance of Warrant and Motion to Quash,” arguing lack of probable cause. Respondent Judge Paterno Tac-an issued orders directing the Provincial Prosecutor to amend the information: first, to reduce the charge against SPO2 Blanco from murder to homicide and to drop the other accused; second, to include one other accused as an accomplice only; and third, denying a motion for reconsideration. The petitioners, the People (through the Solicitor General) and the private complainant, assailed these orders via certiorari, arguing the judge exceeded his authority.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in directing the amendment of the information and evaluating the sufficiency of evidence against the accused at a pre-arraignment stage.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court annulled the assailed orders. The Court clarified the distinct roles of the prosecutor and the judge in a preliminary investigation. The determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information is an executive function vested in the prosecutor. The judge’s task, upon filing of the information, is to personally evaluate the prosecutor’s resolution and supporting evidence solely to determine whether probable cause exists for issuing a warrant of arrest. A judge cannot substitute his own judgment for that of the prosecutor regarding the proper offense to be charged or the sufficiency of evidence against all accused. The accused’s motion, while labeled as a motion to quash, was实质上 a plea for a judicial re-evaluation of probable cause, which is not a ground for a quashal under the Rules. A motion to quash must be based on defects apparent on the face of the information. Questions regarding the degree of participation of the accused or the appreciation of circumstances are matters for trial on the merits. Consequently, the judge committed grave abuse of discretion by usurping the prosecutor’s prerogative and directing the amendment of the information.