G.R. No. 184681 ; February 25, 2013
GERRY A. SALAPUDDIN, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GOV. JUM AKBAR, and NOR-RHAMA J. INDANAN, Respondents.

FACTS

A bomb exploded at the House of Representatives on November 13, 2007, killing several individuals including Congressman Wahab Akbar. Police investigation led to a raid on a suspected safehouse, where several suspects were arrested or killed. Evidence seized included a pistol traced to an employee of petitioner Gerry Salapuddin, a congressman, and his calling cards. Arrested suspect Ikram Indama, Salapuddin’s former driver, executed affidavits implicating himself and others in the bombing plot, initially stating the target was Congressman Akbar but not identifying who ordered it. In subsequent affidavits, Ikram directly implicated Salapuddin as the mastermind who ordered the assassination. Based on these sworn statements, the public prosecutor filed an amended information including Salapuddin as a principal by inducement for multiple murder and frustrated murder.

ISSUE

Whether the investigating prosecutor and the courts acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to include petitioner Salapuddin in the amended information based on the affidavits of Ikram Indama.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court upheld the finding of probable cause for Salapuddin’s inclusion. The Court emphasized that in a petition for certiorari, the inquiry is limited to whether the public prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion in determining probable cause. Probable cause does not require evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but merely a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty. The executive determination of probable cause is generally respected. Here, the prosecutor relied primarily on the detailed sworn statements of Ikram, a self-confessed participant, who consistently narrated Salapuddin’s direct inducement and provision of funds for the bombing. While Salapuddin attacked Ikram’s credibility, alleging coercion and inconsistency, these are matters of defense best ventilated in a full trial. At the preliminary investigation stage, the prosecutor correctly found Ikram’s affidavits sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that Salapuddin was involved. The subsequent recantation by Ikram was correctly disregarded, as affidavits of recantation are notoriously unreliable and viewed with extreme caution. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion attended the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause to include Salapuddin as an accused.