GR 198760; (January, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 198760 . January 11, 2017. ATTY. ALLAN S. HILBERO, Petitioner, vs. FLORENCIO A. MORALES, JR., Respondent.
FACTS
Atty. Demetrio Hilbero was shot dead outside his office on June 16, 2007. The initial police investigation yielded little progress. Months later, on December 26, 2007, an alleged eyewitness, Reynaldo Leyva, executed a sworn statement. He claimed to have seen respondent Florencio Morales, Jr. and Sandy Pamplona conversing near a motorcycle before the shooting. After the shooting, he saw the gunmen escape on one motorcycle, which was then followed by another motorcycle carrying Morales and Pamplona. Based primarily on this affidavit, the Department of Justice (DOJ) found probable cause to charge Morales, among others, with murder.
Morales sought a review of the DOJ resolution before the Office of the President (OP), which was denied. He then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA ruled in his favor, modifying the DOJ resolution and ordering the charge against him dropped. The CA held that Leyva’s affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause, noting inconsistencies and the lack of corroborative evidence linking Morales to the conspiracy to kill.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Department of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge respondent Florencio Morales, Jr. with murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court clarified that a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime was committed and the accused was probably guilty. The DOJ, as the prosecutorial arm, is granted broad discretion in making this determination. However, this discretion is not absolute and is subject to judicial review for grave abuse, which means a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The Court agreed with the CA that the DOJ’s reliance on Leyva’s affidavit was misplaced and constituted grave abuse. The affidavit was executed over six months after the crime with no reasonable explanation for the delay. Its contents were uncorroborated and failed to substantiate Morales’s alleged conspiracy. Merely being seen talking with an alleged co-conspirator before the crime and riding a motorcycle away from the scene afterwards, without any evidence of overt acts to facilitate the murder, does not establish probable cause for conspiracy. The DOJ’s resolution was based purely on speculation, not on competent evidence. Therefore, the CA correctly nullified the DOJ ruling for being issued with grave abuse of discretion.