G.R. No. 171188 June 19, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. JESSIE B. CASTILLO and FELICITO R. MEJIA, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Cesar Sarino is a registered owner of land in Bacoor, Cavite, leased to Pepito B. Aquino and Adriano G. Samoy, who subleased it to stallholders. In September 1999, respondent Felicito R. Mejia, Municipal Building Official, sent Notices of Violation of the National Building Code to the stallholders for lacking building permits and certificates of occupancy. On January 17, 2000, letters were sent informing of closure on January 24, 2000, due to non-compliance. On February 16, 2000, a task force closed the stalls by installing galvanized iron fences.
Aquino and Samoy filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB-1-00-0537) against respondents (Mayor Jessie B. Castillo, Mejia, and others) for violation of Section 3(e) and (f) of R.A. No. 3019 . The Ombudsman dismissed it on October 20, 2000, ruling the officials acted in good faith.
On September 6, 2001, Sarino filed a new complaint against Castillo and Mejia before the Ombudsman for the same violations and administrative charges. The administrative complaint was dismissed on March 10, 2003, as moot due to Castillo’s re-election and because the act occurred more than a year before the complaint. On May 7, 2003, the Ombudsman filed an Information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 before the Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case No. 27789), alleging respondents, with evident bad faith, caused undue injury to Sarino by fencing his property, depriving him of its use and causing lost income.
The Sandiganbayan found probable cause on August 15, 2003, issued arrest warrants, and respondents posted bail. After reinvestigation, an Amended Information was admitted on November 3, 2004, adding Sarino’s siblings as injured parties and specifying damages. The Sandiganbayan denied respondents’ Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause on May 9, 2005. However, on October 10, 2005, upon motion for reconsideration, the Sandiganbayan reversed itself and dismissed the case, ruling it was a rehash of the previously dismissed case and that no evident bad faith or undue injury was present. A motion for reconsideration was denied on January 18, 2006, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in overturning the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause and dismissing the criminal case against respondents.

RULING

Yes, the Sandiganbayan erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions and reinstating Criminal Case No. 27789. The Court held that the determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information is an executive function, primarily vested in the prosecutor (here, the Ombudsman). The court’s judicial determination of probable cause is limited to deciding whether to issue an arrest warrant. Once the court has found probable cause and issued the warrant, it is bound by such finding and cannot thereafter dismiss the case for lack of probable cause based on its own assessment of the evidence, unless it acts as a check on the prosecutor’s discretion upon a clear showing of grave abuse. The amendments in the Amended Information were merely formal (adding injured parties and specifying damages) and did not affect the essence of the offense or confer authority on the court to make a new judicial determination of probable cause. The Sandiganbayan overstepped its authority by evaluating the evidence and concluding no probable cause existed, which is a function reserved to the prosecutor. The case was remanded to the Sandiganbayan for further proceedings.