GR 113630; (May, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 113630 May 5, 1994
DIOSDADO JOSE ALLADO and ROBERTO L. MENDOZA, petitioners, vs. HON. ROBERTO C. DIOKNO, Presiding Judge, Br. 62, Regional Trial Court, Makati, Metro Manila, and PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-CRIME COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza, lawyers and partners of the Salonga, Hernandez and Allado law firm, were accused of kidnapping with murder of German national Eugen Alexander Van Twest based primarily on the extrajudicial confession of security guard Escolastico Umbal. Umbal claimed that for P2.5 million, petitioners hired him and his companions to abduct Van Twest, who was later killed and his body burned. The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) referred the case to the Department of Justice. During the preliminary investigation, petitioners requested additional documents, including the alleged documents transferring properties and withdrawing P5 million from the victim’s account, but these were not fully provided. They submitted counter-affidavits denying the accusations. SPO2 Roger Bato initially filed a counter-affidavit implicating petitioners but later moved to suppress it, claiming it was extracted under duress. Before petitioners could refute Bato’s affidavit, a panel of prosecutors issued an undated resolution finding a prima facie case and filed an information for kidnapping with murder. Respondent Judge Roberto C. Diokno issued a warrant of arrest against petitioners without bail. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing a warrant of arrest against petitioners by finding probable cause based on insufficient and inadmissible evidence.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court held that the judge must personally determine probable cause and cannot rely solely on the prosecutor’s certification. Probable cause requires facts and circumstances sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty. The evidence against petitioners, primarily Umbal’s extrajudicial confession, was unreliable, inconsistent, and uncorroborated. There was no evidence of the alleged property transfers or bank withdrawals. The confession contained incredible details, such as the body being burned to fine ashes in a residential area without neighbors noticing. The panel of prosecutors also committed grave abuse of discretion by relying on this flimsy evidence. The warrant of arrest was quashed, and the temporary restraining order was made permanent. The Court ordered the dismissal of the information against petitioners for lack of probable cause.