GR 113930; (March, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 113930 March 5, 1996
PAUL G. ROBERTS, JR., ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents. J. ROBERT DELGADO, petitioner-Intervenor.
FACTS
Petitioners, officers and directors of Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc. (PEPSI), were charged with estafa under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The charges stemmed from the “Number Fever” promotion, where numerous holders of “349” Pepsi crowns filed complaints alleging deceit. After preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor approved the filing of an information. Petitioners sought a review of this resolution by the Department of Justice (DOJ) “349” Committee. While this DOJ review was pending, the RTC judge, respondent Maximiano Asuncion, issued an order finding probable cause and directing the issuance of warrants of arrest. Petitioners moved to suspend proceedings, arguing the court should have first examined the records of the preliminary investigation. The RTC denied the motion. Subsequently, the DOJ Committee dismissed petitioners’ petition for review. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners’ challenge, declaring it moot due to the DOJ’s action.
ISSUE
Whether the trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the petitioners’ arrest without personally examining the records of the preliminary investigation to determine the existence of probable cause.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified the distinct concepts of probable cause for the filing of an information and for the issuance of an arrest warrant. The determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing a criminal information is an executive function, vested in the prosecutor. Once an information is filed with the court, it acquires jurisdiction over the case. The judge’s duty is then to personally determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, but this judicial determination does not require the judge to conduct a new preliminary investigation or to personally examine the complete records of the prosecutor’s investigation. The judge may rely on the prosecutor’s report and the supporting documents, which constitute sufficient basis for an independent assessment. In this case, the information, along with the Joint Resolution of the investigating prosecutor which summarized the evidence, was before the judge. His finding of probable cause based on these documents was a valid exercise of judicial discretion. The pendency of a petition for review with the DOJ does not divest the trial court of its authority to proceed with the case, including the issuance of a warrant, as the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause is presumed valid until otherwise declared.