GR 123504; (December, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123504; December 14, 2000
P/INSP. RODOLFO SAMSON, PO3 JAMES BUSTINERA, PO2 PABLO TOTANES, and PO1 ADRIANO CRUZ, petitioners, vs. HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., as Secretary of Justice, Chief State Prosecutor ZENON DE GUIA, and State Prosecutor PAULITA ACOSTA-VILLARANTE and Prosecuting Attorney EMMANUEL VELASCO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, police officers, were charged with murder for the killing of Datu Gemie Sinsuat. After a preliminary investigation, an information was filed against them. Upon filing, petitioners moved for a judicial determination of probable cause before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC found probable cause for the arrest of three co-accused who admitted the killing but claimed self-defense. However, concerning petitioners Samson, Totanes, Bustinera, and Cruz, the RTC found no probable cause based on the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation.
The trial court noted that certain prosecution exhibits were not presented during the preliminary investigation and petitioners were not furnished copies to controvert them. Consequently, the RTC ordered the Department of Justice to conduct a reinvestigation specifically as to these four petitioners, to give them the opportunity to address these new exhibits. Petitioners did not seek reconsideration of this order. Instead, they filed the instant petition with the Supreme Court seeking to enjoin the Secretary of Justice from conducting the ordered reinvestigation.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court may issue an injunction to restrain the Secretary of Justice from conducting a reinvestigation of the criminal charges against petitioners as ordered by the trial court.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that as a general rule, it will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction to enjoin or restrain criminal prosecution. This rule applies with greater force when the case is still at the stage of preliminary investigation or reinvestigation. The Court enumerated recognized exceptions to this rule, such as when necessary to protect constitutional rights, to avoid oppression, where there is a prejudicial question, or where the prosecution is manifestly false and vexatious.
The legal logic is that the conduct of preliminary investigations and reinvestigations is primarily an executive function, and courts afford prosecutors sufficient latitude of discretion in determining probable cause. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that their case fell within any of the established exceptions. Their mere apprehension that the reinvestigation might lead to a finding of probable cause and subsequent arrest is insufficient to justify judicial interference. The RTC’s order for a reinvestigation was a proper exercise of its judicial power to ensure a fair determination of probable cause, and petitioners’ remedy was to participate in that reinvestigation, not to seek its prohibition.