G.R. No. 126005 January 21, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ALYNN PLEZETTE DY, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, BILLY CERBO and JONATHAN CERBO, respondents.

FACTS

The case arose from the fatal shooting of Rosalinda Dy on August 30, 1993. The primary suspect was Jonathan Cerbo. After a preliminary investigation, an information for murder was filed against Jonathan Cerbo. Subsequently, Alynn Plezette Dy, the victim’s daughter, executed an affidavit-complaint charging Billy Cerbo (Jonathan’s father) with conspiracy in the killing, supported by a supplemental affidavit from eyewitness Elsa B. Gumban. The supplemental affidavit alleged that Billy Cerbo instructed Gumban to position the victim for an easy target, did not provide aid after the shooting, and immediately had the body embalmed. After a reinvestigation, Prosecutor Protacio Lumangtad recommended filing an amended information including Billy Cerbo as an accused. An amended information was filed, and a warrant for Billy Cerbo’s arrest was issued. Billy Cerbo filed a motion to quash the warrant, arguing it was issued without probable cause. The Regional Trial Court of Nabunturan, Davao, issued an order on June 28, 1994, dismissing the case against Billy Cerbo and recalling the warrant of arrest, and ordered the prosecution to file a new information charging only Jonathan Cerbo. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC’s orders, finding no grave abuse of discretion. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court Judge had the authority to reverse the public prosecutor’s finding of probable cause and dismiss the case against Billy Cerbo based on a motion to quash the warrant of arrest.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition is meritorious. The trial court erred in dismissing the information filed against Billy Cerbo, and the Court of Appeals likewise erred in upholding such ruling. The determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is an executive function belonging to the public prosecutor. When an information is filed with the court, the judge’s authority is limited to a judicial determination of probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest. The judge does not act as an appellate court of the prosecutor and cannot dismiss the case for lack of evidence based solely on the prosecutor’s report and supporting documents. A motion to quash a warrant of arrest is not the proper pleading to assail the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause to justify the filing of the information. The judge must respect the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause to hold the accused for trial when the information is valid on its face and no manifest error, grave abuse of discretion, or prejudice can be imputed to the prosecutor. The trial court’s orders were set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.