GR 131106; (December, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 131106 , December 7, 2001
Eugene Yu, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Eugene Yu was implicated in the kidnapping and murder of Atty. Eugene Tan and his driver. After a preliminary investigation, the Department of Justice initially dismissed the complaint against Yu for lack of probable cause. Subsequently, based on new evidence in the form of extra-judicial confessions from co-accused, a new preliminary investigation was conducted, resulting in a resolution finding probable cause against Yu as a principal. An amended information was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Yu filed an omnibus motion, and the RTC judge, after personally evaluating the evidence, found probable cause only for Yu’s liability as an accomplice, not as a principal. The judge thus directed the prosecution to amend the information accordingly. The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge this RTC order.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the prosecution’s petition for certiorari against the RTC judge’s order directing the amendment of the information to charge Yu as an accomplice.
RULING
Yes, the CA erred. The Supreme Court reinstated the RTC orders. The ruling hinges on the judge’s authority and duty to independently determine probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest. While the prosecutor determines probable cause for filing an information, the judge must still make an independent assessment before issuing a warrant. The RTC judge in this case did not act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. His evaluation of the evidence submitted led him to conclude that probable cause existed only for charging Yu as an accomplice. This determination was within his judicial discretion. The CA’s intervention via certiorari was improper as the judge’s order was an interlocutory one involving the exercise of judgment. Furthermore, the prosecution’s petition before the CA was filed beyond a reasonable time, approximately eight months after receiving the assailed RTC order, warranting its dismissal for being tardy. The earlier filing of a defective petition with the Supreme Court did not toll this period.