G.R. No. 168811; November 28, 2007
MARILYN H. CO and WILSON C. CO, Petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. EUFRONIO K. MARISTELA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, San Jose, Camarines Sur, Branch 30, and JOCELYN FRANCIA, Respondents.

FACTS

Miguel Antonio Francia was shot dead by Sgt. Roberto Reyes. Jocelyn Francia, the victim’s widow, filed a complaint for Murder, alleging the killing was politically motivated due to Miguel’s shift of loyalty to Mayor Marilyn Co’s opponent. Petitioners Mayor Marilyn Co and Wilson Co were included as principals by induction, with Sgt. Reyes alleged to be Mayor Co’s bodyguard. After preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor initially dismissed the murder charge against the petitioners, filing only Homicide against Sgt. Reyes. However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reversed this, directing the filing of a Murder information against the petitioners, Sgt. Reyes, and others.
The case was raffled to Judge Eufronio Maristela’s court. The trial court, in an Order dated 21 October 2003, dismissed the Murder information against the petitioners for lack of probable cause, sustaining only the Homicide charge against Sgt. Reyes. This dismissal was based partly on an Affidavit of Desistance executed by Jocelyn Francia, though she later submitted a withdrawal of that desistance. The heirs of Miguel challenged this dismissal via certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which granted the petition, reinstated the Murder information, and ordered the trial court to determine probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the Murder information against petitioners Marilyn Co and Wilson Co for lack of probable cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the distinct roles of preliminary investigation and judicial determination of probable cause for warrant issuance. A preliminary investigation is an executive function to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty. The finding of probable cause by the prosecutor, especially when affirmed by the DOJ as in this case, is generally accorded respect. The trial court, when tasked with issuing a warrant of arrest, conducts an independent judicial assessment of the prosecutor’s resolution and the supporting evidence. However, this determination is not for the purpose of validating the filing of the information, which is the prosecutor’s prerogative.
The trial court, in dismissing the Murder information, overstepped its authority. Its duty was limited to determining probable cause for the purpose of issuing an arrest warrant, not for dismissing the information outright. Questions regarding the credibility of witnesses, the weight of the affidavit of desistance, and the petitioners’ alleged motives are evidentiary matters that must be ventilated in a full-blown trial. The Court of Appeals correctly held that the DOJ resolution, which found probable cause for Murder based on the alleged conspiracy and political motive, provided a sufficient basis for the case to proceed to trial. The reinstatement of the information merely allows the case to continue where the petitioners can present their defenses.