G.R. No. 180109; July 26, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. JOSEPH “JOJO” V. GREY, FRANCIS B. GREY, and COURT OF APPEALS-CEBU CITY, EIGHTEENTH DIVISION, Respondents.

FACTS

An Information for Murder was filed against respondents Joseph Grey, a former mayor, and his son Francis Grey, among others, for the death of a municipal employee. The case was raffled to the RTC of Gandara, Samar. The presiding judge initially found insufficient evidence for a warrant of arrest and directed the prosecution to submit more. After the judge inhibited herself, the case was re-raffled to Judge Roberto Navidad. The Secretary of Justice, upon review, found the evidence sufficient for probable cause. Judge Navidad, conducting a preliminary inquiry, issued an Order dated February 20, 2007, finding probable cause based on the record and issued warrants of arrest.
The respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA). They alleged political harassment and argued that Judge Navidad committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA granted the petition, making a temporary restraining order permanent, setting aside the warrants, and dismissing the case without prejudice. The CA ruled that Judge Navidad failed to personally determine probable cause as he merely adopted the findings of the prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice without his own assessment. The CA also found a discrepancy between the Information charging respondents as principals by direct participation and the affidavits which placed them away from the crime scene.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause and issuing warrants of arrest.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the CA Decision. The Court held that Judge Navidad did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The constitutional requirement for a judge to personally determine probable cause before issuing an arrest warrant does not necessitate a full-blown trial or even a hearing. The judge can personally evaluate the prosecution’s evidence in its totality, which may include the resolution of the prosecutor and the supporting affidavits and documents. The Court found that Judge Navidad’s Order demonstrated a personal determination. He did not merely rely on the Secretary of Justice’s resolution; he explicitly stated he had “personally evaluated” the records, including the Joint Resolution, affidavits, and other documents, and found the evidence sufficient to establish probable cause. His adoption of the prosecutor’s findings, after his own evaluation, was permissible.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that the alleged variance between the Information (charging direct participation) and the affidavits (placing respondents elsewhere) is not fatal at the probable cause stage. Probable cause does not require evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It merely requires such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty. The affidavits suggesting conspiracy could support a finding of probable cause for murder. The judge’s finding was thus within his discretion. The CA therefore erred in substituting its own judgment for that of the trial judge in the absence of a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court reinstated the RTC Order and directed the trial to proceed.