G.R. No. 187094 February 15, 2017
LIZA L. MAZA, SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TEODORO A. CASINO, AND RAFAEL V. MARIANO, Petitioners, vs. HON. EVELYN A. TURLA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court of Palayan City, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, former party-list representatives, were charged with murder based on a complaint filed by a police inspector alleging their involvement in the killings of supporters of a rival political party. After a preliminary investigation, a panel of prosecutors found probable cause and filed two Informations for murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palayan City. Petitioners filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause, asking the court to dismiss the cases outright if none existed. The RTC, through Judge Turla, issued an Order finding that the preliminary investigation was improperly conducted. The court noted the prosecution witnesses were not presented before the panel and that the gravity of the offense warranted a more meticulous process. Consequently, the RTC remanded the cases to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for a new preliminary investigation.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in remanding the criminal cases to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for a new preliminary investigation instead of independently determining the existence of probable cause based on the evidence already submitted.

RULING

Yes, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court clarified that once an Information is filed in court, the judge’s duty is to personally evaluate the prosecutor’s resolution and the supporting evidence to determine whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The judge is not tasked with reviewing the procedural correctness of the preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor. The judicial function is to assess the evidence on record to ascertain if there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime was committed and the accused is probably guilty. If the judge finds the evidence insufficient, the case should be dismissed. Conversely, if probable cause is established, the judge should issue a warrant of arrest. A remand for a new preliminary investigation on grounds of procedural infirmities is not among the judge’s options under the Rules of Court. This rule prevents undue delays and ensures the court exercises its independent judgment on the evidence before it, rather than improperly interfering with the executive function of preliminary investigation. The RTC’s order of remand was therefore invalid.