Saturday, February 20, 2016

THE DUTY OF THE INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR TO PROTECT AN INNOCENT RESPONDENT FROM THE PAIN, COSTS, AND TEDIOUSNESS OF A BASELESS CRIMINAL TRIAL.




                                           "x x x.

1.       When the Record clearly shows that there is no probable cause, the fair, just and proper action required by law of the investigating prosecutor is to dismiss the baseless harassment case.

2.    In the case of JOSE BERNARDO vs. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA, G.R. No. L-37876, May  25, 1979, the Supreme Court held that although “prosecutors are endowed with ample powers in order that they may properly fulfill their assigned role in the administration of justice x x x, (it) should be realized, however, that when a man is haled to court on a criminal charge, it brings in its wake problems not only for the accused but for his family as well” and that “therefore, it behooves a prosecutor to weigh the evidence carefully and to deliberate thereon to determine the existence of a prima facie case before filing the information in court”, otherwise, it, held that, it “would be a dereliction of duty”.


3.    In the case of SUSANA B. CABAHUG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SANXXXNBAYAN, 3rd Division, and OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, G.R. No. 132816, February 5, 2002,  the Supreme Court ”(admonished) agencies tasked with the preliminary investigation and prosecution of crimes that the very purpose of a preliminary investigation is to shield the innocent from precipitate, spiteful and burdensome prosecution”.

3.1.          It added that such investigating agencies were “duty-bound to avoid, unless absolutely necessary, open and public accusation of crime not only to spare the innocent the trouble, expense and torment of a public trial, but also to prevent unnecessary expense on the part of the State for useless and expensive trials”.

3.2.        It held that “when at the outset the evidence cannot sustain a prima facie case or that the existence of probable cause to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused cannot be ascertained, the prosecution must desist from inflicting on any person the trauma of going through a trial”. Thus:

We cannot overemphasize the admonition to agencies tasked with the preliminary investigation and prosecution of crimes that the very purpose of a preliminary investigation is to shield the innocent from precipitate, spiteful and burdensome prosecution. They are duty-bound to avoid, unless absolutely necessary, open and public accusation of crime not only to

spare the innocent the trouble, expense and torment of a public trial, but also to prevent unnecessary expense on the part of the State for useless and expensive trials. Thus, when at the outset the evidence cannot sustain a prima facie case or that the existence of probable cause to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused cannot be ascertained, the prosecution must desist from inflicting on any person the trauma of going through a trial.


4.    Further, in the aforecited case of Cabahug v. People, GR No. 132816, February 5, 2002, the Supreme Court held that “good faith is always presumed”. Thus:


 “X x x.

Contrary to the Ombudsman’s ruling that bad faith on the part of petitioner was deducible, good faith is always presumed. Therefore, he who charges another with bad faith must prove it. In other words, the Office of the Ombudsman should determine with certainty the facts indicative of bad faith. However, the records show that the Office of the Ombudsman was clearly uncertain of its position on the matter of existence of bad faith on the part of petitioner Cabahug. X x x.

X x x.

Clearly, any further prosecution of petitioner is pure and simple harassment. It is imperative that she be spared from the trauma of having to go to trial on such a baseless complaint. The evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case and it is evident that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the petitioner’s guilt.

X x x. Judicial power of review includes the determination of whether there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. Under this definition, the Sanxxxnbayan should have, considering the divergent positions in the Office of the Ombudsman, granted the motion for redetermination of probable cause after reviewing the evidence thus far submitted, and dismissed the case against petitioner. Thus, respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the case to proceed.


X x x.