PROBABLE CAUSE

Definition:
 Probable cause pertains to facts and circumstances sufficient to support a wellfounded
belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof.

DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE

1. JUDICIAL DETERMINATION
 To ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused [Sec. 2,
Art. III, Constitution]
 Set of facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man
to believe that the offense charged in the Information or any offense included therein has
been committed by the person sought to be arrested [Baltazar v. People, G.R. No.
174016 (2008)]

2. EXECUTIVE DETERMINATION.
 To ascertain whether a criminal case must be filed in court. The public prosecutor is
given a broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those
whom he believes to have committed the crime. [People v. Borje, Jr., G.R. No. 170046
(2014)]
 Sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed,
and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial [Sec. 1,
Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8- 26-SC

3. The Ombudsman is authorized to conduct a preliminary investigation and to prosecute all

criminal cases involving public officers and employees, not only those within the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan, but also those within the jurisdiction of regular courts as well [Uy v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105965-70 (2001)]

CASES:

1. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. AMELIO TRIA AND JOHN

DOE, RESPONDENTS.

DOCTRINE: What is necessary for the filing of a criminal information is not proof beyond
reasonable doubt that the person accused is guilty of the acts imputed on him, but only that
there is probable cause to believe that he is guilty of the crime charged.
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, are such facts as are sufficient
to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is
probably guilty thereof.

FACTS: Tria was a former Branch Manager of the Philippine National Bank (PNB)
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System Branch (PNB-MWSS). Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) opened a current account at PNB-MWSS. PNB-
MWSS received a letter-request from MWSS instructing the deduction of PhP 5,200,000
from the current account and the issuance of the a manager’s check payable to a certain Atty.
Rodrigo A. Reyes. Upon the preparation of the manager’s check, Tria accompanied Atty.
Reyes in presenting the said check to another PNB Branch (PNB-Circle) for encashment and
told PNB-Circle’s Flandez that their branch had no available cash to pay the amount indicated
in the manager’s check. He also informed Flandez that Atty. Reyes was a valued client of his
branch and that he’ll be the one to sign since Atty. Reyes was in a hurry.

A year after, Pulida (MWSS employee), inquired about about the transaction paid to Atty.
Reyes. Pulida notified MWSS that the latter did not apply for the issuance of the manager’s
check payable to Atty. Reyes. Also, upon verification, it was discovered that Rodrigo A.
Reyes is not a lawyer. PNB sought to hold Tria liable for qualified theft. Tria argued that it
was Flandez who approved and paid the manager’s check even beyond his authority. During
the preliminary investigation, the Assistant City Prosecutor issued a resolution stating that
Tria’s identification of the payee did not consummate the payment of the Manager’s Check.
Rather, it was held, that the consummation of the payment occurred during Flandez approval
of the encashment. PNB then filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ),
but the latter dismissed the petition. PNB sought recourse before the Court of Appeals (CA),
but it also dismissed the same stating that the determination of probable cause is an executive
function, thus, they rely on the resolution of DOJ.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not there is probable cause to file an information in court against Tria. -YES

2. Whether or not the determination of probable cause for the filing of an information in court
is an executive function and therefore could not be subject to judicial review. -NO

RULING:

1. Yes. The Supreme Court held that it must be emphasized at the outset that what is
necessary for the filing of a criminal information is not proof beyond reasonable doubt that
the person accused is guilty of the acts imputed on him, but only that there is probable cause
to believe that he is guilty of the crime charged.

Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, are such facts as are sufficient
to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is
probably guilty thereof. It is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the
belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that
the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he is to be prosecuted. A finding of
probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has
been committed and that it was committed by the accused.

The acts of Tria and the relevant circumstances that led to the encashment of the check
provide more than sufficient basis for the finding of probable cause to file an information
against him and John Doe/Atty. Reyes for qualified theft. In fact, it is easy to infer from the
factual milieu of the instant case the existence of all the elements necessary for the
prosecution of the crime of qualified theft. Further, the act of Tria in confirming and
approving the encashment of the check by Reyes is the pretense of the consent given to him
by PNB to authorize the issuance of the manager’s check that resulted in the taking of PhP 5.2
million from PNB. Tria must, therefore, be prosecuted and tried before the courts of justice.

1. No. The Supreme Court held that while discretionary authority to determine probable cause
in a preliminary investigation to ascertain sufficient ground for the filing of an information
rests with the executive branch, such authority is far from absolute. It may be subject to
review when it has been clearly used with grave abuse of discretion. And indeed, grave abuse
of discretion attended the decision to drop the charges against Tria as there was more than
probable cause to proceed against him for qualified theft.

2. G.R. No. 185128 January 30, 2012

RUBEN DEL CASTILLO @ BOY CASTILLO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

FACTS:

SPO3 Masnayon, after conducting surveillance and test-buy operation at the house of
Castillo, he secured a search warrant from the RTC and to serve the search warrant to
Castillo. Upon arrival, somebody shouted "raid," which prompted them to
immediately disembark from the jeep they were riding and went directly to Castillo's
house and cordoned it. Cstillo's residence is a two-storey house and the Castillo was
staying in the second floor. When they went upstairs, they met Castillo's wife and
informed her that they will implement the search warrant. But before they can search
the area, SPO3 Masnayon claimed that he saw Castillo run towards a nipa hut, in
front of his house. Masnayon chased him but to no avail, because he and his men
were not familiar with the entrances. They also called baranggay tanod to search the
areas. A tanod saw 4 plastic packs containing white crystaline susbstance inside the
nipa hut. Consequently, the articles that were confiscated were sent to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for examination. The contents of the four 4 heat- sealed transparent plastic
packs were subjected to laboratory examination, the result of which proved positive
for the presence of shabu.

Thus, an Information was filed before the RTC against Castillo, charging him with
violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425, as amended. During arraignment, he
pleaded not guilty. After trial, the RTC found Castillo guilty beyond reasonable of the
charge. Castillo appealed his case with the CA, but the latter affirmed the decision of
the RTC. Thus, he filed a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was no probable cause to issue the search warrant.

RULING:

No. The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2)
such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine,
in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may
produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them;
and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

According to Castillo, there was no probable cause. Probable cause for a search warrant is
defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection
with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. A finding of probable cause needs
only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and
that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare suspicion; it
requires less than evidence which would justify conviction. The judge, in determining
probable cause, is to consider the totality of the circumstances made known to him and not by
a fixed and rigid formula, and must employ a flexible, totality of the circumstances standard.
The existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting
the examination.

This Court, therefore, is in no position to disturb the factual findings of the judge which led to
the issuance of the search warrant. A magistrate's determination of probable cause for the
issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was
substantial basis for that determination. Substantial basis means that the questions of the
examining judge brought out such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the objects in
connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched. A
review of the records shows that in the present case, a substantial basis exists.