Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such

facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed
and that respondent is probably guilty thereof.18The term does not mean "actual and positive
cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable
belief. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to
procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of
constitutes the offense charged. 19

A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not
a crime has been committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing
evidence of guilt, not on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely
not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. 20 In determining probable cause, the
average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the
rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common
sense.21 What is determined is whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and
should be held for trial. It does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient
evidence to secure a conviction. (G.R. No. 171435, July 30, 2008, ANTHONY T. REYES,
Petitioner, vs. PEARLBANK SECURITIES, INC., Respondent.)

True, a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence, or on
evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It does not require that the evidence would justify
conviction. Nonetheless, although the determination of probable cause requires less than
evidence which would justify conviction, it should at least be more than mere suspicion.[51]
While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to
examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accuseds
constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect the
State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding
trials arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges.[52] It is, therefore, imperative for
the prosecutor to relieve the accused from the pain and inconvenience of going through a
trial once it is ascertained that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the
guilt of the accused.[53] (TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, JR., CORAZON M. BEJASA,
ARTURO E. MANUEL, JR., ERIC L. LEE, P. SIERVO H. DIZON, BENJAMIN DE LEON,
DELFIN C. GONZALEZ, JR., and BEN YU LIM, JR.,

Petitioners,

- versus -

MAGDALENO M. PEA and HON. MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., as Judge Designate of the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bago City,

Respondents.
G.R. No. 143591

Present:

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,

Chairperson,

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,

CHICO-NAZARIO,

NACHURA, and

REYES, JJ.

Promulgated:

November 23, 2007