BORLONGAN, JR VS PENA

GR NO. 143591

Facts:

Respondent Magdaleno Pea instituted a civil case for recovery of agents compensation and expenses,
damages, and attorneys fees, against Urban Bank and the petitioners, before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Negros Occidental, Bago City.- Respondent anchored his claim for compensation on the
contract of agency, allegedly entered into with the petitioners wherein the former undertook to
perform such acts necessary to prevent any intruder and squatter from unlawfully occupying Urban
Banks property located along Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City.- Petitioners filed a MD arguing that they
never appointed the respondent as agent or counsel.-Attached to the MD were the following
documents:

1. A letter dated December 19, 1994 signed by Herman Ponce and Julie Abad on behalf of Isabela Sugar
Company, Inc. (ISCI), the original owner of the subject property;

2. An unsigned letter dated December 7, 1994 addressed to Corazon Bejasa from MarilynG. Ong;

3. A letter dated December 9, 1994 addressed to Teodoro Borlongan and signed byMarilyn G. Ong; and

4. A Memorandum dated November 20, 1994 from Enrique Montilla III.

The above stated documents were presented in an attempt to show that the respondent was appointed
as agent by ISCI and not by Urban Bank or by the petitioners. Respondent Pea filed his Complaint-
Affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Bago City. He claimed that said documents were falsified
because the alleged signatories did not actually affix their signatures, and the signatories were neither
stockholders nor officers and employees of ISCI. Worse, petitioners introduced said documents as
evidence before the RTC knowing that they were falsified. City Prosecutors Report (Sept 23, 1998) : In
the report, the Prosecutor concluded that the petitioners were probably guilty of four (4) counts of the
crime of Introducing Falsified Documents penalized by the second paragraph of Article 172 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC). The City Prosecutor concluded that the documents were falsified because the
alleged signatories untruthfully stated that ISCI was the principal of the respondent; that petitioners
knew that the documents were falsified considering that the signatories were mere dummies; and that
the documents formed part of the record of Civil Case No. 754 where they were used by petitioners as
evidence in support of their motion to dismiss, adopted in their answer and later, in their Pre- Trial Brief.
Subsequently, the corresponding Information were filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
Bago City. The cases were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 6683, 6684, 6685, and 6686. Thereafter,
Judge Primitivo Blanca issued the warrants for the arrest of the petitioners.

Petitioners (Oct `1, 1998) filed an Omnibus MQ: They insist that they were denied due process because
of the non-observance of a proper procedure on preliminary investigation prescribed in the Rules of
Court; since no such counter-affidavit and supporting documents were submitted by the petitioners, the
trial judge merely relied on the complaint-affidavit and attachments of the respondent in issuing the
warrants of arrest, also in contravention of the Rules. Moreover they claim that the respondents
affidavit was not based on the latters personal knowledge and therefore should not have been used by
the court in determining probable cause.

On the same day that the Omnibus MQ was filed, the petitioners posted bail. Their bail bonds expressly
provided that they do not intend to waive their right to question the validity of their arrest. On the date
of arraignment, the petitioners refused to enter their plea, for the obvious reason that the legality of
their information and their arrest was yet to be settled by the court. MTCCs answer (in response to
Omnibus MQ filed by petitioners): They upheld the validity of the warrant of arrest, saying that it was
issued in accordance with the Rules. Besides, (according to the MTCC) petitioners could no longer
question the validity of the warrant since they already posted bail.

Issues:

1) WON petitioners were deprived of their right to due process of law because of the denial of their
right to preliminary investigation and to submit their counter-affidavit;

2) WON the Information charging the petitioners were validly filed and the warrants for their arrest
were properly issued;

3) WON this Court can, itself, determine probable cause; and

4) WON the petitioners posting a bail constitutes a waiver of their right to question the validity of their
arrest.

Ruling:

Petition granted; MTCC is ordered to dismiss criminal cases against petitioners. For issues numbered 1
and 3:-The following sections of Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure are relevant to the
aforesaid issues:

SECTION 1. Definition. Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of

determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for trial. SEC. 3. Procedure. Except as provided for in Section 7 hereof, no
complaint or information for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court shall be filed without a
preliminary investigation having been first conducted in the following manner:(a) The complaint shall
state the known address of the respondent and be accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and his
witnesses as well as other supporting documents, in such number of copies as there are respondents,
plus two (2) copies of the official file. The said affidavits shall be sworn to before any fiscal, state
prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, a
notary public, who must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that
they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. SEC. 9. Cases not falling under the original
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts not covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. (a) Where
filed with the fiscal. If the complaint is filed directly with the fiscal or state prosecutor, the procedure
outlined in Section 3 (a) of this Rule shall be observed. The Fiscal shall take appropriate action based on
the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant.

-Records show that the prosecutor relied merely on the affidavits submitted by the complainant and did
not require the petitioners to submit their answer. He should not be faulted for doing such as this is
sanctioned by the rules. Moreover, he is not mandated to require the submission of counter-affidavits.
Probable cause may then be determined on the basis alone of the affidavits and supporting documents
of the complainant, without infringing on the constitutional rights of the petitioners.-Regarding the
issuance of the warrant of arrest, petitioners contend that the warrants were illegally issued as they
were solely based on the affidavits of the complainant. Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution
underscores the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the
existence of probable cause. But the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and
his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall (1) personally evaluate the report
and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause,
and on the basis thereof, he may already make a personal determination of the existence of probable
cause; and (2) if he is not satisfied that probable cause exists, he may disregard the prosecutors report
and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as
to the existence of probable cause. There is no provision or procedural rule which makes the submission
of counter-affidavits mandatory before the judge could determine probable cause. For issue number 2:-
For the issuance of a warrant of arrest, probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts
and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense
has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. It is one of the requisites for a warrant of
arrest to be valid.- On the basis of the above-stated documents (in the facts) and on the strength of the
affidavit executed by the respondent, the prosecutor concluded that probable cause exists. These same
affidavit and documents were used by the trial court in issuing the warrant of arrest.-The SC finds the
complaint-affidavit and attachments insufficient to support the existence of probable cause. The
respondents claims of the falsity of the documents were mere assertions. - It must be emphasized that
the affidavit of the complainant, or any of his witnesses, shall allege facts within their (affiants) personal
knowledge. The allegation of the respondent that the signatures were falsified does not qualify as
personal knowledge. Nowhere in said affidavit did respondent state that he was present at the time of
the execution of the documents. Neither did he claim that he was familiar with the signatures of the
signatories. He simply made a bare assertion-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. 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.