In the case of JOSE
BERNARDO vs. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA, G.R. No. L-37876, May 25, 1979, it was 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”.
In the case of “SUSANA B. CABAHUG, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, SANDIGANBAYAN, 3rd Division, and OFFICE OF THE
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, respondents”, 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”. 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”. 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:
“x x x.
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.
X x x”.
ON THE PRESUMPTION OF
GOOD FAITH:
In the case of Cabahug
v. People, GR No. 132816, February 5, 2002, it was held that “good faith is
always presumed”; that “the very purpose of a preliminary investigation is to
shield the innocent from precipitate, spiteful and burdensome prosecution”;
that “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”; 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:
“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 Sandiganbayan 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.
