"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.”
