Probable cause: 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.

"x x x.

General principles; judicial review of a prosecutor’s probable cause determination.

A public prosecutor’s determination of probable cause – that is, one
made for the purpose of filing an information in court – is essentially an
executive function and, therefore, generally lies beyond the pale of judicial
scrutiny. The exception to this rule is when such determination is tainted
with grave abuse of discretion and perforce becomes correctible through the
extraordinary writ of certiorari. It is fundamental that the concept of grave
abuse of discretion transcends mere judgmental error as it properly pertains
to a jurisdictional aberration. While defying precise definition, grave abuse
of discretion generally refers to a “capricious or whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.” Corollary, the abuse of
discretion must be patent and gross so as to amount to an evasion of a
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act
at all in contemplation of law. 31 To note, the underlying principle behind the
courts’ power to review a public prosecutor’s determination of probable
cause is to ensure that the latter acts within the permissible bounds of his
authority or does not gravely abuse the same. This manner of judicial review
is a constitutionally-enshrined form of check and balance which underpins
the very core of our system of government. As aptly edified in the recent
case of Alberto v. CA:32

It is well-settled that courts of law are precluded from disturbing the findings of public prosecutors and the DOJ on the existence or nonexistence of probable cause for the purpose of filing criminal informations, unless such findings are tainted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The rationale  behind the general rule rests on the principle of separation of powers, dictating that the determination of probable cause for the purpose of indicting a suspect is properly an executive function; while the exception hinges on the limiting principle of checks and balances, whereby the judiciary, through a special civil action of certiorari, has been tasked by the present Constitution “to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.” (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)

In the foregoing context, the Court observes that grave abuse of discretion taints a public prosecutor’s resolution if he arbitrarily disregards the jurisprudential parameters of probable cause. In particular, case law states that probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, exists when the facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof.

It does not mean “actual and positive cause” nor does it import absolute
certainty. Rather, it is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief and, as
such, 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.33 As pronounced in Reyes v.
Pearlbank Securities, Inc.:34

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. 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. 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.35 (Emphasis
supplied)

Apropos thereto, for the public prosecutor to determine if there exists a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the suspect is probably guilty of the same, the elements of the crime charged should, in all reasonable likelihood, be present. This is based on the principle that every crime is defined by its elements, without which there should be, at the most, no criminal offense.36

x x x."

See -

ELISI(O V. AGUILAR,
Petitioner
- versus -
DEPT. OF JUSTICE,
POI LEO T. DANGlJPON, lsT
LT. PIIILIP FORTlJNO, CPL.
l~DILBERTO ABORDO, SP03
G REGARDRO A. VILLAR,
SPOI RAMON M. LARA, SPOt
ALEX L. ACAYLAR, and POl
.JOVANNIE C. BALICOL,
Respondents.

GR No. 197522
Promulgated:  Sept. 11, 2013.