VOL.

539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 147 148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Co vs. Republic Co vs. Republic

G.R. No. 168811. November 28, 2007.

*
112 of the Rules of Court of 1964, was removed from them by the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, effective on January 1, 1985,
MARILYN H. CO and WILSON C. CO, petitioners, vs. which deleted all provisions granting that power to said Judges. x x x
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. EUFRONIO K. The 1988 Amendments to the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure,
MARISTELA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, San declared effective on October 1, 1988, did not restore that authority
Jose, Camarines Sur, Branch 30, and JOCELYN FRANCIA, to Judges of Regional Trial Courts; said amendments did not in fact
respondents. deal at all with the officers or courts having authority to conduct
preliminary investigations. This is not to say, however, that
Criminal Procedure; Preliminary Investigations; Preliminary somewhere along the line RTC Judges also lost the power to make a
Examinations; Warrants of Arrest; Jurisdictions; Judges of preliminary examination for the purpose of determining whether
Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) are no longer authorized to conduct probable cause exists to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest
preliminary investigations; While Regional Trial Court judges may (or search warrant). Such a powerindeed, it is as much a duty as it
no longer conduct preliminary investigations to ascertain whether is a powerhas been and remains vested in every judge by the
there is sufficient ground for the filing of a criminal complaint or provision in the Bill of Rights in the 1935, the 1973 and the present
information, they retain the authority, when such a pleading is filed (1987) Constitutions securing the people against unreasonable
with their courts, to determine whether there is probable cause searches and seizures, thereby placing it beyond the competence of
justifying the issuance of a warrant of arrest.In Salta v. Court of mere Court rule or statute to revoke. The distinction must, therefore,
Appeals, 143 SCRA 228 (1986), the Court already ruled that be made clear while an RTC Judge may no longer conduct
Section 2 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure no longer preliminary investigations to ascertain whether there is sufficient
authorizes Regional Trial Court Judges to conduct preliminary ground for the filing of a criminal complaint or information, he
investigations. In Castillo v. Villaluz, 171 SCRA 39 (1989), the retains the authority, when such a pleading is filed with his court, to
Court reiterated: Judges of Regional Trial Courts (formerly Court of determine whether there is probable cause justifying the issuance of a
First Instance) no longer have authority to conduct preliminary warrant of arrest. x x x.
investigations. That authority, at one time reposed in them under Same; Same; Preliminary Investigations should be
Sections 13, 14 and 16, Rule
_______________ distinguished as to whether it is an investigation for the
* SECOND DIVISION. determination of sufficient ground for filing an information or it is
an investigation for the determination of a probable cause for the
issuance of warrant of arrestthe former is executive in nature
while the latter is judicial in nature.The Court again reiterated
this rule in People v. Inting, 187 SCRA 788 (1990), where we
further explained: Judges and Prosecutors alike should distinguish
the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation
proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial
or released. Even if the two inquiries are conducted in the course of
one and the same proceeding, there should be no confusion about the
objectives. The determination of probable cause for the warrant of
arrest is made by the Judge. The preliminary investigation proper
whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused
is guilty of the offense charged and, therefore, whether or not he
should be subjected to the
 VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 149 150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Co vs. Republic Co vs. Republic
expense, rigors and embarrassment of trialis the function of the (Jocelyn), Miguels widow, filed a complaint for Murder
Prosecutor. x x x We reiterate that preliminary investigation should
be distinguished as to whether it is an investigation for the against Sgt. Reyes and John Does. Mayor 5
Marilyn H. Co
determination of a sufficient ground for the filing of the information (Mayor Co) and Wilson C. Co (petitioners) were included as
or it is an investigation for the determination of a probable cause for principals by induction. The motive for the killing was
the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The first kind of preliminary allegedly Miguels shift of loyalty to Mayor Cos political
investigation is executive in nature. It is part of the prosecutions job. opponent. Sgt. Reyes and the John Does in the complaint
The second kind of preliminary investigation which is more properly were allegedly Mayor Cos bodyguards.
called preliminary examination is judicial in nature and is lodged While Miguel was at the Caramoan Municipal Hospital,
with the judge. x x x Sgt. Reyes, SPO2 Ramil Araas (SPO2 Araas), and a John
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and Doe allegedly entered the Francias house against Jocelyns
resolution of the Court of Appeals. will. They searched for papers and other effects, and caused
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. chaos and disarray in the house. Accordingly, Jocelyn also
filed a complaint for Violation of Domicile against Sgt.
Lazaro Law Firm for petitioners. Reyes, SPO2 Araas, and John Doe.
Ramil L. Esguerra for private respondent. The accused alleged that Miguel was drunk and unruly,
**
CARPIO, J.: and indiscriminately fired his 9 mm pistol. Sgt. Reyes, who
was at the vicinity, accosted Miguel and fired a warning shot.
The Case However, Miguel pointed his pistol at Sgt. Reyes. Sgt. Reyes
1
Before the Court is a2 petition for review assailing3 the 3 was forced to shoot Miguel who was hit at his right thigh.
January 2005 Decision and 30 June 2005 Resolution of the Sgt. Reyes and his companions brought Miguel to the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82155. Caramoan Municipal Hospital where he died due to loss of
blood.
The Antecedent Facts
After the preliminary investigation, the Office of the
On 15 May 2001, at around 5:00 p.m., Miguel Antonio Provincial Prosecutor
6
of San Jose, Camarines Sur issued a
Francia (Miguel) was shot dead in front of his house4
in Joint Resolution dated 30 August 2001, as follows:
Caramoan, Camarines Sur by Sgt. Roberto Reyes (Sgt. WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing consideration, let the
Reyes), a member of the Philippine Army. Jocelyn Francia
_______________ case against SPO2 Ramil Araas, Roberto Reyes, Mayor Marilyn
Co, Wilson Co and other John Does for Murder be dismissed for
** Acting Chairperson. lack of probable cause and an information for Homicide be filed
1 Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. against
2 Rollo, pp. 65-83. Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes _______________
with Associate Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Rosalinda Asuncion- 5 Sgt. Reyes, SPO2 Araas, John Does, and petitioners are collectively referred
Vicente, concurring. to as the accused in this Decision.
3 Id., at pp. 84-85. 6 Rollo, pp. 111-130. Signed by 3rd Asst. Provincial Prosecutor and OIC

4 Also referred to as Sgt. Gilbert Reyes. Esperidion R. Solano, with 2nd Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Eulogio I. Prima
recommending approval. Provincial Prosecutor Agapito B. Rosales approved
and signed the Joint Resolution.
 VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 151 152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Co vs. Republic Co vs. Republic
Sgt. Gilbert Reyes, P.A.[,] with the proper court[,] his allegations of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Camarines Sur, Branch
self-defense being evidentiary in nature and another information for
Violation of Domicile against Sgt. Gilbert Reyes and another John 30 (trial court).
11
Doe be filed with the proper court, as the case against SPO2 Ramil In an Order dated 13 September 2002, the trial court
Araas, for lack of probable cause[,] is hereby dismissed. denied the motion to suspend proceedings as well as the
7
SO RESOLVED. motion for the issuance of warrants of arrest. Instead, the
Jocelyn filed a petition for review before the Department of trial court set the cases for preliminary investigation of
8
Justice (DOJ). In a Resolution promulgated on 25 June Jocelyn and her witnesses to determine probable cause.
2002, the DOJ resolved: During the scheduled preliminary investigation on 23
WHEREFORE, the assailed resolution is hereby MODIFIED. The September 2002, only Dr. Minerva Balmacea-Aguirre of
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur is hereby Caramoan Municipal Hospital appeared. Jocelyn and her
directed to file the Information for murder against respondents SPO2 witnesses did not appear for fear for their lives. The private
Ramil Araas, Sgt. Gilbert Reyes, Mayor Marilyn Co, Wilson Co prosecutor moved for the suspension of the judicial
and John Does, and another information for violation of domicile determination of probable cause as he was filing a petition
against respondents SPO2 Ramil Araas, Sgt. Gilbert Reyes and a for change of venue. In an Order dated 14 October 2002, the
certain John Doe. The Provincial Prosecutor is further directed to
report to this Office the action taken within ten (10) days from trial court held in abeyance the presentation of additional
receipt thereof. evidence for judicial determination of probable cause.
SO ORDERED.
9
However, this Court subsequently denied the private
10 prosecutors motion for change of venue.
On 2 July 2002, Provincial Prosecutor Agapito Rosales 12

filed a new Information for Murder against the accused. In an Order dated 19 May 2003, the trial court held that
no probable cause exists against the accused for the crime of
The accused filed a motion to suspend proceedings Murder. The trial court dismissed the Information for Murder
pending the motion for reconsideration of the DOJs 25 June but upheld the Information for Homicide against Sgt. Reyes.
2002 Resolution. Jocelyn, through a private prosecutor, filed The trial court issued another warrant of arrest against Sgt.
a motion for issuance of warrants of arrest against the Reyes.
accused. Jocelyn thereafter filed a motion for inhibition of
Judge Alfredo Cabral (Judge Cabral) for loss of trust and The private prosecutor moved for reconsideration
13
of the
confidence due to the delay in the issuance of the warrants of 19 May 2003 Order. On 13 August 2003, the trial court
arrest. Judge Cabral granted Jocelyns motion and the cases granted the motion and set the presentation of additional
were transferred to the sala of Judge Eufronio K. Maristela evidence for judicial determination of probable cause on 29
of August 2003. Meanwhile, on 12 August 2003, Jocelyn
_______________ executed an Affidavit of Retraction/Desistance absolving the
7 Id., at p. 130. accused, particularly petitioners, from liability for Miguels
8 Id., at pp. 180-187. death. On 28 August 2003, the private prosecutor filed an
9 Id., at p. 187. Omnibus
_______________
10 Id., at p. 189. 5 July 2002 in the RTC Order of 13 September 2002.
11 Id., at pp. 189-193.
12 Id., at pp. 200-202.
13 12 August 2003 in the CA Decision.
 VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 153 154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Co vs. Republic Co vs. Republic

Motion to Admit Affidavit of Desistance of Private ber 21, 2003 and December 17, 2003 are hereby reversed and set
aside for being issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
Complainant Jocelyn Francia and to Dismiss the Case. On 29 lack and/or in excess of jurisdiction. The respondent court, therefore,
August 2003, neither the government nor the private is hereby ordered to enforce the Resolution of the Secretary of
prosecutor appeared at the scheduled hearing. None of the Justice promulgated on 25 June 2002 (Annex I, pp. 153 to 161,
witnesses stated in the subpoena appeared. Rollo) and in pursuance thereto, to re-admit the information filed by
14 Provincial Prosecutor Agapito B. Rosales dated July 4, 2002 (Annex
In an Order dated 21 October 2003, the trial court J, p. 162, Rollo).
dismissed the Information for Murder against SPO2 Araas, SO ORDERED.
16

Sgt. Reyes, John Does, and petitioners for lack of probable

cause. The trial court again sustained the Information for The Court of Appeals distinguished between a preliminary
Homicide against Sgt. Reyes. The private prosecutor filed a investigation for the determination of sufficient ground for
motion15
for reconsideration. In its Order dated 17 December the filing of information on one hand, and preliminary
2003, the trial court denied the motion. examination for the determination of probable cause for the
Jocelyn, joined by Miguels sons Antonio Francia II and issuance of a warrant of arrest on the other. The Court of
Mark Anthony Francia (collectively, the heirs of Miguel), Appeals ruled that in this case, the incident before the trial
filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals court was the determination of probable cause for the
assailing the 21 October 2003 Order of the trial court. The issuance of warrants of arrest against the accused. The trial
heirs of Miguel alleged that the 21 October 2003 Order was court was not tasked to determine whether there was a
issued despite Jocelyns submission of an Affidavit probable cause to prosecute the accused for the crime of
withdrawing her Affidavit of Desistance and despite her lack Murder. The determination of probable cause to prosecute
of affirmation in open court of the Affidavit of Desistance. the accused for Murder falls within the jurisdiction of the
The heirs of Miguel further alleged that the trial court prosecutor. This was already settled with the issuance of the
committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the 25 June 2002 Resolution by the Secretary of Justice and with
Information for Murder for lack of probable cause to sustain the filing of an Information for Murder before the trial court.
the charges against the accused. The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court went beyond
its jurisdiction when it assumed the duty and function of the
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals prosecutor.
In its 3 January 2005 Decision, the Court of Appeals set Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 30
aside the trial courts 21 October 2003 and 17 December June 2005 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the
2003 Orders. motion.
The dispositive portion of the 3 January 2005 Decision Hence, petitioners17
came to this Court, raising the
reads: following arguments:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is 1. The Court of Appeals erred when it reversed the order of the
impressed with merit. Perforce, the questioned Orders dated Octo- trial court considering that there was clearly
_______________
_______________
14 Rollo, pp. 194-198. 16 Rollo, pp. 82-83. Emphasis in the original.
15 CA Rollo, p. 36. 17 Id., at p. 28.
 VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 155 156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Co vs. Republic Co vs. Republic
no probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against Judges of Regional Trial Courts (formerly Court of First Instance)
petitioners. no longer have authority to conduct preliminary investigations. That
2. The Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it authority, at one time reposed in them under Sections 13, 14 and 16,
found that the trial court arrogated unto itself the functions of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court of 1964, was removed from them by
the public prosecutor. the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, effective on January 1, 1985,
which deleted all provisions granting that power to said Judges. x x x
The Issue The 1988 Amendments to the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure,
declared effective on October 1, 1988, did not restore that authority
The sole issue in this case is: to Judges of Regional Trial Courts; said amendments did not in fact
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in reversing the deal at all with the officers or courts having authority to conduct
trial courts 21 October 2003 Order which dismissed the Information for preliminary investigations.
Murder against petitioners, SPO2 Araas, Sgt. Reyes, and John Does for lack This is not to say, however, that somewhere along the line RTC
of probable cause. Judges also lost the power to make a preliminary examination for
The Ruling of this Court the purpose of determining whether probable cause exists to justify
the issuance of a warrant of arrest (or search warrant). Such a
The petition has no merit. powerindeed, it is as much a duty as it is a powerhas been and
remains vested in every judge by the provision in the Bill of Rights in
Preliminary Investigation Should be Distinguished the 1935, the 1973 and the present (1987) Constitutions securing the
From Preliminary Examination people against unreasonable searches and seizures, thereby placing it
beyond the competence of mere Court rule or statute to revoke. The
In this case, what was brought before the trial court was the distinction must, therefore, be made clear while an RTC Judge may
preliminary examination. The trial courts jurisdiction is no longer conduct preliminary investigations to ascertain whether
limited to the determination of whether there is probable there is sufficient ground for the filing of a criminal complaint or
cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against the information, he retains the authority, when such a pleading is filed
accused. Instead, the trial court assumed the function of the with his court, to determine whether there is20 probable cause
justifying the issuance of a warrant of arrest. x x x.
prosecutor by determining whether there was probable cause 21
for the filing of the information for Murder. The Court again reiterated this rule in People v. Inting
18
In Salta v. Court of Appeals, the Court already ruled where we further explained:
that Section 2 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure no Judges and Prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary
longer authorizes Regional Trial Court Judges 19to conduct inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a
preliminary investigations. In Castillo v. Villaluz, the Court warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper which
ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or released.
reiterated:
_______________ Even if the two inquiries are conducted in the course of one and the
same proceeding, there should be no confusion about the
_______________
18 227 Phil. 213; 143 SCRA 228 (1986).
19 G.R. No. 34285, 8 March 1989, 171 SCRA 39. 20 Id., at pp. 42-43. Emphasis in the original.
21 G.R. No. 88919, 25 July 1990, 187 SCRA 788.
 VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 157 158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Co vs. Republic Co vs. Republic
objectives. The determination of probable cause for the warrant of the wound totally negates intent to kill. Petitioners also allege
arrest is made by the Judge. The preliminary investigation proper
whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused that there is no evidence of abuse of superior strength. The
is guilty of the offense charged and, therefore, whether or not he fact that Miguel was taken to the hospital only 15 minutes
should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial after he was shot was nobodys fault and should not be taken
is the function of the Prosecutor. as an attempt to hide intent to kill. Finally, petitioners allege
xxx that the only evidence linking them to the crime is hearsay in
We reiterate that preliminary investigation should be character.
distinguished as to whether it is an investigation for the Again, the trial court went beyond the determination for
determination of a sufficient ground for the filing of the information
or it is an investigation for the determination of a probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. The trial court made a
the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The first kind of preliminary judicial determination of probable cause for the filing of an
investigation is executive in nature. It is part of the prosecutions job. information against the accused. Petitioners arguments are
The second kind of preliminary investigation which is more properly matters of defense and are evidentiary in nature. They are
called preliminary examination
22
is judicial in nature and is lodged best left for the trial court to resolve after a full-blown trial
with the judge. x x x on the merits.
23

Clearly, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the
assuming the function of the prosecutor. It should have 3 January 2005 Decision and 30 June 2005 Resolution of the
limited itself to the determination of the existence of Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82155.
probable cause for the purpose of issuing warrants of arrest SO ORDERED.
against the accused. The Court of Appeals did not err in ***
reversing the trial courts Order which dismissed the Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio-Morales, Tinga and
information for Murder filed against the accused. Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
Petitioners Arguments are Evidentiary in Nature Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Petitioners further allege that the Court of Appeals erred in Notes.A preliminary investigation serves not only the
reversing the order of the trial court because there is clearly purposes of the State, but more importantly, it is a significant
no probable cause for the issuance of the warrants of arrest part of freedom and fair play which every individual is
against them. Petitioners allege that the admitted facts show entitled toabsent sufficient evidence to establish probable
that their co-accused who are law enforcers were performing cause, the filing of Informations constitutes grave abuse of
their functions to maintain order and enforce the law. discretion. (Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. vs. Mendoza, 454
Petitioners further allege that the physical evidence, SCRA 386 [2005])
_______________
consisting of the injuries suffered by Miguel, eliminates the
23 See Redulla v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 167973, 28 February 2007,
element of treachery. Petitioners allege that the location of
_______________ 517 SCRA 110.
22 Id., at pp. 792-794. See also AAA v. Carbonell, G.R. No. 171465, 8 *** As replacement of Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing who is on
June 2007, 524 SCRA 496. official leave per Administrative Circular No. 84-2007.
 VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 159
Colby Construction and Management Corporation vs. National
Labor Relations Commission
By so issuing a warrant of arrest, the judge is presumed to
have, before issuing the warrant, previously regularly
discharged his duty to personally determine the existence of
probable cause against the accused. (Enriquez vs. Sarmiento,
Jr., 498 SCRA 6 [2006])
o0o