In determining probable cause, the judge should consider the report of the investigating prosecutor, the affidavit and documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the accused and witnesses, and the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation.
A judge may dismiss the case only if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. However, if the evidence shows that the crime charged has likely been committed and the respondent is probably guilty, the judge shall not dismiss the case and instead order the parties to proceed to trial.
Courts are not allowed to interfere with public prosecutors’ finding of probable cause unless the latter’s determination was capricious and whimsical, evidencing grave abuse of discretion.
The standard to be observed in determining probable cause is whether the facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof. A judge is not required to probe the evidence to procure a conviction; it will suffice if the evidence establishes a reasonable belief that the act or omission constitutes the offense charged.
Thus, in People v. Alcantara, the Court held that grave abuse of discretion attended the dismissal of the case for violation of Section 4(a) and (e) in relation to Section 6(c) of Republic Act 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 when the trial court faulted the prosecution for failing to submit evidence that actual sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct was committed at the time the raid was conducted. The Court went on to state that the grounds for dismissing the case are evidentiary matters which should be properly ventilated during trial.
In view of the above doctrines and principles, no grievous error may be attributed to the part of the CA in rendering its 30 April 2015 decision and 27 October 2015 resolution. The Court concurred with the CA when it made the following observations that probable cause exists in charging petitioners of the crime of adultery.
The record of the case revealed that there was sufficient evidence presented by the prosecution that supports the probability that the crime of adultery has been committed and that respondents-appellants might be guilty thereof. As correctly observed by the court a quo, material details that are concrete, direct, and categorical are contained in the evidence submitted consisting of the affidavits of petitioner-appellee and his witnesses; the transcriptions of the recorded sound clips on the interview of one of petitioner-appellee and respondent-appellant Theresa Isturis-Rebuelta’s sons.
These pieces of evidence, including the circumstances in which the respondents-appellants were arrested, sufficiently engender a well-founded belief that the crime of adultery may have been committed.
(To be continued)
