Constitutional Law II : Searches & Seizures (Chapter 10)

Xavier University (Ateneo de Cagayan) - College of Law

Farhanna B. Mapandi (Block A)

30 BORLONGAN, JR VS PENA

GR NO. 143591 (NOV 23, 2007)

NACHURA, J.

Facts:

-Respondent Magdaleno Peña instituted a civil case for recovery of agent’s compensation and
expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees, against Urban Bank and the petitioners, before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Bago City.

- Respondent anchored his claim for compensation on the contract of agency, allegedly entered
into with the petitioners wherein the former undertook to perform such acts necessary to prevent
any intruder and squatter from unlawfully occupying Urban Bank’s property located along Roxas
Boulevard, Pasay City.

- Petitioners filed a MD arguing that they never appointed the respondent as agent or counsel.

-Attached to the MD were the following documents:

1. A letter dated December 19, 1994 signed by Herman Ponce and Julie Abad on behalf of
Isabela Sugar Company, Inc. (ISCI), the original owner of the subject property;

2. An unsigned letter dated December 7, 1994 addressed to Corazon Bejasa from Marilyn
G. Ong;

3. A letter dated December 9, 1994 addressed to Teodoro Borlongan and signed by

Marilyn G. Ong; and

4. A Memorandum dated November 20, 1994 from Enrique Montilla III.

- The above stated documents were presented in an attempt to show that the respondent was
appointed as agent by ISCI and not by Urban Bank or by the petitioners.

- Respondent Peña filed his Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Bago City.
He claimed that said documents were falsified because the alleged signatories did not actually
affix their signatures, and the signatories were neither stockholders nor officers and employees
of ISCI. Worse, petitioners introduced said documents as evidence before the RTC knowing that
they were falsified.

-City Prosecutor’s Report (Sept 23, 1998) : In the report, the Prosecutor concluded that the
petitioners were probably guilty of four (4) counts of the crime of Introducing Falsified
Documents penalized by the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The City Prosecutor concluded that the documents were falsified because the alleged signatories
untruthfully stated that ISCI was the principal of the respondent; that petitioners knew that the
 Constitutional Law II : Searches & Seizures (Chapter 10)
Xavier University (Ateneo de Cagayan) - College of Law
Farhanna B. Mapandi (Block A)

documents were falsified considering that the signatories were mere dummies; and that the
documents formed part of the record of Civil Case No. 754 where they were used by petitioners
as evidence in support of their motion to dismiss, adopted in their answer and later, in their Pre-
Trial Brief. Subsequently, the corresponding Informations were filed with the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities (MTCC), Bago City. The cases were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 6683, 6684, 6685,
and 6686. Thereafter, Judge Primitivo Blanca issued the warrants for the arrest of the
petitioners.

-Petitioners (Oct `1, 1998) filed an Omnibus MQ : They insist that they were denied due process
because of the non-observance of a proper procedure on preliminary investigation prescribed in
the Rules of Court; since no such counter-affidavit and supporting documents were submitted by
the petitioners, the trial judge merely relied on the complaint-affidavit and attachments of the
respondent in issuing the warrants of arrest, also in contravention of the Rules. Moreover they
claim that the respondent’s affidavit was not based on the latter’s personal knowledge and
therefore should not have been used by the court in determining probable cause.

-On the same day that the Omnibus MQ was filed, the petitioners posted bail. Their bail bonds
expressly provided that they do not intend to waive their right to question the validity of their
arrest. On the date of arraignment, the petitioners refused to enter their plea, for the obvious
reason that the legality of their information and their arrest was yet to be settled by the court.

-MTCC’s answer (in response to Omnibus MQ filed by petitioners): They upheld the validity of the
warrant of arrest, saying that it was issued in accordance with the Rules. Besides, (according to
the MTCC) petitioners could no longer question the validity of the warrant since they already
posted bail.

Issue:

1) WON petitioners were deprived of their right to due process of law because of the denial of
their right to preliminary investigation and to submit their counter-affidavit;

2) WON the Informations charging the petitioners were validly filed and the warrants for their
arrest were properly issued;

3) WON this Court can, itself, determine probable cause; and

4) WON the petitioners posting a bail constitutes a waiver of their right to question the validity of
their arrest.

Ruling: Petition granted; MTCC is ordered to dismiss criminal cases against petitioners.

RD:

For issues numbered 1 and 3:

-The following sections of Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure are relevant to the
aforesaid issues:
 Constitutional Law II : Searches & Seizures (Chapter 10)
Xavier University (Ateneo de Cagayan) - College of Law
Farhanna B. Mapandi (Block A)

“SECTION 1. Definition. – Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of

determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime cognizable
by the Regional Trial Court has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and
should be held for trial. …

SEC. 3. Procedure. – Except as provided for in Section 7 hereof, no complaint or information for an offense
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court shall be filed without a preliminary investigation having been first
conducted in the following manner:

(a) The complaint shall state the known address of the respondent and be accompanied by affidavits of
the complainant and his witnesses as well as other supporting documents, in such number of copies as
there are respondents, plus two (2) copies of the official file. The said affidavits shall be sworn to before
any fiscal, state prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or
unavailability, a notary public, who must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is
satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. …

SEC. 9. Cases not falling under the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts not covered by the Rule
on Summary Procedure. –

(a) Where filed with the fiscal. – If the complaint is filed directly with the fiscal or state prosecutor, the
procedure outlined in Section 3 (a) of this Rule shall be observed. The Fiscal shall take appropriate action
based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant.”

-Records show that the prosecutor relied merely on the affidavits submitted by the complainant
and did not require the petitioners to submit their answer. He should not be faulted for doing
such as this is sanctioned by the rules. Moreover, he is not mandated to require the submission
of counter-affidavits. Probable cause may then be determined on the basis alone of the affidavits
and supporting documents of the complainant, without infringing on the constitutional rights of
the petitioners.

-Regarding the issuance of the warrant of arrest, petitioners contend that the warrants were
illegally issued as they were solely based on the affidavits of the complainant. Section 2 of Article
III of the Constitution underscores the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge
to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. But the judge is not required to personally
examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he
shall (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the
prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause, and on the basis thereof, he may already
make a personal determination of the existence of probable cause; and (2) if he is not satisfied
that probable cause exists, he may disregard the prosecutor’s report and require the submission
of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
probable cause. There is no provision or procedural rule which makes the submission of counter-
affidavits mandatory before the judge could determine probable cause.

For issue number 2:

- For the issuance of a warrant of arrest, probable cause has been defined as the existence of
such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to
 Constitutional Law II : Searches & Seizures (Chapter 10)
Xavier University (Ateneo de Cagayan) - College of Law
Farhanna B. Mapandi (Block A)

believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. It is one of the
requisites for a warrant of arrest to be valid.

- On the basis of the above-stated documents (in the facts) and on the strength of the affidavit
executed by the respondent, the prosecutor concluded that probable cause exists. These same
affidavit and documents were used by the trial court in issuing the warrant of arrest.

-The SC finds the complaint-affidavit and attachments insufficient to support the existence of
probable cause. The respondent’s claims of the falsity of the documents were mere assertions.

- It must be emphasized that the affidavit of the complainant, or any of his witnesses, shall allege
facts within their (affiants) personal knowledge. The allegation of the respondent that the
signatures were falsified does not qualify as personal knowledge. Nowhere in said affidavit did
respondent state that he was present at the time of the execution of the documents. Neither did
he claim that he was familiar with the signatures of the signatories. He simply made a bare
assertion

-A finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence, or on evidence
beyond reasonable doubt. It does not require that the evidence would justify conviction.
Nonetheless, although the determination of probable cause requires less than evidence which
would justify conviction, it should at least be more than mere suspicion. While probable cause
should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care
to prevent material damage to a potential accused’s constitutional right to liberty and the
guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary
expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or
groundless charges.