Pemberton, petitioner v.

De Lima, respondents
[G.R. No. 217508. April 18, 2016.]

Topic: Preliminary Investigation

Facts: A complaint for murder was filed by the PNP and Marilou Laude against Pemberton.

October 17, 2014: Pemberton received a subpoena giving him 10 days from receipt to file a
counter-affidavit.

October 21, 2014: Laude filed an Omnibus Motion praying that the City Prosecutor issue a
subpoena to Pemberton to direct him to submit fingerprints and buccal swabs.

October 27, 2014:

-Pemberton opposed this in his Opposition to the Omnibus Motion dated 21 October 2014
-He filed a Manifestation and Omnibus Motion: (1) For Clarification; (2) To Declare Absence of
Probable Cause for Murder or Any Other Crime Against Petitioner; and (3) By Way of Ad
Cautelam Prayer, in the Event that this Honorable Office does not Declare the Absence of
Probable Cause, at the very least, To Reduce the Charge to Homicide Considering the Lack of
Circumstances Qualifying the Offense to Murder.
-Preliminary Investigation: City Prosecutor stated that Pemberton's right to file a counter-affidavit
was deemed waived.

October 29, 2014:

-the City Prosecutor directed the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory to obtain latent
fingerprints and buccal swabs from Pemberton and "to submit . . . the results… three weeks from
collection”

Pemberton led a Manifestation with Omnibus Motion: 1) to Determine Probable Cause on the
Basis of Evidence Submitted as of 27 October 2014; and 2) For Reconsideration of the Order
dated 29 October 2014 dated November 4, 2014.

City prosecutor continued to evaluate the evidence and conducted ocular inspections in
connection with the preliminary investigation.

December 15, 2014:

-A resolution was issued and found that there is probable cause against Pemberton for the Crime
of Murder.

- Information for murder was filed against Pemberton in the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City
and RTC issued a warrant of arrest

December 18, 2014:

-Pemberton filed his Petition for Review before the Department of Justice.

-He led a Motion to Defer the Proceedings before the Regional Trial Court.

January 27, 2015:

-Secretary De Lima denied Pemberton's Petition for Review and stated that based on the
evidence on record, there was "no reason to alter, modify, or reverse the resolution of the City
Prosecutor of Olongapo City."

February 20, 2015:

Pemberton's Motion for Reconsideration was denied for lack of merit in the Resolution.

Pemberton led this Petition for Certiorari with application for the ex- parte issuance of a temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.

a.) Petitioner’s Arguments

Pemberton argues that in sustaining a finding of probable cause, Secretary De Lima (SDL)
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or absence of jurisdiction based on the
following grounds:

(a) SDL took into account additional evidence which the City Prosecutor allegedly had no authority
to receive and which Pemberton had no opportunity to address and rebut, thereby denying him
due process of law;

(b) SDL found probable cause to charge Pemberton with the crime of murder when "the evidence
on record does not support the existence of probable cause to indict [him] . . . with either homicide
or murder[;]" and

(c) SDL found that "the killing was attended with the qualifying circumstances of treachery, abuse
of superior strength [,] and cruelty despite prevailing jurisprudence dictating that the elements of
these qualifying circumstances . . . be established by direct evidence.

b.) Respondent’s Arguments

SDL, through the Office of the Solicitor General, points out that this Petition is procedurally infirm.
By filing this Petition before this court and not theCA, Pemberton violated the principle of hierarchy
of courts. Moreover, the case is moot and academic, considering that the Regional Trial Court
has convicted Pemberton for the crime charged.

Issue:
1. WoN respondent Secretary Leila M. De Lima committed grave abuse of discretion in
sustaining the finding of probable cause against petitioner Joseph Scott Pemberton,
thereby denying petitioner due process of law
2. WoN petitioner violated the principle of hierarchy of courts by filing his Petition before this
Court instead of the CA
3. WoN the case has been tendered moot and academic

Findings of the Lower Court: N/A

Findings of the Court of Appeals: N/A
Ruling:
1. There is no basis to doubt that SDL judiciously scrutinized the evidence on record. Based
on SDL's assessment, there was ample evidence submitted to establish probable cause
that petitioner murdered the victim. The convergence of the circumstances all taken
together leads to the fair and reasonable inference that respondent is probably guilty of
killing Laude with qualifying circumstance.

The following are the evidence submitted that established probable cause:
1st, killing of Laude has been indubitably confirmed.

2nd, testimonies positively identified that Laude was last seen with Pemberton; physical
examination of the on respondent showing abrasions; CCTV footage of them leaving the club;
latent print on the condoms found in the scene.

3rd, physical examination of the respondent and the victim, ocular investigation of the crime scene
which shows the presence of qualifying circumstances.

4th, The charge is murder since it is not under the crime of infanticide and parricide in the RPC.

Petitioner had multiple opportunities to controvert the evidence presented during the preliminary
investigation. Petitioner was also given the opportunity to seek reconsideration of the initial finding
of probable cause. Petitioner was fully accorded due process in the preliminary investigation
proceedings.

2. Yes, the petitioner violated the principle of hierarchy of courts. The possibility of the
conclusion of the trial of the case against petitioner is not a reason that is special and
important enough to successfully invoke SC’s original jurisdiction. Once there has been a
judicial finding of probable cause, an executive determination of probable cause is
irrelevant.
3. this Petition has already been rendered moot and academic by virtue of the judicial finding
of probable cause in the form of the RTC's issuance of an arrest warrant against petitioner.

Rule:

1.
Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than
evidence which would justify a conviction. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on
evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspect. (Chan
v. Secretary of Justice)

Absence of direct evidence does not preclude a finding of probable cause. It has been the
consistent pronouncement of the Supreme Court that, in such cases, the prosecution may resort
to circumstantial evidence.

If direct evidence is insisted upon under all circumstances, the guilt of vicious felons who
committed heinous crimes in secret or in secluded places will be hard, if not impossible, to prove.

Essence of due process is that a party is afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard in support
of his case; what the law abhors and prohibits is the absolute absence of the opportunity to be
heard.

2.

The possibility of the conclusion of the trial of the case against petitioner is not a reason that is
special and important enough to successfully invoke SC’s original jurisdiction. Once there has
been a judicial finding of probable cause, an executive determination of probable cause is
irrelevant. A direct invocation of SC’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed
only when there are special and important reasons clearly and specifically set out in the petition.
 The exceptions are:

a. a direct resort to this court is allowed when there are genuine issues of constitutionality
that must be addressed at the most immediate time.
b. when the issues involved are of transcendental importance. In these cases, the imminence
and clarity of the threat to fundamental constitutional rights outweigh the necessity for
prudence.
c. cases of first impression warrant a direct resort to this court. In cases of first impression,
no jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the lower courts on this matter.
d. constitutional issues raised are better decided by this court.
e. the time element presented in this case cannot be ignored.
f. the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ.
g. petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law that could free them from the injurious effects of respondents' acts
in violation of their right to freedom of expression.
h. the petition includes questions that are "dictated by public welfare and the advancement
of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained
of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an
inappropriate remedy."

The SC is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions
assigned to it by the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition. It cannot and should not be
burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the first instance. Its original jurisdiction to issue
the so-called extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where
serious and important reasons exist therefore. (Vergara v. Suelto)

The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was created by this court to ensure
that every level of the judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective and efficient manner.

3. This Petition has already been rendered moot and academic by virtue of the judicial finding of
probable cause in the form of the RTC’s issuance of an arrest warrant against petitioner.

There are 2 kinds of determination of probable cause: executive and judicial.

1. The executive determination of probable cause is one made during preliminary

investigation. The courts do not interfere with the prosecutor's conduct of a preliminary
investigation. The prosecutor's determination of probable cause is solely within his or her
discretion.
2. The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, is one made by the judge
to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused.

A preliminary investigation is "merely inquisitorial," and is only conducted to aid the prosecutor in
preparing the information. It serves a two-fold purpose: first, to protect the innocent against
wrongful prosecutions; and second, to spare the state from using its funds and resources in
useless prosecutions. . . .

The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of determining whether a
prima facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the ling of
the information in the proper court. Once a complaint or information is led in Court, any disposition
of the case as to its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound
discretion of the Court.