369. Santos v.

Orda
G.R. No. 189402 May 6, 2010

Case digest by Gennard Michael Angelo A. Angeles

FACTS

In G.R. no 158236, SC affirmed the CA decision on September 1, 2004. Unsatisfied, petitioner Santos
filed a motion for reconsideration

Pending resolution of her motion, Santos filed an urgent petition for bail. In opposition to the motion, the
prosecutor presented two witnesses, Frias and Agnote. Frias testified that on the day of the incident, he
heard gunshots and saw 3 armed men run towards the parked van where Santos was. On the other hand,
Agnote alleged that Santos approached him to contract a hired killer who would be willing to assassinate
respondent Orda. Based on the testimonies of the two, RTC denied the petition for bail. RTC later
dismissed the case for murder holding that there was no probable cause in this case. As such, it lifted the
arrest warrants and ordered the immediate release of the accused. Thereafter, respondent Orda filed a
petition for certiorari before the CA, claiming that RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion in finding
that no probable cause existed against the accused. CA granted the petition citing that RTC failed to
appreciate the evidence presented by the prosecution. In particular, Frias positively identified the accused
and related in detail their supposed participation in the killing Orda’s son. Thus, CA found it necessary
that a full blown trial be conducted to unearth the truth behind their testimonies

ISSUE/S
Whether or not CA erred in finding that there was probable cause against petitioners

RULING
No. When an information is filed, the task for the court is to first determine whether a probable cause
exists for the arrest of the accused.

Probable cause is such set of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the Information or any offense included therein
has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. In determining probable cause, the
average man weighs the 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. A finding of
probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been
committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than
suspicion; it requires less than evidence that would justify conviction.

Moreover, when confronted with a motion to withdraw an Information on the ground of lack of
probable cause based on a resolution of the DOJ Secretary, the bounden duty of the trial court is to
make an independent assessment of the merits of such motion. Having acquired jurisdiction over the
case, the trial court is not bound by such resolution, but is required to evaluate it before proceeding
further with the trial and should embody such assessment in the order disposing the motion.

Records show that the RTC, on motion of the prosecution, allowed the withdrawal of the
Informations for murder, holding that the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies were not credible.
Pursuant to the SC’s decision in G.R. No. 158236, RTC reviewed again the records of the case and
made an independent evaluation of the evidence presented to ascertain the existence or non-
existence of probable cause to indict the petitioners. After such evaluation, the court, on September
30, 2005, dismissed the case for murder against the accused, including petitioners herein,
ratiocinating that no probable cause existed to indict them for their crime.

RTC allowed the withdrawal of the Information and consequently dismissed the case against
petitioners on the following grounds:

1. The incredibility of the earlier statements of Gina, Ernesto and Dennis because of their
subsequent recantation

2. The improbability of Ernesto and Dennis’ testimony in view of the counter-evidence

presented by Santos

3. Lack or insufficiency of evidence at the level of prosecution for determining probable cause

4. The incredibility of the testimonies of Frias and Agnote because of the absence of
corroborating evidence

Based on these, RTC did not err in finding that no probable cause existed to indict the petitioners for
the crime of murder. Neither did it gravely abuse its discretion in making said conclusion. There was
no hint of whimsicality, nor of gross and patent abuse of discretion as would 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 on the part of the Presiding Judge. On the contrary, he came to the conclusion that there was
no probable cause for petitioners to commit murder, by applying basic precepts of criminal law to the
facts, allegations and evidence on record.