IUY6R4E4RF433243501 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
64. BORLONGAN VS. PENA at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Appeals; The general rule is that this Court does not
VOL. 538, NOVEMBER 23, 2007 221 review the factual findings of the trial court, which include the determination of probable
Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest—it is only in exceptional cases when this
G.R. No. 143591. November 23, 2007.* Court may set aside the conclusions of the prosecutor and the trial judge on the
TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, JR., CORAZON M. BEJASA, ARTURO E. MANUEL, existence of probable cause, that is, when it is necessary to prevent the misuse of the
JR., ERIC L. LEE, P. SIERVO H. DIZON, BENJAMIN DE LEON, DELFIN C. strong arm of the law or to protect the orderly administration of justice.—To accord
GONZALEZ, JR., and BEN YU LIM, JR., petitioners, vs. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA respect to the discretion granted to the prosecutor and for reasons of practicality, this
and HON. MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., as Judge Designate of the Municipal Trial Court, as a rule, does not interfere with the prosecutor’s determination of probable
Court in Cities, Bago City, respondents. cause. Otherwise, courts would be swamped with petitions to review the prosecutor’s
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Bail; The principle that the accused is findings in such investigations. In the same way, the general rule is that this Court does
precluded from questioning the legality of his arrest after arraignment is true only if he not review the factual findings of the trial court, which include the determination of
voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial, without previously invoking his probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. It is only in exceptional cases
objections thereto.—The earlier ruling of this Court that posting of bail constitutes a when this Court may set aside the conclusions of the prosecutor and the trial judge on
waiver of the right to question the validity of the arrest has already been superseded the existence of probable cause, that is, when it is necessary to prevent the misuse of
by Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, the the strong arm of the law or to protect the orderly administration of justice. The facts
principle that the accused is precluded from questioning the legality of his arrest after obtaining in the present case warrant the application of the exception.
arraignment is true only if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial, 223
without previously invoking his objections thereto. VOL. 538, NOVEMBER 23, 2007 223
Same; Same; Non-Issuance of Writs; Exceptions; As a general rule, the Court Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña
will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction, preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
criminal prosecution.—As a general rule, the Court will not issue writs of prohibition or The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
injunction, preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain criminal prosecution. However, the Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for De Leon and Gonzalez, Jr.
following exceptions to the rule have been recognized: 1) when the injunction is Poblador, Bauista, Reyes for Lim, Jr., Dizon and Lee.
necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; 2) Fortun, Narvasa and Salazar for Borlongan, Jr., Bejasa and Manuel.
when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or Magdaleno M. Peña for himself.
multiplicity of actions; 3) when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice; 4) NACHURA, J.:
when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; 5) where the For review is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated June 20, 2000 in CA-
prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; 6) when double jeopardy G.R. SP No. 49666 dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Teodoro C.
is clearly apparent; 7) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense; 8) where it Borlongan, Jr., Corazon M. Bejasa, Arturo Manuel, Jr., Benjamin de Leon, P. Siervo
is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; 9) where the charges are Dizon, Delfin C. Gonzalez, Jr., Eric Lee and Ben T. Lim, Jr.
_______________ The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows:
* THIRD DIVISION. Respondent Magdaleno Peña instituted a civil case for recovery of agent’s
222 compensation and expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees,2 against Urban Bank and
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED the petitioners, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Bago City.
Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña The case was raffled to Branch 62 and was dock-eted as Civil Case No. 754.
manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and 10) when there is Respondent anchored his claim for compensation on the contract of agency3 allegedly
clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground entered into
has been denied. _______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner, with Associate Justices Quirino
Same; Same; Same; Probable Cause; What the Constitution underscores is the
exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the D. Abad Santos, Jr. and Andres B. Reyes, Jr., concurring; Rollo, pp. 50-60.
2 Rollo, pp. 61-66.
existence of probable cause—but the judge is not required to personally examine the
3 The contract was allegedly confirmed in a letter addressed to the respondent, the
complainant and his witnesses.—What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive
and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of pertinent portion of which reads:
probable cause. But the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant xxxx
and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall (1) 224
personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the 224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause, and on the basis thereof, he may Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña
already make a personal determination of the existence of probable cause; and (2) if

Page 1 of 7
with the petitioners wherein the former undertook to perform such acts necessary to Wherefore, In view of all the foregoing, undersigned finds probable cause that the crime
prevent any intruder and squatter from unlawfully occupying Urban Bank’s property of Introducing Falsified Documents in evidence under par. 2, Article 172, RPC (4
located along Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City. Petitioners filed a Motion to counts) had been committed and that respondents Teodoro Borlongan, Delfin
Dismiss4 arguing that they never appointed the respondent as agent or counsel. Gonzalez, Jr., Benjamin de Leon, P. Siervo Dizon, Eric Lee, Ben Lim, Jr., Corazon
Attached to the motion were the following documents: 1) a letter 5 dated December 19, Bejasa, and Arturo Manuel are probably guilty.
1994 signed by Herman Ponce and Julie Abad on behalf of Isabela Sugar Company, Let Informations be filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, City of Bago,
Inc. (ISCI), the original owner of the subject property; 2) an unsigned letter 6 dated Philippines.
December 7, 1994 addressed to Corazon Bejasa from Marilyn G. Ong; 3) a letter 7 dated SO RESOLVED. (Id., at pp. 110-114).
13 Rollo, pp. 113-114.
December 9, 1994 addressed to Teodoro Borlongan and signed by Marilyn G. Ong;
and 4) a Memorandum8 dated November 20, 1994 from Enrique Montilla III. Said 226
documents were presented in an attempt to show that the respondent was appointed 226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
as agent by ISCI and not by Urban Bank or by the petitioners. Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña
_______________ sponding Informations14 were filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
This is to confirm the engagement of your services as the authorized representative of Bago City. The cases were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 6683, 6684, 6685, and
Urban Bank, specifically to hold and maintain possession of our above[-]captioned 6686. Thereafter, Judge Primitivo Blanca issued the warrants 15 for the arrest of the
property and to protect the same from former tenants, occupants or any other person petitioners.
who are threatening to return to the said property and/or interfere with your possession On October 1, 1998, petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash, Recall Warrants
of the said property for and in our behalf. of Arrest and/or For Reinvestigation.16 Petitioners insisted that they were denied due
You are likewise authorized to represent Urban Bank in any court action that you process because of the non-observance of the proper procedure on preliminary
may institute to carry out your aforementioned duties, and to prevent any intruder, investigation prescribed in the Rules of Court. Specifically, they claimed that they were
squatter or any other person not otherwise authorized in writing by Urban Bank from not afforded the right to submit their counter-affidavit. They then argued that since no
entering or staying in the premises. (Id., at p. 69). such counter-affidavit and supporting documents were submitted by the petitioners, the
4 Rollo, pp. 72-87.
trial judge merely relied on the complaint-affidavit and attachments of the respondent
5 Id., at p. 96.
in issuing the warrants of arrest, also in contravention of the Rules. Petitioners further
6 Id., at p. 97.
prayed that the information be quashed for lack of probable cause. Lastly, petitioners
7 Id., at p. 98.
posited that the criminal case should have been suspended on the ground that the
8 Id., at p. 99.
issue being threshed out in the civil case is a prejudicial question.
225 In an Order17 dated November 13, 1998, the court denied the omnibus motion
VOL. 538, NOVEMBER 23, 2007 225 primarily on the ground that preliminary investigation was not available in the instant
Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña case—which fell within the jurisdiction of the MTCC. The court, likewise, upheld the
In view of the introduction of the above-mentioned documents, respondent Peña filed validity of the warrant of arrest, saying that it was
his Complaint-Affidavit9with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Bago City.10 He claimed _______________
14 Id., at pp. 115-122.
that said documents were falsified because the alleged signatories did not actually affix
15 Id., at pp. 123-126.
their signatures, and the signatories were neither stockholders nor officers and
16 Id., at pp. 127-142.
employees of ISCI.11 Worse, petitioners introduced said documents as evidence before
17 The dispositive portion reads:
the RTC knowing that they were falsified.
In a Resolution12 dated September 23, 1998, the City Prosecutor concluded that WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Omnibus Motion to Quash, Recall Warrants
the petitioners were probably guilty of four (4) counts of the crime of Introducing of Arrest and/or For reinvestigation is hereby denied.
Falsified Documents penalized by the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Set arraignment of the accused on December 1, 1998 at 8:30 o’clock in the
Penal Code (RPC). The City Prosecutor concluded that the documents were falsified morning.
because the alleged signatories untruthfully stated that ISCI was the principal of the SO ORDERED. (Id., at pp. 143-150).
respondent; that petitioners knew that the documents were falsified considering that 227
the signatories were mere dummies; and that the documents formed part of the record VOL. 538, NOVEMBER 23, 2007 227
of Civil Case No. 754where they were used by petitioners as evidence in support of Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña
their motion to dismiss, adopted in their answer and later, in their Pre-Trial issued in accordance with the Rules. Besides, the court added, petitioners could no
Brief.13 Subsequently, the corre- longer question the validity of the warrant since they already posted bail. The court also
_______________ believed that the issue involved in the civil case was not a prejudicial question, and
9 Id., at pp. 106-109.
thus, denied the prayer for suspension of the criminal proceedings. Lastly, the court
10 The case was docketed as I.S. Case No. 9248.
was convinced that the Informations contained all the facts necessary to constitute an
11 Rollo, p. 108.
offense.
12 The dispositive portion of which reads:

Page 2 of 7
 Petitioners subsequently instituted a special civil action for Certiorari and Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña
Prohibition with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and TRO, before the CA It appears that upon the issuance of the warrant of arrest, petitioners immediately
ascribing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the posted bail as they wanted to avoid embarrassment being then the officers of Urban
part of the MTCC in issuing and not recalling the warrants of arrest, reiterating the Bank. On the scheduled date for the arraignment, despite the petitioners’ refusal to
arguments in their omnibus motion.18 They, likewise, questioned the court’s conclusion enter a plea, the court entered a plea of “Not Guilty.”
that by posting bail, petitioners already waived their right to assail the validity of the The earlier ruling of this Court that posting of bail constitutes a waiver of the right
warrant of arrest. to question the validity of the arrest has already been superseded by Section 26,22Rule
On June 20, 2000, the CA dismissed the petition. 19Hence, the instant petition for 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, the principle that the
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners now raise before accused is precluded from questioning the legality of his arrest after arraignment is true
us the follow-ing issues: only if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial, without previously
A. invoking his objections thereto.23
Where the offense charged in a criminal complaint is not cognizable by the Regional Records reveal that petitioners filed the omnibus motion to quash the information
Trial Court and not covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, is the finding of and warrant of arrest, and for reinvestigation, on the same day that they posted bail.
probable cause required for the filing of an Information in court? Their bail bonds likewise expressly contained a stipulation that they were not waiving
If the allegations in the complaint-affidavit do not establish probable cause, should their right to question the validity of their arrest.24 On the date of the arraignment, the
not the investigating prosecutor dismiss the complaint, or at the very least, require the petitioners refused to enter their plea, obviously because the issue of the legality of the
respondent to submit his counter-affidavit? information and their arrest was yet to be settled by the Court. This notwithstanding,
_______________ the court entered a plea of “Not Guilty.” From these circumstances, we cannot
18 Rollo, pp. 151-186.
_______________
19 Supra note 1. 22 Sec. 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular

228 preliminary investigation.—An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued
Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña therefor, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary
B. investigation of the charge against him, provided that he raises them before entering
Can a complaint-affidavit containing matters which are not within the personal his plea. The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than the
knowledge of the complainant be sufficient basis for the finding of probable cause? start of the trial of the case.
23 People v. Vallejo, 461 Phil. 672, 686; 416 SCRA 193, 202-203 (2003); People v.
C.
Where the offense charged in a criminal complaint is not cognizable by the Palijon, 397 Phil. 545, 556; 343 SCRA 486, 496 (2000); Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
Regional Trial Court and not covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, and the No. 101837, February 11, 1992, 206 SCRA 138, 154.
24 CA Rollo, pp. 902-903.
record of the preliminary investigation does not show the existence of probable cause,
should not the judge refuse to issue a warrant of arrest and dismiss the criminal case, 230
or at the very least, require the accused to submit his counter-affidavit in order to aid 230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the judge in determining the existence of probable cause? Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña
D. reasonably infer a valid waiver on the part of the petitioners, as to preclude them from
Can a criminal prosecution be restrained? raising the issue of the validity of the arrest before the CA and eventually before this
E. Court.
Can this Honorable Court itself determine the existence of probable cause? 20 In their petition filed before this Court, petitioners prayed for a TRO to restrain the
On August 2, 2000, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)21 enjoining MTCC from proceeding with the criminal cases (which the Court eventually issued on
the judge of the MTCC from proceeding in any manner with Criminal Cases Nos. 6683 August 2, 2000). Thus, we confront the question of whether a criminal prosecution can
to 6686, effective during the entire period that the case is pending before, or until further be restrained, to which we answer in the affirmative.
orders of, this Court. As a general rule, the Court will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction,
With the MTCC proceedings suspended, we now proceed to resolve the issues preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain criminal prosecution. However, the following
raised. exceptions to the rule have been recognized: 1) when the injunction is necessary to
Respondents contend that the foregoing issues had become moot and academic afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; 2) when it is
when the petitioners posted bail and were arraigned. necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity
We do not agree. of actions; 3) when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice; 4) when the acts
_______________ of the officer are without or in excess of authority; 5) where the prosecution is under an
20 Rollo, pp. 13-14.
invalid law, ordinance or regulation; 6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent; 7)
21 Id., at pp. 518-522.
where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense; 8) where it is a case of persecution
229 rather than prosecution; 9) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by
VOL. 538, NOVEMBER 23, 2007 229

Page 3 of 7
the lust for vengeance; and 10) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the SEC. 3. Procedure.—Except as provided for in Section 7 hereof, no complaint or
accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied. 25 information for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court shall be filed without
Considering that the issues for resolution involve the validity of the information and a preliminary investigation having been first conducted in the following manner:
warrant of arrest, and considering further that no waiver of rights may be attributed to (a) The complaint shall state the known address of the respondent and be accompanied
the petitioners as earlier discussed, we issued a TRO on August 2, 2000 to give the by affidavits of the complain-ant and his witnesses as well as other supporting
Court the opportunity to resolve the case before the criminal prosecution is allowed to documents, in such number of copies as there are respondents, plus two (2) copies of
continue. The 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
25 Andres v. Cuevas, G.R. No. 150869, June 9, 2005, 460 SCRA 38, 51-
unavailability, a notary public, who must certify that he personally exam-
52; Samson v. Secretary Guingona, Jr., 401 Phil. 167, 172; 348 SCRA 32, 36 (2000). _______________
31 As amended, per Supreme Court Resolutions dated June 17, 1988 and July 7,
231
VOL. 538, NOVEMBER 23, 2007 231 1988. The Rules were further revised and approved on October 3, 2000, which took
Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña effect on December 1, 2000.
32 RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 112, Sec. 1 reads:
nature of the crime and the penalty involved (which is less than 4 years of
imprisonment), likewise, necessitate the suspension of the case below in order to SECTION 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required.—Preliminary
prevent the controversy from being mooted. investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground
We now proceed with the main issues, viz.: 1) whether petitioners were deprived to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent
of their right to due process of law because of the denial of their right to preliminary is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
investigation and to submit their counter-affidavit; 2) whether the Informations charging Except as provided in section 7 of this Rule, a preliminary investigation is required
the petitioners were validly filed and the warrants for their arrest were properly issued; to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the
and 3) whether this Court can, itself, determine probable cause. penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day
As will be discussed below, the petitioners could not validly claim the right to without regard to the fine.
preliminary investigation. Still, petitioners insist that they were denied due process 233
because they were not afforded the right to submit counter-affidavits which would have VOL. 538, NOVEMBER 23, 2007 233
aided the court in determining the existence of probable cause. 26 Petitioners also claim Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña
that the respondent’s complaint-affidavit was not based on the latter’s personal ined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood
knowledge; hence, it should not have been used by the court as basis in its finding of their affidavits.33
probable cause.27Moreover, petitioners aver that there was no sufficient evidence to SEC. 9. Cases not falling under the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts not
prove the elements of the crime. Specifically, it was not established that the documents covered by the Rule on Summary Pro-cedure.—
in question were falsified; that petitioners were the ones who presented the documents (a) Where filed with the fiscal.—If the complaint is filed directly with the fiscal or
as evidence; and that petitioners knew that the documents were indeed state prosecutor, the procedure outlined in Section 3 (a) of this Rule shall be observed.
falsified.28 Petitioners likewise assert that at the time of the filing of the complaint- The Fiscal shall take appropriate action based on the affidavits and other supporting
affidavit, they had not yet formally offered the documents as evidence; hence, they documents submitted by the complainant.”34
could not have “intro-duced” the same in court.29 Considering the foregoing, petitioners _______________
pray that this Court, itself, determine whether or not probable cause exists.30 33 Section 3(a) of the New Rules states:

_______________ SECTION 3. Procedure.—The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the

26 Rollo, p. 651.
following manner:
27 Id., at p. 696.
(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be
28 Id., at pp. 700-702.
accompanied by the affidavits of the com-plainant and his witnesses, as well as other
29
Id., at p. 714. supporting documents to establish probable cause. They shall be in such number of
30 Id., at p. 725.
copies as there are respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file. The affidavits
232 shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary
Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña public, each of whom must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he
The pertinent provisions of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Pro-cedure,31 namely, Sections is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.
34 Rule 112, Sec. 9 is presently worded as follows:
1, 3 (a) and 9(a) of Rule 112, are relevant to the resolution of the aforesaid issues:
“SECTION 1. Definition.—Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding for the Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation nor covered by the Rule on Summary
purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded Procedure.—
belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been committed and that (a) If filed with the prosecutor.—If the complaint is filed directly with the prosecutor
the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. 32 involving an offense punishable by imprisonment of less than four (4) years, two (2)
months and one (1) day, the procedure outlined in section 3(a) of this Rule shall be

Page 4 of 7
observed. The prosecutor shall act on the complaint based on the affidavits and other established doctrine and procedure, he shall (1) personally evaluate the report and the
supporting documents submitted by the complainant within ten (10) days from its filing. supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable
234 cause, and on the basis thereof, he may already make a personal determination of the
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED existence of probable cause; and (2) if he is not satisfied that probable cause exists,
Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña he may disregard the prosecutor’s report and require the submission of supporting
Petitioners were charged with the offense defined and penalized by the second affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
paragraph of Article 17235 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty imposable is arresto probable cause.37
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or four (4) In determining probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest in the case
months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months. Clearly, the case is at bench, we find nothing wrong with the procedure adopted by the trial judge—he
cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court and preliminary investigation is not relied on the resolution of the prosecutor, as well as the supporting
mandatory.36 _______________
37 AAA v. Carbonell, G.R. No. 171465, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 496; Ho v.
Records show that the prosecutor relied merely on the com-plaint-affidavit of the
respondent and did not require the petitioners to submit their counter-affidavits. The People, 345 Phil. 597, 605-606; 280 SCRA 365, 374-375 (1997); Soliven v. Makasiar,
prosecutor should not be faulted for taking this course of action, because it is No. L-82585, November 14, 1988, 167 SCRA 393, 398.
sanctioned by the Rules. To reiterate, upon the filing of the complaint and affidavit with 236
respect to cases cognizable by the MTCC, the prosecutor shall take the appropriate 236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
action based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña
complainant. It means that the prosecutor may either dismiss the complaint if he does documents submitted by the respondent. There is no provision of law or procedural rule
not see sufficient reason to proceed with the case, or file the information if he finds which makes the submission of counter-affidavits mandatory before the judge can
probable cause. The prosecutor is not mandated to require the submission of counter- determine whether or not there exists probable cause to issue the warrant.
affidavits. Probable cause may then be determined on the basis alone of the affidavits In light of the foregoing, it appears that the proper procedure was followed by the
and supporting documents of the complainant, without infringing on the constitutional prosecutor in determining probable cause for the filing of the informations, and by the
rights of the petitioners. trial court judge in determining probable cause for the issuance of the warrants of arrest.
_______________ To reiterate, preliminary investigation was not mandatory, and the submission of
35 Article 172. counter-affidavit was not necessary.
xxxx However, notwithstanding the proper observance of the procedure laid down by the
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or Rules, a closer scrutiny of the records reveals that the Informations should not have
to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any been filed and the warrants of arrest should not have been issued, because of lack of
of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article or in any of the foregoing probable cause.
subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree. Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as
36
Villanueva v. Judge Almazan, 384 Phil. 776, 784; 328 SCRA 230, 236 such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
(2000); Del Rosario, Jr. v. Judge Bartolome, 337 Phil. 330, 333; 270 SCRA 645, 649 committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.38It is the existence of such
(1997). facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the
235 facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the
VOL. 538, NOVEMBER 23, 2007 235 crime for which he is to be prosecuted.39 A finding of probable cause needs only to rest
Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that
On the other hand, for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge must personally it was committed by the accused.40
determine the existence of probable cause. Again, the petitioners insist that the trial On the other hand, we have defined probable cause for the issuance of a warrant
judge erred in issuing the warrant of arrest without affording them their right to submit of arrest as the existence of such facts
their counter-affidavits. _______________
38 Sarigumba v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 154239-41, February 16, 2005, 451
Section 2, Article III of the Constitution provides:
“SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and SCRA 533, 550.
39 Ladlad v. Velasco, G.R. Nos. 172070-72, June 1, 2007, 523 SCRA 318.
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
40 Sarigumba v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 38.
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after 237
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may VOL. 538, NOVEMBER 23, 2007 237
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña
to be seized.” and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. 41
issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. But the judge is not To accord respect to the discretion granted to the prosecutor and for reasons of
required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following practicality, this Court, as a rule, does not interfere with the prosecutor’s determination

Page 5 of 7
 48
of probable cause. Otherwise, courts would be swamped with petitions to review the Id., at pp. 108-109.
prosecutor’s findings in such investigations.42 In the same way, the general rule is that 49 Id., at p. 109.
this Court does not review the factual findings of the trial court, which include the 239
determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.43 It is only in VOL. 538, NOVEMBER 23, 2007 239
exceptional cases when this Court may set aside the conclusions of the prosecutor and Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña
the trial judge on the existence of probable cause, that is, when it is necessary to (affiants) personal knowledge. The allegation of the respondent that the signatures of
prevent the misuse of the strong arm of the law or to protect the orderly administration Ponce, Abad, Ong and Montilla were falsified does not qualify as personal
of justice.44 The facts obtaining in the present case warrant the application of the knowledge. Nowhere in said affidavit did respondent state that he was present at the
exception. time of the execution of the documents. Neither did he claim that he was familiar with
Petitioners were charged with violation of par. 2, Article 172 of the RPC or the signatures of the signatories. He simply made a bare assertion that the signatories
Introduction of Falsified Document in a Judicial Proceeding. The elements of the were mere dummies of ISCI and they were not in fact officers, stockholders or
offense are as follows: representatives of the corporation. At the very least, the affidavit was based on
1. 1.That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person. respondent’s “personal belief” and not “personal knowledge.”50 Considering the lack of
2. 2.That the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any subdivisions personal knowledge on the part of the respondent, he could have submitted the affidavit
No. 1 or 2 of Article 172. of other persons who are qualified to attest to the falsity of the signatures appearing in
3. 3.That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding. 45 the questioned documents. One cannot just claim that a certain document is falsified
_______________ without further stating the basis for such claim, i.e., that he was present at the time of
41 Id.; Cuevas v. Muñoz, 401 Phil. 752, 773; 348 SCRA 542, 561 (2000); Ho v.
the execution of the document or he is familiar with the signatures in question.
People, supra note 37, at p. 608. Otherwise, this could lead to abuse and malicious prosecution. This is actually the
42 Ladlad v. Velasco, supra note 39.
reason for the requirement that affidavits must be based on the personal knowledge of
43 De Joya v. Marquez, G.R. No. 162416, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 376, 381.
the affiant. The requirement assumes added importance in the instant case where the
44 Id.; Ladlad v. Velasco, supra note 39.
accused were not made to rebut the complainant’s allegation through counter-
45 Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 1998 ed., p. 246.
affidavits.
238 Neither can the respondent find support in the documents attached to his
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED complaint-affidavit. The minutes of the regular meeting, as well as the list of
Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña stockholders, could have possibly shown that the signatories were not officers or
The falsity of the document and the defendant’s knowledge of its falsity are essential stockholders of the corporation. However, they did not at all show
elements of the offense.46 _______________
50 See Nala v. Judge Barroso, Jr., 455 Phil. 999, 1011; 408 SCRA 529, 538 (2003)
The Office of the City Prosecutor filed the Informations against the petitioners on
the basis of the complaint-affidavit of the respondent, together with the following in which the Court held that the affidavit and testimony of the witnesses that the
attached documents: the motion to dismiss and answer filed by the petitioners in Civil petitioner had no license to possess a firearm do not qualify as “personal knowledge”
Case No. 754; petitioners’ pre-trial brief in said case; the alleged falsified documents; but only “personal belief” because they did not verify nor secure a certification from an
a copy of the minutes of the regular meeting of ISC during the election of the board; appropriate government agency that petitioner was not licensed to possess a firearm.
and the list of stockholders of ISC.47 On the basis of these documents and on the 240
strength of the affidavit executed by the respondent, the prosecutor concluded that 240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
probable cause exists. These same affidavit and documents were used by the trial court Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña
in issuing the warrant of arrest. that the questioned documents were falsified. In the letter allegedly signed by Ponce
Contrary to the findings of the MTCC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, we find and Abad, there was no representation that they were the president and corporate
the complaint-affidavit and attachments insufficient to support the existence of probable secretary of ISCI. Besides, the mere fact that they were not officers or stockholders of
cause. Specifically, the respondent failed to sufficiently establish prima facie that the ISCI does not necessarily mean that their signatures were falsified. They still could
alleged documents were falsified. In support of his claim of falsity of the documents, have affixed their signatures as authorized representatives of the corporation.
the private respondent stated in his complaint-affidavit that Herman Ponce, Julie Abad True, a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing
and Marilyn Ong, the alleged signatories of the questioned letters, did not actually affix evidence, or on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It does not require that the
their signatures; and that they were not actually officers or stockholders of ISCI. 48 He evidence would justify conviction. Nonetheless, although the determination of probable
further claimed that Enrique Montilla’s signature appearing in another memorandum cause requires less than evidence which would justify conviction, it should at least be
addressed to respondent was forged.49 These are mere assertions, insufficient to more than mere suspicion.51 While probable cause should be determined in a summary
warrant the filing of the complaint or the issuance of the warrant of arrest. manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage
It must be emphasized that the affidavit of the complain-ant, or any of his witnesses, to a potential accused’s constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom
shall allege facts within their 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
46 Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. II, 1987 ed., p. 270.
groundless charges.52 It is, therefore, imperative for the prosecutor to relieve the
47 Rollo, pp. 110-114.

Page 6 of 7
accused from the pain and inconvenience of going through a trial once it is ascertained
that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.53
_______________
51 See AAA v. Carbonell, G.R. No. 171465, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 496; and Hon.

Drilon v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 916, 922; 258 SCRA 280, 285-286 (1996), where
the Court found that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
prosecutor in finding probable as the evidence, taken altogether constitute probable
cause.
52 Ching v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 164317, February 6, 2006, 481 SCRA

609, 629-630; Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163593,
December 16, 2005, 478 SCRA 387, 410.
53 R.R. Paredes v. Calilung, G.R. No. 156055, March 5, 2007, 517 SCRA 369, 395.

241
VOL. 538, NOVEMBER 23, 2007 241
Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña
Considering that the respondent failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support his
claim that the documents were falsified, it follows that the introduction of the questioned
documents in Civil Case No. 754 is not an offense punished by any provision of the
Revised Penal Code or any other law. The petitioners should not be burdened with
court proceedings, more particularly a criminal proceeding, if in the first place, there is
no evidence sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that an offense was committed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals,
dated June 20, 2000, in CA-G.R. SP No. 49666 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Temporary Restraining Order dated August 2, 2000 is hereby made permanent.
Accordingly, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, City of Bago, is ORDERED to DISMISS
Criminal Case Nos. 6683-86.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario and Reyes,
JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment reversed and set aside.
Note.—Probable cause is defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances
as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the fact within the knowledge
of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty for the crime which he was
prosecuted. (Acuna vs. Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, 450 SCRA 232 [2006])
——o0o——
242
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 7 of 7