Issue: Whether or not the RTC acted within its jurisdiction when it dismissed the

case on lack of probable cause

Held: Yes (it acted within its jurisdiction

In a petition for certiorari, the court must confine itself to the issue of whether
or not respondent court lacked or
exceeded its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion.
It is well to remember that there is a distinction between the preliminary inquiry,
which determines probable cause for
the issuance of a warrant of arrest, and the preliminary investigation proper,
which ascertains whether the offender
should be held for trial or be released. The determination of probable cause for
purposes of issuing a warrant of arrest
is made by the judge. The preliminary investigation proper whether or not there
is reasonable ground to believe that
the accused is guilty of the offense charged is the function of the investigating
prosecutor.
Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
SEC 6. When warrant of arrest may issue.
x x x x
(a) By the Regional Trial Court. Within (10) days from the filing of the
complaint or information, the judge shall
personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence.
He may immediately dismiss the case
if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds
probable cause, he shall issue a warrant
of arrest, or a commitment order of the accused had already been arrested, pursuant
to a warrant issued by the judge
who conducted preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was
filed pursuant to Section 7 of this
Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the
prosecutor to present additional
evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the
court within thirty (30) days from the
filing of the complaint or information.
As enunciated in Baltazar v. People, the task of the presiding judge when the
Information is filed with the court is
first and foremost to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause
for the arrest of the accused. Probable
cause is such set of facts and circumstances as 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. The purpose of the mandate of the judge to first
determine probable cause for the arrest of
the accused is to insulate from the very start those falsely charged with crimes
from the tribulations, expenses and
anxiety of a public trial.
Based on the foregoing, the RTC acted within its jurisdiction when it dismissed the
case on lack of probable cause as
the same is sanctioned under Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.