LIZA L. MAZA vs. HON. EVELYN A. TURLA

Summary: Upon filing of an information in court, trial court judges must determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause based on their personal evaluation of the prosecutor's report and its supporting documents. They may dismiss the case, issue an arrest warrant, or require the submission of additional evidence. However, they cannot remand the case for another conduct of preliminary investigation on the ground that the earlier preliminary investigation was improperly conducted.

FACTS: Police Senior Inspector Arnold M. Palomo Deputy Provincial Chief of the Nueva Ecija Criminal Investigation and Detection Team, referred to the Provincial Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, three (3) cases of murder against petitioners and 15 other persons. Inspector Palomo named 19 individuals, including Petitioners, who were allegedly responsible for the death of Carlito Bayudang, Jimmy Peralta, and Danilo Felipe. That the named individuals conspired, planned, and implemented the killing of the supporters of AKBAYAN Party List. Carlito Bayudang and Danilo Felipe were AKBAYAN community organizers, whereas Jimmy Peralta was mistaken for a certain Ricardo Peralta, an AKBAYAN supporter. On July 18, 2008, Presiding Judge Evelyn A. Atienza-Turla issued an Order37 on the Palayan cases. Judge Turla held that the proper procedure in the conduct of the preliminary investigation was not followed in the Palayan cases and remanded the case back to the prosecutor’s office for another preliminary investigation. 

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court judge erred in returning the case to the prosecutor in order to conduct a complete preliminary investigation. 

HELD: Yes, the trial court judge erred in returning the case to the prosecutor. 

SEC. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue. – (a) By the Regional Trial Court. -Within ten (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 when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 6 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.

A plain reading of the provision shows that upon filing of the information, the trial court judge has the following options: (1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause; (2) issue a warrant of arrest or a commitment order if findings show probable cause; or (3) order the prosecutor to present additional evidence if there is doubt on the existence of probable cause. Upon filing of an information in court, trial court judges must determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause based on their personal evaluation of the prosecutor's report and its supporting documents. They may dismiss the case, issue an arrest warrant, or require the submission of additional evidence. However, they cannot remand the case for another conduct of preliminary investigation on the ground that the earlier preliminary investigation was improperly conducted. Hence, the trial court judge erred in remanding the case back to the prosecutor’s office for another preliminary investigation.