METROPOLITAN BANK V. TOBIAS 664 S 165 (2012) BERSAMIN, J.
FACTS: ACTS: The Ofce o the City Prosecutor Prosecutor o Malabon charged Tobias with estaa through alsication o public documents in relation to his loan with petiti petitione onerr Metro Metroban bank. k. He led led a motion motion or rein rein!es !estig tigati ation on but the City City Pros Prosec ecut utor or o Mala Malabo bon n stil stilll oun ound d prob probab able le caus cause e agai agains nstt him" him" and and recommen recommended ded his being being charged. charged. Tobias obias appealed appealed to the #epartmen #epartmentt o $ustice %#O$& which issued a resolution resolution directing directing the withdrawal o the inormation led against Tobias. M'T(O)*+, mo!ed to reconsider but the same was denied. M'T(O)*+, challenged the ad!erse resolutions through certiorari with the C* which dismissed the same. The C* stressed that the deter determin minati ation on o proba probable ble cause cause was was an e-ecu e-ecuti! ti!e e uncti unction on within within the discretion discretion o the public prosecutor and" ultimately" o the ecretary o $ustice" and the courts o law could not interere with such determination/ that the pri!ate complainant in a criminal action was only concerned with its ci!il aspect aspect// that that should should the tate tate choos choose e not to le the crimin criminal al actio action" n" the the pri!ate complainant might initiate a ci!il action based on *rticle 01 o the Ci!il Code. 2n the e!entuality that the ecretary o $ustice reuses to le the criminal complaint" the complainant" whose only interest is the ci!il aspect o the case and not the criminal aspect thereo" is not let without a remedy. ISSUE: 3hether or not C* has decided a 4uestion o substance not in accord with law. RULING: +O. U!"# $%" !&'$#" & *"+#$& & +&-"#*, $%" '&#$* %/" & #%$ $& !#"'$ !"'!" 3$$"#* &/"# -%'% !*'#"$&# $%&#$ %* "" !""$"! $& $%" E"'$/" B#'% & $%" G&/"#3"$, &# $& **$$$ **$$$" " $%"# $%"# &- !3"$* !3"$* &# $%$ & $%" E"'$/" E"'$/" B#'%, #"+#"*"$"! $%* '*" $%" 7"+#$3"$ & J*$'". T%" *"$$"! +& +&' ' * $%$ $%$ $%" $%" '&# '&#$* $* - - &$ &$ $" $"# #"# "#" " -$% -$% $%" $%" " ""' "'$ $/ /" " !"$" !"$"#3 #3 $ $& & & +#& +#& " " '* '*" " &# &# $%" $%" +#+ +#+&* &*" " & 8 $&, $%" *"'" & #/" *" & !*'#"$&. That abuse o discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an e!asion o a positi!e duty or a !irtual reusal to perorm a duty en5oined by law or to act at all in contem contempla platio tion n o law" law" such such as wher where e the the power power is e-er e-ercis cised ed in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason o passion or hostility. 6or instance" in )alanganan !. !. Court o *ppeals" pecial +ineteenth #i!ision" Cebu City" the Court ruled that the ecretary o $ustice e-ceeded his 5urisdiction when he re4uired 7hard acts and solid e!idence7 in order to hold the deendant liable or criminal prosecution when such re4uirement should ha!e been let to the court ater the conduct o a trial. C(2MP(O8 2n this regard" we stress that a preliminary in!estigation or the purpose o determining the e-istence o probable cause is not part o a trial. *t a preliminary in!estigation" the in!estigating prosecutor or the ecretary o $ust $ustic ice e only only dete determ rmin ines es whet whethe herr the the act act or omis omissi sion on comp compla lain ined ed o cons consti titu tute tes s the the o9en o9ense se char charge ged. d. Prob Probab able le caus cause e reer eers s to act acts s and and circumstances that engender a wellounded belie that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereo. There is no deniti!e standard by which probable cause is determined e-cept to consider the attendant conditions/ the e-istence o probable cause depends upon the nding o the public prosecutor conducting the e-amination" who is called upon not to disregard the acts presented" and to ensure that his nding should not run counter to the clear dictates o reason.
* preliminary in!estigation is designed to secure the respondent in!ol!ed against hasty" malicious and oppressi!e prosecution. * preliminary in!estigation is an in4uiry to determine whether %a& a crime has been committed" and %b& whether there is probable cause to belie!e that the accused is guilty thereo %#e Ocampo !s. ecretary o $ustice" :;< C(* => ?@<
< ?@<<1B&. Prescindingly" under ection 0 o (ule >>@ o the (ules o Criminal Procedure" the respondent must be inormed o the accusation against him and shall ha!e the right to e-amine the e!idence against him and submit his counterafda!it to dispro!e criminal liability. )y ar" respondent in a criminal preliminary in!estigation is legally entitled to e-plain his side o the accusation.
