Webb v De Leon (Criminal Procedure)

Webb v De Leon 

GR No. 121234 

August 23, 1995  

FACTS:  

On June 19, 1994, the National Bureau of Investigation filed with the DOJ a letter-complaint charging petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian, Antonio J. Lejano and 6 other persons with the crime of Rape and Homicide of Carmela N. Vizconde, her mother Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde, and her sister Anne Marie Jennifer in their home at Number 80 W. Vinzons, St., BF Homes, Paranaque, Metro Manila on June 30, 1991.  

Forthwith, the DOJ formed a panel of prosecutors headed by Asst Chief State Prosecutor Jovencio R. Zuno to conduct the preliminary investigation.  

Petitioners:  fault the DOJ Panel for its finding of probable cause. They assail the credibility of Jessica Alfaro as inherently weak and uncorroborated due to her inconsistencies between her April 28, 1995 and May 22, 1995 sown statements. They criticize the procedure followed by the DOJ Panel when it did not examine witnesses to clarify the alleged inconsistencies.  

 charge that respondent Judge Raul de Leon and respondent Judge Amelita Tolentino issued warrants of arrest against them without conducting the required preliminary examination.  

 Complain about the denial of their constitutional right to due process and violation of their right to an impartial investigation. They also assail the prejudicial publicity that attended their preliminary investigation.  

ISSUES:  

(1) Did the DOJ Panel gravely abuse its discretion in holding that there is probable cause to charge accused with crime of rape and homicide?  

(2) Did respondent judges de Leon and Tolentino gravely abuse their discretion when they failed to conduct a preliminary examination before issuing warrants of arrest against the accused?  

(3) Did the DOJ Panel deny them their constitutional right to due process during their preliminary investigation?  

(4) Did the DOJ Panel unlawfully intrude into judicial prerogative when it failed to charge Jessica Alfaro in the information as an accused?  

HELD:  

(1) NO. Valid determination -- A probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.  

(2) NO. Valid arrest -- In arrest cases, there must be a probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the person arrested committed it.  

Section 6 of Rule 112 provides that – “upon filing of an information, the RTC may issue a warrant for the accused.”  

Clearly then, our laws repudiate the submission that respondent judges should have conducted “searching examination of witnesses” before issuing warrants of arrest against them.  

(3) NO. There is no merit in this contention because petitioners were given all the opportunities to be heard. 

The DOJ Panel precisely requested the parties to adduce more evidence in their behalf and for the panel to study the evidence submitted more fully.  

(4) NO.  

Petitioner's argument lacks appeal for it lies on the faulty assumption that the decision whom to prosecute is a judicial function, the sole prerogative of courts and beyond executive and legislative interference.  

In truth, the prosecution of crimes appertains to the executive department whose principal power and responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully executed. A necessary component of this right is to prosecute their violators.