By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III
The police investigating the recent killing of a woman are understandably reticent to the media about the case build-up against the suspects.
There was a suggestion that the police can already file the case before the prosecutor’s office using evidence which was gathered so far as they can just be supplanted with additional evidence later.
This could be a dangerous proposition.
True, as held by the Supreme Court, that “A preliminary investigation is only for the determination of probable cause”. Probable cause is “the existence of such facts and circumstances as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person charged is guilty of the crime subject of the investigation. Being based merely on opinion and reasonable belief, it does not import absolute certainty. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, as the investigating officer acts upon reasonable belief. Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a conviction.
x x x x
“A finding of 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. As well put in Brinegar v. United States, while probable cause demands more than “bare suspicion,” it requires “less than evidence which would justify … conviction.” A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial and is not a pronouncement of guilt. (Jose T. Villarosa et al v. The Honorable Ombudsman, G.R. No. 221418, January 23, 2019)
However, decisional law also teaches that “A preliminary investigation is held before an accused is placed on trial to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution; to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime, as well as from the trouble, expenses, and anxiety of a public trial. It is also intended to protect the state from having to conduct useless and expensive trials”. In Cabahug v. People, the Court even directly addressed agencies tasked with preliminary investigation and prosecution of crimes, which includes the Office of the Ombudsman, reminding them as follows: We cannot overemphasize the admonition to agencies tasked with the preliminary investigation and prosecution of crimes that the very purpose of a preliminary investigation is to shield the innocent from precipitate, spiteful and burdensome prosecution. They are duty-bound to avoid, unless absolutely necessary, open and public accusation of crime not only to spare the innocent the trouble, expense and torment of a public trial, but also to prevent unnecessary expense on the part of the State for useless and expensive trials. Thus, when at the outset the evidence cannot sustain a prima facie case or that the existence of probable cause to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused cannot be ascertained, the prosecution must desist from inflicting on any person the trauma of going through a trial.”
“Clearly, the right to preliminary investigation is a component of the right of the respondent/accused to substantive due process. A complainant cannot insist that a preliminary investigation be held when the complaint was dismissed outright because of palpable lack of merit. It goes against the very nature and purpose of preliminary investigation to still drag the respondent/accused through the rigors of such an investigation so as to aid the complainant in substantiating an accusation/charge that is evidently baseless from the very beginning”. (RODOLFO M. AGDEPPA v. HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ACTING THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY, MARYDEL B. JARLOS-MARTIN, EMMANUEL M. LAUREZO and ILUMINADO L. JUNIA, JR., G.R. No. 146376, April 23, 2014).
Not only that, but according to Robert Greene in his best-selling book “The 48 Laws of Power”, one “must plan all the way to the end”. Blithely filing charges against a suspect with incomplete evidence therefore is a precipitous route which could backfire.
In People of the Philippines v. Jaynard Agustin y Paraggua, G.R. No. 247718. March 3, 2021, the Supreme Court championed the constitutional guarantee of presumption of innocence, thus: “Our Constitution and our laws dearly value individual life and liberty and require no less than moral certainty or proof beyond reasonable doubt to offset the presumption of innocence. Courts are tasked to determine whether the prosecution has submitted sufficient legally admissible evidence showing beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed, and that the accused committed it. In the case at bench, the prosecution has failed to present adequate proof demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Agustin was the culprit who raped and killed the victim AAA. The unpardonable assault on the 12-year old girl is tragic; and the RTC, even the CA, may have been swayed by the tide of human indignation. We must, however, uphold the primacy of the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused when the evidence at hand falls short of the required quantum of proof necessary to support a conviction.”
Indeed, justice delayed is justice denied. Yet when hurried, justice could be miscarried.
The evidence to support a charge must be complete from start to finish. That way, it is greater than the sum of its parts.
(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates- a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).
