PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EDGAR S. GO.

Ruling

Accordingly, it would be the height of injustice to sustain the People's claim of denial of due process and to dismiss the petition for certiorari for a procedural defect. Courts will not interfere with the executive determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. In First Women's Credit Corporation v. Hon. Perez , [37] the Court declared that the policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations was meant to leave to the investigating prosecutor "ample latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of an information against a supposed offender." [38] The rationale for this policy was enunciated in PCGG Chairman Elma v. Jacobi , [39] viz .: The necessary component of the Executive's power to faithfully execute the laws of the land is the State's self-preserving power to prosecute violators of its penal laws. This responsibility is primarily lodged with the DOJ, as the principal law agency of the government. The prosecutor has the discretionary authority to determine whether facts and circumstances exist meriting reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The question of whether or not to dismiss a criminal complaint is necessarily dependent on the sound discretion of the investigating prosecutor and, ultimately, of the Secretary (or Undersecretary acting for the Secretary) of Justice. Who to charge with what crime or none at all is basically the prosecutor's call. Accordingly, the Court has consistently adopted the policy of non-­interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and to leave the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. Courts cannot order the prosecution of one against whom the prosecutor has not found a prima facie case; as a rule, courts, too, cannot substitute their own judgment for that of the Executive. (Citations omitted) In accordance with the policy of non-interference, courts do not reverse the Secretary of Justice's findings and conclusions on the matter of probable cause except in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion. [40] "[j]udicial review of the resolution of the Secretary of Justice is limited to a determination of whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction considering that full discretionary authority has been delegated to the executive branch in the determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation. Courts are not empowered to substitute their judgment for that of the executive branch; it may, however, look into the question of whether such exercise has been made in grave abuse of discretion." [41] Instructive is the Court's pronouncement in Jacobi , thus: In fact, the prosecutor may err or may even abuse the discretion lodged in him by law.