Title
Callo-Claridad vs. Esteban
Case
G.R. No. 191567
Decision Date
Mar 20, 2013
Chase Claridad found dead in Quezon City; last seen with Philip Esteban. Insufficient evidence led to dismissal of murder charges; Supreme Court upheld decision, citing lack of probable cause.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191567)

Procedural History

• February 27, 2007 – Victim’s body discovered.
• December 18, 2007 – Quezon City Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) dismisses murder complaint for lack of evidence.
• May 21, 2009 – Secretary of Justice (SJ) denies reconsideration, affirms dismissal.
• November 20, 2009 – Court of Appeals (CA) rejects petitioner’s Rule 43 petition, upholding SJ’s resolution.
• Appeal to the Supreme Court by certiorari.

Applicable Legal Framework

• 1987 Philippine Constitution – separation of powers doctrine confines probable-cause determinations to the Executive.
• Rules of Court – Rule 112 on preliminary investigation and Rule 43 on petition for review; remedy against SJ is certiorari, not Rule 43.
• Jurisprudence – probable cause requires a well-founded belief of crime and guilt; judicial interference only upon grave abuse of discretion.

Preliminary Investigation and Probable Cause Standard

Preliminary investigation (Rule 112, Sec. 1) aims to determine if facts engender a well-founded belief that a crime was committed and the respondent is probably guilty. Probable cause: evidence “more likely than not” supports an information. It demands more than suspicion but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Resolution by the Office of the City Prosecutor

The OCP found:
• No eyewitness to the killing;
• Absence of motive and direct or sufficient circumstantial evidence linking respondents to the crime;
• Unreliable hearsay identifying a female inside one respondent’s vehicle;
and thus dismissed the murder complaint.

Review by the Secretary of Justice

On administrative appeal, the SJ affirmed for lack of probable cause:
• Questionable witness identification of Philip as the driver—tinted windows, no alighting;
• Motive unestablished;
• Circumstantial evidence deemed speculative;
and denied reconsideration.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Petitioner filed a Rule 43 petition seeking appellate review of the SJ’s resolution. The CA dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction, holding that SJ resolutions on probable cause are non-appealable under Rule 43. The CA affirmed that the SJ did not gravely abuse discretion.

Petition for Review and Proper Remedy

The Supreme Court observed that a Rule 43 petition was improper. Challenges to SJ’s probable-cause findings must proceed by special civil action for certiorari, not by appeal, reinforcing separation of functions between Executive (prosecutorial discretion) and Judiciary.

Separation of Powers and Scope of Judicial Review

Under the 1987 Constitution, the Executive alone determines probable cause; courts intervene only upon clear, patent, and gross grave abuse of discretion—an arbitrary or despotic exercise of power. Absent such abuse, judicial review is barred.

Assessment of Evidence and Lack of Probable Cause

The records showed:
• No direct testimony placing respondents at the scene of the killing;
• No identification of the murder weapon or the manner of attack by the respondents;
• Only circu

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.