People vs. Grey

Factual Background

On December 11, 2006, an Information for Murder was filed against Joseph "Jojo" V. Grey, Francis B. Grey, and two others for the killing of Rolando Diocton, an employee of the San Jorge municipal government. The Information was accompanied by supporting documents and a motion for issuance of arrest warrants. The matter originated from proceedings before the provincial prosecutor and thereafter reached the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Gandara, Samar.

Proceedings at the Regional Trial Court — Judge Bandal

RTC Branch 41 Presiding Judge Rosario Bandal denied the prosecution’s motion for issuance of arrest warrants, concluding that the prosecution’s evidence did not sufficiently link the accused to the crime. Judge Bandal directed the prosecution to present, within five days, additional evidence demonstrating that the accused were the assailants or that they conspired, confederated, or aided in the commission of the offense. The prosecution filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration and a motion for Judge Bandal’s inhibition. Judge Bandal inhibited herself but denied reconsideration.

Secretary of Justice Action and Subsequent Events

The provincial prosecutor filed a petition for change of venue before the Supreme Court and attached a letter from the victim’s wife expressing fear for her life and that of other witnesses. The Secretary of Justice, by Resolution dated January 4, 2007, dismissed the petition for review and respondents’ countercharge of perjury, affirming that the evidence was sufficient to establish probable cause. The Secretary of Justice denied a motion for reconsideration on January 30, 2007. The prosecution later withdrew its petition for change of venue for financial reasons.

Change of Venue Petition and Transfer Proceedings

Respondents filed a petition for change of venue before the Supreme Court on February 19, 2007, alleging that the judge who took over the case, Judge Roberto Navidad, was being used as a pawn in political persecution linked to the respondents’ intended run for Congress. The Supreme Court denied the petition for change of venue in a Resolution dated August 22, 2007, and directed Judge Navidad to hear the case with dispatch.

Judge Navidad’s Inquiry and Issuance of Warrants

Judge Roberto Navidad proceeded with the constitutionally mandated preliminary inquiry to determine probable cause. In an Order dated February 20, 2007, Judge Navidad found that probable cause existed based on his review of the prosecutor’s report and the sworn statements of witnesses and issued warrants of arrest against the respondents and several co-accused.

Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals

On March 5, 2007, while the change of venue petition remained pending before the Supreme Court, respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals. They alleged that Judge Navidad gravely abused his discretion in issuing the February 20, 2007 Order and sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin the implementation of the warrants and to set aside the Order.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals issued a TRO on March 13, 2007, and after arguments promulgated a Decision on May 8, 2007 making the TRO permanent. The CA set aside the warrants of arrest, ordered dismissal of the criminal case without prejudice, and held that Judge Navidad failed to personally determine the existence of probable cause. The CA reasoned that the Order extensively quoted and adopted the findings of the provincial prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice without stating the judge’s personal assessment and justification. The CA also found discrepancies between the Information’s allegation of direct participation and the affidavits which uniformly stated that the respondents were not at the scene, and it concluded that the affidavits did not establish probable cause or conspiracy.

Parties’ Principal Contentions to the Supreme Court — Petitioner

The People of the Philippines argued that respondents engaged in forum shopping by seeking both a change of venue before the Supreme Court and a petition for prohibition before the Court of Appeals, and that such conduct warranted dismissal. The People contended that Judge Navidad had in fact personally examined the records and the sworn statements, and that his Order reflected a personal determination of probable cause consistent with constitutional and jurisprudential requirements. The People further argued that perceived defects in the Information were not jurisdictional and could be remedied by amendment or by procedural motions, and that the respondents had adequate and more appropriate remedies such as bail or a motion to quash. Finally, the People invoked the rule that injunction will not ordinarily lie to enjoin criminal prosecution and urged that any exception be strictly established.

Parties’ Principal Contentions to the Supreme Court — Respondents

Respondents contended that Judge Navidad gravely abused his discretion in issuing the Order and warrants, citing the haste with which the Order and warrants were issued and the judge’s alleged adoption of prosecutorial findings without his own personal evaluation. They insisted that the criminal complaint was politically motivated and constituted persecution rather than legitimate prosecution, and they sought injunctive relief to protect their constitutional rights.

Supreme Court Analysis — Forum Shopping

The Supreme Court examined whether respondents’ filing of a petition for change of venue before the Supreme Court and a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals constituted forum shopping. The Court applied the established elements of forum shopping and res judicata and concluded that respondents did not commit forum shopping. The Court observed that the two actions raised different issues and sought different reliefs: the change of venue petition questioned the propriety of transfer for reasons of alleged political persecution, while the petition for certiorari challenged Judge Navidad’s issuance of the February 20, 2007 Order. The Court concluded that the Supreme Court’s Resolution denying the change of venue would not amount to res judicata that barred the CA petition.

Supreme Court Analysis — Personal Determination of Probable Cause

The Supreme Court addressed whether Judge Navidad complied with Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution, which mandates that probable cause be determined personally by the judge. The Court explained the distinction between the preliminary inquiry for issuance of a warrant of arrest (a judge’s function) and the preliminary investigation proper (a prosecutor’s function). Citing Soliven v. Makasiar and subsequent jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that the Constitution does not require the judge to personally examine the complainant and witnesses but does require that the judge satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause and not rely solely on the prosecutor’s r