SPO4 EDUARDO ALONZO, complainant, vs. JUDGE CRISANTO C.

CONCEPCION, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Malolos City,

Branch 12, Province of Bulacan, respondent
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1879, January 17, 2005

Facts:
In a wedding party, SPO4 Eduardo Alonzo, Jun Rances, Zoilo Salamat and Rey Santos
were drinking together at the same table. While waiting to be seated, Pedrito Alonzo
was introduced by SPO4 Alonzo to Rances as his nephew and as the son of ex-Captain
Alonzo. SPO4 Alonzo then introduced him to Salamat. Pedrito and his companions
took their seats and started drinking at the table across SPO4 Alonzos table. After
some time, Pedrito stood up to urinate at the back of the house. Santos passed a bag to
Salamat, and they followed Pedrito. Rances likewise followed them. As shot rang out.
Salamat was seen placing a gun inside the bag as he hurriedly left. The wedding guests
ran after Salamat. They saw him and Rances board a vehicle being driven by Santos.
Pedritos uncle, Jose Alonzo, sought the help of SPO4 Alonzo to chase the culprits. He
refused and even disavowed any knowledge as to their identity.
 SPO4 EDUARDO ALONZO, complainant, vs. JUDGE CRISANTO C.
CONCEPCION, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Malolos City,
Branch 12, Province of Bulacan, respondent
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1879, January 17, 2005

Jose Alonzo filed a complaint for murder against Salamat, Rances, Santos, SPO4
Alonzo and a certain Isidro Atienza. A preliminary investigation was conducted
by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor where Jose Alonzo and his four witnesses
testified. Upon review of the records of the case by the 3 rd Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor, it was recommended that Salamat be charged with murder as
principal, and Santos and Rances as accessories. With regard to SPO4 Alonzo and
Isidro Atienza, the prosecutor found that no sufficient evidence was adduced to
establish their conspiracy with Salamat. Judge Concepcion of the RTC issued an
Order directing the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor to amend the information,
so as to include all the aforenamed persons as accused in this case, all as
principals.
 SPO4 EDUARDO ALONZO, complainant, vs. JUDGE CRISANTO C.
CONCEPCION, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Malolos City,
Branch 12, Province of Bulacan, respondent
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1879, January 17, 2005

Issue:
Whether or not the court has authority to review and reverse the resolution of the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor or to find probable cause against a respondent for
the purpose of amending the Information.
Held:
The function of a preliminary investigation is to determine whether there is sufficient
ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. It is through the
conduct of a preliminary investigation that the prosecutor determines the existence of a
prima facie case that would warrant the prosecution of a case. As a rule, courts cannot
interfere with the prosecutors discretion and control of the criminal prosecution.
 SPO4 EDUARDO ALONZO, complainant, vs. JUDGE CRISANTO C.
CONCEPCION, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Malolos City,
Branch 12, Province of Bulacan, respondent
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1879, January 17, 2005

The reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the discretion and control
of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by private persons.
However, while prosecuting officers have the authority to prosecute persons
shown to be guilty of a crime they have equally the legal duty not to prosecute
when after an investigation, the evidence adduced is not sufficient to establish a
prima facie case.

In a clash of views between the judge who did not investigate and the prosecutor
who did, or between the fiscal and the offended party or the accused, that of the
prosecutors should normally prevail.
 ROBERTO B. KALALO, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ and MARCELO L. AGUSTIN, respondents
G.R. No. 158189, April 23, 2010

Facts:
Petitioner Roberto Kalalo, an employee of Pablo Borbon Memorial Institute of
Technology (PBMIT), now Batangas State University, filed a Complaint Affidavit
with the Office of the Ombudsman against the officials of the same school.
According to petitioner, the above-named officials committed falsification of
public documents and violations of Sections 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No.
3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, based on the following
incidents: the 129th General Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the PBMIT/BSU
transpired on January 21, 1997. As claimed by petitioner, the authentic minutes
had eight (8) pages, while the falsified one had nine (9) pages. Thus, he concluded
that Resolution Nos. 25 and 26 were mere intercalations on the minutes of the
annual meeting.
 ROBERTO B. KALALO, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ and MARCELO L. AGUSTIN, respondents
G.R. No. 158189, April 23, 2010

Petitioner also claimed that respondents deviation from the usual procedure in
signing and approving the minutes was highly suspicious. Thus, petitioner refused
to sign the said minutes. Despite the refusal of petitioner to sign the minutes,
Resolution No. 25 was still implemented.
Respondents filed their Joint Counter-Affidavit denying petitioners allegations
and stating that it was ministerial on the part of respondent De Chavez to sign the
minutes prepared by petitioner himself in his capacity as Board Secretary. In its
Resolution, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dismissed the
complaint of petitioner stating that: A careful evaluation of the case records and
the evidence submitted reveals that the charge of falsification against respondents
has no leg to stand on. We fail to see any grounds for complainant to question the
same.
 ROBERTO B. KALALO, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ and MARCELO L. AGUSTIN, respondents
G.R. No. 158189, April 23, 2010

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the Ombudsman
for lack of merit. Hence, the present petition.
Issue:
Whether or not public respondent gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack
and/or excess of jurisdiction in not finding probable cause against both private
respondents.
Held:
As a general rule, courts do not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to
determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the
corresponding information with the appropriate courts.
 ROBERTO B. KALALO, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ and MARCELO L. AGUSTIN, respondents
G.R. No. 158189, April 23, 2010

In the present case, the Office of the Ombudsman did not find probable cause that
would warrant the filing of Information against respondents. The determination of
its existence lies within the discretion of the prosecuting officers after conducting
a preliminary investigation upon complaint of an offended party. Probable cause
is meant such set of facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the Information, or
any offense included therein, has been committed by the person sought to be
arrested.