CHAN V. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE (REMEDIAL, CRIMINAL)

Contrary to petitioner's view, Crespo subsists and was not superseded by Allado.

Allado, which was punctuated by inordinate eagerness in the gathering of evidence and in the preliminary investigation, serves as an exception ans may not be invoked unless similar circumstances are clearly shown to exist. No such cinrcums tances were established in the present case.

In Crespo, the Court laid down the rule that once an Information is filed in court, any disposition of the cases rests on the sound discretion of the court. In subsequent cases, the Court clarified that Crespo does not bar the Justice Secretary from reviewing the findings of the investigating prosecutor in the exercise of his power on control over his subordinates. The Justice Secretary is merely advised , as far as practicable, to refrain from entertaining a petition for review of the prosecutor's findings when the Information is already filed in court. In other words, the power or authority of the Justice Secretary to review the prosecutor's findings subsists even after the Information is filed in court. The court, however, is not bound by the Resolution of the Justice Secretary, but must evaluate it before proceeding with the trial. While the ruling of the Justice Secretary is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.

Albeit the findings of the Justice Secretary are not absolute ans are subject to judicial review, this Court generally adheres to the policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, particularly when the said findings are well-supported by the facts as established by the evidence on record.

Absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the prosecutor or any other officer authorized to conduct preliminary investigation, courts as a rule must defer to said officer's findings and determination of probable cause, since the determination of the existence of probable cause is the function of the prosecutor. Simply stated, findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review, unless made with grave abuse of discretion.

Thus, the findings of the Justice Secretary may be reviewed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 based on the allegation that he acted with grave abuse of discretion. This remedy is available to the aggrieved party.

In the petition for certiorari, the CA is not being asked to cause the dismissal of the case in the trial court, but only to resolve the issue of whether the Justice Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion in affirming the finding of probable case by the investigating prosecutor. Should it determine that the Justice Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion, it could nullify his resolution and direct the State Prosecutor to withdraw the Information by filing the appropriate motion with the trial court. But the rule stands - the decision whether to dismiss the case or not rests in the sound discretion of the trial court where the Information was filed.

The CA likewise, opined that the filing of the petition for certiorari was improper since petitioner still had an available remedy - to file a motion to dismiss or to quash the Information with the trial court. We do not agree. A petition for certiorari may still be availed of even if there is an available remedy, when such remedy does not appear to be plain, speedy, and adequate in the ordinary course of law.

We hold that the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the finding of probable cause by the State Prosecutor.

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 base suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a conviction.

In the case at bench, petitioner is charges with illegal sale of a prohibited drug. A successful prosecution of this offense requires the concurrence of the following elements:

1. the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and
2. the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.

To our mind, the ducumentary and object evidence submitted to the State Prosecutor, particularly the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, the 935.80 grams of shabu, the buy-bust money sufficiently establish the existence of probable cause against petitioner for the crime charged. After all, a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspect.

Unless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were impelled by an improper motive, or were not properly performing their duties, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.

The allegation that the State Prosecutor was not impartial in conducting the preliminary investigation is merely speculative - a bare allegation unworthy of credence. Such accusation is worthless in light of our finding that there is indeed, probable cause against petitioner.

Petitioner's allegation of frameup and extortion is evidentiary in nature, and are matters for his defense. Evidentiary matters must be presented and heard during the trial. But the defense of frameup in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the police officers performed their duties regularly and that they acted within the bounds of their authority. Besides, the defense of denial or frameup, like alibi, is viewed with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

We recognize the courts' authority to grant bail in cases involving capital offenses after a determination that evidence of guilt is not strong. But we urge them to be circumspect in exercising such discretion. In this case, it is glaring that the bail bond fixed by the RTC was exceedingly low considering that the crime charged is legal sale of prohibited drug punishable by Reclusion Perpetua to Death and a fine ranging from PHP500,000 to PHP10 million, with the risk of flight extremely high, the petitioner being a Chinese citizen.