Baltazar v. People

G.R. No.
174016 July 28, 2008
SEVERINO C. BALTAZAR, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact ARLENE C. BALTAZAR

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ARMANDO C. BAUTISTA
Facts:
At about 8:30 p.m. of 21 April 2002, in the province of Bulacan, a silver/gray colored car with Plate
No. TNM-606, traveling from the direction of Calumpit and going towards the direction of Pulilan
Public Market, suddenly hit a pedicab. Because of the impact, the passengers of the pedicab—
Erlinda Baltazar and her son, Rolando Baltazar—were thrown out of the pedicab. Witnesses Cristobal
Atienza and Louie Reyes claimed in their respective sworn statements that after hitting the pedicab,
they saw the car stop, maneuver into reverse, and run over the hapless victims, before fleeing the
crime scene. As a result, Erlinda Baltazar died while Rolando Baltazar suffered injuries and was
brought to Good Shepherd Hospital in Pulilan, Bulacan.
In the course of the investigation of the incident the PNP traced the ownership of the car which
bumped the pedicab and discovered that the registered owner thereof was a certain Celso Bautista,
who had already sold the said vehicle to private respondent Armando Bautista. PO1 Santos then
went to private respondent’s residence where he recovered the car stained with blood.
Consequently, petitioner Severino C. Baltazar, one of the children of the deceased Erlinda Baltazar
and brother of the injured Rolando Baltazar, filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Pulilan,
Bulacan two separate criminal complaints against private respondent, one for the Murder of Erlinda
Baltazar and the other for Frustrated Murder for the injuries suffered by Rolando Baltazar. The
presiding judge of the MTC of Pulilan, Bulacan, conducted the requisite preliminary investigation, and
upon its termination, issued his Resolution recommending the dismissal of the Murder charge against
private respondent in view of the admission of his nephew, Joel Santos, in a sworn statement, that he
was the one driving the car when the deadly incident occurred.
On 23 May 2003, private respondent filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a Petition for Review
of the Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan finding probable cause that he committed
the murder of Erlinda Baltazar. About a year later, on the strength of the warrant of arrest issued by
the RTC, private respondent was apprehended and detained pending trial.
Private respondent was set to be arraigned on 15 June 2004. However, Judge Concepcion
postponed the arraignment upon motion of private respondent who invoked the pendency of his
Petition for Review with the DOJ, which reversed the findings of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan.
Thereafter, a Motion to Withdraw Information dated 28 July 2004 was filed by the Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor with the RTC and was granted by Judge Concepcion. Petitioner thus filed a Petition for
Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, seeking the nullification and setting aside of Judge
Concepcion’s Order for having been rendered in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether or not Judge Concepcion order to withdraw the information for murder filed
against herein accused was rendered in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
Ruling:
No. The task of the presiding judge when the Information is filed with the court is first and foremost to
determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused.
Probable cause is 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. In determining probable cause, the average
man weighs the facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence
of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. A finding of probable cause
needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and
that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than suspicion; it requires less
than evidence which would justify conviction.

Baltazar v. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baltazar v. People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baltazar v. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

174016 July 28, 2008

SEVERINO C. BALTAZAR, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact ARLENE C. BALTAZAR

You might also like