Principle on Determination of Probable Cause

We likewise stress that the determination of probable cause does not require certainty of guilt for a crime. As the term itself implies, probable cause is concerned merely with probability and not absolute or even moral certainty;34 it is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. It is sufficient that based on the preliminary investigation conducted, it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Well-settled in jurisprudence, as in Raro v. Sandiganbayan, that:

x x x Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.

Probable cause is a reasonable ground for presuming that a matter is or may be well-founded on such state of facts in the prosecutor's mind as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe — or entertain an honest or strong suspicion — that it is so.

A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.39

A finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge.40

A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.

The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. x x x Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction.

Reference:
Ampil vs Ombudsman, GR 192685 (2013)


Probable cause is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well-founded, such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so. (Words and Phrases, Probable Cause v. 34, p. 12) The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge.

Reference:
Paredes vs Sandiganbayan (Gelacio), GR 108251 (1996, En Banc)


Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. The general rule is well settled that one cannot be held liable in damages for maliciously instituting a prosecution where he acted with probable cause. In other words, a suit will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on without probable cause. And the reason for the rule, as stated by blackstone, is "that it would be a very great discouragement to public justice if prosecutors, who had a tolerable ground of suspicion, were liable to be used at law whenever their indictments miscarried."

Reference:
Buchanan vs Viuda De Esteban, GR L-10402 (November 30, 1915 - En Banc)


.. When a fiscal investigates a complaint in order to determine whether he should file charges with the court against the person complained of, the scope of the investigation is far short of a trial of an accused before the court. It is not required that all reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused must be removed; it is only required that the evidence be sufficient to established probable cause that the accused committed the crime charged.

Reference:
Trocio v. Manta (L-34834, November 15, 1982, 118 SCRA 241, 246)


The determination by the Department of Justice of the existence of probable cause is not a quasi-judicial proceeding. However, the actions of the Secretary of Justice in affirming or reversing the findings of prosecutors may still be subject to judicial review if it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

Reference:

De Lima vs Reyes, GR 209330 (2016)