Probable Cause and Ombudsman's Discretion: When Courts Can Intervene

The Supreme Court recently had the opportunity to clarify the delicate balance between prosecutorial discretion and judicial review in criminal cases. In Philippine Investment Two (SPV-AMC), Inc. v. Sebastian (G.R. Nos. 238729-30, April 8, 2026), the Court addressed two important questions: when may courts intervene in the withdrawal of criminal informations, and who has the legal standing to appeal a dismissal in a criminal case?

The case arose from a perjury complaint filed against Kathrina L. Sebastian, an executive of Standard Chartered Bank. The complainant alleged that Sebastian made false statements in pleadings submitted to a rehabilitation court, specifically claiming that a loan was inadequately secured despite the existence of a Pledge Agreement with collaterals worth USD 90 million.

The Procedural History

The Department of Justice initially found probable cause to indict Sebastian for perjury. However, upon review, the Secretary of Justice reversed this finding, concluding that Sebastian had acted in good faith. The Secretary noted that a US bankruptcy court's Stay Order prevented enforcement of the guarantee and pledge, making Sebastian's statements reasonable under the circumstances.

Pursuant to this directive, the public prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw Information. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) granted the motion after conducting its own independent assessment of the evidence. The MeTC found that Sebastian's statements were not willful falsehoods but were made in bona fide belief of their truth.

The private complainant, Philippine Investment Two, appealed this dismissal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) without securing the conformity of the public prosecutor or the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). The RTC reversed the MeTC's ruling and reinstated the criminal case.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sebastian, reinstating the dismissal of the criminal case. The Court made two significant pronouncements.

First, the Court reiterated that in criminal actions, the real party in interest is the State. The private complainant is merely a witness for the prosecution. Consequently, a private complainant cannot appeal the dismissal of a criminal case without the conformity of the State, acting through the OSG or the appropriate prosecutorial office.

The Court extended the guidelines from Austria v. AAA to appeals before second-level courts. For appeals from first-level courts, the required conformity must come from the relevant officials of the National Prosecution Service—the regional, provincial, or city prosecutor—who have charge of prosecutions in the area.

Second, the Court affirmed that trial courts may conduct their own independent assessment when a prosecutor moves to withdraw an information. The MeTC in this case did not merely rely on the Secretary of Justice's directive. It independently reviewed the evidence and found that probable cause no longer existed to sustain the prosecution.

The Distinction Between Probable Cause Determinations

The case illustrates an important distinction in Philippine criminal procedure. When a court conducts a judicial determination of probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest, it reviews whether there is sufficient ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.

However, when a prosecutor files a motion to withdraw an information, the trial court has the discretion to grant or deny such motion. In exercising this discretion, the court may conduct its own assessment of the evidence. This is not a violation of the doctrine in Crespo v. Judge Mogul, which held that once a case is filed in court, the court has control over its disposition. Rather, it is a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Practical Takeaways

• A private complainant in a criminal case cannot appeal a dismissal without the conformity of the State. The OSG represents the People in appeals before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, while regional, provincial, or city prosecutors handle appeals before the RTC.

• Trial courts have the discretion to grant or deny motions to withdraw informations. They may conduct their own independent assessment of the evidence rather than merely following prosecutorial directives.

• The exception allowing private complainants to appeal without State conformity applies only to the civil aspect of the case, where the complainant must allege specific pecuniary interest.

• Good faith belief in the truth of a statement is a valid defense in perjury cases. Courts will examine whether the accused had reasonable grounds for their belief.

• When a court grants a motion to withdraw an information, it must demonstrate that it made an independent evaluation of the evidence, not merely deferred to the prosecutor's judgment.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.