Petitioners move for a reconsideration of the decision in this case. They contend (1) that the complaint and its annexes show that petitioners acted with probable cause and without malice in charging private respondent Reynaldo Guevarra with falsification of public documents, and (2) that the non-inclusion in the civil case for malicious prosecution of the government prosecutors who directed the filing in court of the criminal case shows the existence of probable cause and the absence of malice.

Contending that the prosecution of private respondent Guevarra for falsification was grounded on probable cause, they cite our ruling in Martinez vs. United Finance Corporation,1 [34 SCRA 524 (1970)] where a plaintiff’s complaint for malicious prosecution was dismissed upon showing that the same complaint contained the following allegations: (1) a preliminary investigation was conducted by the fiscal; (2) despite plaintiff’s opposition, an information was filed by the fiscal; (3) plaintiff was acquitted of the offense charged.

On the other hand, private respondents argue in their Opposition to petitioners’ motion for reconsideration that the absence of probable cause is sufficiently alleged in their complaint that petitioners’ criminal action against private respondent Guevarra had no basis in fact and in law as well as by virtue of the trial court’s dismissal of the criminal case for falsification of public documents on private respondent Guevarra’s demurrer to the evidence.

We have carefully considered the parties’ arguments and now resolve to grant petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

The facts are set forth at pages 1 to 6 of the decision in this case and are hereby incorporated into this resolution by reference.

Since petitioners seek the dismissal of the complaint against them on the ground that it does not state a sufficient cause of action, the question for determination is whether, taking the facts alleged in the complaint and its annexes to be true, they constitute a cause of action, and not whether these allegations of facts are true.2 [Suyom v. Collantes, 69 SCRA 514 (1976)] As stated in our decision in this case, a complaint for malicious prosecution states a cause of action if it alleges the following: (1) that the defendant was himself the prosecutor or that at least the prosecution was instituted at his instance; (2) that the prosecution finally terminated in the acquittal of the plaintiff; (3) that in bringing the action the prosecutor acted without probable cause; and (4) that the prosecutor was actuated by malice, i.e. by improper and sinister motives.3 [Madera v. Lopez, 102 SCRA 700 (1981)]

Does the complaint in this case allege these as facts? The complaint alleges in relevant parts:

The first two requisites are sufficiently alleged in the complaint. We may also take as sufficiently pleaded the fourth requisite, i.e., malice. As stated in the original decision in this case, a general averment of malice is sufficient in view of Rule 8, §5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the allegation in par. 18 that petitioners filed the criminal case for the purpose of harassing and pressuring Guevarra, in his capacity as chairman of Guevent Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC), to give in to their illicit and malicious desire to appropriate the remaining unsold properties of the corporation, may be considered sufficient.

The question, however, is whether the third requisite, i.e., that the prosecutor acted without probable cause, has been sufficiently alleged. To be sure, lack of probable cause is an element separate and distinct from that of malice. It follows, therefore, that one cannot be held liable in damages for maliciously instituting a prosecution where he acted with probable cause.

Obviously, a determination that there was no probable cause cannot be made to rest solely on the fact that the trial court, acting on private respondent Guevarra’s demurrer to evidence, dismissed the criminal prosecution, just as it cannot be made to turn on the fact that the Department of Justice reversed the fiscal’s findings and ordered the criminal case against private respondent Guevarra to be filed in court. The first would transform all acquittals into veritable countersuits for malicious prosecution. On the other hand, the second would result in the dismissal of all complaints for malicious prosecutions.4 [See Ventura v. Bernabe, 38 SCRA 587 (1971)]

Accordingly, the inquiry should be whether sufficient facts are alleged showing that in bringing the criminal action, the defendant in the civil action for malicious prosecution acted without probable cause. This Court has ruled that for purposes of malicious prosecution, "probable cause" means "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."5 Buchanan v. Vda. de Esteban, 32 Phil. 363, 365 (1915)] In this case, even if we consider the allegations in the complaint as true, as well as the order of the trial court annexed thereto, we do not find the same sufficient to establish the absence of probable cause.

On the contrary, tested by the definition of what constitutes "probable cause," the prosecution evidence shows probable cause for believing that private respondent Guevarra was indeed responsible for the forgery of the Letter of Undertaking (Exh. N). As summarized by the trial court in its order of March 26, 1992, the evidence of the prosecution is as follows:

It is true that in dismissing the criminal case against private respondent, the trial court found that "there is neither direct nor circumstantial evidence to prove that accused is the author of this falsified document (Exh. N)" and for this reason ordered: Ky-calr

According to the trial court, the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution did not add up to a prima [facie case against the accused.6 [Rollo, p. 95.] It adverted to the fact that the forged Letter of Undertaking was dated September 9, 1987, while private respondent Guevarra’s application, with documents attached to it, was dated September 3, 1987. In this circumstance, the trial court thought it was not clear that the accused was responsible for sending the document dated September 9, 1987 and, therefore, the legal presumption that the possessor of a forged instrument is also the forger did not apply. Moreover, the trial court noted that the accused, through an affidavit, had represented to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board that the property, subject of the application, was unencumbered. Hence, there was no need for the accused to submit a letter of undertaking since such was required only if the property was mortgaged.

For this reason, the trial court ruled that the evidence for the prosecution did not establish "a prima [facie case against accused [private private respondent Reynaldo Guevarra]." However, prima [facie evidence is different from probable cause. Prima [facie evidence requires a degree or quantum of proof greater than probable cause. "[It] denotes evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain a prosecution or establish the facts, as to counterbalance the presumption of innocence and warrant the conviction of the accused."7 [People v. Montilla, 285 SCRA 703, 720 n. 22 (1998)] On the other hand, probable cause for the filing of an information merely means "reasonable ground for belief in the existence of facts warranting the proceedings complained of, or an apparent state of facts found to exist upon reasonable inquiry which would induce a reasonably intelligent and prudent man to believe that the accused person has committed the crime."8 [Id at 720.] What is needed to bring an action in court is simply probable cause, not prima [facie evidence.9 [Cruz, Jr. v. People, 233 SCRA 439, 459 (1994)] In the terminology of the Rules of Criminal Procedure,10 [Rule 112, §11.] what is required for bringing a criminal action is only such evidence as is sufficient to "engender a well founded belief as to the facts of the commission of a crime and the respondent’s probable guilt thereof."

The finding of the trial court in the criminal case does not imply lack of probable cause in bringing the case. To the contrary, its findings, as shown above, clearly show that petitioners had reasonable ground to believe that private respondent Guevarra was responsible for the forged Letter of Undertaking (Exh. N) which was submitted to the HLURB in connection with the application of the Honeycomb Builders Inc. for a license to sell units at the RSG Condominium Guentville II Subdivision. It is noteworthy that in pars. 6 to 8 of their complaint, private respondents admitted that the properties were mortgaged to petitioner SITI. A letter of undertaking by the mortgagee was thus needed for the issuance of a license to sell to HBI.

We, therefore, hold that the complaint in this case fails to state a cause of action against petitioners. Ky-le

WHEREFORE, petitioners’ motion for reconsideration is GRANTED, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED, and the complaint against petitioners in Civil Case Q-93-15691 is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.