Abdula vs Guiani
Facts:
A petition
for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by
herein respondent Japal guiani, then presiding judge of Branch 14 of RTC of
Cotabato City, was filed before the Supreme Court.
A complaint
for murder was filed but was dismissed by the provincial prosecutor on the
gorund that there was no prima facie case for murder again a number of accused
(6). However, he recommended the filing of an information for murder against
one of the respondents (accused) only before the sala of the respondent judge
Guiani. Guiani returned the case to the provincial prosecutor for further
investigation since there was no necessary resolution required under the Rules
of Court to show how the investigating prosecutor arrived at such a conclusion
(charging only one of the 8 respondent-accused). Upon the return of the records
of the case, it was assigned for reinvestigation to another prosecutor who then
recommended the filing of charges against 5 accused, 2 of whom are herein
petitioners.
On January
2, 1995, an information was filed against petitioner-spouses and 3 others. The
following day, January 3, respondent Judge issued a warrant for the arrest of
petitioners. On January 4, petitioners filed an urgent Ex-Parte motion for the
setting aside of saide warrant of arrest. On January 11, a petition for review
was filed with the DOJ. Despite said filing, respondent judge did not act upon
petitioner’s pending Motion to Set Aside the Warrant of Arrest.
Hence, this
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying the warrant of Arrest be set
aside and declared void ab initio.
Issue: WON the Warrant of Arrest should
be set aside and declared void ab initio.
Held:
Section 2,
Art. III, 1987 Constititution: “The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures
of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and NO SEARCH
WARRANT OR WARRANT OF ARREST SHALL ISSUE EXCEPT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BE
DETERMINED PERSONALLY BY THE JUDGE AFTER EXAMINATION UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION
OF THE COMPLAINANT AND THE WITNESSES HE MAY PRODUCE and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
It must be
stressed that the 1987 Constitution requires the judge to determine probable
cause
"personally," a requirement which does not appear in the
corresponding provisions of our
previous
constitutions. This emphasis evinces the intent of the framers to place a
greater degree of
responsibility
upon trial judges than that imposed under previous Constitutions.
What the
Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the
issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. In
satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he
shall: (1) personally evaluate the
report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the
existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of
arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may
disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the
existence of probable cause.
Ho vs.
People 41 summarizes existing jurisprudence on the matter as follows:
Lest we be
too repetitive, we only wish to emphasize three vital matters once more: First,
as held in
Inting, the
determination of probable cause by the prosecutor is for a purpose different
from that which is to be made by the judge. Whether there is reasonable ground
to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be held
for trial is what the prosecutor passes upon. The judge, on the other hand,
determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused,
i.e., whether there is a necessity for placing him under immediate custody in
order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
Second,
since their objectives are different, the judge cannot rely solely on the
report of the prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the issuance of a
warrant of arrest. The judge must decide independently. Hence, he must have
supporting evidence, other than the prosecutor's bare report, upon which to
legally sustain his own findings on the existence (or nonexistence) of probable
cause to issue an arrest order. This responsibility of determining personally
and independently the existence or nonexistence of probable cause is lodged in
him by no less than the most basic law of the land.
Lastly, it
is not required that the complete or entire records of the case during the
preliminary
investigation
be submitted to and examined by the judge.What is required, rather, is that the
judge must have sufficient supporting documents (such as the complaint,
affidavits, counter-affidavits, sworn statements of witnesses or transcript of
stenographic notes, if any) upon which to make his independent judgment or, at
the very least, upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the
existence of probable cause. The point is: he cannot rely solely and entirely
on the prosecutor's recommendation, as Respondent Court
In the case
at bench, respondent admits that he issued the questioned warrant as there was
"no reason for (him) to doubt the validity of the certification made by
the Assistant Prosecutor that a preliminary investigation was conducted and
that probable cause was found to exist as against those charged in the
information filed." The statement is an admission that respondent relied
solely and completely on the certification made by the fiscal that probable
cause exists as against those charged in the information and issued the
challenged warrant of arrest on the sole basis of the prosecutor's findings and
recommendations. He adopted the judgment of the prosecutor regarding the
existence of probable cause as his own. CONSEQUENTLY, THE WARRANT OF ARREST
SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID.