Placer vs Villanueva

affidavits

and

other

documentary

evidence

presented

during

the

preliminary investigation. G.R. Nos. 60349-62, December 29, 1983 $el%" #. ac!s" Following receipt of informations from petitioners that probable cause has been established which necessitates the issuance of warrants of arrest, respondent judge issued an order the hearing of said criminal cases for the purpose of determining the propriety of issuing the corresponding warrants of arrest. After said hearing, respondent issued the questioned orders requiring petitioners to submit to the court the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence in support of the informations to aid him in the exercise of his power of judicial review of the findings of probable cause by petitioners 1&arrant of arrest, when issued. 2 3f the judge be satisfied from the preliminary examination conducted by him or by the investigating officer that the offense complained of has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed it, he must Petitioners contended that under P.D. os. !! and "##, they are authori$ed issue a warrant or order for his arrest.1 +he issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial function, it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of the issuing magistrate. +his is clear from the following provisions of -ection ., /ule ##) of the /ules of 'ourt0 o. ). *es.

to determine the existence of a probable cause in a preliminary examination%investigation, and that their findings as to the existence thereof constitute sufficient basis for the issuance of warrants of arrest by the court. 4nder this section, !&e 'u%(e mus! sa!is)* &imsel) o) !&e e+is!ence o) ,robable cause be)ore issuin( a -arran! or or%er o) arres!. #) on !&e )ace o) !&e in)orma!ion !&e 'u%(e )in%s no ,robable cause, &e ma* %isre(ar% !&e )iscal.s cer!i)ica!ion an% re/uire !&e submission #ssues" &hether the certification of the investigating fiscal in the information as to the existence of probable cause obligates respondent 'ity (udge to issue a warrant of arrest. o) !&e a))i%avi!s o) -i!nesses !o ai% &im in arrivin( a! a conclusion as !o !&e e+is!ence o) a ,robable cause. +his has been the rule since 4.-. vs. 5campo678 and Amarga vs. Abbas6"8. And this evidently is the reason for the issuance by respondent of the questioned orders of April #9, &hether or not the respondent city judge may, for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest, compel the fiscal to submit to the court the supporting #:, #., #", #"7) and (uly #9, #"7). &ithout the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses and other evidence which, as a matter of long2

standing practice had been attached to the informations filed in his sala, respondent found the informations inadequate bases for the determination of probable cause. For as the ensuing events would show, after petitioners had submitted the required affidavits, respondent wasted no time in issuing the warrants of arrest in the cases where he was satisfied that probable cause existed.

+he legal question raised in this petition is whether the certification of the investigating fiscal in the information as to the existence of probable cause obligates respondent 'ity (udge to issue a warrant of arrest.

+he antecedent facts are not disputed. During the period from ;arch 9< to April #=, #"7), petitioners, the 'ity Fiscal of >utuan 'ity and his assistants filed in the 'ity 'ourt of >utuan the following informations, to

+he obvious purpose of requiring the submission of affidavits of the complainant and of his witnesses is to enable the court to determine whether to dismiss the case outright or to require further proceedings.

wit0 '/3;3 A?'A -@ 5. #))<" #))#< +3+?@ People vs. (immy +an People vs. 'arlito Fortun People vs. (arail ;ajini People vs. Amelita Dy People vs. Angelito Dy People vs. (esus Aloyan People vs. >ebot ?auron People ;ariano +raniAntonio ;onghit -light Phy. 3nj. Aiolation #9<. 2do2 Aiolation of >.P. )) 2do2 @stafa ;al. ;ischief vs.4surpation ofauthority of P.D.

0123ND D#V#0#3N #))## 4 G.R. Nos. 60349-62, December 29, 1983 5 #))#) #))#9 #))#= 2#67 #0289 N1063R#3 :. P9821R, 8006. 2#67 #02890 8G19#3 9. 19#<;1R63 . D8;8930, #))#: #))#. #))#! #))#7 #))#" #)))< #)))# D12#0#3N #)))) ;R#NG80, 1RN1063 :. ;R3237, R8 819 V. 93R10,

9. G=#R#68N, :828R#3 ;. ;898N08G 8ND R308R#63 899 3 ;=6=8N 2#67, 8ND 6$1 P13P91 3

6$1 P$#9#PP#N10,

People vs. @lorde-ubingbing,Alarm B -candal Fernando -agay People vs. Perla +rasga People vs. /enato Dayan People vs. @dgardo Dayan People vs. >enito -y 3baDe$ People vs. >enito -y 3baDe$ Crave defamation @stafa @stafa Aiol. of >.P. )) 2do2 oral

P16#6#3N1R0, V0. $3N. >=DG1 N8P3913N D. V#998N=1V8, #N $#0 28P82#67 80 2#67 >=DG1 3 ;=6=8N, R10P3ND1N6.

10239#N, >."

+hese informations, except the last four, docEeted as 'riminal 'ases

os.

#))#", #)))<, #)))# and #)))), were certified to by the respective

investigating fiscals as follows0 1that a preliminary examination has been conducted by me in this case, having examined the complainant and his witnesses, that on the basis of the sworn statements and other evidence submitted before this 5ffice, there is reasonable ground to believe that the crime charged has been committed and that herein accused is probably guilty thereof.1 +he informations in 'riminal 'ases os. #))#" and #)))<

Petitioners filed two separate motions for reconsideration of said orders, contending that under P.D. determine the existence of os. !! and "##, they are authori$ed to a probable cause in a preliminary

examination%investigation, and that their findings as to the existence thereof constitute sufficient basis for the issuance of warrants of arrest by the court.6=8 5n April )7, #"7), respondent judge denied said motions and reiterated his order to petitioners to submit the supporting affidavits and other documents within five F:G days from notice. 6:8

bore the certification of 9rd Assistant Fiscal Felixberto Cuiritan 1that 3 am filing this information upon directive of the ;inister of (ustice, who upon review of the resolution of the undersigned investigating fiscal has found prima facie case against herein accused1, 6#8 while theinformations in 'riminal 'ases os. #)))# and #)))) were certified to by )nd Assistant

Hence, petitioners filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus to set aside the aforesaid orders and to compel respondent to issue the warrants of arrest in 'riminal 'ases os. #))<"2#)))).

Fiscal @rnesto ;. >rocoy in this wise0 13 am filing this information upon directive of the 'ity Fiscal pursuant to the provisions of P.D. o. "##, who,

;eanwhile, the respondent, in addition to his duties as presiding judge of >ranch 3 of the 'ity 'ourt of >utuan, was also assigned to preside over >ranch 33 of said court, as (udge (esus /ui$, presiding judge of said sala, had retired from the service. +he informations filed by petitioners in >ranch 33 liEewise remained dormant because of respondentIs firm refusal to issue the corresponding warrants of arrest for want of affidavits of the witnesses. +hus, as disclosed by petitionerIs urgent motion, 6.8 no warrants had been issued in ##9 informations as of (uly #:, #"7).

upon review of the resolution of the investigating fiscal now on temporary detail with the office of the Provincial Fiscal of -urigao del -ur, has found prima facie case against the herein accused.1
6)8

Following receipt of said informations, respondent judge issued an order setting on April :, #"7) the hearing of said criminal cases for the purpose of determining the propriety of issuing the corresponding warrants of arrest. After said hearing, respondent issued the questioned orders dated April #9, #:, #. and #", #"7), requiring petitioners to submit to the court the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence in support of the informations to aid him in the exercise of his power of judicial review of the findings of probable cause by petitioners. 698

5n (uly #), #"7), respondent judge received 5ur ;ay #", #"7) /esolution requiring him to comment on the petition. However, interpreting the same as a denial of the petition itself, respondent issued on the following day, (uly #9, an 5mnibus 5rder directing petitioners to submit immediately the

supporting affidavits and other evidence in 'riminal 'ases

os. #))<"2

destroys the presumption of regularity in the performance of petitionersI official duties, particularly in the light of the long standing practice of the 5ffice of the 'ity Fiscal of >utuan of attaching to the informations filed with the court the affidavits of prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence presented during the preliminary investigation.

#)))). Having failed to secure a reconsideration of said 5mnibus 5rder, petitioners finally submitted the required affidavits and documents on (uly #:, #"7)in order to avoid further delay in the prosecution of these cases.

+his move on the part of the petitioners would have rendered the instant petition moot and academic. >ut while respondent gave due course to some of said cases either by issuing the warrants of arrest or taEing some other appropriate action,6!8 he refused to issue the warrants in 'riminal 'ases os. #)=#!, #)=#7, #)=#", #)=)< and #)=)), and instead ordered +he issue to be resolved is whether or not the respondent city judge may, for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest, compel the fiscal to submit to the court the supporting affidavits and other documentary evidence presented during the preliminary investigation.

the records thereof remanded to the 'ity Fiscal 1for further preliminary investigation or reinvestigation,1 for on the bases of said affidavits, respondent found no prima facie case against the accused. &e sustain the position of respondent judge.

+he primary requirement for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of probable cause. -ection 9, Article 3A of the #"!9 'onstitution provides that 2

Petitioners therefore filed a motion with this 'ourt to restrain respondent from enforcing the orders subject of the main petition and to compel him to accept, and taEe cogni$ance of, all the informations filed in his court. +hey contend that the fiscalIs certification in the information of the existence of probable cause constitutes sufficient justification for the judge to issue a warrant of arrest, and that such certification binds the judge, it being supported by the presumption that the investigating fiscal had performed his duties regularly and completely.

1x x x no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer, as may be recogni$ed by law, after examination under oath or affirmance of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce x x x.1

P.D.

o. "## authori$es the fiscal or state prosecutor to determine the

existence of probable cause. +hus, 4pon the other hand, respondent justifies his order as an exercise of his judicial power to review the fiscalIs findings of probable cause. He further maintains that the failure of petitioners to file the required affidavits 13f on the basis of complainantIs sworn statements and documents submitted, the investigating fiscal or state prosecutor finds no probable

cause to conduct a preliminary investigation, he shall dismiss the case. 3f probable cause is established by complainantIs evidence, he shall notify the respondent by issuing a subpoena x x x. F-ec. # 6b8, /A :#7<, as amended by P.D. os. !! and "##G.

4nder this section, the judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant or order of arrest. 3f on the face of the information the judge finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscalIs certification and require the submission of the affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of a probable cause. +his has been the rule

1+he fiscal or state prosecutor shall certify under oath in the information to be filed by him that he has examined the complainant and his witnesses, that on the basis of the sworn statements and other evidence submitted before him there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, x x x1 F-ec. # 6d8, id.G.

since 4.-. vs. 5campo678 and Amarga vs. Abbas6"8. And this evidently is the reason for the issuance by respondent of the questioned orders of April #9, #:, #., #", #"7) and (uly #9, #"7). &ithout the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses and other evidence which, as a matter of long2 standing practice had been attached to the informations filed in his sala,

+here

is

thus

no

dispute

that

the

judge

may

rely

upon

respondent found the informations inadequate bases for the determination of probable cause. For as the ensuing events would show, after petitioners had submitted the required affidavits, respondent wasted no time in issuing the warrants of arrest in the cases where he was satisfied that probable cause existed.

the fiscalIs certification of the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest. >ut does such certification bind the judge to come out with the warrantJ &e answer this query in the negative. +he issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial function, it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of the issuing magistrate. +his is clear from the following provisions of -ection ., /ule ##) of the /ules of 'ourt0

Cermane to the issue at hand is the /ule on -ummary Procedure in -pecial 'ases6#<8 applicable to the following, to wit0

1&arrant of arrest, when issued. 2 3f the judge be satisfied from the preliminary examination conducted by him or by the investigating officer that the offense complained of has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed it, he must issue a warrant or order for his arrest.1

13.

>. 'riminal 'ases0

F#.G Aiolation of traffic laws, rules and regulations,

F)G

Aiolations of the rental laws,

F9G

Aiolations of municipal or city ordinances,

custody, and if he pleads guilty, may render judgment forthwith. 3f he pleads not guilty, and in all other cases, the court shall issue an order,

F=G

All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged does not exceed six F.G months imprisonment, or a fine of 5ne +housand Pesos 6P#,<<<.<<8, or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom, Provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to property through recEless

accompanied by copies of all the affidavits submitted by the complainant, directing the defendantFsG to appear and submit his counter2affidavit and those of his witnesses at a specified date not later than ten F#<G days from receipt thereof. 1Failure on the part of the defendant to appear whenever required, shall cause the issuance of a warrant for his arrest if the court shall find that a probable cause exists after an examination in writing and under oath or affirmation of the complainant and his witnesses.

negligence, this /ule shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed +en +housand Pesos

6P#<,<<<.<<8.1

+he obvious purpose of requiring the submission of affidavits of the complainant and of his witnesses is to enable the court to determine whether to dismiss the case outright or to require further proceedings.

3n said cases, the filing of the affidavits of witnesses with the court is mandatory. -ection ", par. ) of said /ule prescribes that 1the complaint or information must be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and of his witnesses in such number of copies as there are defendants plus two F)G copies for the courtIs files.1

5ne last point. 3t appears that after petitioners had submitted the required affidavits of witnesses, the respondent judge ordered 'riminal 'ases os.

#)=#!, #)=#7, #)=#", #)=)< and #)=)< remanded to the 'ity Fiscal for further preliminary did investigation abuse his or reinvestigation. &e discretion in doing hold that

-ection #< of the -ummary /ule provides0

respondent 15n the basis of the complaint or information and the affidavits accompanying the same, the court shall maEe a preliminary determination whether to dismiss the case outright for being patently without basis or merit, or to require further proceedings to be taEen. 3n the latter case, the court may set the case for immediate arraignment of an accused under

not

so. From

the informations and affidavits presented to him, he found the charges patently without basis or merit. For respondent to issue the warrants of arrest and try the accused would only expose the latter to

unnecessary harrassment, anxiety and expense. And as already pointed out, under the /ule on -ummary Procedure in -pecial 'ases, the

respondent judge has the power to order the outright dismissal of the charge if, from the information and the affidavits attached thereto, he finds

678

#7 Phil. #.

6"8

the same to be patently without basis or merit.

"7 Phil. !9".

6#<8

?$1R1 3R1, the petition is hereby dismissed.

o costs.

+his -ummary /ule tooE effect on August #, #"79.

03

3RD1R1D.

Makasiar (Chairman), Concepcion, Castro, Aquino,

Jr.,

Guerrero, Abad Santos, and De JJ., concur.

J., no

part.

6#8

Annexes K and ?, pp. 9929=, 9:29., Rollo.

6)8

Annexes ; and

, pp. 972=<, Rollo.

698

Annexes ), AA, >> and '', pp. ."2!=, Rollo.

6=8

Annexes DD and @@, pp. !:2!!, Rollo.

6:8

Annexes FF, p. 7), Rollo.

6.8

Dated (uly #:, #"7), p. #<9, Rollo.

6!8

'ertification of the 'lerE of 'ourt dated August )<, #"7), p. #9., Rollo.