postulation, there is no rule or basic principle requiring a trial judge to first resolve
Topic When and how warrant issued
Case No. G.R. No. 229781 | October 10, 2017
Case Name De Lima v Guerrero
Full Case SEN. LEILA M DE LIMA, petitioner,
Name vs.
HON. JUANITA GUERRERO, in her capacity as Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa, respondent.
Ponente Velasco, Jr., J.
Doctrine - In the determination of probable cause, what is required is that the
judge must have sufficient supporting documents 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.
- Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as
there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is
admissible in determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation
Digest Writer Jamie
Nature Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Application for a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, and Urgent Prayer for Temporary Restraining
Order and Status Quo Ante Order
RELEVANT FACTS
Three informations were filed against Sen. Leila De Lima, charging her for violation of
Sec 5, 26, 28 of RA 9165: For conducting illegal drug trading in the New Bilibid Prison.
Guerrero assailed Order finding probable cause for the issuance of warrants against
De Lima, et al.
De Lima argues that Guerrero should have first resolved the pending Motion to
Quash before ordering the petitioner's arrest; and there is no probable cause to
justify her arrest maintaining that Guerrerro failed to personally determine the
probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest since the judge based her
findings on the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation and not on
the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor.
ISSUES
1. Should Guerrero have waited for the resolution of the Motion to Quash
before issuing the warrant of arrest?
NO. Should she have waited for the resolution of the Motion to Quash, she would
have been admin liable for failure to observe Sec 5 Rule 112. Contrary to De Lima’s
a motion to quash, whether grounded on lack of jurisdiction or not, before issuing
a warrant of arrest.
2. Did Guerrero gravely abuse her discretion in finding probable cause to issue
the warrant of arrest?
NO. Personal determination of the existence of probable cause by the judge is
required before a warrant of arrest may issue.
What is required 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.
RATIO DECIDENDI
1. Should Guerrero have waited for the resolution of the Motion to Quash
before issuing the warrant of arrest?
NO. Should she have waited for the resolution of the Motion to Quash, she would
have been admin liable for failure to observe Sec 5 Rule 112.
SEC. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue. — (a) By the Regional Trial Court.
— Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the
judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its
supporting evidence. […]
Contrary to De Lima’s postulation, there is no rule or basic principle requiring a trial
judge to first resolve a motion to quash, whether grounded on lack of jurisdiction or
not, before issuing a warrant of arrest.
2. Did Guerrero gravely abuse her discretion in finding probable cause to issue
the warrant of arrest?
NO. Personal determination of the existence of probable cause by the judge is
required before a warrant of arrest may issue.
What is required 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.

It must be emphasized that in determining the probable cause to issue the warrant
of arrest against De Lima, Guerrero evaluated the Information and "all the evidence
presented during the preliminary investigation conducted in this case."

Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is

substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in
determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such
investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and
obligations of parties.

DISPOSITIVE

Verily, the admissibility of evidence, their evidentiary weight, probative value, and
the credibility of the witness are matters that are best left to be resolved in a
fullblown trial, not during a preliminary investigation where the technical rules of
evidence are not applied nor at the stage of the determination of probable cause for
the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Thus, the better alternative is to proceed to the
conduct of trial on the merits for the petitioner and the prosecution to present their
respective evidence in support of their allegations.

With the foregoing disquisitions, the provisional reliefs prayed for, as a consequence,
have to be rejected.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for prohibition and certiorari is DISMISSED for lack
of merit. The Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204 is ordered to
proceed with dispatch with Criminal Case No. 17-165.