NOTAN LUMBOS, complainant, vs.JUDGE MARIE ELLENGRID S.L.

BALIGUAT, Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, General Santos City, respondent.
Facts
Administrative complaint was filed against Judge Marie Ellengrid S.L. Baliguat , MTCC, Branch 1,
General Santos City.
Complainant alleges that: instead of dismissing the case for patent lack of jurisdiction,
respondent judge conducted the Preliminary Investigation without prior application for the
issuance of warrant of arrest; with the object of issuing a warrant of arrest against all accused,
respondent propounded a series of suggestive rather than searching questions and merely tried
to confirm her preconceived presumption of guilt of all accused via suggestive questions;
respondent issued an Order for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against complainant and his
co-accused without giving them a fair chance to file their respective counter-affidavits.
Respondent claims that: the conduct of the Preliminary Investigation and the subsequent
issuance of the warrant of arrest are well within the authority given in the Sections 84 and 86, R.
A. No. 5412 (City Charter of General Santos City); there was no usurpation of authority of an RTC
Judge when she issued the assailed warrant of arrest as she has authority to do so under the City
Charter; there was no grave abuse of discretion when she held in abeyance the resolution of the
prayer for the lifting of the warrant of arrest because the primary reason why it was withheld was
the complainant's failure to submit a counter-affidavit.
Issue
Whether or not the acts committed by the respondent judge constitute gross ignorance of the law,
abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, and oppression warranting dismissal from judicial service
and disbarment.
Ruling:
Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient
ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is
probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.9 And prior to the issuance of A.M. No. 05-8-
26-SC10 which took effect on October 3, 2005, among the officers authorized by Sec. 2, Rule
11211 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure to conduct preliminary investigation are the
city prosecutors and judges of the MTC and MCTC.
The Charter of General Santos City, specifically Sec. 84,12 authorizes the city court to conduct
preliminary investigations for any offense without regard to the limits of punishment and may
release or commit and bind over any person charged with such offense to secure his appearance
before the proper court.
Under Sec. 6(b), Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, without waiting for the conclusion
of the investigation, the judge may issue a warrant of arrest if he finds after an examination in
writing and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions
and answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent
under immediate custody not to frustrate the ends of justice.
Wherefore, Administrative case against Judge Baliguat is DISMISSED. In line with A.M. No. 05-8-
26-SC, withdrawing the power to conduct preliminary investigation from judges of the first level
courts, she is ADVISED to refer criminal cases for preliminary investigation to the Office of City
Prosecutor for appropriate action.
People of the Philippines versus Molina
FACTS: Sometime in June 1996, SPO1 Paguidopon received an information regarding the
presence of an allegedmarijuana pusher in Davao City. His informer pointed to the motorcycle
driver, accused-appellant Mula, as the pusher. As toaccused-appellant Molina, SPO1
Paguidopon had no occasion to see him before the... arrest.Moreover, the names and
addressesof the accused-appellants came to the knowledge of SPO1 Paguidopon only after they
were arrested. In the morning of August 8,1996, SPO1 Paguidopon received an information that
the alleged pusher will be passing at NHA, Ma-a, Davao City. He called forassistance at the PNP
proceed to the house of SPO1 Marino Paguidopon where they would wait for the alleged pusher
to pass by.At around 9:30 in the morning of August 8, 1996, a “trisikad” carrying the accused-
appellants passed by.At that instance, SPO1Paguidopon pointed to the accused-appellants as
the pushers. The police officers then ordered the “trisikad” to stop. SPO1Pamplona introduced
himself as a police officer and asked accused-appellant Molina to open the bag. Molina replied,
“Boss, if
possible we will settle this.” SPO1 Pamplona insisted on opening the bag, which revealed dried
marijuana leaves inside. Thereafter, accused-appellants Mula and Molina were handcuffed by the
police officers. Accused-appellants contended that the marijuana allegedly seized from them is
inadmissible as evidence for having been obtained in violation of their constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marijuana is in admissible evidence for having been seized in
violation of appellants constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures?
HELD: The fundamental law of the land mandates that searches and seizures be carried out in a
reasonable fashion. The Constitution provides: SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects againstunreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant orwarrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oathor affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched andthe persons or things to be seized. Search
and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be
admissible in thefollowing instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving
motor vehicle; (3) search in violation ofcustoms laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5)
when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonablesearches and seizures;ii[24] and
(6) stop and frisk situations.
As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest.The Rules of
Court, however,recognizes permissible warrantless arrests.Thus, a peace officer or a private
person may, without warrant, arrest a person: (a)when, in his presence, the person to be arrested
has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense(arrest in flagrante
delicto); (b) when an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
based onpersonal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it (arrest effected in hot pursuit);and (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is servingfinal judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
oneconfinement to another (arrest of escaped prisoners). In the case at bar, accused-appellants
manifested no outward indicationthat would justify their arrest.In holding a bag on board atrisikad,
accused-appellants could not be said to be committing,attempting to commit or have committed a
crime. The response of Molina that “Boss, if possible we will settle this” is anequivocal statement
which standing alone will not constitute probable cause to effect an inflagrante delicto arrest.Note
thatwere it not for SPO1 Marino Paguidopon (who did not participate in the arrest but merely
pointed accused-appellants to thearresting officers), accused-appellants could not be the subject
of any suspicion, reasonable or otherwise. SPO1 Paguidopon onlylearned Mula’s name and
address after the arrest. It is doubtful if SPO1 Paguidopon indeed recognized accused-appellant
Mula.It is worthy to note that, before the arrest, he was able to see Mula in person only once,
pinpointed to him by his informer whilethey were on the side of the road.These circumstances
could not have afforded SPO1 Paguidopon a closer look at accused-appellant Mula, considering
that the latter was then driving a motorcycle when SPO1 Paguidopon caught a glimpse of
him.Withrespect to accused-appellant Molina, SPO1 Paguidopon admitted that he had never
seen him before the arrest.
The Court holds that the arrest of accused-appellants does not fall under the exceptions allowed
by the rules.Hence, thesearch conducted on their person was likewise illegal.Consequently, the
marijuana seized by the peace officers could not beadmitted as evidence.WHERE FORE
accused are ACQUITTED.