Pol Law Reps

8/7/2019 Pol Law Reps

1/10


2/10

FACTS:

A c

omplaint for murder was filed before theC

riminal InvestigationS

ervic

eC ommand, A RMM Regional Office XII against herein petitioners and six (6) otherpersons in connec tion with the death of a certain A bdul Dimalen, the formerC OMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao.

Provinc ial Prosecutor of Maguindanao, Salick U . Panda, dismissed thec harges of murder against herein petitioners and five other respondents on a finding

that there was noprima faciecase for murder against them. Prose

cutor Panda, however,recommended the filing of an information for murder against one of the respondents, a

certain Kasan Mama.Respondent Judge ordered that the case be returned to the Provinc ial

Prosecutor for further investigation. He noted that although there were eightrespondents in the murder case, the information filed with thecourt "c harged only

one of the eight respondents in the name of Kasan Mama without the necessaryresolution required under Sec tion 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of C ourt to showhow the investigating prosecutor arrived at suc h a conc lusion." A s suc h, the respondent judge reasons, the trialcourt cannot issue the warrant of arrest against Kasan Mama.


3/10

U pon the return of the records of the case to the Office of the Provinc ialProsecutor for Maguindanao, it was assigned to 2ndA ssistant Prosecutor Enok T .Dimaraw for further investigation. In addition to the evidence presented during theinitial investigation of the murderc harge, two new affidavits of witnesses weresubmitted to support the c harge of murder against herein petitioners and the otherrespondents in the murder complaint. T hus, Prosecutor Dimaraw treated the sameas a refiling of the murderc harge and pursuant to law, issued sub poena to the

respondents named therein.Prosecutor Dimaraw found a prima faciecase for murder against herein

petitioners and three (3) other respondents.8 He thus recommended the filing of c harges against herein petitioners BaiU nggie A bdula and OdinA bdula, as princ ipals by inducement, and against the three (3) others, as princ ipals by direc t partic ipation.

On 2 January 1995, an information for murder dated 28 December 1994was filed against the petitioner spouses and Kasan Mama,C uenco U sman and Jun

Mama before Branc h 14 of the RegionalT rial C ourt of C otabato C ity, then the salaof respondent judge.

T he following day, or on 3 January 1995, the respondent judge issued awarrant for the arrest of petitioners.


4/10

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent

judges issuance of warrant of arrestagainst the petitioners is valid?


5/10

Petitioners contention:

O n this issue, petitioners, citing the case of Allado vs . Diokno argue that the warrant for his arrestshould be recalled considering that the respondent judge "d id not personally examine the evi d ence nord id he call the complainant an d his witnesses in theface of their incre d ible accounts. A s proof, he pointsto the fact that the information was filed at around4:00 p .m . of the January 2, 1995 and the order ofarrest was immediately issued the following day or onJanuary 3, 1995 . M oreover, petitioner argues,respondent judge did not even issue an order statingthat there is probable cause for the issuance of thewarrant of arrest, a clear violation of the guidelines setforth in the Allado case .


6/10

Respon d ents contention:

Written authority having been granted by theProvincial Prosecutor, as required by the third paragraph ofSection 4, Rule 112 of (the) Rules on Criminal Procedure,and there having been no reason for the respondent to

doubt the validity of the certification made by the A ssistantProsecutor that a preliminary investigation was conductedand that probable cause was found to exist as againstthose charged in the Information filed, and recognizing theprosecution's legal authority to initiate and control criminal

prosecution (Rule 110, Section 5) and considering that thecourt cannot interfere in said prosecution's authority(People vs . M oll, 68 Phil . 626), the respondent issued thewarrant for the arrest of the accused pursuant toparagraph (a), section 6, Rule 112 .


7/10

RULING:

Sec . 2 [A rticle III] . The right of the people to besecure in their persons, houses, papers, and effectsagainst unreasonable searches and seizures ofwhatever nature and for any purpose shall beinviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to bedetermined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the

complainant and the witnesses he may produce andparticularly describing the place to be searched andthe persons or things to be seized .


8/10

It must be stressed that the 1987 Constitution requires the

judge to determine probable cause "personally," a requirementwhich does not appear in the corresponding provisions of our previous constitutions . This emphasis evinces the intent of theframers to place a greater degree of responsibility upon trial judges than that imposed under previous Constitutions .

In the case at bench, respondent admits that he issuedthe questioned warrant as there was "no reason for (him) todoubt the validity of the certification made by the A ssistantProsecutor that a preliminary investigation was conducted andthat probable cause was found to exist as against thosecharged in the information filed ." The statement is an admissionthat respondent relied solely and completely on the certification

made by the fiscal that probable cause exists as against thosecharged in the information and issued the challenged warrantof arrest on the sole basis of the prosecutor's findings andrecommendations . H e adopted the judgment of the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause as his own .


9/10

A lthough the prosecutor enjoys the legalpresumption of regularity in the performance of hisofficial duties, which in turn gives his report thepresumption of accuracy, nothing less than thefundamental law of the land commands the judge topersonally determine probable cause in the issuanceof warrants of arrest . A judge fails in thisconstitutionally mandated duty if he relies merely onthe certification or report of the investigating officer .

Clearly, respondent judge, by merely statingthat he had no reason to doubt the validity of thecertification made by the investigating prosecutor has abdicated his duty under the Constitution todetermine on his own the issue of probable causebefore issuing a warrant of arrest . Consequently, thewarrant of arrest should be declared null and void .


10/10

Pol Law Reps

Documents

Transcript of Pol Law Reps