(1)G.R. No. 113630 May 5, 1994 investigation since there was no necessary resolution made by the judge.

essary resolution made by the judge. Whether there is reasonable ground to

DIOSDADO JOSE ALLADO vs. required under the Rules of Court to show how the believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and
HON. ROBERTO C. DIOKNO, Presiding Judge, Br. 62, investigating prosecutor arrived at such a conclusion should be held for trial is what the prosecutor passes upon.
Regional Trial Court, Makati, (charging only one of the 8 respondent-accused). Upon the The judge, on the other hand, determines whether a
return of the records of the case, it was assigned for warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused, i.e.,
FACTS: reinvestigation to another prosecutor who then whether there is a necessity for placing him under
Petitioners, Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza, recommended the filing of charges against 5 accused, 2 of immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of
were both implicated as the masterminds of the kidnapping whom are herein petitioners. justice.
and murder of Eugen Alexander Van Twist. On January 2, 1995, an information was filed against Second, since their objectives are different, the judge cannot
An information for the said crime was filed against the petitioner-spouses and 3 others. The following day, January rely solely on the report of the prosecutor in finding probable
petitioners primarily on the strength of a sworn statement by 3, respondent Judge issued a warrant for the arrest of cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The
Escolastico Umbal, who admitted that he was among those petitioners. On January 4, petitioners filed an urgent Ex- judge must decide independently. Hence, he must have
who kidnapped and killed the victim upon the orders of the Parte motion for the setting aside of saide warrant of arrest. supporting evidence, other than the prosecutor's bare
petitioners. Thereafter, respondent judge, Roberto C. On January 11, a petition for review was filed with the DOJ. report, upon which to legally sustain his own findings on the
Diokno, ordered the arrest of the petitioners and no bail was Despite said filing, respondent judge did not act upon existence (or nonexistence) of probable cause to issue an
recommended. petitioner’s pending Motion to Set Aside the Warrant of arrest order. This responsibility of determining personally
Petitioners, contending that their arrests was effected Arrest. and independently the existence or nonexistence of probable
whimsically as there is no probable cause, questioned their Hence, this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying the cause is lodged in him by no less than the most basic law of
arrests. warrant of Arrest be set aside and declared void ab initio. the land.
Lastly, it is not required that the complete or entire records
ISSUE: Issue: WON the Warrant of Arrest should be set aside and of the case during the preliminary
Whether or not probable cause is present to warrant the declared void ab initio. investigation be submitted to and examined by the
order of arrest against the petitioners. judge.What is required, rather, is that the judge must have
Held: Section 2, Art. III, 1987 Constititution: “The right of sufficient supporting documents (such as the complaint,
HELD: the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, affidavits, counter-affidavits, sworn statements of witnesses
No, probable cause do not exist to merit the order of arrest and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of or transcript of stenographic notes, if any) upon which to
against the petitioners. whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and make his independent judgment or, at the very least, upon
NO SEARCH WARRANT OR WARRANT OF ARREST SHALL which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the
For sure, the credibility of Umbal is badly battered. ISSUE EXCEPT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BE existence of probable cause. The point is: he cannot rely
Certainly, his bare allegations, even if the State invokes its DETERMINED PERSONALLY BY THE JUDGE AFTER solely and entirely on the prosecutor's recommendation, as
inherent right to prosecute, are insufficient to justify sending EXAMINATION UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF THE Respondent Court did in this case.
two lawyers to jail, or anybody for that matter. More COMPLAINANT AND THE WITNESSES HE MAY PRODUCE In the case at bench, respondent admits that he issued the
importantly, the PACC operatives who applied for a warrant and particularly describing the place to be searched and the questioned warrant as there was "no reason for (him) to
to search the dwellings of Santiago never implicated persons or things to be seized.” doubt the validity of the certification made by the Assistant
petitioners. In fact they claimed that according to Umbal, it Prosecutor that a preliminary investigation was conducted
was Santiago, and not petitioners, who masterminded the It must be stressed that the 1987 Constitution requires the and that probable cause was found to exist as against those
whole affair. While there may be bits of evidence against judge to determine probable charged in the information filed." The statement is an
petitioners' co-accused, i.e., referring to those seized from cause "personally," a requirement which does not appear in admission that respondent relied solely and completely on
the dwellings of Santiago, these do not in the least prove the corresponding provisions of our the certification made by the fiscal that probable cause
petitioners' complicity in the crime charged. Based on the previous constitutions. This emphasis evinces the intent of exists as against those charged in the information and
evidence thus far submitted there is nothing indeed, much the framers to place a greater degree of issued the challenged warrant of arrest on the sole basis of
less is there probable cause, to incriminate petitioners. For responsibility upon trial judges than that imposed under the prosecutor's findings and recommendations. He adopted
them to stand trial and be deprived in the meantime of their previous Constitutions. the judgment of the prosecutor regarding the existence of
liberty, however brief, the law appropriately exacts much What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and probable cause as his own. CONSEQUENTLY, THE WARRANT
more to sustain a warrant for their arrest — facts and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself OF ARREST SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID.
circumstances strong enough in themselves to support the of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of
belief that they are guilty of a crime that in fact happened. the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a
Quite obviously, this has not been met. warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally
examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following
(2)Abdula vs Guiani established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) personally
evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted
Facts: by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and,
A petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on
warrant of arrest issued by herein respondent Japal guiani, the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may
then presiding judge of Branch 14 of RTC of Cotabato City, disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of
was filed before the Supreme Court. supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
A complaint for murder was filed but was dismissed by the conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
provincial prosecutor on the gorund that there was no prima Ho vs. People 41 summarizes existing jurisprudence on the
facie case for murder again a number of accused (6). matter as follows:
However, he recommended the filing of an information for Lest we be too repetitive, we only wish to emphasize three
murder against one of the respondents (accused) only vital matters once more: First, as held in
before the sala of the respondent judge Guiani. Guiani Inting, the determination of probable cause by the
returned the case to the provincial prosecutor for further prosecutor is for a purpose different from that which is to be