CASE #: PEOPLE VS GREY
G.R. NO.: 180109
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/26/2010
PARTIES INVOLVED: PETITIONER/S: People of the Phils
RESPONDENT/S: Joseph Grey, Francis Grey and CA-Cebu Div
GENERAL TOPIC Existence of Probable Cause
DISCUSSED/KEYWORD:
OVERVIEW: Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by the People of the
Philippines, through the OSG, seeking the nullification of the CA Resolution.
An Information for Murder was filed against respondent Joseph Grey, former
Mayor of San Jorge, Samar; his son, respondent Francis Grey; and two others for
the death of Rolando Diocton, an employee of the San Jorge municipal government,
before RTC. The Information was accompanied by other supporting documents and
a motion for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
FACTS OF THE CASE: Joseph Grey, former Mayor of San Jorge, Samar, his son, Francis Grey, and two
others were charge of the crime of murder for the death of Rolando Diocton.
Judge Bandal denied the motion for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. She
directed the prosecution to present, within five days, additional evidence but later,
she inhibited.
Judge Navidad continued the proceedings of the case. After finding that probable
cause was supported by the evidence on record, he issued warrants of arrest against
respondents.
ISSUE/S: Did Judge Navidad fail to personally determine the existence of probable
cause?
RULING/S: No. The duty of the judge to determine probable cause to issue a warrant of
arrest is mandated by Article III, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution. In
Soliven v. Makasiar, the Court explained that this constitutional provision
does not mandatorily require the judge to personally examine the
complainant and her witnesses.
Instead, he may opt to personally evaluate the report and supporting
documents submitted by the prosecutor or he may disregard the prosecutors
report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses.
What the law requires as personal determination on the part of a judge is that
he should not rely solely on the report of the investigating prosecutor. This
means that the judge should consider not only the report of the investigating
prosecutor but also the affidavit and the documentary evidence of the parties,
the counter-affidavit of the accused and his witnesses, as well as the
transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation, if
any, submitted to the court by the investigating prosecutor upon the filing of
the Information.
The Court has also ruled that the personal examination of the complainant
and his witnesses is not mandatory and indispensable in the determination of
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The necessity arises
only when there is an utter failure of the evidence to show the existence of
probable cause. Otherwise, the judge may rely on the report of the
investigating prosecutor, provided that he likewise evaluates the
documentary evidence in support thereof.
Contrary to respondents claim, Judge Navidad did not gravely abuse his
discretion in issuing the same. Judge Navidads Order reads:
In this separate, independent constitutionally-mandated Inquiry conducted
for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of the evidence constituting
probable cause to justify the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest, the Court
perforce, made a very careful and meticulous and (sic) review not only of the
records but also the evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly the
sworn statements/affidavits of Mario Abella, Uriendo Moloboco and Edgar
Pellina.
It was only through a review of the proceedings before the prosecutor that
could have led Judge Navidad to determine that the accused were given the
widest latitude and ample opportunity to challenge the charge of Murder
which resulted, among others, (in) a filing of a counter-charge of Perjury.
Likewise, his personal determination revealed no improper motive on the
part of the prosecution and no circumstance which would overwhelm the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. Thus, he
concluded that the previous Order, denying the motion for the issuance of
warrants of arrest, was not correct. These statements sufficiently establish
the fact that Judge Navidad complied with the constitutional mandate for
personal determination of probable cause before issuing the warrants of
arrest
OTHER NOTES: The criminal Information in this case was filed four years ago and trial has
yet to begin. The victim’s kin, indeed, all the parties, are awaiting its
resolution. Any further delay will amount to an injustice.
The CA Decision are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the
Permanent Injunction is hereby DISSOLVED. The Order of the RTC is
hereby REINSTATED. The RTC is DIRECTED to proceed with hearing,
and to decide Criminal Case No. 4916 with dispatch.
