G.R. No. 82585
November 14, 1988
Facts
In this instant case, there are three issues raised by petitioner:
- Violation of due process when information for libel was charged against them while the prima facie case was still being reviewed by the Secretary of Justice (moot and academic).
- Violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure when the Judge issued warrant of arrest without personally examining petitioners to determine probable cause. He contends that the addition of the word “personally” after the word “determined” and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1973 Constitution to issue warrants to “other responsible officers as may be authorized by law.”
- Whether or not the president of the Philippines, under the Constitution may initiate criminal proceeding by filing a complaint affidavit?
The first issue has become moot and academic. This digest will focus more on the second issue.
Issue
Whether or not judges should personally examine the complainant and witnesses to determine probable cause before they can issue warrants of arrest?
Held
No. The Constitution underscores the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself the existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.
Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
In this case, not been shown that respondent judge has deviated from the prescribed procedure. Thus, with regard to the issuance of the warrants of arrest, a finding of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction cannot be sustained.