Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > December 1983 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-60349-62 December 29, 1983 - CITY FISCAL NESTORIO PLACER, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE NAPOLEON VILLANUEVA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. L-60349-62. December 29, 1983.]

CITY FISCAL NESTORIO M. PLACER, ASST. CITY FISCALS AGELIO L. BRINGAS, ERNESTO M. BROCOY, RAFAEL V. FLORES, FELIXBERTO L. GUIRITAN, MACARIO B. BALANSAG and ROSARITO F. DABALOS, all of Butuan City, and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners, v. HON. JUDGE NAPOLEON D. VILLANUEVA, in his capacity as City Judge of Butuan, Respondent.

The Solicitor General for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; CERTIFICATION BY FISCAL IN A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF A PROBABLE CAUSE; ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST; NOT A MERE MINISTERIAL FUNCTION; CALLS FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION; CASE AT BAR. — There is thus no dispute that the judge may rely upon the fiscal’s certification of the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest. But does such certification bind the judge to come out with the warrant? We answer this query in the negative. The issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial function; it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of the issuing magistrate. This is clear from the provisions of Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Under this section, the judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant or order of arrest. If on the face of the information the judge finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s certification and require the submission of the affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of a probable cause. This has been the rule since U.S. v. Ocampo (18 Phil. 1) and Amarga v. Abbas (98 Phil. 739).

2. ID.; ID.; RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE IN SPECIAL CASES; AFFIDAVITS OF WITNESSES; FILING WITH THE COURT, MANDATORY. — Germane to the issue at hand is the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases (This Summary Rule took effect on August 1, 1983). In said cases, the filing of the affidavits of witnesses with the court is mandatory. Section 9, Par. 2 of said Rule prescribes that "the complaint or information must be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and of his witnesses in such number of copies as there are defendants plus two (2) copies for the court’s files." The obvious purpose of requiring the submission of affidavits of the complainant and of his witnesses is to enable the courts to determine whether to dismiss the case outright or to require further proceedings.

3. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; REMAND OF CRIMINAL CASES TO THE CITY FISCAL FOR FURTHER PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND RE-INVESTIGATION, NOT A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — It appears that after petitioners had submitted the required affidavits of witnesses, the respondent judge ordered Criminal Cases Nos. 12417, 12418, 12420 and 12422 remanded to the City Fiscal for further preliminary investigation or reinvestigation. We hold that respondent did not abuse his discretion in doing so. From the informations and affidavits presented to him, he found the charges patently without basis or merit. For respondent to issue the warrants of arrest and try the accused would only expose the latter to unnecessary harrassment, anxiety and expense. And as already pointed out, under the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases, the respondent judge has the power to order the outright dismissal of the charge if, from the information and the affidavits attached thereto, he finds the same to be patently without basis or merit.


D E C I S I O N


ESCOLIN, J.:


The legal question raised in this petition is whether the certification of the investigating fiscal in the information as to the existence of probable cause obligates respondent City Judge to issue a warrant of arrest.

The antecedent facts are not disputed. During the period from March 30 to April 14, 1982, Petitioners, the City Fiscal of Butuan City and his assistants filed in the City Court of Butuan the following informations, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

CRIMINAL

CASE NO. TITLE

12209 People v. Jimmy Tan Slight Phy. Inj.

12210 People v. Carlito Fortun Violation of P.D. 1306

12211 People v. Jarail Majini — do —

12212 People v. Amelita Dy Violation of B.P. 22

12213 People v. Angelito Dy — do —

12214 People v. Jesus Aloyan Estafa

12215 People v. Bebot Lauron Mal. Mischief

12216 People v. Mariano Trani Usurpation of

Antonio Monghit authority

12217 People v. Elorde Subing- Alarm & Scandal

bing, Fernando Sagay

12218 People v. Perla Trasga Grave oral defamation

12219 People v. Renato Dayan Estafa

12220 People v. Edgardo Dayan Estafa

12221 People v. Benito Sy Ibañez Viol. of B.P. 22

12222 People v. Benito Sy Ibañez — do —

These informations, except the last four, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 12219, 12220, 12221 and 12222, were certified to by the respective investigating fiscals as follows: "that a preliminary examination has been conducted by me in this case, having examined the complainant and his witnesses; that on the basis of the sworn statements and other evidence submitted before this Office, there is reasonable ground to believe that the crime charged has been committed and that herein accused is probably guilty thereof." The informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 12219 and 12220 bore the certification of 3rd Assistant Fiscal Felixberto Guiritan "that I am filing this information upon directive of the Minister of Justice, who upon review of the resolution of the undersigned investigating fiscal has found prima facie case against herein accused," while the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 12221 and 12222 were certified to by 2nd Assistant Fiscal Ernesto M. Brocoy in this wise: "I am filing this information upon directive of the City Fiscal pursuant to the provisions of P.D. No. 911, who, upon review of the resolution of the investigating fiscal now on temporary detail with the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Surigao del Sur, has found prima facie case against the herein accused." 2

Following receipt of said informations, respondent judge issued an order setting on April 5, 1982 the hearing of said criminal cases for the purpose of determining the propriety of issuing the corresponding warrants of arrest. After said hearing, respondent issued the questioned orders dated April 13, 15, 16 and 19, 1982, requiring petitioners to submit to the court the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence in support of the informations to aid him in the exercise of his power of judicial review of the findings of probable cause by petitioners. 3

Petitioners filed two separate motions for reconsideration of said orders, contending that under P.D. Nos. 77 and 911, they are authorized to determine the existence of a probable cause in a preliminary examination/investigation, and that their findings as to the existence thereof constitute sufficient basis for the issuance of warrants of arrest by the court. 4 On April 28, 1982, respondent judge denied said motions and reiterated his order to petitioners to submit the supporting affidavits and other documents within five (5) days from notice. 5

Hence, petitioners filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus to set aside the aforesaid orders and to compel respondent to issue the warrants of arrest in Criminal Cases Nos. 12209-12222.

Meanwhile, the respondent, in addition to his duties as presiding judge of Branch I of the City Court of Butuan, was also assigned to preside over Branch II of said court, as Judge Jesus Ruiz, presiding judge of said sala, had retired from the service. The informations filed by petitioners in Branch II likewise remained dormant because of respondent’s firm refusal to issue the corresponding warrants of arrest for want of affidavits of the witnesses. Thus, as disclosed by petitioner’s urgent motion, 6 no warrants had been issued in 113 informations as of July 15, 1982.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

On July 12, 1982, respondent judge received Our May 19, 1982 Resolution requiring him to comment on the petition. However, interpreting the same as a denial of the petition itself, respondent issued on the following day, July 13, and Omnibus Order directing petitioners to submit immediately the supporting affidavits and other evidence in Criminal Cases Nos. 12209-12222. Having failed to secure a reconsideration of said Omnibus Order, petitioners finally submitted the required affidavits and documents on July 15, 1982 in order to avoid further delay in the prosecution of these cases.

This move on the part of the petitioners would have rendered the instant petition moot and academic. But while respondent gave due course to some of said cases either by issuing the warrants of arrest or taking some other appropriate action, 7 he refused to issue the warrants in Criminal Cases Nos. 12417, 12418, 12419, 12420 and 12422, and instead ordered the records thereof remanded to the City Fiscal "for further preliminary investigation or reinvestigation," for on the bases of said affidavits, respondent found no prima facie case against the accused.

Petitioners therefore filed a motion with this Court to restrain respondent from enforcing the orders subject of the main petition and to compel him to accept, and take cognizance of, all the informations filed in his court. They contend that the fiscal’s certification in the information of the existence of probable cause constitutes sufficient justification for the judge to issue a warrant of arrest; and that such certification binds the judge, it being supported by the presumption that the investigating fiscal had performed his duties regularly and completely.

Upon the other hand, respondent justifies his order as an exercise of his judicial power to review the fiscal’s findings of probable cause. He further maintains that the failure of petitioners to file the required affidavits destroys the presumption of regularity in the performance of petitioners’ official duties, particularly in the light of the long standing practice of the Office of the City Fiscal of Butuan of attaching to the informations filed with the court the affidavits of prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence presented during the preliminary investigation.

The issue to be resolved is whether or not the respondent city judge may, for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest, compel the fiscal to submit to the court the supporting affidavits and other documentary evidence presented during the preliminary investigation.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

We sustain the position of respondent judge.

The primary requirement for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of probable cause. Section 3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution provides that —

". . . no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer, as may be recognized by law, after examination under oath or affirmance of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

P.D. No. 911 authorizes the fiscal or state prosecutor to determine the existence of probable cause. Thus,

"If on the basis of complainant’s sworn statements and documents submitted, the investigating fiscal or state prosecutor finds no probable cause to conduct a preliminary investigation, he shall dismiss the case. If probable cause is established by complainant’s evidence, he shall notify the respondent by issuing a subpoena . . . (Sec. 1 [b], RA 5180, as amended by P.D. Nos. 77 and 911).

"The fiscal or state prosecutor shall certify under oath in the information to be filed by him that he has examined the complainant and his witnesses; that on the basis of the sworn statements and other evidence submitted before him there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, . . ." (Sec. 1 [d], id.).

There is thus no dispute that the judge may rely upon the fiscal’s certification of the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest. But does such certification bind the judge to come out with the warrant? We answer this query in the negative. The issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial function; it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of the issuing magistrate. This is clear from the following provisions of Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Warrant of arrest, when issued. — If the judge be satisfied from the preliminary examination conducted by him or by the investigating officer that the offense complained of has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed it, he must issue a warrant or order for his arrest."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under this section, the judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant or order of arrest. If on the face of the information the judge finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s certification and require the submission of the affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of a probable cause. This has been the rule since U.S. v. Ocampo 8 and Amarga v. Abbas. 9 And this evidently is the reason for the issuance by respondent of the questioned orders of April 13, 15, 16, 19, 1982 and July 13, 1982. Without the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses and other evidence which, as a matter of long-standing practice had been attached to the informations filed in his sala, respondent found the informations inadequate bases for the determination of probable cause. For as the ensuing events would show, after petitioners had submitted the required affidavits, respondent wasted no time in issuing the warrants of arrest in the cases where he was satisfied that probable cause existed.

Germane to the issue at hand is the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases 10 applicable to the following, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. B. Criminal Cases:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Violation of traffic laws, rules and regulations;

(2) Violations of the rental laws;

(3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances;

(4) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged does not exceed six (6) months imprisonment, or a fine of One Thousand Pesos [1,000.00], or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom; Provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to property through reckless negligence, this Rule shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed Ten Thousand Pesos [10,000.00]."cralaw virtua1aw library

In said cases, the filing of the affidavits of witnesses with the court is mandatory. Section 9, par. 2 of said Rule prescribes that "the complaint or information must be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and of his witnesses in such number of copies as there are defendants plus two (2) copies for the court’s files."cralaw virtua1aw library

Section 10 of the Summary Rule provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On the basis of the complaint or information and the affidavits accompanying the same, the court shall make a preliminary determination whether to dismiss the case outright for being patently without basis or merit, or to require further proceedings to be taken. In the latter case, the court may set the case for immediate arraignment of an accused under custody, and if he pleads guilty, may render judgment forthwith. If he pleads not guilty, and in all other cases, the court shall issue an order, accompanied by copies of all the affidavits submitted by the complainant, directing the defendant(s) to appear and submit his counter-affidavit and those of his witnesses at a specified date not later than ten (10) days from receipt thereof.

"Failure on the part of the defendant to appear whenever required, shall cause the issuance of a warrant for his arrest if the court shall find that a probable cause exists after an examination in writing and under oath or affirmation of the complainant and his witnesses.

The obvious purpose of requiring the submission of affidavits of the complainant and of his witnesses is to enable the court to determine whether to dismiss the case outright or to require further proceedings.chanrobles law library : red

One last point. It appears that after petitioners had submitted the required affidavits of witnesses, the respondent judge ordered Criminal Cases Nos. 12417, 12418, 12419, 12420 and 12422 remanded to the City Fiscal for further preliminary investigation or reinvestigation. We hold that respondent did not abuse his discretion in doing so. From the informations and affidavits presented to him, he found the charges patently without basis or merit. For respondent to issue the warrants of arrest and try the accused would only expose the latter to unnecessary harrassment, anxiety and expense. And as already pointed out, under the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases, the respondent judge has the power to order the outright dismissal of the charge if, from the information and the affidavits attached thereto, he finds the same to be patently without basis or merit.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Annexes K and L, pp. 33-34, 35-36, Rollo.

2. Annexes M and N, pp. 38-40, Rollo.

3. Annexes 2, AA, BB and CC, pp. 69-74, Rollo.

4. Annexes DD and EE, pp. 75-77, Rollo.

5. Annexes FF, p. 82, Rollo.

6. Dated July 15, 1982, p. 103, Rollo.

7. Certification of the Clerk of Court dated August 20, 1982, p. 136, Rollo.

8. 18 Phil. 1.

9. 98 Phil. 739.

10. This Summary Rule took effect on August 1, 1983.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-65695 December 19, 1983 - HECTOR S. RUIZ v. RICHARD GORDON

    211 Phil. 411

  • G.R. No. L-33906 December 21, 1983 - VICTORIA ABLAZA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 425

  • G.R. No. L-36347 December 21, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO SEE

    211 Phil. 437

  • G.R. No. L-48731 December 21, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TORIO, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 442

  • G.R. No. L-51183 December 21, 1983 - CARMEN L. MADEJA v. FELIX T. CARO, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 469

  • G.R. No. L-54136 December 21, 1983 - PHILIPPINE JAI-ALAI & AMUSEMENT CORPORATION v. JACOBO C. CLAVE, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 474

  • G.R. No. L-55487 December 21, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BANASEN

    211 Phil. 481

  • G.R. Nos. L-58807-08 December 21, 1983 - TEODORO F. VALENCIA v. EMMANUEL M. PELAEZ, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 490

  • G.R. Nos. L-61572-73 December 21, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO MACAYAN, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 494

  • G.R. No. L-61946 December 21, 1983 - TEOFILO REGATCHO v. EMMANUEL G. CLETO, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 512

  • G.R. No. L-62547 December 21, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICITO TAWAT, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 522

  • G.R. No. L-39498 December 23, 1983 - BIBIANO M. VIÑA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 530

  • A.C. No. 1089 December 29, 1983 - WILSON JESENA v. VICENTE G. OÑASA

    211 Phil. 543

  • A.C. No. 1261 December 29, 1983 - TAN TEK BENG v. TIMOTEO A. DAVID

    211 Phil. 547

  • G.R. No. L-32490 December 29, 1983 - NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 551

  • G.R. No. L-37599 December 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO COPRO

    211 Phil. 558

  • G.R. No. L-39899 December 29, 1983 - ARSENIO DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. VIRGILIO D. POBRE YÑIGO, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 567

  • G.R. Nos. L-49693-94 December 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO C. ALCANTARA, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 579

  • G.R. No. L-52765 December 29, 1983 - EDITO GOBOY v. COMELEC, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 594

  • G.R. No. L-57339 December 29, 1983 - AIR FRANCE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 601

  • G.R. No. L-57895 December 29, 1983 - J. WALTER THOMPSON CO. (PHIL.), ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 610

  • G.R. Nos. L-60349-62 December 29, 1983 - CITY FISCAL NESTORIO PLACER, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE NAPOLEON VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-60601 December 29, 1983 - CESAR NEPOMUCENO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 623

  • G.R. Nos. L-61232-33 December 29, 1983 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOR and EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 633

  • G.R. No. L-61308 December 29, 1983 - VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC., ET AL. v. CELESTINO YAP, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 640

  • G.R. No. L-62324 December 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELITO LINTAG

    211 Phil. 644

  • G.R. Nos. L-63251-52 December 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER M. DE LA FUENTE

    211 Phil. 650

  • G.R. No. L-64152 December 29, 1983 - PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 657