ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 135651. September 15, 1999]

SAGUN vs. HON. UNTAL-DE GUZMAN

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 15 1999.

G.R. No. 135651 (Jean Sagun vs. Hon Charito Untal-de Guzman.)

On March 16, 1998, a criminal complaint was filed against Petitioner for violation of P.D. 1866, as amended, and for grave coercion. On March 24, 1998, public respondent Hon. Charito Untal-de Guzman issued a warrant of arrest. Petitioner filed a motion to quash the warrant of arrest which was denied by public respondent. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which motion was denied.

This petition is filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner alleges that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion when she: (1) issued the warrant of arrest; (2) made a finding that there was a necessity of placing petitioner in the custody of law; and (3) considered that the chief of police is authorized to administer oaths relative to the filing of cases in courts.

The petition should be dismissed.

Under Rule 65, only errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion are reviewable. Certiorari will not lie to cure errors in proceedings or erroneous conclusions of law or fact. As long as the court acts of its jurisdiction will amount to nothing more than, an error of judgment (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 200 [1996]). When public respondent issued the assailed warrant of arrest, she acted well within her powers as MCTC Judge (Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution). It could be inferred from the petition that a preliminary examination was conducted and that searching questions were asked and answers were given (Petition, p. 3). This was enough. Public respondent had no duty to require petitioner to "first answer the complaint" (Petition, p. 4). Before a judge issues a warrant of arrest, the judge should merely determine personally the probability of guilt and not the certainty of guilt of the accused (Webb vs. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652 [1995]). Errors of judgment, even assuming that they exist in the case at bar, are not reviewable by certiorari (Azores vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, 252 SCRA 342 [1996]). Accordingly, petitioner's prayed that public respondent be enjoyed from calling the criminal case that a restraining order be issued for this purpose, must be denied.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE