AMARGA - v - ABBAS

Facts:

1.     Provincial Fiscal of Sulu filed in the CFI of Sulu an information for murder. At the foot of the information the petitioner certified under oath that “he has conducted the necessary preliminary investigation pursuant to the provisions of RA 732”.

2.     The only supporting affidavit was that of Iman Hadji Rohmund Jubair, the latter was told that the deceased was shot and killed by 3 persons named: Hajirul Appang, Rajah Appang and Awadi Bagali,” and the petitioner had failed/refused to present other evidence sufficient to make out a prima facie case.

3.     Respondent judge issued an order with a dispositive part: “x x x this case is hereby ordered dismissed w/o prejudice to reinstatement should the provincial fiscal support his information w/ record of his investigation which in the opinion of the court may support a prima facie case.”

4.     Petitioner instituted in this court petition for certiorari and mandamus. He contended that he has already conducted a preliminary investigation, it became ministerial function of the respondent judge to issue the corresponding warrant of arrest upon the filing of the information in such criminal case.

Issue: W/N respondent judge erred in not issuing a warrant of arrest

Held: Petition granted. Respondent Judge ordered to proceed with criminal case but if within 10 days, petitioner fails/refuses to present other necessary evidence, dismissal will stand for lack of prosecution.

Ratio:

Sec. 1, par. 3 of Art. III of the Constitution provides that “no warrant shall issue but on probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.”

If the judge or magistrate decides upon proof presented that probable cause exists no objection can be made upon constitutional grounds against the issuance of warrant. If not satisfied he may call such witnesses as he may deem necessary before the issuing of the warrant.

There is no law which prohibits him from reaching the conclusion that “probable cause” exists from the statement of the prosecuting attorney alone, or any other person whose statement or affidavit is entitled to credit in the opinion of the judge or magistrate.

The preliminary investigation conducted by petitioner under RA 732 which formed basis for the filing in the CFI Sulu criminal case does not dispense the judge’s duty to exercise his judicial power of determining before issuing the corresponding warrant of arrest, w/n probable cause exists therefore.

Although judge is correct in requiring further evidence to the petitioner, failure/refusal of petitioner to present further evidence, although good as a ground for the respondent Judge not to issue a warrant of arrest is not a legal cause for dismissal.

Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.