SAMULDE - v - SALVANI

Facts:

1.     Municipal Judge Samulde of Patnongon, Antique conducted a preliminary investigation of Arangale upon complaint of robbery by Magbanua alleging that Arangale harvested palay from a portion of her land

2.     Judge Samulde transmitted records to Provincial Fiscal Salvani with his finding that there is prima facie evidence of the robbery as charge in the complaint (under Sec 3 Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure) which was returned to him  on the ground that it was “premature” due to lack of warrant of arrest (under sec 5)

3.     Judge Samulde sent it back arguing that he did not believe that Arangale should be immediately placed under custody so as not to frustrate the ends of justice (under sec 6) Fiscal Salvani filed a special civil action of mandamus to RTC Antique to compel Samulde to issue a warrant of arrest

4.     RTC Judge Icamina dismissed the petition for mandamus because the petitioner does not have a clear legal right for such action. Nevertheless he ordered Samulde to issue a warrant of arrest of Arangle.

            He further advised: “that henceforth he adheres to the same rule in similar cases where    he conducts a preliminary investigation with a finding of prima facie or probable cause”

5.     Hence, this appeal.

Issue: W/N the investigating judge “must issue a warrant of arrest” of he finds probable cause that the respondent committed the crime charged

Held: Appealed decision SET ASIDE.

Ratio:

Judge Samulde correctly argued that 3 conditions must concur for the issuance of the warrant of arrest. Investigating judge must: 

a.     have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching questions and answers;

b.     be satisfied that a probable cause exists, and

c.     that there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice

It is an entirely new rules, and it is plain to see that it is not obligatory, but merely discretionary, upon the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused, even even after having personally examined the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching question and answers, for the determination of whether a probable cause exists and whether it is necessary to arrest the accused in order not to frustrate the ends of justice, is left to his sound judgement or discretion.

Since the robbery charge was the offshoot of a boundary dispute between two property owners, the investigating judge did not believe there was any danger of the accused absconding before the filing of the information against him by the fiscal, hence he found no need to lace him under custody. 

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.