SOLIVEN - v - MAKASIAR

Fact:

            Petition for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of the RTC Manila Br. 35. Makasiar, J.

Issues:

1.     W/N petitioners were denied due process when informations for libel were filed against them although the finding of prima facie case was still under review by the Secretary of Justice and subsequently by the President

2.     W/N constitutional rights of Beltran were violated when RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest w/o personally examining the complainant and the witnesses if any to determine probable cause

3.     W/N the president of the Philippines, under the Constitution, may initiate criminal proceedings against petitioners thru the filing of a complaint-affidavit.

Held: dismissed.

Ratio:

First issue

First issue is moot and academic. Petitioners contend that they have been denied the administrative remedies available under the law has lost factual support. The allegation of denial of due process of law in preliminary investigation is negated by the fat that instead of submitting is counter-affidavits, he filed a “motion to declare proceedings closed” in effect waiving his right to refute the complaint by filing counter-affidavits.

Second issue

Beltran calls for interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest, art III, Sec. 2.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

What the constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of 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. 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

2.     if on basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregards the fiscal’s report and require submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause

The interpretation that the Constitution requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest is inaccurate.

Third issue

An accused in a criminal case in which the President is complainant cannot raise the presidential privilege as a defence to prevent the case from proceeding against such accused. The choice of whether to exercise the privilege or to waive it is solely the president’s prerogative.

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.