FACTS:
1. 1989 | at
about 7:30 o'clock in the morning, at the vicinity of the airport road of the
Masbate Domestic Airport, Congressman Moises Espinosa, Sr. and his security
escorts, namely Provincial Guards Antonio Cortes, Gaspar Amaro, and Artemio
Fuentes were attacked and killed by a lone assassin. Dante Siblante another
security escort of Congressman Espinosa, Sr. survived the assassination plot,
although, he himself suffered a gunshot wound.
2. During the
preliminary investigation, the designated investigator of the PC Criminal
Investigation Service filed an amended complaint with the MTC Masbate accusing, among others, Vicente Lim,
Sr., Mayor Susana Lim of Masbate Jolly T. Fernandez, Florencio T. Fernandez,
Jr., Nonilon A. Bagalihog, Mayor Nestor C. Lim and Mayor Antonio Kho of the crime of multiple murder and
frustrated murder in connection with the airport incident.
MTC: a probable cause
has been established for the issuance of a warrant of arrest of named accused in
the amended complaint, namely, Jimmy Cabarles, Ronnie Fernandez, Nonilon
Bagalihog, Jolly Fernandez, Florencio Fernandez, Jr., Vicente Lim, Sr., Susana
Lim, Nestor Lim, Antonio Kho, Jaime Liwanag, Zaldy Dumalag and Rene Tualla aliasTidoy.
3. Petitioners
Jolly Fernandez and Nonilon Bagalihog filed
a motion for the reduction of bail which was granted by the court and they were
allowed to post bail in the amount of P150,000.00 each. Except for
Jimmy Cabarles, all the rest of the accused posted bail at P200,000.00 each.
4. The entire
records of the case were transmitted to the Provincial Prosecutor of Masbate.
5. Fiscal
Alfane issued a Resolution which
affirmed the finding of a prima facie case
against the petitioners but differed in the designation of the crime in that
the ruled that ". . . all of the accused should not only be charged with
Multiple Murder With Frustrated Murder" but for a case of MURDER for each
of the killing of the four victims and a physical injuries case for inflicting
gunshot wound on the buttocks of Dante Siblante."
MR – DENIED
6. Fiscal
Alfane filed with the RTC-Masbate, (4) separate informations of murder against
the twelve (12) accused with a recommendation
of no bail.
7. Petitioners
Vicente Lim, Sr. and Susana Lim filed
with us a verified petition for change of venue.---approved (from RTC
Masbate to RTC Makati---raffled to Judge Felix) to avoid a miscarriage of justice
8. Petitioners
Vicente Lim, Sr. and Susana Lim filed with the respondent court an order requiring
the transmittal of the initial records of the preliminary inquiry or
investigation conducted by the Municipal Judge Barsaga of Masbate for the best
enlightenment of this Honorable Court in
its personal determination of the existence of a probable cause or prima facie evidence as
well as its determination of the existence of guilt, pursuant to the mandatory
mandate of the constitution that no warrant shall issue unless the issuing
magistrate shall have himself been personally convinced of such probable cause
and to be allowed to file a motion for reduction of bail or for admission of
bail
RTC denied the
motions due to lack of merit the motions and manifestations and issued warrants of arrest against the accused
including the petitioners herein.
ISSUE: W/N a Judge
may issue a search warrant without personal examination of the facts and
relying solely on the certification or recommendation of a prosecutor that a
probable cause exists. NO
HELD: NO
ACCDG. TO LAW: The issuance of a warrant is
an exercise of judicial discretion. [Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.]
Warrant of
arrest, when issued. 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
The Judge in order to
personally satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant or order of
arrest.
(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; or
(2) if on the basis thereof
he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and require
the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at
a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
The decision in People v. Honorable Enrique B.
Inting, et al. (G.R. No. 88919, July 25, 1990), reiterated the above
interpretation of "personal" determination by the Judge:
We emphasize important
features of the constitutional mandate that ". . . no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge . . ." (Article III, Section 2, Constitution)
First, the determination of probable
cause is a function of the Judge. It is
not for the Provincial Fiscal or Prosecutor nor for the Election Supervisor to
ascertain. Only the Judge and the Judge alone makes this determination.
Second, the preliminary inquiry made by
a Prosecutor does not bind the Judge. It merely assists him to make the
determination of probable cause. The Judge
does not have to follow what the Prosecutor presents to him. By itself,
the Prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is the
report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all
other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor's certification which are
material in assisting the Judge to make his determination.
Third, Judges and Prosecutors alike
should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for
the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper
which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or released. Even if the
two inquiries are conducted in the course of one and the same proceeding, there
should be no confusion about the objectives. The determination of probable
cause for the warrant of arrest is made by the Judge. The preliminary
investigation proper –– whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe
that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and, therefore, whether or
not he should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial ––
is the function of the Prosecutor.
If a Judge
relies solely on the certification of the Prosecutor as in this case where all
the records of the investigation are in Masbate, he or she has not personally determined
probable cause. The determination is made by the Provincial
Prosecutor. The constitutional requirement has not been satisfied. The Judge
commits a grave abuse of discretion.
The records of the preliminary investigation conducted by
the Municipal Court of Masbate and reviewed by the respondent Fiscal were still
in Masbate when the respondent Fiscal issued the warrants of arrest against the
petitioners. There was no
basis for the respondent Judge to make his own personal determination regarding
the existence of a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest as
mandated by the Constitution.
He could not
possibly have known what transpired in Masbate as he had nothing but a
certification. Significantly, the respondent Judge denied the
petitioners' motion for the transmittal of the records on the ground that the
mere certification and recommendation of the respondent Fiscal that a probable cause exists is sufficient for him to issue a
warrant of arrest.
Indubitably, the respondent Judge committed a
grave error when he relied solely on the Prosecutor's certification and issued
the questioned Order dated July 5, 1990 without having before him any other
basis for his personal determination of the existence of a probable cause.
