EN BANC

[G.R. No. 113930. March 5, 1996]

PAUL G. ROBERTS, JR., RODOLFO C. SALAZAR, LUIS

LORENZO, SR., LUIS LORENZO, JR., AMAURY R.
GUTIERREZ, BAYANI N. FABIC, JOSE YULO, JR.,
ESTEBAN B. PALANNUAYAN, and WONG FONG
FUI, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE
HON. MAXIMIANO ASUNCION, in his capacity as the
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon
City, Branch 104, HON. APOLINARIO G. EXEVEA, HON.
HENRICK F. GINGOYON, and HON. PHILIP A.
AGUINALDO, in their capacities as Members of the
Department of Judge 349 Committee, and the CITY
PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON CITY, respondents.
ROBERTO DELGADO, petitioner-intervenor.
SYLLABUS
1.

REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PRELIMINARY

INVESTIGATION; RULING IN CRESPO VS. MOGUL MERELY
ADVISED THE DOJ TO, AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE,
REFRAIN FROM ENTERTAINING A PETITION FOR REVIEW
OR APPEAL FROM THE ACTION OF THE FISCAL, WHEN
THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION HAS ALREADY BEEN
FILED IN COURT. - There is nothing in Crespo vs.
Mogul which bars the DOJ from taking cognizance of an appeal,
by way of a petition for review, by an accused in a criminal
case from an unfavorable ruling of the investigation
prosecutor. It merely advised the DOJ to, as far as practicable,
refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from
the action of the fiscal, when the complaint or information has
already been filed in Court. More specifically, it stated: In
order therefore to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion
of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal
may be disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice
should, as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining a
petition for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when
the complaint or information has already been filed in Court.
The matter should be left entirely for the determination of the
Court.

2.

ID.; ID.; ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST;

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS; WHO MAY ISSUE; PROCEDURE.
- Section 2, Article III of the present Constitution provides that
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 produced. Under existing laws, warrants

of arrest may be issued (1) by the Metropolitan Trial Court

(MeTCs)) except those in the National Capital Region, Municipal
Trial Courts (MTCs), in cases falling within their exclusive
original jurisdiction; in cases covered by the rule on summary
procedure where the accused fails to appear when required;
and in cases filed with them which are cognizable by the
Regional Trial Courts (RTCs); and (2) by the Metropolitan Trial
Courts in the National Capital Region (MeTCs-NCR) and
the RTCs in cases filed with them after appropriate preliminary
investigations conducted by officers authorized to do so other
than judges of MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs. As to the first, a
warrant can issue only if the judge is satisfied after an
examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and
the witnesses, in the form of searching questions and answers,
that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of
placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not
to frustrate the ends of justice. As to the second, this Court
held in Soliven vs. Makasiar that the judge is not required to
personally examine the complainant and the witnesses, but
[f]ollowing established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1)
personally evaluate the report and 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 fiscals 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. Sound policy
supports this procedure, otherwise judges would be unduly
laden with the preliminary examination and investigation of
criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and
deciding cases filed before their courts. It must be
emphasized that judges must not rely solely on the report or
resolution of the fiscal (now prosecutor); they must evaluate
the report and the supporting documents.
3.

ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT COMPLIED WITH IN CASE
AT BAR. - Unfortunately, in Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198,
nothing accompanied the information upon its filing on 12 April
1993with the trial court. As found by the Court of Appeals in its
resolution of 1 July 1993, a copy of the Joint Resolution was
forwarded to, and received by, the trial court only on 22 April
1993. And as revealed by the certification of Branch Clerk of
Court Gibson Araula, Jr., no affidavits of the witnesses,
transcripts of stenographic notes of the proceedings during the
preliminary investigation, or other documents submitted in the
course thereof were found in the records of Criminal Case No.
Q-93-43198 as of 19 May 1993. Clearly, when respondent
Judge Asuncion issued the assailed order of 17 May
1993 directing, among others things, the issuance of warrants

of arrest, he had only the information, amended information,

and Joint Resolution as bases thereof. He did not have the
records or evidence supporting the prosecutors finding of
probable cause. And strangely enough, he made no specific
finding of probable cause; he merely directed the issuance of
warrants of arrest after June 21, 1993. It may, however, be
argued that the directive presupposes a finding of probable
cause. But then compliance with a constitutional requirement
for the protection of individual liberty cannot be left to
presupposition, conjecture, or even convincing logic.
4.

ID.; ID.; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DISMISSAL OF THE

PETITION FOR REVIEW; AN ACT OF GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION; CASE AT BAR. - The Department of Justice
committed grave abuse of discretion when it executed on 23
July 1993 a unilateral volte-face, which was even unprovoked
by a formal pleading to accomplish the same end, by
dismissing the petition for review. It dismissed the petition
simply because it thought that a review of the Joint Resolution
would be an exercise in futility in that any further action on the
part of the Department would depend on the sound discretion
of the trial court, and that the latters denial of the motion to
defer arraignment filed at the instance of the DOJ was clearly
an exercise of that discretion or was, in effect, a signal to the
Department that the determination of the case is within the
courts exclusive jurisdiction and competence. This infirmity
becomes more pronounced because the reason adduced by
the respondent judge for his denial of the motions to suspend
proceedings and hold in abeyance issuance of warrants of
arrest and to defer arraignment finds, as yet, no support
in Crespo.

5.

ID.; ID.; ID.; DID NOT RENDER MOOT AND ACADEMIC

THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AN
IMPROPER ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANTS OF ARREST. - If
the only issue before the Court of Appeals were the denial of
the petitioners Motion to Suspend Proceedings and to Hold in
Abeyance Issuance of Warrants of Arrest and the public
prosecutors Motion to Defer Arraignment, which were both
based on the pendency before the DOJ of the petition for the
review of the Joint Resolution, the dismissal of CA-G.R. SP NO.
31226 on the basis of the dismissal by the DOJ of the petition
for review might have been correct. However, the petition
likewise involved the issue of whether respondent Judge
Asuncion gravely abused his discretion in ordering the
issuance of warrants of arrest despite want of basis.
The DOJs dismissal of the petition for review did not render
moot and academic the latter issue.

6.

ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR, AN EXCEPTION TO THE

GENERAL RULE THAT CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS MAY
NOT BE RESTRAINED OR STAYED BY INJUNCTION. - There
can be no doubt that, in light of the several thousand
private complainant in Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198 and
several thousands more in different parts of the country who
are similarly situated as the former for being holders of 349
Pepsi crowns, any affirmative holding of probable cause in the
said case may be cause or provoke, as justly feared by the
petitioners, the filing of several thousand cases in various
courts throughout the country. Inevitably, the petitioners would
be exposed to the harassments of warrants of arrest issued by
such courts and to huge expenditures for premiums
on bailbonds and for travels from one court to another
throughout the length and breath of the archipelago for their
arraignments and trials in such cases. Worse, the filing of
these staggering number of cases would necessarily affect the
trial calendar of our overburdened judges and take much of
their attention, time, and energy, which they could devote to
other equally, if not more, important cases. Such frightful
scenario would seriously affect the orderly administration of
justice, or cause oppression or multiplicity of actions a
situation already long conceded by this Court to be an
exception to the general rule that criminal prosecutions may
not be restrained or stayed by injunction.

NARVASA, C.J., separate opinion:

THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT PROBABLE
CAUSE EXISTS TO WARRANT THE PROSECUTION OF
CRIMES IN COURT SHOULD BE CONSIGNED AND
ENTRUSTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AS
REVIEWER
OF
THE
FINDINGS
OF
THE
PUBLIC
PROSECUTORS CONCERNED. - C.J. Narvasa agrees with the
disposition of the case proposed by ponente, that the
determination of whether or not probable cause exists to
warrant the prosecution in court of the petitioners should be
consigned and entrusted to the Department of Justice, as
reviewer of the findings of the public prosecutors concerned. In
this special civil action, this Court is being asked to assume the
function of a public prosecutor. It is being asked to determine
whether probable cause exists as regards petitioners. More
concretely, the Court is being asked to examine and assess
such evidence as has thus far been submitted by the parties
and, on the basis thereof, make a conclusion as to whether or
not it suffices to engender a well founded belief that a crime
has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty
thereof and should be held for trial. It is a function that this

Court should not be called upon to perform. It is a function that

properly pertains to the public prosecutor, one that, as far as
crimes cognizable by a Regional Trial Court are concerned, and
notwithstanding that it involves an adjudicative process of a
sort, exclusively pertains, by law, to said executive officer, the
public prosecutor. It is moreover a function that in the
established scheme of things, is supposed to be performed at
the very genesis of, indeed, prefatorily to, the formal
commencement of a criminal action. The proceedings before a
public prosecutor, it may well be stressed, are essentially
preliminary, prefatory, and cannot lead to a final, definite and
authoritative adjudgment of the guilt or innocence of the
persons charged with a felony or crime. Whether or not that
function has been correctly discharged by the public
prosecutor - i.e., whether or not he has made a correct
ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case - is
a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be
compelled to pass upon. There is no provision of law
authorizing an aggrieved party to a petition for such a
determination. It is not for instance permitted for an accused,
upon the filing of an information against him by the public
prosecutor, to preempt trial by filing a motion with the Trial
Court praying for the quashal or dismissal of the indictment on
the ground that the evidence upon which the same is based is
inadequate. Nor is it permitted, on the antipodal theory that
the evidence is in truth adequate, for the complaining party to
present a petition before the Court praying that the public
prosecutor be compelled to file the corresponding information
against the accused. Besides, the function that this Court is
asked to perform is that of a trier of facts which it does not
generally do, and if at all, only exceptionally, as in an appeal in
a
criminal
action
where
the
penalty
of
life
imprisonment, reclusion perpetua, or death has been imposed
by a lower court (after due trial, of course), or upon a
convincing showing of palpable error as regards a particular
factual conclusion in the judgment of such lower court. What,
in sum, is being attempted in this Court is to reverse the
established and permanent order of things - for the Court to
act before trial and judgment by a lower tribunal; to require it
to perform the role of trier of facts - which, to repeat, it does
not generally do, the issues properly cognizable by it being
normally limited exclusively to questions of law; to make it do
something that even the trial court may not do at this stage of
the proceedings itself to determine the existence of probable
cause; to usurp a duty that exclusively pertains to an executive
official - to conduct a preliminary investigation or review the
findings and conclusions of the public prosecutor who
conducted one. The matter is not within the review jurisdiction

of the Court as this is clearly specified in the Constitution, a

jurisdiction which even the Congress may not increase
without ** (the Courts) advice and concurrence. From the
pragmatic aspect, it is also an undesirable thing, for the result
could well be an increase the already considered work load of
the Court. Furthermore, any judgment of this Court in this
action would be inconclusive, as above intimated. It would not
necessarily end the case. It would not, for instance, prevent
the complaining witnesses from presenting additional evidence
in an effort to have the information ultimately filed in the
proper court against the accused, or the respondents from
asking for a reinvestigation and presenting additional or other
evidence warranting the dropping of the case. The Court would
thus have wielded judicial power without a definite settlement
of rights and liabilities. There are set rules, and procedural
mechanisms in place for the determination of probable cause
at the level of the public prosecutor, the Department of Justice
and, to a certain extent, the Regional Trial Court. No recourse
to this Court should normally be allowed to challenge their
determinations
and
dispositions.
Chief
Justice Narvasatherefore vote to refer to the Department of
Justice for resolution, the petition for the review of the Joint
Resolution issued by Investigating Prosecutor Ramon Gerona.
PUNO, J., dissenting opinion:
1.

REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PRELIMINARY

INVESTIGATION; A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE NEEDS
ONLY TO REST ON EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT MORE
LIKELY THAN NOT A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND
WAS COMMITTED BY THE SUSPECTS. - The concept of
probable cause is not a high level legal abstraction to be the
subject of warring thoughts. It is well established that a
finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence
showing that more likely than not a crime has been
committed and was committed by the suspects. Probable
cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence
of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing
absolute certainty of guilt.

2.

ID.; ID.; ID.; THE CASE OF SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR AND

OTHER RELATED CASES DID NOT ESTABLISH THE
ABSOLUTE RULE THAT UNLESS A JUDGE HAS THE
COMPLETE
RECORDS
OF
THE
PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION BEFORE HIM HE CANNOT LAWFULLY
DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE AND ISSUE A WARRANT
OF ARREST. - Soliven and other related cases did not

establish the absolute rule that unless a judge has

the complete records of the preliminary investigation before
him, he cannot lawfully determine probable cause and issue a
warrant of arrest. Soliven only held that it is the personal
responsibility of the judge to determine probable cause on
the basis of the report and supporting documents submitted by
the fiscal; that he must independently evaluate the report
and supporting documents submitted by the fiscal; and, if he
finds no probable cause on the basis thereof, he can require
submission of additional supporting affidavits of witnesses.
There is nothing in Soliven that requires prosecutors to
submit to the judge the complete recordsof the preliminary
investigation especially if they are voluminous. Nor is there
anything
in Soliven that
holds
that
the omission to physically submit the complete records of
the case would constitutionally infirm a finding of probable
cause by a judge even if it was made on the basis of an
exhaustive prosecutors report or resolution. Indeed, in Webb
vs. de Leon, (G.R. No. 121234) we sustained the finding of
probable cause made by the trial judge even if
the complete records of the preliminary investigation were
not elevated to the said judge.
3.

ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR DOES NOT INVOLVE THE

OUTLAWED PRO-FORMA CERTIFICATION. - A revisit of our
case law will reveal that what we condemned in the past as
constitutionally impermissible was the practice of judges of
totally relying on pro forma certifications of fiscals that they
conducted a preliminary investigation and found probable
cause that the accused committed the crime charged in the
Information. These pro forma certifications usually consisted
of a short sentence. They did not relate the relevant
proceedings in the preliminary investigation nor did they
calibrate the weight of diverse and dueling evidence submitted
by the parties. These bare certifications carried no findings of
fact and made no legal analysis which could be used by judges
as a rational basis for a determination of probable cause. Thus,
we laid down the jurisprudence that a judge who determines
probable cause by relying on such meaningless certifications
violates the constitutional provision prohibiting issuance of
warrants of arrest x x x except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge xx x. The case at bar
does not involve these outlawed certifications.

4.

ID.; ID.; ID.; FORWARDING OF COMPLETE RECORDS IS

NOT NECESSARY WHEN THE PROSECUTORS REPORT IS
EXHAUSTIVE AND ACCURATE. - With due respect to the
majority, the ruling that a judge should always order the
elevation
of
the complete
records of
a
preliminary

investigation before proceeding with the task of reviewing the

finding of probable cause made by prosecutors will exacerbate
the mischief of delays in the disposition of criminal cases. This
will not sit well with our people who ate complaining that their
continuing calls for speedy justice are only receiving dial tones
from courts. The transcription of stenographic notes and the
transfer of physical and documentary evidence, especially
when voluminous, will consume time, result in loss of valuable
evidence and aggravate the burden of litigants. It is
Justice Punos humble submission that the forwarding of
complete records is not necessary when the prosecutors
report is exhaustive and accurate as in the case at bar.
5.

ID.; ID.; ID.; THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF THIS

COURT IN CRIMINAL LITIGATIONS IS NOT ONLY TO
ACQUIT THE INNOCENT AFTER TRIAL BUT TO INSULATE,
FROM THE START, THE INNOCENT FROM UNFOUNDED
CHARGES. - The majority has deviated from the general rule
when it set aside the finding of probable cause made by the
respondent Court of Appeals and the respondent trial judge. To
be sure, this Court can restrain the prosecution of criminal
prosecutions in exceptional cases. It must be stressed,
however, that in theseexceptional cases, the Court took
the extraordinary step of annulling findings of probable cause
either to prevent the misuse of the strong arm of the law or to
protect the orderly administration of justice. The constitutional
duty of this Court in criminal litigations is not only to acquit the
innocent after trial but to insulate, from the start, the innocent
from unfounded charges. For the Court is aware of the strains
of a criminal accusation and the stresses of litigation which
should not be suffered by the clearly innocent. The filling of an
unfounded criminal information in court exposes the innocent
to severe distress especially when the crime is not bailable.
Even an acquittal of the innocent will not fully bleach the dark
and deep stains left by a baseless accusation for reputation
once tarnished remains tarnished for a long length of time. The
expense to establish innocence may also be prohibitive and
can be more punishing especially to the poor and the
powerless. Innocence ought to be enough and the business of
this Court is to shield the innocent from senseless suits right
from the start. J. Punorespectfully submits, however, that the
peculiar facts obtaining in the case at bar do not warrant us to
take the exceptional step of setting aside the finding of
probable cause made by the respondent appellate court and
the trial court. Their finding is supported by substantial
evidence and the issuance of warrants of arrest against the
petitioners to hold them for trial for estafadoes not constitute
misuse of prosecutorial powers. To be sure, petitioners will be
exposed to the inconvenience of facing numerous similar

criminal suits but so long as the inconvenience is no more than

what is necessary to dispense justice, they have no cause to
gripe for justice equally belongs to the private respondents.
6.

ID.; ID.; ID.; ONLY THE COURTS AS ULTIMATE ARBITER

OF
RIGHTS
IN
CONFLICT
CAN
WRITE FINIS TO
CONTROVERSIES. - Petitioners justify the need for DOJ to
review their case in view of the latters alleged contradictory
rulings on cases brought by different parties involving the
same controversy. The DOJ has denied the charge that it has
issued contradictory rulings. But if these contradictory rulings
were truly rendered by DOJ, there is more reason for DOJ to let
the issue be resolved by the courts. As ultimate arbiters of
rights in conflict, only the courts can write finis to the
controversy between petitioners and private respondents.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Poblador Bautista & Reyes for petitioner Raul G. Robers, Jr.
De Jesus & Associates for other petitioners.
Laqui Palma Tiuseco Contreras Law Office, Gregorio Fabros,
and Jose A. Espina for private respondents.
The Solicitor General for public respondent.
Chavez Laureta & Associates for Intervenor.

DECISION
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
We are urged in this petition to set aside (a) the decision of the
Court of Appeals of 28 September 1993 in CA-G.R. SP No. 31226,
[1]
which dismissed the petition therein on the ground that it has
been mooted with the release by the Department of Justice of its
decision x x x dismissing petitioners petition for review; (b) the
resolution of the said court of 9 February 1994 [2] denying the
petitioners motion to reconsider the decision; (c) the order of 17
May 1993[3] of respondent Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion of Branch
104 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in Criminal
Case No. Q-93-43198 denying petitioners motion to suspend
proceedings and to hold in abeyance the issuance of the warrants
of arrest and the public prosecutors motion to defer arraignment;
and (d) the resolution of 23 July 1993 and 3 February 1994 [4] of
the Department of Justice, (DOJ) dismissing petitioners petition
for the review of the Joint Resolution of the Assistant City
Prosecutor of Quezon City and denying the motion to reconsider
the dismissal, respectively.
The petitioners rely on the following grounds for the grant of
the reliefs prayed for in this petition:

I
Respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion when he
ordered the arrest of the petitioners without examining the record
of the preliminary investigation and in determining for himself on
the basis thereof the existence of probable cause.
II
The Department of Justice 349 Committee acted with grave
abuse of discretion when it refused to review the City Prosecutors
Joint Resolution and dismissed petitioners appeal therefrom.
III
The Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion when it
upheld the subject order directing the issuance of the warrants of
arrest without assessing for itself whether based on such records
there is probable cause against petitioners.
IV
The facts on record do not establish prima facie probable cause
and Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198 should have been dismissed. [5]
The antecedents of this petition are not disputed.
Several thousand holders[6] of 349 Pepsi crowns in
connection with the Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc.s (PEPSIs)
Number Fever Promotion[7] filed with the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City complaints against the petitioners in
their respective capacities as Presidents or Chief Executive
Officers, Chairman of the Board, Vice-Chairman of the Board, and
Directors of PEPSI, and also against other officials of PEPSI. The
complaints respectively accuse the petitioners and the other
PEPSI officials of the following crimes: (a) estafa; (b) violation of
R.A. No. 7394, otherwise known as the Consumer Act of the
Philippines; (c) violation of E.O. No. 913; [8] and (d) violation of Act
No. 2333, entitled An Act Relative to Untrue, Deceptive and
Misleading Advertisements, as amended by Act No. 3740.[9]
After appropriate proceedings, the investigating prosecutor,
Ramon M. Gerona, released on 23 March 1993 a Joint
Resolution[10] where he recommended the filing of an information
against the petitioners and others for the violation of Article 3 18
of the Revised Penal Code and the dismissal of the complaints for
the violation of Article 315, 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code; R.A.
No. 7394; Act No. 2333, as amended by Act No. 3740; and E.O.
No. 913. The dispositive portion thereof reads as follows:
In view of all the foregoing, it is recommended that:

1. The attached information be filed against respondents

Paul G. Roberts, Jr., Rodolfo C. Salazar, Rosemarie R. Vera,
Luis F. Lorenzo, Sr., Luis P. Lorenzo, Jr., J. Roberto Delgado,
Amaury R. Gutierrez, Bayani N. Fabic, Jose Yulo, Jr.,
Esteban B. Pacannuayan, Jr., Wong Fong Fui, Quintin J.
Gomez, Jr. and Chito V. Gutierrez for estafa under Article
318, Revised Penal Code, while the complaint for violation
of Article 315, 2(d), Revised Penal Code against same
respondents Juanito R. Ignacio, R. Sobong, R.O. Sinsuan,
M.P. Zarsadias, L.G. Dabao, Jr., R.L. Domingo, N.N. Bacsal,
Jesus M. Manalastas, Janette P. Pio de Roda, Joaquin W.
Sampaico, Winefreda 0. Madarang, Jack Gravey, Les G.
Ham, Corazon Pineda, Edward S. Serapio, Alex 0.
Caballes, Sandy Sytangco, Jorge W. Drysdale, Richard
Blossom, Pablo de Borja, Edmundo L. Tan, Joseph T.
Cohen, Delfin Dator, Zosimo B. San Juan, Joaquin Franco,
Primitivo S. Javier, Jr., Luisito Guevarra, Asif H. Adil,
Eugenio Muniosguren, James Ditkoff and Timothy Lane be
dismissed;
2. The complaints against all respondents for violation of
R.A. 7394 otherwise known as the Consumer Act of the
Philippines and violation of Act 2333 as amended by Act
3740 and E 0. 913 be also dismissed for insufficiency of
evidence, and
3. I.S. Nos. 92-7833; 92-8710 and 92-P-1065 involving
Crowns Nos. 173; 401; and 117, 425, 703 and 373,
respectively, alleged to be likewise winning ones be
further investigated to afford respondents a chance to
submit their counter-evidence.[11]
On 6 April 1993, City Prosecutor Candido V. Rivera approved
the recommendation with the modification that Rosemarie Vera,
Quintin Gomez, Jr., and Chito Gonzales be excluded from the
charge on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. [12]
The information for estafa attached to the Joint Resolution was
approved (on 7 April 1993) by Ismael P. Casabar, Chief of the
Prosecution Division, upon authority of the City Prosecutor of
Quezon City, and was filed with the RTC of Quezon City on 12 April
1993. It was docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198. [13] The
information reads as follows:
The undersigned 1st Assistant City Prosecutor accuses PAUL G.
ROBERTS, JR. RODOLFO C. SALAZAR, LUIS F. LORENZO, SR., LUIS P.
LORENZO, JR., J. ROBERTO DELGADO, AMAURY R. GUTIERREZ,
BAYANI N. FABIC, JOSE YULO, JR., ESTEBAN B. PACANNUAYAN, JR.
and WONG FONG FUI, of the crime of ESTAFA, committed as
follows:

That in the month of February, 1992, in Quezon

City, Philippines and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto,
the above-named accused Paul G. Roberts, Jr.
Presidents
Rodolfo G. Salazar

Luis F. Lorenzo, Sr.

Chairman of the Board of Directors

Luis P. Lorenzo, Jr.

Vice Chairman of the Board

being then the

and Executive Officers

J. Roberto Delgado
)
Members of the Board
Amaury R. Gutierrez
)
Bayani N. Fabic
)
Jose Yulo, Jr.
)
Esteban B. Pacannuayan, Jr. and
Wong Fong Fui
)

being then the

being then the
being then

OF THE PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC., CONSPIRING

with one another, with intent of gain, by means of deceit,
fraudulent acts or false pretenses, executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud the private
complainants whose names with their prizes claimed appear in
the attached lists marked as Annexes A to A-46; B to -33;
C to C-281; D to D-238; E to E-3O and F to F-244
in the following manner: on the date and in the place
aforementioned, said accused pursuant to their conspiracy,
launched the Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc. Number Fever
Promotion from February 17 to May 8, 1992 later extended to
May 11-June 12, 1992 and announced and advertised in the
media that all holders of crowns and/or caps of Pepsi, Mirinda,
Mountain Dew and Seven-Up bearing the winning 3-digit number
will win the full amount of the prize printed on the crowns/caps
which are marked with a seven-digit security code as a measure
against tampering or faking of crowns and each and every
number has its own unique matching security code, enticing the
public to buy Pepsi softdrinks with aforestated alluring and
attractive advertisements to become millionaires, and by virtue of
such representations made by the accused, the said complainants
bought Pepsi softdrinks, but, the said accused after their TV
announcement on May 25, 1992 that the winning number for the
next day was 349, in violation of their aforecited mechanics,
refused as they still refuse to redeem/pay the said Pepsi crowns
and/or caps presented to them by the complainants, who, among

others, were able to buy Pepsi softdrinks with crowns/caps

bearing number 349 with security codes L-2560-FQ and L-3560FQ, despite repeated demands made by the complainants, to
their damage and prejudice to the extent of the amount of the
prizes respectively due them from their winning 349
crowns/caps, together with such other amounts they spent
ingoing to and from the Office of Pepsi to claim their prizes and
such other amounts used in buying Pepsi softdrinks which the
complainants normally would not have done were it not for the
false, fraudulent and deceitful posters of Pepsi Cola Products, Inc.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On 14 April 1993, the petitioners filed with the Office of the
City Prosecutor a motion for the reconsideration of the Joint
Resolution[14] alleging therein that (a) there was neither fraud in
the Number Fever Promotion nor deviation from or modification of
the promotional rules approved by the Department of Trade and
industry (DTI), for from the start of the promotion, it had always
been clearly explained to the public that for one to be entitled to
the cash prize his crown must bear both the winning number and
the correct security code as they appear in the DTI list; (b) the
complainants failed to allege, much less prove with prima
facie evidence, the specific overt criminal acts or ommissions
purportedly committed by each of the petitioners; (c) the
compromise agreement entered into by PEPSI is not an admission
of guilt; and (d) the evidence establishes that the promo was
carried out with utmost good faith and without malicious intent.
On 15 April 1993, the petitioners filed with the DOJ a Petition
for Review[15] wherein, for the same grounds adduced in the
aforementioned motion for reconsideration, they prayed that the
Joint Resolution be reversed and the complaints dismissed. They
further stated that the approval of the Joint Resolution by the City
prosecutor was not the result of a careful scrutiny and
independent evaluation of the relevant facts and the applicable
law but of the grave threats, intimidation, and actual violence
which the complainants had inflicted on him and his assistant
prosecutors.
On that same date, the petitioners filed in Criminal Case No. Q93-43198 Motions to Suspend Proceedings and to Hold in
Abeyance Issuance of Warrants of Arrest on the ground that they
had filed the aforesaid Petition for Review. [16]
On 21 April 1993, acting on the Petition for Review, Chief State
Prosecutor Zenon L. De Guia issued a 1st Indorsement,
[17]
directing the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to inform the DOJ
whether the petitioners have already been arraigned, and if not,
to move in court for the deferment of further proceedings in the

case and to elevate to the DOJ the entire records of the case, for
the case is being treated as an exception pursuant to Section 4 of
Department Circular No. 7 dated 25 January 1990.
On 22 April 1993, Criminal Case no. Q-93-41398 was raffled to
Branch 104 of the RTC of Quezon City.[18]
In the morning of 27 April 1993, private prosecutor Julio
Contreras filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Issuance of Warrants of
Arrest.[19]
In the afternoon of that same day, petitioner Paul Roberts, Jr.,
filed a Supplemental Urgent Motion to hold in Abeyance Issuance
of Warrant of Arrest and to Suspend Proceedings. [20] He stressed
that the DOJ had taken cognizance of the Petition for Review by
directing the City Prosecutor to elevate the records of I.S. No. P4401 and its related cases and asserted that the petition for
review was an essential part of the petitioners right to a
preliminary investigation.
The next day, respondent Judge Asuncion, Presiding Judge of
Branch 104 of the RTC of Quezon City, issued an order advising
the parties that his court would be guided by the doctrine laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of Crespo vs. Mogul, 151
SCRA 462 and not by the resolution of the Department of Justice
on the petition for review undertaken by the accused. [21]
On 30 April 1993, Assistant City Prosecutor Tirso M. Gavero
filed with the trial court a Motion to Defer Arraignment wherein he
also prayed that further proceedings be held in abeyance
pending final disposition by the Department of Justice. [22]
On 4 May 1993, Gavero filed an Amended Information,
accompanied by a corresponding motion[24] to admit it. The
amendments merely consist in the statement that the
complainants therein were only among others who were
defrauded by the accused and that the damage or prejudice
caused amounted to several billions of pesos, representing the
amounts due them from their winning 349 crowns/caps. The
trial court admitted the amended information on the same date.
[23]

[25]

Later, the attorneys for the different private complainants filed,

respectively, an Opposition to Motion to Defer Arraignment, [26] and
Objection and Opposition to Motion to Suspend Proceedings and
to Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of Warrants of Arrest. [27]
On 14 May 1993, the petitioners filed a Memorandum in
support of their Motion to Suspend Proceedings and to Hold in
Abeyance the Issuance of the Warrants of Arrest. [28]
On 17 May 1993, respondent Judge Asuncion issued the
challenged order (1) denying the petitioners Motion to Suspend

Proceedings and to Hold In Abeyance Issuance of Warrants of

Arrest and the public prosecutors Motion to Defer Arraignment
and (2) directing the issuance of the warrants of arrest after 21
June 1993 and setting the arraignment on 28 June 1993.
[29]
Pertinent portions of the order read as follows:
In the Motion filed by the accused, it is alleged that
on April 15, 1993, they filed a petition for review seeking the
reversal of the resolution of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City
approving the filing of the case against the accused, claiming
that:
1. The resolution constituting [sic] force and duress;
2. There was no fraud or deceit therefore there can be no
estafa;
3. No criminal overt acts by respondents were proved;
4. Pepsi nor the accused herein made no admission of guilt
before the Department of Trade and Industry;
5. The evidence presented clearly showed no malicious
intent on the part of the accused.
Trial Prosecutor Tirso M. Gavero in his Motion to Defer
Arraignment averred that there is a pending petition for review
with the Department of Justice filed by the accused and the Office
of the City Prosecutor was directed, among other things, to cause
for the deferment of further proceedings pending final disposition
of said petition by the Department of Justice.
The motions filed by the accused and the Trial Prosecutor are
hereby DENIED.
This case is already pending in this Court for trial. To follow
whatever opinion the Secretary of Justice may have on the matter
would undermine the independence and integrity of this Court.
This Court is still capable of administering justice.
The Supreme Court in the case of Crespo vs. Mogul (SCRA 151,
pp. 471-472) stated as follows:
In order therefor to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion of
the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal may
be disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice should,
as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for
review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when the complaint
or information has already been filed in Court. The matter should
be left entirely for the determination of the Court.
WHEREFORE, let warrant of arrest be issued after June 21, 1993,
and arraignment be set on June 28, 1993, at 9:30 in the morning.

On 7 June 1993, the petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals

a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with application
for a temporary restraining order, [30] which was docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 31226. They contended therein that respondent Judge
Asuncion had acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion in issuing the aforementioned order
of 17 May 1993 because
I. RESPONDENT JUDGE FAILED TO EXAMINE THE RECORD
OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION BEFORE ORDERING THE
ARREST OF PETITIONERS.
II. THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO HOLD PETITIONERS
CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR ESTAFA, OTHER DECEITS, OR ANY
OTHER OFFENSE.
III. THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW SHOULD HAVE BEEN
SUSPENDED TO AWAIT THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICES
RESOLUTION OF PETITIONERS APPEAL, AND
IV. THERE IS NO OTHER PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE
REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW.
On 15 June 1993, the Court of Appeals issued a temporary
restraining order to maintain the status quo.[31] In view thereof,
respondent Judge Asuncion issued an order on 28 June
1993[32]postponing indefinitely the arraignment of the petitioners
which was earlier scheduled on that date.
On 28 June 1993, the Court of Appeals heard the petitioners
application for a writ of preliminary injunction, granted the motion
for leave to intervene filed by J. Roberto Delgado, and directed the
Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC of Quezon City to elevate the
original records of Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198 [33]
Upon receipt of the original records of the criminal case, the
Court of Appeals found that a copy of the Joint Resolution had in
fact been forwarded to, and received by, the trial court on 22 April
1993, which fact belied the petitioners claim that the respondent
Judge had not the slightest basis at all for determining probable
cause when he ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest. It ruled
that the Joint Resolution was sufficient in itself to have been
relied upon by respondent Judge in convincing himself that
probable cause indeed exists for the purpose of issuing the
corresponding warrants of arrest; and that the mere silence of
the records or the absence of any express declaration in the
questioned order as to the basis of such finding does not give rise
to an adverse inference, for the respondent Judge enjoys in his
favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of his
official
duty.
The
Court
of
Appeals
then
issued
a
[34]
resolution
denying the application for a writ of preliminary
injunction.

On 8 June 1993, the petitioners filed a motion to

reconsider[35] the aforesaid resolution. The Court of Appeals
required the respondents therein to comment on the said motion.
[36]

On 3 August 1993, the counsel for the private complainants

filed in CA-G.R. SP No. 31226 a Manifestation [37] informing the
court that the petitioners petition for review filed with the DOJ
was dismissed in a resolution dated 23 July 1993. A copy[38] of the
resolution was attached to the Manifestation.
On 21 September 1993, the public respondents filed in CA-G.R.
SP No. 31226 a motion to dismiss the petition [39] on the ground
that it has become moot and academic in view of the dismissal by
the DOJ of the petitioners petition to review the Joint Resolution.
The dismissal by the DOJ is founded on the following exposition:
You questioned the said order of the RTC before the Court of
Appeals and prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction to restrain the Trial Judge from issuing any warrant of
arrest and from proceeding with the arraignment of the accused.
The appellate court in a resolution dated July 1, 1993, denied your
petition.
In view of the said developments, it would be an exercise in
futility to continue reviewing the instant cases for any further
action on the part of the Department would depend on the sound
discretion of the Trial Court. The denial by the said court of the
motion to defer arraignment filed at our instance was clearly an
exercise of its discretion. With the issuance of the order
dated May 17, 1993, the Trial Court was in effect sending a signal
to this Department that the determination of the case is within
its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. The rule is that x x x
once a complaint or information is filed in Court, any disposition of
the case as to dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the
accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the
fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of
criminal cases even while the case is already in Court, he cannot
impose his opinion on the trial court. The court is the best and
sole judge on what to do with the case before it. x x x
(Crespo vs. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462).[40]
On 28 September 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated a
decision[41] dismissing the petition because it had been mooted
with the release by the Department of Justice of its decision x x x
dismissing petitioners petition for review by inerrantly upholding
the criminal courts exclusive and unsupplantable authority to
control the entire course of the case brought against petitioners,
reiterating
with
approval
the
dictum
laid
down
in
the Crespo case.

The petitioners filed a motion to reconsider the DOJs dismissal

of the petition citing therein its resolutions in other similar cases
which were favorable to the petitioners and adverse to other
349 Pepsi crowns holders.
In its resolution of 3 February 1994, the DOJ, through its 349
Committee, denied the motion and stated: The instant petition is
different from the other petitions resolved by this Department in
similar cases from the provinces. In the latter petitions, the
complaints against herein respondents [sic] [42] were dismissed
inasmuch as the informations have not yet been filed or even if
already filed in court, the proceedings have been suspended by
the courts to await the outcome of the appeal with this
Department.[43]
The petitioners likewise filed a motion to reconsider [44] the
aforesaid Court of Appeals decision, which the said court denied
in its resolution[45] of 9 February 1994. Hence, the instant petition.
The First Division of this Court denied due course to this
petition in its resolution of 19 September 1994.[46]
On 7 October 1994, the petitioners filed a motion for the
reconsideration[47] of the aforesaid resolution. Acting thereon, the
First Division required the respondents to comment thereon.
Later, the petitioners filed a supplemental motion for
reconsideration[48] and a motion to refer this case to the Court en
banc.[49] In its resolution of 14 November 1994,[50] the First Division
granted the latter motion and required the respondents to
comment on the supplemental motion for reconsideration
In the resolution of 24
banc accepted the referral.

November

1994,

the

Court en

On 10 October 1995, after deliberating on the motion for

reconsideration and the subsequent pleadings in relation thereto,
the Court en banc granted the motion for reconsideration;
reconsidered and set aside the resolution of 19 September 1994;
and reinstated the petition. It then considered the case submitted
for decision, since the parties have exhaustively discussed the
issues in their pleadings, the original records of Criminal Case No.
Q-93-43198 and of CA-G.R. SP No. 31226 had been elevated to
this Court, and both the petitioners and the Office of the Solicitor
General pray, in effect, that this Court resolve the issue of
probable cause On the basis thereof.
The pleadings of the parties suggest for this Courts resolution
the following key issues:
1. Whether public respondent Judge Asuncion committed
grave abuse of discretion in denying, on the basis
of Crespo vs. Mogul, the motions to suspend proceedings

and hold in abeyance the issuance of warrants of arrest

and to defer arraignment until after the petition for review
filed with the DOJ shall have been resolved.
2. Whether public respondent Judge Asuncion committed
grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance of
warrants of arrest without examining the records of the
preliminary investigation.
3. Whether the DOJ, through its 349 Committee, gravely
abused its discretion in dismissing the petition for review
on the following bases: (a) the resolution of public
respondent Court of Appeals denying the application for a
writ of preliminary injunction and (b) of public respondent
Asuncions denial of the abovementioned motions.
4. Whether public respondent Court of Appeals committed
grave abuse of discretion (a) in denying the motion for a
writ of preliminary injunction solely on the ground that
public respondent Asuncion had already before him the
Joint Resolution of the investigating prosecutor when he
ordered the issuance of the warrants of arrest, and (b) in
ultimately dismissing the petition on the ground of
mootness since the DOJ has dismissed the petition for
review.
5. Whether this Court may determine in this proceedings
the existence of probable cause either for the issuance of
warrants of arrest against the petitioners or for their
prosecution for the crime of estafa.
We resolve the first four issues in the affirmative and the fifth,
in the negative.
I.
There is nothing in Crespo vs. Mogul[51] which bars the DOJ
from taking cognizance of an appeal, by way of a petition for
review, by an accused in a criminal case from an unfavorable
ruling of the investigating prosecutor. It merely advised the DOJ
to, as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for
review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when the complaint
or information has already been filed in Court. More specifically,
it stated:
In order therefore to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion of
the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal may
be disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice should,
as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for
review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when the complaint

or information has already been filed in Court. The matter should

be left entirely for the determination of the Court. [52]
In Marcelo
declared:

vs.

Court

of

Appeals, [53] this

Court

explicitly

Nothing in the said ruling forecloses the power or authority of the

Secretary of Justice to review resolutions of his subordinates in
criminal cases. The Secretary of Justice is only enjoined to refrain
as far as practicable from entertaining a petition for review or
appeal from the action of the prosecutor once a complaint or
information is filed in court. In any case, the grant of a motion to
dismiss, which the prosecution may file after the Secretary of
Justice reverses an appealed resolution, is subject to the
discretion of the court.
Crespo could not have intended otherwise without doing
violence to, or repealing, the last paragraph of Section 4, Rule 112
of the Rules of Court[54] which recognizes the authority of the
Secretary of Justice to reverse the resolution of the provincial or
city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor upon petition by a proper
party.
Pursuant to the said provision, the Secretary of Justice had
promulgated the rules on appeals from resolutions in preliminary
investigation. At the time the petitioners filed their petition for the
review of the Joint Resolution of the investigating prosecutor, the
governing rule was Circular No. 7, dated 25 January 1990. Section
2 thereof provided that only resolutions dismissing a criminal
complaint may be appealed to the Secretary of Justice. Its Section
4,[55] however, provided an exception, thus allowing, upon a
showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion, appeals
from resolutions finding probable cause, provided that the
accused has not been arraigned.
The DOJ gave due course to the petitioners petition for review
as an exception pursuant to Section 4 of Circular No. 7.
Meanwhile, the DOJ promulgated on 30 June 1993 Department
Order No. 223[56] which superseded Circular No. 7. This Order,
however, retained the provisions of Section 1 of the Circular on
appealable cases and Section 4 on the non-appealable cases and
the exceptions thereto.
There is nothing in Department Order No. 223 which would
warrant a recall of the previous action of the DOJ giving due
course to the petitioners petition for review. But whether the DOJ
would affirm or reverse the challenged Joint Resolution is still a
matter of guesswork. Accordingly, it was premature for
respondent Judge Asuncion to deny the motions to suspend
proceedings and to defer arraignment on the following grounds:

This case is already pending in this Court for trial. To follow

whatever opinion the Secretary of Justice may have on the matter
would undermine the independence and integrity of this Court.
This Court is still capable of administering justice.
The real and ultimate test of the independence and integrity of
this court is not the filing of the aforementioned motions at that
stage of the proceedings but the filing of a motion to dismiss or to
withdraw the information on the basis of a resolution of the
petition for review reversing the Joint Resolution of the
investigating prosecutor. Before that time, the following
pronouncement inCrespo did not yet truly become relevant or
applicable:
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or
information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its
dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the
sound discretion of the court. Although the fiscal retains the
direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even
while the case is already in court he cannot impose his opinion on
the trial court. The court is the best and sole judge on what to do
with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its
exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the
case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has
the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is
done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the
motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the
Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation.
[57]

However, once a motion to dismiss or withdraw the information is

filed the trial judge may grant or deny it, not out of subservience
to the Secretary of Justice, but in faithful exercise of judicial
prerogative. This Court pertinently stated so in Martinez vs. Court
of Appeals:[58]
Whether to approve or disapprove the stand taken by the
prosecution is not the exercise of discretion required in cases like
this. The trial judge must himself be convinced that there was
indeed no sufficient evidence against the accused, and this
conclusion can be arrived at only after an assessment of the
evidence in the possession of the prosecution. What was
imperatively required was the trial judges own assessment of
such evidence, it not being sufficient for the valid and proper
exercise of judicial discretion merely to accept the prosecutions
word for its supposed insufficiency.
As aptly observed the Office of the Solicitor General, in failing
to make an independent finding of the merits of the case and

merely anchoring the dismissal on the revised position of the

prosecution, the trial judge relinquished the discretion he was
duty bound to exercise. In effect, it was the prosecution, through
the Department of Justice which decided what to do and not the
court which was reduced to a mere rubber stamp in violation of
the ruling in Crespo vs. Mogul.
II.
Section 2, Article III of the present Constitution provides that
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.
Under existing laws, warrants of arrest may be issued (1) by
the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs) except those in the National
Capital Region, Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) in cases falling within their exclusive
original jurisdiction;[59] in cases covered by the rule on summary
procedure where the accused fails to appear when required; [60]and
in cases filed with them which are cognizable by the Regional Trial
Courts (RTCs);[61] and (2) by the Metropolitan Trial Courts in the
National Capital Region (MeTCs-NCR) and the RTCs in cases filed
with them after appropriate preliminary investigations conducted
by officers authorized to do so other than judges of MeTCs, MTCs
and MCTCs.[62]
As to the first, a warrant can issue only if the judge is satisfied
after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant
and the witnesses, in the form of searching questions and
answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a
necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in
order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
As to the second, this Court held in Soliven vs. Makasiar[63] that
the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant
and the witnesses, but
[f]ollowing established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1)
personally evaluate the report and 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
fiscals 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.[64]

Sound policy supports this procedure, otherwise judges would be

unduly laden with the preliminary examination and investigation
of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and
deciding cases filed before their courts. It must be emphasized
that judges must not rely solely on the report or resolution of the
fiscal (now prosecutor); they must evaluate the report and the
supporting documents. In this sense, the aforementioned
requirement has modified paragraph 4(a) of Circular No. 12 issued
by this Court on 30 June 1987 prescribing the Guidelines on
Issuance of Warrants of Arrest under Section 2, Article III of the
1987 Constitution, which provided in part as follows:
4. In satisfying himself of the existence of a probable cause
for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge,
following established doctrine and procedure, may either:
(a) Rely upon the fiscals certification of the existence of
probable cause whether or not the case is cognizable
only by the Regional Trial Court and on the basis
thereof, issue a warrant of arrest. x x x
This requirement of evaluation not only of the report or
certification of the fiscal but also of the supporting documents
was further explained in People vs. Inting,[65] where this Court
specified what the documents may consist of, viz., the affidavits,
the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all other
supporting documents behind the Prosecutors certification which
are material in assisting the Judge to make his determination of
probable cause. Thus:
We emphasize the important features of the constitutional
mandate that x x x no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge x x x (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 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 Prosecutors 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 Prosecutors certification which are
material in assisting the Judge to make his determination.
In adverting to a statement in People vs. Delgado[66] that the
judge may rely on the resolution of the Commission on Elections

(COMELEC) to file the information by the same token that it may

rely on the certification made by the prosecutor who conducted
the preliminary investigation in the issuance of the warrant of
arrest, this Court stressed in Lim vs. Felix[67] that
Reliance on the COMELEC resolution or the Prosecutors
certification presupposes that the records of either the COMELEC
or the Prosecutor have been submitted to the Judge and he relies
on the certification or resolution because the records of the
investigation sustain the recommendation. The warrant issues not
on the strength of the certification standing alone but because of
the records which sustain it.
And noting that judges still suffer from the inertia of decisions and
practice under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, this Court found
it necessary to restate the rule in greater detail and hopefully
clearer terms. It then proceeded to do so, thus:
We reiterate the ruling in Soliven vs. Makasiar that the Judge
does not have to personally examine the complainant and his
witnesses. The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a
commissioner for the taking of the evidence. However, there
should be a report and necessary documents supporting the
Fiscals bare certification. All of these should be before the Judge.
The extent of the Judges personal examination of the report
and its annexes depends on the circumstances of each case. We
cannot determine beforehand how cursory or exhaustive the
Judges examination should be. The Judge has to exercise sound
discretion for, after all, the personal determination is vested in the
Judge by the Constitution. It can be as brief as or detailed as the
circumstances of each case require. To be sure, the Judge must go
beyond the Prosecutors certification and investigation report
whenever, necessary. He should call for the complainant and
witnesses themselves to answer the courts probing questions
when the circumstances of the case so require.
This Court then set aside for being null and void the challenged
order of respondent Judge Felix directing the issuance of the
warrants of arrest against petitioners Lim, et al., solely on the
basis of the prosecutors certification in the informations that
there existed probable cause without having before him any
other basis for his personal determination of the existence of a
probable cause.
In Allado vs. Diokno,[68] this Court also ruled that before
issuing a warrant of arrest, the judge must satisfy himself that
based on the evidence submitted there is sufficient proof that a
crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested is
probably guilty thereof.

In the recent case of Webb vs. De Leon,[69] this Court rejected

the thesis of the petitioners of absence probable cause and
sustained the investigating panels and the respondent Judges
findings of probable cause. After quoting extensively from Soliven
vs. Makasiar,[70] this Court explicitly pointed out:
Clearly then, the Constitution, the Rules of Court, and our case
law repudiate the submission of petitioners that respondent
judges should have conducted searching examination of
witnesses before issuing warrants of arrest against them. They
also reject petitioners contention that a judge must first issue an
order of arrest before issuing a warrant of arrest. There is no law
or rule requiring the issuance of an Order of Arrest prior to a
warrant of arrest.
In the case at bar, the DOJ Panel submitted to the trial court its
26-page report, the two (2) sworn statements of Alfaro and the
sworn statements of Carlos Cristobal and Lolita Birrer as well as
the counter- affidavits of the petitioners. Apparently, the
painstaking recital and analysis of the parties evidence made in
the DOJ Panel Report satisfied both judges that there is probable
cause to issue warrants of arrest against petitioners. Again, we
stress that before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely
determine personally the probability, not the certainty of the guilt
of an accused. In doing so, judges do not conduct a de novo
hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. They just
personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor
finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial
evidence. The sufficiency of the review process cannot be
measured by merely counting minutes and hours. The fact that it
took the respondent judges a few hours to review and affirm the
Probable cause determination of the DOJ Panel does not mean
they made no personal evaluation of the evidence attached to the
records of the case. (italics supplied)
The
teachings
then
of Soliven,
Inting,
Lim,
Allado, and Webb reject the proposition that the investigating
prosecutors certification in an information or his resolution which
is made the basis for the filing of the information, or both, would
suffice in the judicial determination of probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest. In Webb, this Court assumed that
since the respondent Judges had before them not only the 26page resolution of the investigating panel but also the affidavits of
the prosecution witnesses and even the counter-affidavits of the
respondents, they (judges) made personal evaluation of the
evidence attached to the records of the case.
Unfortunately, in Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198, nothing
accompanied the information upon its filing on 12 April 1993 with

the trial court. As found by the Court of Appeals in its resolution of

1 July 1993, a copy of the Joint Resolution was forwarded to, and
received by, the trial court only on 22 April 1993. And as revealed
by the certification[71] of Branch Clerk of Court Gibson Araula, Jr.,
no affidavits of the witnesses, transcripts of stenographic notes of
the proceedings during the preliminary investigation, or other
documents submitted in the course thereof were found in the
records of Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198 as of 19 May 1993.
Clearly, when respondent Judge Asuncion issued the assailed
order of 17 May 1993 directing, among other things, the issuance
of warrants of arrest, he had only the information, amended
information, and Joint Resolution as bases thereof. He did not
have the records or evidence supporting the prosecutors finding
of probable cause. And strangely enough, he made no specific
finding of probable cause; he merely directed the issuance of
warrants of arrest after June 21, 1993. It may, however, be
argued that the directive presupposes a finding of probable cause.
But then compliance with a constitutional requirement for the
protection of individual liberty cannot be left to presupposition,
conjecture, or even convincing logic.
III.
As earlier stated, per its 1st Indorsement of 21 April 1993, the
DOJ gave due course to the petitioners petition for review
pursuant to the exception provided for in Section 4 of Circular No.
7, and directed the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to
forward to the Department the records of the cases and to file in
court a motion for the deferment of the proceedings. At the time
it issued the indorsement, the DOJ already knew that the
information had been filed in court, for which reason it directed
the City Prosecutor to inform the Department whether the
accused have already been arraigned and if not yet arraigned, to
move to defer further proceedings. It must have been fully aware
that, pursuant to Crespo vs. Mogul, a motion to dismiss a case
filed by the prosecution either as a consequence of a
reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice
after a review of the records of the investigation is addressed to
the trial court, which has the option to grant or to deny it. Also, it
must have been still fresh in its mind that a few months back it
had dismissed for lack of probable cause other similar complaints
of holders of 349 Pepsi crowns. [72] Thus, its decision to give due
course to the petition must have been prompted by nothing less
than an honest conviction that a review of the Joint Resolution
was necessary in the highest interest of justice in the light of the
special circumstances of the case. That decision was permissible
within the as far as practicable criterion in Crespo.

Hence, the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion when it

executed on 23 July 1993 a unilateral volte-face, which was even
unprovoked by a formal pleading to accomplish the same end, by
dismissing the petition for review. It dismissed the petition simply
because it thought that a review of the Joint Resolution would be
an exercise in futility in that any further action on the part of the
Department would depend on the sound discretion of the trial
court, and that the latters denial of the motion to defer
arraignment filed at the instance of the DOJ was clearly an
exercise of that discretion or was, in effect, a signal to the
Department that the determination of the case is within the
courts exclusive jurisdiction and competence. This infirmity
becomes more pronounced because the reason adduced by the
respondent Judge for his denial of the motions to suspend
proceedings and hold in abeyance issuance of warrants of arrest
and to defer arraignment finds, as yet, no support in Crespo.
IV.
If the only issue before the Court of Appeals were the denial of
the petitioners Motion to Suspend Proceedings and to Hold in
Abeyance Issuance of Warrants of Arrest and the public
prosecutors Motion to Defer Arraignment, which were both based
on the pendency before the DOJ of the petition for the review of
the Joint Resolution, the dismissal of CA-G.R. SP No. 31226 on the
basis of the dismissal by the DOJ of the petition for review might
have been correct. However, the petition likewise involved the
issue of whether respondent Judge Asuncion gravely abused his
discretion in ordering the issuance of warrants of arrest despite
want of basis. The DOJs dismissal of the petition for review did
not render moot and academic the latter issue.
In denying in its resolution of 1 July 1993 the petitioners
application for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain
respondent Judge Asuncion from issuing warrants of arrest, the
Court of Appeals ,justified its action in this wise:
The Joint Resolution was sufficient in itself to have been relied
upon by respondent Judge in convincing himself that probable
cause indeed exists for the purpose of issuing the corresponding
warrants of arrest. The mere silence of the records or the absence
of any express declaration in the questioned Order of May 17,
1993 as to where the respondent Judge based his finding of
probable cause does not give rise to any adverse inference on his
part. The fact remains that the Joint Resolution was at respondent
Judges disposal at the time he issued the Order for the issuance
of the warrants of arrest. After all, respondent Judge enjoys in his
favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of official

actuations. And this presumption prevails until it is overcome by

clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Every reasonable
intendment will be made in support of the presumption, and in
case of doubt as to an officers act being lawful or unlawful it
should be construed to be lawful. (31 C.J.S., 808-810. See also
Mahilum, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, 17 SCRA 482;
People vs.Cortez, 21 SCRA 1228; Government of the
P.I. vs. Galarosa, 36 Phil. 338).
We are unable to agree with this disquisition, for it merely
assumes at least two things: (1) that respondent Judge Asuncion
had read and relied on the Joint Resolution and (2) he was
convinced that probable cause exists for the issuance of the
warrants of arrest against the petitioners. Nothing in the records
provides reasonable basis for these assumptions. In his assailed
order, the respondent Judge made no mention of the Joint
Resolution, which was attached to the records of Criminal Case
No. Q-93-43198 on 22 April 1993. Neither did he state that he
found probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. And,
for an undivinable reason, he directed the issuance of warrants of
arrest only after June 21, 1993. If he did read the Joint
Resolution and, in so reading, found probable cause, there was
absolutely no reason at all to delay for more than one month the
issuance of warrants of arrest. The most probable explanation for
such delay could be that the respondent Judge had actually
wanted to wait for a little while for the DOJ to resolve the petition
for review.
It is, nevertheless, contended in the dissenting opinion of Mr.
Justice Reynato S. Puno that whatever doubts may have lingered
on the issue of probable cause was dissolved when no less than
the Court of Appeals sustained the finding of probable cause
made by the respondent Judge after an evaluation of the Joint
Resolution. We are not persuaded with that opinion. It is anchored
on erroneous premises. In its 1 July 1993 resolution, the Court of
Appeals does not at all state that it either sustained respondent
Judge Asuncions finding of probable cause, or found by itself
probable cause. As discussed above, it merely presumed that
Judge Asuncion might have read the Joint Resolution and found
probable cause from a reading thereof. Then too, that statement
in the dissenting opinion erroneously assumes that the Joint
Resolution can validly serve as sufficient basis for determining
probable cause. As stated above, it is not.
V.

In criminal prosecutions, the determination of probable cause

may either be an executive or a judicial prerogative. In People vs.
Inting,[73] this Court aptly stated:
And third, Judges and Prosecutors alike should distinguish the
preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest from a 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.
xxx

xxx

xxx

We reiterate that preliminary investigation should be

distinguished as to whether it is an investigation for the
determination of a sufficient ground for the filing of the
information or it is an investigation for the determination of a
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The first
kind of preliminary investigation is executive in nature. It is part of
the prosecutions job. The second kind of preliminary investigation
which is more properly called preliminary examination is judicial
in nature and is lodged with the judge x x x.
Ordinarily, the determination of probable cause is not lodged
with this Court. Its duty in an appropriate case is confined to the
issue of whether the executive or judicial determination, as the
case may be, of probable cause was done without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of
jurisdiction. This is consistent with the general rule that criminal
prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed by injunction,
preliminary or final. There are, however, exceptions to this rule.
Among the exceptions are enumerated in Brocka vs. Enrile[74]as
follows:
a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights
of the accused (Hernandez vs. Albano, et al., L-19272,
January 25, 1967, 19 SCRA 95);
b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice
or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions
(Dimayuga, et
al.
vs. Fernandez,
43
Phil.
304;
Hernandez vs. Albano, supra; Fortun vs.Labang, et al., L38383, May 27, 1981, 104 SCRA 607);

c. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub

judice (De Leon vs. Mabanag, 70 Phil. 202);
d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority (Planas vs. Gil, 67 Phil. 62);
e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance
or regulation (Young vs. Rafferty, 33 Phil. 556; Yu Cong
Eng vs. Trinidad, 47 Phil. 385, 389);
f. When
double
jeopardy
is
clearly
apparent
(Sangalang vs. People and Avendia, 109 Phil. 1140);
g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
(Lopez vs. City Judge, L-25795, October 29, 1966, 18
SCRA 616);
h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
(Rustia vs. Ocampo, CA-G.R. No. 4760, March 25, 1960);
i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated
by the lust for vengeance (Recto vs. Castelo, 18
L.J., [1953], cited in Raoa vs. Alvendia, CA-G.R. No.
30720-R, October 8, 1962; Cf. Guingona, et al. vs. City
Fiscal, L-60033, April 4, 1984, 128 SCRA 577); and
j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the
accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been
denied (Salonga vs. Pao, et al., L-59524, February 18,
1985, 134 SCRA 438).
7. Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme
Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of
petitioners (Rodriguez vs. Castelo, L-6374, August 1,
1953). (cited in Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, p.
188, 1988 Ed.)
In these exceptional cases, this Court may ultimately resolve the
existence or non-existence of probable cause by examining the
records of the preliminary investigation, as it did in Salonga vs.
Pao,[75] Allado, and Webb.
There can be no doubt that, in light of the several thousand
private complainants in Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198 and
several thousands more in different parts of the country who are
similarly situated as the former for being holders of 349 Pepsi
crowns, any affirmative holding of probable cause in the said case
may cause or provoke, as justly feared by the petitioners, the
filing of several thousand cases in various courts throughout the
country. Inevitably, the petitioners would be exposed to the
harassments of warrants of arrest issued by such courts and to
huge expenditures for premiums on bailbonds and for travels from
one court to another throughout the length and breadth of the
archipelago for their arraignments and trials in such cases. Worse,

the filing of these staggering number of cases would necessarily

affect the trial calendar of our overburdened judges and take
much of their attention, time, and energy, which they could
devote to other equally, if not more, important cases. Such a
frightful scenario would seriously affect the orderly administration
of justice, or cause oppression or multiplicity of actions - a
situation already long conceded by this Court to be an exception
to the general rule that criminal prosecutions may not be
restrained or stayed by injunction.[76]
We shall not, however, reevaluate the evidence to determine if
indeed there is probable cause for the issuance of warrants of
arrest in Criminal Case No. Q-93-43298. For, as earlier stated, the
respondent Judge did not, in fact, find that probable cause exists,
and if he did he did not have the basis therefor as mandated
by Soliven, Inting, Lim, Allado, and even Webb. Moreover, the
records of the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. Q-9343198 are not with this Court. They were forwarded by the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to the DOJ in compliance
with the latters 1st Indorsement of 21 April 1993. The trial court
and the DOJ must be required to perform their duty.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is granted and the following
are hereby SET ASIDE:
(a)
Decision of 28 September 1993 and Resolution
of 9 February 1994 of respondent Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 31226;
(b)
The Resolution of the 349 Committee of the
Department of Justice of 23 July 1993 dismissing the
petitioners petition for review and of 3 February
1994 denying the motion to reconsider the dismissal; and
(c)
The Order of respondent Judge Maximiano C.
Asuncion of 17 May 1993 in Criminal Case No. Q-9343198.
The Department of Justice is DIRECTED to resolve on the
merits, within sixty (60) days from notice of this decision, the
petitioners petition for the review of the Joint Resolution of
Investigating Prosecutor Ramon Gerona and thereafter to file the
appropriate motion or pleading in Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198,
which respondent Judge Asuncion shall then resolve in light
ofCrespo vs. Mogul, Soliven vs. Makasiar, People vs. Inting, Lim
vs. Felix, Allado vs. Diokno, and Webb vs. De Leon.
In the meantime, respondent Judge Asuncion is DIRECTED to
cease and desist from further proceeding with Criminal Case No.
Q-93-43198 and to defer the issuance of warrants of arrest
against the petitioners.
No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Bellosillo, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J. (Chairman), see separate concurring opinion.
Regalado, J., joins the dissent of J. Puno, pro hac vice.
Romero, Melo and Mendoza, JJ., join in the dissent of Justice
Puno.
Puno, J., dissents.
Vitug, J., concurs in the opinions of the ponente and the Chief
Justice.
Kapunan, J., in the result.
Francisco, J., No part. Ponente of the assailed decision.
Panganiban, J, No Part. Daughter is a management officer of
Pepsi Cola, Head Office, NY, USA.

Annex A of Petition; Rollo, 64-68. Per Justice, now Associate

Justice of this Court, Francisco, R., with Tayao-Jaguros, L. and
Verzola, E., JJ., concurring.
[1]

[2]

Annex B of Petition; Rollo, 69-72.

[3]

Annex C, Id.; Id., 3-74.

[4]

Annexes D and E, Id.; Id., 75-78.

[5]

Rollo, 19.

Those represented alone by Atty. Bonifacio Manansala are

enumerated, single space, in 91 pages of legal size bond paper,
with an average of 55 names, more or less, per page (Id., Vol.2,
913-1003) and in his Memorandum-Explanation dated 16
February 1995, he discloses that he is presently representing
more than 7,000 claimants (Id., Vol. 1, 648). Atty. Jose Espinas
revealed in his Comment that he represents 700 INDIVIDUAL
COMPLAINANTS, MORE OR LESS (Id., Vol. 1,567). Atty. Julio
Contreras claims in his Compliance of 10 September 1995 to
represent 4,406 (Id., Vol.2, unpaginated).
[6]

Originally held from 17 February to 8 May 1992, but later

extended from 11 May to 12 June 1992.
[7]

Entitled, Strengthening the Rule-Making and Adjudicatory

Powers of the Minister of Trade and Industry in order to further
Protect Consumers.
[8]

Entitled, An Act to Penalize Fraudulent Advertising, Mislabeling

or Misbranding of Any Product, Stocks, Bonds, Etc..
[9]

[10]

Rollo, Vol. 1, 152-168; 191-212.

[11]

id., 209-210.

[12]

Rollo, Vol. 1, 210.

Records (OR), Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198,

(hereinafter referred to as OR-RTC, Vol. 1), 1-3.
[13]

Vol.

[14]

OR-RTC, Vol. 1, 4-24.

[15]

OR-RTC, Vol. 1, 28-49.

[16]

Id. 25-27, 67-68.

[17]

OR-RTC, Vol. 1, 291.

[18]

See stamped entry on top of page 1 of the Information; Id., 1.

[19]

Id., 299.

[20]

Id., 232-240.

[21]

OR-RTC Vol. 1, 288.

[22]

Id., 289-290.

[23]

Id., Vol. 2, 1-3.

[24]

Id., 4.

[25]

Id., 5.

[26]

Id., 6-11.

[27]

Id., 12-17, 48-54.

[28]

OR-RTC, Vol. 1, 55-64.

[29]

Id., Vol. 2, 65-66.

Rollo, CA-G.R. SP No. 31226 (hereinafter referred to as RolloCA), 1-39; see also OR-RTC, Vol. 2, 79-116.
[30]

[31]

Id., 157; Id., 229.

[32]

OR-RTC, Vol. 2, 233.

[33]

Rollo-CA, 193-194.

[34]

Id., 196-201.

[35]

Rollo-CA, 288.

[36]

Id., 296.

[37]

Id., 334-335.

[38]

Id., 336-337.

[39]

Id., 488-493.

[40]

Rollo-CA, 336-337; 490-491.

Per Justice, now Associate Justice of this Court, Francisco, R.,

with Tayao-Jaguros, L. and Verzola, E., JJ., concurring.
[41]

[42]

Should be petitioners.

[43]

Rollo, Vol. 1, 77-78.

[44]

Rollo-CA, 500-507.

[45]

Id., 575-577.

[46]

Rollo, Vol. 1, 425-431.

[47]

Id., 456-484.

[48]

Id., 533-539.

[49]

Id., 526-530.

[50]

Id., 555.

[51]

151 SCRA 462 [1987].

[52]

Supra note 51, at 471-472.

[53]

235 SCRA 39 [1994].

[54]

The said paragraph reads as follows:

If upon petition by a proper party, the Minister of Justice reverses

the resolution of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state
prosecutor, he shall direct the fiscal concerned to file the
corresponding information without conducting another preliminary
investigation or to dismiss or move for the dismissal of the
complaint or information. (italics supplied)
[55]

The said section reads:

SEC. 4. Non-appealable cases; Exceptions. -No appeal may be

taken from a resolution of the Chief State Prosecutor/Regional
State Prosecutor/Provincial or City Prosecutor finding probable
cause except upon showing of manifest error or grave abuse of
discretion. Notwithstanding the showing of manifest error or grave
abuse of discretion, no appeal shall be entertained where the
appellant had already been arraigned. If the appellant is arraigned
during the pendency of the appeal, said appeal shall be
dismissed motu proprio by the Secretary of Justice.
An appeal/motion for reinvestigation from a resolution finding
probable cause, however, shall not hold the filing of the
information in court.
Revised Rules on Appeals from Resolutions in Preliminary
Investigations/Reinvestigations.
[56]

[57]

Supra note 51, at 471

237 SCRA 575, 585-586 [1994]. See also Dee vs. Court of
Appeals, 238 SCRA 254 [1994].
[58]

Third paragraph, Section 87, The Judiciary Act of 1948 (R.A. No.
269), as amended by R.A. Nos. 2613 and 3828, which provides:
[59]

No warrant of arrest shall be issued by any municipal judge in any

criminal case filed with him unless he first examines the witness
or witnesses personally, and the examination shall be under oath

and reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and

answers.
Second paragraph, Section 10, 1983 Rule on Summary
Procedure, which provides:
[60]

Failure on the part of the defendant to appear wherever

required shall cause the issuance of a warrant for his arrest if the
court shall find that a probable cause exists after an examination
in writing and under oath or affirmation of the complainant and
his witnesses.
Section 16, 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure,
which provides:
The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except
for failure to appear whenever required. Release of the person
arrested shall either be on bail or on recognizance by a
responsible citizen acceptable to the court.
[61]

Section 6(b), Rule 112, Rules of Court, which reads:

If the municipal trial judge conducting the preliminary

investigation is satisfied after an examination in writing and under
oath of the complainant and his witnesses, in the form of
searching questions and answers, that a probable cause exists
and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under
immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
Section 37, The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (B.P. Blg.
129), which reads in part as follows:
No warrant of arrest shall be issued by the Judge in connection
with any criminal complaint filed with him for preliminary
investigation, unless after an examination in writing and under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and his witnesses he finds
that probable cause exists.
[62]

62 Section 6(a), Rule 112, Rules of Court, which reads:

Section 6. When warrant of arrest may issue.
(a) By the Regional Trial Court. - Upon the filing of an
information, the Regional Trial Court may issue a warrant for
the arrest of the accused.

[63]

167 SCRA 393 [1988].

[64]

Id., 398.

[65]

187 SCRA 788, 792 [1990].

[66]

189 SCRA 715 [1990].

[67]

194 SCRA 292, 305 [1991].

[68]

232 SCRA 192,201 [1994].

[69]

G.R. No. 121234 and companion cases, 23 August 1995.

[70]

Supra, note 63.

[71]

OR-RTC, Vol. 2, 68

See for instance the resolutions of 12 January 1993 in the case

filed by Merelita Napuran in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
of Palo, Leyte (Rollo, Vol. 1, 223); and 14 January 1993 in cases
filed with the office of the City Prosecutor of Lucena
City (Id., 227). It did likewise on 8 November 1993 in cases filed
before the Provincial Prosecutor of Pangasinan (Id., 236); and 10
November 1993 in cases filed with the City Prosecutor of Ozamiz
City (Id.,245).
[72]

[73]

Supra note 65.

[74]

192 SCRA 183, 188-189 [1990].

[75]

134 SCRA 438 [1985].

Dimayuga vs. Fernandez,

43
Fortun vs. Labang,
104
SCRA
Brocka vs. Enrile, supra note 75.
[76]

Phil.
607

304
[1922],
and
[1981],
cited
in