 ROBERTS v CA, Judge Asuncion, et. al. G.R. No. 113930 (1996) Unfortunately, in Criminal Case No.

Unfortunately, in Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198, nothing accompanied the information

051 PFRC – granted, DOJ to resolve PFR of prosec, judge to cease proceeding upon its filing on 12 April 1993 with the trial court. As found by the Court of Appeals in its
EB, Davide 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
Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc. had a Number Fever Promotion where “all holders Gibson Araula, Jr., no affidavits of the witnesses, transcripts of stenographic notes of the
of crowns and/or caps of Pepsi products bearing the winning 3-digit number will win the prize proceedings during the preliminary investigation, or other documents submitted in the
printed on the crown/cap. On May 25, 1992, it was announced that the winning number for the course thereof were found in the records of Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198 as of 19 May
next day was “349”. Several thousand holders of “349” went then to Pepsi to redeem but Pepsi 1993. Clearly, when respondent Judge Asuncion issued the assailed order of 17 May
refused to pay. These holders filed complaints for estafa against the officers of Pepsi. 1993 directing, among other things, the issuance of warrants of arrest, he had only the
After several procedural maneuvers by petitioners’ counsel (including a petition for information, amended information, and Joint Resolution as bases thereof. He did not
review with the Secretary of Justice on the finding of PC by the prosecutor), respondent Judge have the records or evidence supporting the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause. And
denied the Motion to Suspend Proceedings and to Hold in Abeyance Issuance of Warrants of strangely enough, he made no specific finding of probable cause; he merely directed the
Arrest and the Motion to Defer arraignment, and directed the issuance of the warrants of issuance of warrants of arrest “after June 21, 1993.” It may, however, be argued that the
arrest and setting the arraignment. directive presupposes a finding of probable cause. But then compliance with a constitutional
Petitioners filed a certiorari with CA with application for TRO against Judge requirement for the protection of individual liberty cannot be left to presupposition, conjecture,
Asuncion alleging GAD. CA granted TRO. However, with the issuance of the decision of the or even convincing logic.
Secretary of Justice dismissing the petition for review, the CA dismissed the case as moot. MR
denied. WON the SC may determine in a petition for certiorari the existence of probable cause either
Petitioners filed instant petition – resp Judge Asuncion committed GAD in for the issuance of warrants of arrest against the petitioners or for their prosecution for estafa.
ordering the issuance of warrants of arrest without examining the records of the NO
preliminary investigation DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE NOT LODGED WITH SC; EXCEPTIONS
In criminal prosecutions, the determination of probable cause may either be an executive or a
WON respondent judge acted with GAD in issuing the warrants of arrest without judicial prerogative. XXX preliminary investigation should be distinguished as to whether it is an
examination of preliminary investigation records. YES investigation for the determination of a sufficient ground for the filing of the information or it is
WARRANT OF ARREST: TWO TYPES, PERSONAL EXAMINATION OF JUDGE NOT an investigation for the determination of a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
REQUIRED IN SECOND TYPE BUT… The first kind is executive in nature. It is part of the prosecution’s job. The second kind which is
Under existing laws, warrants of arrest may be issued more properly called preliminary examination is judicial in nature and is lodged with the judge
(1) by the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs) except those in NCR, Municipal Trial Courts
(MTCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) in cases falling within their exclusive Ordinarily, the determination of probable cause is not lodged with this Court. Its duty in
original jurisdiction; in cases covered by the rule on summary procedure where the accused an appropriate case is confined to the issue of whether the executive or judicial
fails to appear when required; and in cases filed with them which are cognizable by the Regional determination, as the case may be, of probable cause was done without or in excess of
Trial Courts (RTCs); and jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction. This is
(2) by the Metropolitan Trial Courts in NCR(MeTCs-NCR) and the RTCs in cases filed consistent with the general rule that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed by
with them after appropriate preliminary investigations conducted by officers authorized to do so injunction, preliminary or final.
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 exceptional cases, this Court may ultimately resolve the existence or non-existence of
in writing and under oath of the complainant and the witnesses, in the form of searching probable cause by examining the records of the preliminary investigation
questions and answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing Exceptions are enumerated in Brocka vs. Enrile as follows:
the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused
As to the second, this Court held in Soliven vs. Makasiar that the judge is not required b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or
to personally examine the complainant and the witnesses, but “he shall: (1) personally multiplicity of actions
evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the c. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub judice
existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s report and e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation
require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.” g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
Xxx “otherwise judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary examination and h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance
before their courts.” It must be emphasized that judges must not rely solely on the report or j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash
resolution of the fiscal (now prosecutor); they must evaluate the report and the supporting on that ground has been denied
documents. XXX in People vs. Inting “the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if k. Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the
any), and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor’s certification which are threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners
material in assisting the Judge to make his determination of probable cause.
~ CASE FALLS UNDER EXCEPTION => COURT MAY MAKE FINDING OF PC BUT SC
WHY THE JUDGE EVALUATE THE REPORT/CERTIFICATION OF THE FISCAL REFUSED TO MAKE FINDING
First, the determination of probable cause is a function of the Judge. It is not for There can be no doubt that, in light of the several thousand private complainants in Criminal
the Provincial Fiscal or Prosecutor nor the Election Supervisor to ascertain. Only the Judge and Case No. Q-93-43198 and several thousands more in different parts of the country who are
the Judge alone makes this determination. similarly situated as the former for being holders of “349” Pepsi crowns, any affirmative
Second, the preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not bind the Judge. It holding of probable cause in the said case may cause or provoke, as justly feared by the
merely assists him to make the determination of probable cause. The Judge does not have to petitioners, the filing of several thousand cases in various courts throughout the
follow what the Prosecutor presents to him. By itself, the Prosecutor’s certification of probable country. Inevitably, the petitioners would be exposed to the harassments of warrants of arrest
cause is ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), issued by such courts and to huge expenditures for premiums on bailbonds and for travels from
and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor’s certification which are material in one court to another throughout the length and breadth of the archipelago for their arraignments
assisting the Judge to make his determination. 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,
Soliven vs. Makasiar: Judge does not have to personally examine the complainant and time, and energy, which they could devote to other equally, if not more, important cases. Such
his witnesses xxx. However, there should be a report and necessary documents supporting the a frightful scenario would seriously affect the orderly administration of justice, or cause
Fiscal’s bare certification. All of these should be before the Judge. oppression or multiplicity of actions - a situation already long conceded by this Court to be
Allado vs. Diokno: before issuing a warrant of arrest, the judge must satisfy himself that an exception to the general rule that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed by
based on the evidence submitted there is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and injunction.
that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof
Webb vs. De Leon: before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine personally We shall not, however, reevaluate the evidence to determine if indeed there is probable cause
the probability, not the certainty of the guilt of an accused. In doing so, judges do not conduct a for the issuance of warrants of arrest in Criminal Case No. Q-93-43298. For, as earlier stated,
de novo hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. They just personally review the the respondent Judge did not, in fact, find that probable cause exists, and if he did he
initial determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by did not have the basis therefor as mandated by Soliven, Inting, Lim, Allado, and
substantial evidence. even Webb. Moreover, the records of the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No.
The teachings then of Soliven, Inting, Lim, Allado, and Webb reject the proposition that Q-93-43198 are not with this Court. They were forwarded by the Office of the City Prosecutor
the investigating prosecutor’s certification in an information or his resolution which is made the of Quezon City to the DOJ in compliance with the latter’s 1st Indorsement of 21 April 1993. The
basis for the filing of the information, or both, would suffice in the judicial determination of trial court and the DOJ must be required to perform their duty.
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

~NO DOCUMENTARY BASES FOR FINDING OF PC (IN FACT NO FINDING OF PC) =>
WARRANTS OF ARREST INVALID