TOPIC Rule 113, Quashal of Warrant

CASE NO. G.R. No. 113630

CASE NAME Allado v. Diokno
MEMBER Kobe Veneracion

DOCTRINE
1. Accordingly, 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.
2. Respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant for the arrest of
petitioners it appearing that he did not personally examine the evidence nor did he call for the
complainant and his witnesses in the face of their incredible accounts. Instead, he merely relied on
the certification of the prosecutors that probable cause existed.
3. Hence, if upon the filing of the information in court the trial judge, after reviewing the information
and the documents attached thereto, finds that no probable cause exists must either call for the
complainant and the witnesses themselves or simply dismiss the case.

RECIT-READY DIGEST
Petitioners Allado and Mendoza are charged of kidnapping with murder. The source of the information is
a sworn statement by Security Guard Umbal, implicating petitioners as the brains behind the alleged
kidnapping and killing of Van Twest, a German. Umbal claimed that he and his companions were asked by
petitioners to apprehend Van Twest, who allegedly had an international warrant of arrest against him.
Umbal and his companions did so. Several days after, Umbal was shot and stabbed repeatedly. A day after
the extrajudicial confession, the operatives of the PACC searched the dwellings of one of the companions
and found firearms, ammunition, and Van Twest’s sunglasses. The case was then referred to the DOJ for
the institution of criminal proceedings against petitioners.

The Prosecutor issued a subpoena to petitioners informing them that a complaint was filed against them.
Copies of affidavits were attached to the subpoena. However, the petitioners were not satisfied with these
documents and sought the inhibition of the members of the panel of prosecutors. Thus, a new panel was
constituted. One of the companions, Bato, moved for the admission of his counter-affidavit confessing
participation in the abduction and slaying of Van Twest and implicating petitioners Allado and Mendoza.
The panel issued a resolution finding a prima facie case against petitioners. The case was raffled to the
court presided by respondent judge Diokno. Respondent then issued a warrant of arrest against petitioners
on the basis of the certifications of the prosecution. Petitioners assailed the issued warrant of arrest.

The SC held that respondent judge was wrong for issuing the warrant. A warrant of arrest shall issue only
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. Accordingly, 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. The PACC relies on
the statement of Umbal, but such is inconsistent. There were also doubts on the alleged death of Van Twest.
Verily, respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant for the arrest of
petitioners it appearing that he did not personally examine the evidence nor did he call for the
complainant and his witnesses in the face of their incredible accounts. Instead, he merely relied on the
certification of the prosecutors that probable cause existed.

FACTS
• Petitioners Diosdado Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza are lawyers. In the practice of their
profession, and on the basis of an alleged extrajudicial confession of a security guard, they have

1
 been accused of the heinous crime of kidnapping with murder by the Presidential Anti-Crime
Commission (PACC) and ordered arrested without bail by respondent judge.
• The source of the information against petitioners is the sworn statement by Security Guard Umbal,
implicating them as the brains behind the alleged kidnapping and slaying of one Eugen Alexander
Van Twest, a German national. In that confession, SG Umbal claimed that he and his companions
were met by petitioners at Silahis Hotel and in exchange for P2.5M the former undertook to
apprehend Van Twest who allegedly had an international warrant of arrest against him.
• After placing Van Twest under surveillance, Umbal and his companions abducted Van Twest and
brought him to a “safe house”. Several days after, Umbal, his companions, petitioners, and SPO2
Roger Bato went to the safe house. SPO2 Bato faked the interrogation of Van Twest, pretending it
was official, and then made him sign certain documents. The following day, one of the companions
(Gamatero) shot Van Twest in the chest with a baby armalite, after which another companion
(Antonio) stabbed him repeatedly, cut off his private part, and later burned his cadaver into ashes
using gasoline and rubber tires.
• A day after Umbal executed his confession, the operatives of the PACC, armed with a search
warrant separately raided the 2 dwellings of Santiago (one of the companions) in Parañaque. The
raiders recovered a blue Nissan Path Finder and assorted firearms and ammunition and placed
Santiago and his trusted aide, Efren Madolid, under arrest. Arrested later that day were Antonino
and Bato who had in their possession firearms and ammunition and Van Twest's sunglasses.
• The case was referred to the DOJ by Panfilo Lacson, Chief of PACC Task Force, for the institution
of criminal proceedings against petitioners and the companions for illegal possession of firearms
and ammunition, carnapping, kidnapping for ransom with murder, and usurpation of authority.
• Senior State Prosec. Abesamis issued a subpoena to petitioners informing them that a complaint
was filed against them. Attached to the subpoena were copies of the affidavits executed by Umbal
& other members of the team.
• Not satisfied with the affidavits, petitioner Mendoza moved for the production of other documents.
Petitioners also sought the inhibition of the members of the panel of prosecutors because they were
members of the legal staff assigned to PACC and thus could not act with impartiality.
• There was a new panel of prosecutors constituted. Thereafter, the new panel granted the prayer of
petitioner Mendoza for the production of additional documents. Not having been provided with the
requested documents, petitioners nevertheless submitted their respective counter-affidavits denying
the accusations.
• SPO2 Bato filed a manifestation saying he was considering the earlier waiver of his right to file
counter-a davit, and "in the greater interest of truth, justice and fair play" moved for the admission
of his counter-affidavit confessing participation in the abduction and slaying of Van Twest and
implicating petitioners Allado and Mendoza. The panel then issued a resolution finding a prima
facie case against them.
• Then, an information was filed before the RTC Makati to the branch presided by respondent Judge
Diokno. Petitioner Allado filed an appeal with the Secretary of Justice seeking review and reversal
of the resolution on the panel of prosecutors (finding a prima facie case against the petitioners).
• Petitioner Allado moved to defer the proceedings before the trial court pending resolution of his
appeal before the Secretary of Justice. However, respondent judge issued the assailed warrant of
arrest against petitioners. Petitioners then filed the instant petition.

Petitioners’ Contentions
• Respondent judge acted with GADALEJ in "holding that there is probable cause against petitioners
without determining the admissibility of the evidence against petitioners and without even stating
the basis of his findings.”
• Also, respondent judged exercised GADALEJ in relying on the Resolution of the Panel and their
certification that probable cause exists when the certification is flawed.

2
 • The records of the preliminary investigation which respondent judge solely relied upon failed to
establish probable cause against them to justify the issuance of the warrant.

OSG’s Contentions
• The determination of probable cause is a function of the judge who is merely required to personally
appreciate certain facts to convince him that the accused probably committed the crime charged.

ISSUE/S and HELD

1. W/N the warrant of arrest should be set aside – YES

RATIO
1. On the issue of the setting aside of the warrant of arrest against petitioners:
• Section 2, Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution, lays down the requirements for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest, i.e., a warrant of arrest shall issue only 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.
• Probable cause is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well founded,
such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and
prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so.
• Accordingly, 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.
• In the Order of respondent judge, it stated that “this court after careful evaluation of the evidence
on record, believes and rules that probable cause exists; and therefore, a warrant of arrest should
be issued.” However, the SC does not agree. There is insufficiency in the evidence submitted for
the finding of probable cause.
• The PACC relies heavily on the sworn statement of Security Guard Umbal who supposedly
confessed his participation. However, there is serious doubt on Van Twest’s reported death since
the corpus delicti has not been established, nor have his remains been recovered. Umbal claims that
Van Twest was completely burned into ashes with the use of gasoline and rubber tires from around
ten o'clock in the evening to six o'clock the next morning. This is impossible. A human body cannot
be turned into ashes by simply burning it with the use of gasoline and rubber tires in an open field.
Even crematoria use entirely closed incinerators where the corpse is subjected to intense heat.
• Additionally, there is not even any insinuation that earnest efforts were exerted to recover traces of
his remains from the scene of the alleged cremation.
• Strangely, after Van Twest’s reported abduction, his counsel continued to represent him before
judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. This shows that even the counsel of Van Twest doubted his
death.
• According to U.S. v. Samarin, when the supposed victim is wholly unknown, his body not found,
and there is but one witness who testifies to the killing, the corpus delicti is not sufficiently proved.
• The extrajudicial statement also suffers from material inconsistencies. Most perplexing however is
that while the whole investigation was supposedly triggered off by Umbal's confession, the
application of the PACC operatives for a search warrant was filed and granted a day before Umbal
executed his sworn statement.
• For sure, the credibility of Umbal is badly battered. Certainly, his bare allegations, even if the State
invokes its inherent right to prosecute, are insufficient to justify sending two lawyers to jail.
• Verily, respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant for the
arrest of petitioners it appearing that he did not personally examine the evidence nor did he
call for the complainant and his witnesses in the face of their incredible accounts. Instead, he
merely relied on the certification of the prosecutors that probable cause existed.

3
 • Clearly, probable cause may not be established simply by showing that a trial judge subjectively
believes that he has good grounds for his action. Good faith is not enough. Hence, if upon the
filing of the information in court, the trial judge, after reviewing the information and the
documents attached, finds that no probable cause exists, he must either call for the
complainant and the witnesses themselves or simply dismiss the case.
• From the gathering of evidence until the termination of the preliminary investigation, it appears
that the state prosecutors were overly eager to file the case and secure a warrant for the arrest of
the accused without bail and their consequent detention.

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED. The temporary restraining order
we issued on 28 February 1994 in favor of petitioners, Atty. Diosdado Jose Allado and Atty. Roberto L.
Mendoza, is made permanent. The warrant of arrest issued against them is SET ASIDE and respondent
Judge Roberto C. Diokno is ENJOINED from proceeding any further against herein petitioners in Crim.
Case No. 94-1757 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati.

Other notes
(The Court didn’t really talk about the quashal of the warrant, but just that the lower court was wrong for
issuing the warrant of arrest without a proper finding of probable cause.)