[ G.R. No. L-8666. March 28, 1956 ] 98 Phil. 739
[ G.R. No. L-8666. March 28, 1956 ]
NATALIO P. AMARGA, PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF SULU, PETITIONER VS. HONORABLE MACAPANTON ABBAS, AS JUDGE, OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF SULU, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
PARAS, C.J.:
The petitioner, the Provincial Fiscal of Sulu, filed in the Court of First Instance of Sulu an information for murder (criminal case No. 1131, People of the Philippines vs. Madpirol, Awadi, Rajah, Sali, Insa and Maharajah Bapayani). At the foot of the information the petitioner certified under oath that “he has conducted the necessary preliminary investigation pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 732.” As the only supporting affidavit was that of Iman Hadji Rohmund Jubair, to the effect that the latter “was told that the deceased was shot and killed by three persons named: Hajirul Appang, Rajah Appang and Awadi Bagali,” and the petitioner had failed or refused to present other evidence sufficient to make out a prima facie case, the respondent judge issued an order the dispositive part of which reads as follows: “In view of the foregoing considerations, and considering that the only affidavit supporting the information does not make out a prima fade case, this case is hereby ordered dismissed without prejudice to reinstatement should the provincial fiscal support his information with record of his investigation which in the opinion of the court may support a prima facie case.” Whereupon the petitioner instituted in this court the present petition for certiorari and mandamus, wherein it is contended that, as he had already conducted a preliminary investigation, it became the ministerial function of the respondent judge to issue the corresponding warrant of arrest upon the filing of the information in criminal case No. 1131. Upon the other hand, the respondent judge argues that the issuance of a warrant of arrest involves a judicial power which necessarily imposes upon him the legal duty of first satisfying himself that there is probable cause, independently of and notwithstanding the preliminary investigation made by the provincial fiscal under Republic Act No. 732; and to that end he may require the fiscal to submit such evidence as may be sufficient to show at least a prima facie case. Section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of the Constitution provides that “no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.” As was said in the case of U.S. vs. Ocampo, 18 Phil., 1, 41-42, “The question whether ‘probable cause’ exists or not must depend upon the judgment and discretion of the judge or magistrate issuing the warrant. It does not mean that particular facts must exist in each particular case. It simply means that sufficient facts must be presented to the judge or magistrate issuing the warrant to convince him, not that the particular person has committed the crime, but that there is probable cause for believing that the person whose arrest is sought committed the crime charged. No rule can be laid down which will govern the discretion of the court in this matter. If he decides, upon the proof presented, that probable cause exists, no objection can be made upon constitutional grounds against the issuance of the warrant. His conclusion as to whether ‘probable cause’ existed or not is final and conclusive. If he is satisfied that ‘probable cause’ exists from the facts stated in the complaint, made upon the investigation by the prosecuting attorney, then his conclusion is sufficient upon which to issue the warrant for arrest. He may, however, if he is not satisfied, call such witnesses as he may deem necessary before issuing the warrant. The issuance of the warrant of arrest is prima fade evidence that, in his judgment at least, there existed ‘probable cause’ for believing that the person against whom the warrant is issued is guilty of the crime charged. There is no law which prohibits him from reaching the conclusion that ‘probable cause’ exists from the statement of the prosecuting attorney alone, or any other person whose statement or affidavit is entitled to credit in the opinion of the judge or magistrate. The preliminary investigation conducted by the petitioner under Republic Act No. 732 which formed the basis for the filing in the Court of First Instance of Sulu of criminal case No. 1131 does not, as correctly contended by the respondent judge, dispense with the latter’s duty to exercise his judicial power of determining, before issuing the corresponding warrant of arrest, whether or not probable cause exists therefor. The Constitution vests such power in the respondent judge who, however, may rely on the facts stated in the information filed after preliminary investigation by the prosecuting attorney. While the respondent Judge was within his right in requiring the petitioner to submit further evidence so as to show probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, he exceeded his jurisdiction in dismissing the case which was filed with the Court of First Instance of Sulu not merely for purposes of preliminary investigation. In other words, the failure or refusal of the petitioner to present further evidence, although good as a ground for the respondent Judge not to issue a warrant of arrest, is not a legal cause for dismissal. Wherefore, the petition is granted and the respondent Judge ordered to proceed with criminal case No. 1131 in accordance with law, it being understood that, if within ten days after notice by the respondent Judge, the petitioner still fails or refuses to present other necessary evidence, the dismissal will stand for lack of prosecution. Without costs. Reyes, A., Batuista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.