Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
Soliven vs. Makasiar
GR No. 82585, November 14, 1988 [167 SCRA 394]
FACTS:
The case at bar is a petition raised by one of the petitioners, Beltran, who wants to call for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest.
The petitioner assailed that his constitutional right was violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to determine probable cause. Soliven vs. Makasiar
Beltran's interpretation of the words "determined personally" convinced him that the judge is solely responsible to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest.
Read: Reconsideration -- Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when the warrant of arrest was issued. Soliven vs. Makasiar
HELD:
No.
The Court did not find any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent judge. Soliven vs. Makasiar
Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution
What the Constitution requires is that the issuing judge must satisfy himself first with the criteria in finding probable cause. And to satisfy himself doesn't mean to he is required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. The Constitution mandates that he shall:
(1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or
(2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. Soliven vs. Makasiar
Wherefore, the petition is dismissed.
READ FULL TEXT
GR No. 82585, November 14, 1988 [167 SCRA 394]
FACTS:
The case at bar is a petition raised by one of the petitioners, Beltran, who wants to call for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest.
The petitioner assailed that his constitutional right was violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to determine probable cause. Soliven vs. Makasiar
Beltran's interpretation of the words "determined personally" convinced him that the judge is solely responsible to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest.
Read: Reconsideration -- Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when the warrant of arrest was issued. Soliven vs. Makasiar
HELD:
No.
The Court did not find any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent judge. Soliven vs. Makasiar
Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and 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, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.Read: Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado
What the Constitution requires is that the issuing judge must satisfy himself first with the criteria in finding probable cause. And to satisfy himself doesn't mean to he is required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. The Constitution mandates that he shall:
(1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or
(2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. Soliven vs. Makasiar
Wherefore, the petition is dismissed.
READ FULL TEXT
Comments
Post a Comment