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 facie case for murder against the petitioners and three other respondents, recommending the filing of charges against them.
The respondent judge issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioners, prompting them to file an urgent motion to set aside the warrant. They argued that the information was prematurely filed and that they intended to file a petition for review with the Department of Justice. However, the respondent judge did not act on their motion. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
- Is the second information for murder filed against the petitioners legal?
- Is the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners valid?
RULING:
- The legality of the second information for murder: The Supreme Court found that the petitioners failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to support their claim that the respondent judge was biased and prejudiced against them. Allegations of illegal orders issued by the judge in a separate case and personal animosity were not sufficient to establish bias and prejudice. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof rests on the petitioner, and no acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice were shown. Thus, the second information for murder was considered legal.
- The validity of the warrant of arrest: The Court held that the respondent judge did not abuse his discretion in ordering a reinvestigation of the murder charge against the petitioners. The judge's order simply requested further investigation or reinvestigation by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. The Court emphasized that the decision to file an information is within the discretion of the prosecutor, and the judge did not unduly interfere in this process. As a result, the warrant of arrest was deemed valid.
Note: The Court also mentioned that the respondent judge had retired, rendering the prayer for his disqualification from hearing the case moot and academic.
In conclusion, the Court found the second information for murder legal and upheld the validity of the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners.
Comments
Post a Comment