Skip to main content

Abdula vs. Guiani

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 foun...
Post a Comment

Abdula vs. Guiani

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:

  1. Is the second information for murder filed against the petitioners legal?
  2. Is the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners valid?

RULING:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO G.R. NO. 73748, May 22, 1986 FACTS: President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 on February 25, 1986 announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power. On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines." Petitioners alleged that the Aquino government is illegal because it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution. ISSUE: Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate. HELD: Yes. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to the realm of politics  where only the people are the judge. The Supreme Court further held that: The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in eff...
Read more

TECSON VS. COMELEC

GR No. 161434, March 3 2004 FACTS: Respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) filed his certificate of candidacy on 31 December 2003 for the position of President of the Republic of the Philippines in the forthcoming national elections.  In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. Petitioner Fornier filed before the COMELEC a petition to disqualify FPJ and cancel his certificate of candidacy by claiming that FPJ is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, his parents were foreigners: his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject.  The COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. ISSUE: Whether or not FPJ is a natural-born ...
Read more

DRILON VS. LIM

GR No. 112497, August 4 1994 FACTS: Pursuant to Section 187 of the Local Government Code or the Procedure For Approval And Effectivity Of Tax Ordinances And Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings, Secretary of Justice had, on appeal to him of four oil companies and a taxpayer, declared Ordinance No. 7794, otherwise known as the Manila Revenue Code, null and void for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances and for containing certain provisions contrary to law and public policy. In a petition, the Regional Trial Court of Manila revoked the Secretary's resolution and sustained the ordinance, holding inter alia that the procedural requirements had been observed. Instead, it declared Section 187 of the Local Government Code as unconstitutional because of its vesture in the Secretary of Justice of the power of control over local governments in violation of the policy of local autonomy mandated in the Constitution and of the specific...
Read more