G.R. No. 118821 - Abdula vs. Guiani

On 24 June 1994, a complaint for murder (I.S. No. 94-1361) was filed with the CIS-ARMM Regional Office XII against petitioners Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula and six others in connection with the death of COMELEC Registrar Abdul Dimalen; charged that petitioners paid ₱200,000 to have Dimalen killed.
On 22 August 1994, Provincial Prosecutor Salick U. Panda dismissed the charges against petitioners and five respondents for lack of a prima facie case, but recommended filing an information against one respondent, Kasan Mama.

On 13 September 1994, Judge Japal M. Guiani (Branch 14, RTC Cotabato City) ordered the return of records to the Provincial Prosecutor for “further investigation,” citing the absence of the required Section 4, Rule 112 resolution showing how the prosecutor selected Kasan Mama for information.
The case was re-investigated by Asst. Prosecutor Enok T. Dimaraw, who admitted two new affidavits and treated the proceeding as a refiling; petitioners filed counter-affidavits on 6 December 1994.
On 28 December 1994, Dimaraw found a prima facie case for murder against petitioners (as principals by inducement) and three others (as principals by direct participation); Provincial Prosecutor Panda noted his inhibition and authorized Dimaraw to dispose of the case without further approval.

On 2 January 1995, an information for murder dated 28 December 1994 was filed before RTC Branch 14 (Criminal Case No. 2376), signed by Dimaraw with Panda’s inhibition notation.
On 3 January 1995, Judge Guiani issued a warrant of arrest without bail against petitioners.

On 4 January 1995, petitioners filed an urgent ex parte motion in RTC to set aside the arrest warrant, alleging premature filing and indicating intent to seek review before the DOJ.
On 11 January 1995, petitioners filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice; no action was taken on their RTC motion.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking (a) a TRO against implementation of the arrest warrant, (b) voidance of the warrant, and (c) disqualification of Judge Guiani.

Whether the information filed on 2 January 1995 complied with Section 4, Rule 112 (need for written authority/approval of the provincial prosecutor).
Whether Judge Guiani unlawfully interfered in the preliminary investigation or orchestrated the refiling out of bias.

Whether Judge Guiani fulfilled the constitutional requirement (Art. III, Sec. 2) of personally determining probable cause before issuing the arrest warrant.
Whether the warrant issued on 3 January 1995 was valid given the alleged sole reliance on the prosecutor’s certification without independent judicial examination.