Facts:

The case involves Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili, the complainant, and Judge Adolfo B. Molina, the respondent. The events leading to this case began with a preliminary investigation conducted by Judge Molina regarding Criminal Case No. 10-435, titled "People of the Philippines v. Rolando Anama," which involved homicide charges. On August 9, 1993, Judge Agcaoili issued an order charging Judge Molina with grave ignorance of the law, asserting that Molina had failed to exercise due diligence in issuing a warrant of arrest against the accused, Rolando Anama. The warrant was based solely on the statements of two witnesses who lacked personal knowledge of the crime, which Judge Agcaoili argued violated Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. This provision mandates that a judge must personally ascertain probable cause through an examination under oath of the complainant and witnesses. Judge Agcaoili subsequently recalled the warrant and directed the National Bureau of...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Complainant Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili, in an order dated 9 August 1993, charged respondent Judge Adolfo B. Molina with grave ignorance of the law in connection with Criminal Case No. 10-435 (“People of the Philippines v. Rolando Anama”) for homicide.
• The core allegation was that the respondent issued a warrant of arrest based solely on the testimonies of two witnesses who had no personal knowledge of the commission of the offense, thereby violating the constitutional mandate under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

Warrant Issuance and Preliminary Investigation

• Respondent Judge Molina, acting as the inquest judge during the preliminary investigation, determined the existence of probable cause and ordered the issuance of the warrant of arrest against Rolando Anama.
• The order was based on testimonies obtained from witnesses Mencelacion Padamada and Rosita Castillo, whose statements were identified as hearsay since they lacked firsthand or personal knowledge of the incident.
• The complainant contended that the issuance of the warrant did not comply with the requirement that a judge must personally determine probable cause through an examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and his witnesses.

Subsequent Developments and Administrative Findings

• On 17 November 1993, a motion for reconsideration filed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Melencio Unciano was denied by Judge Antonino A. Aquilizan, Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC Branch 10, with the criminal case provisionally dismissed on the grounds of absence of probable cause.
• In a report dated 26 April 1995, the Office of the Court Administrator issued a recommendation that respondent Judge Molina be admonished for his failure to observe the requisite judicial precautions in issuing a warrant, particularly noting his reliance on hearsay evidence.
• The report emphasized the crucial fact that the affidavits and testimonies showed that the complaining witnesses did not have direct, personal knowledge of the killing, and notably, that a key witness, Wilma Anama—who had relayed information indirectly—was not summoned for direct investigation.

Judicial Inquiry and Evidence Analysis

• The transcript of the interrogation of witnesses revealed that both witnesses (Padamada and Castillo) based their testimonies on second-hand accounts.
• During the questioning, it became evident that the witnesses only received information from third parties (e.g., Wilma Anama), without having directly observed the events, thus not satisfying the requirement for a personal knowledge testimony.
• The respondent’s approach, even though it resulted in an initial finding of probable cause, fell short of the constitutional and evidentiary standards which demand that any warrant of arrest be supported by direct and substantial evidence.

Issue:

Validity of the Warrant Issuance

• Whether the issuance of the arrest warrant by Judge Molina on the basis of hearsay evidence violated the constitutional mandate that requires a judge to determine probable cause through personal examination under oath of the complainant and his witnesses.
• Whether the reliance on testimonies that lacked firsthand knowledge (hearsay) is sufficient to establish probable cause.

Allocation of Judicial and Prosecutorial Responsibility

• Whether it is acceptable for the respondent to shift responsibility for the “erroneous” finding of probable cause to the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, given that the case was cognizable by the Regional Trial Court.
• Whether the discretion of the judge in determining probable cause should be independent of subsequent prosecutorial review.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)