Case Digest (G.R. No. 82585)
Facts:
Maximo V. Soliven, Antonio V. Roces, Frederick K. Agcaoili, and Godofredo L. Manzanas, together with Luis D. Beltran, brought separate but related petitions that were consolidated as G.R. Nos. 82585, 82827 and 83979, resolved by the Supreme Court En Banc on November 14, 1988, Per Curiam. The petitions challenged steps in the criminal prosecution for alleged libel: filings by the City Fiscal of Manila, subsequent actions by the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the issuance of arrest warrants by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 35, Manila, whose presiding judge was Ramon P. Makasiar; other respondents included DOJ officials (Undersecretary Silvestre Bello III and the Secretary of Justice), the City Fiscal (Luis C. Victor/Jesus F. Guerrero), the Superintendent of the Western Police District and members of the RTC process-serving unit, and President Corazon C. Aquino (through the Executive Secretary/Cabinet respondents in one petition).Chronologically, the City Fiscal found a prima facie case for libel and filed informations. Petitioners challenged (a) the filing and continuation of the libel prosecution while the DOJ (and subsequently the President) were still reviewing the prima facie finding; (b) the issuance of an arrest warrant for petitioner Beltran allegedly without the judge having personally examined the complainant and witnesses as required by the Constitution; and (c) whether the President could initiate criminal proceedings by filing a complaint-affidavit and whether presidential immunity barred such a prosecution. Beltran additionally asserted that the warrant issuance violated the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures (Art. III, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution).
Before the Court, administrative remedies were pursued: the Undersecretary of Justice sustained the City Fiscal’s prima facie finding; the Secretary of Justice denied motions for reconsideration (March 30 and April 7, 1988), and the Executive Secretary, acting for the President, affirmed on May 2, 1988 and denied reconsideration on May 16, 1988. Those developments rendered the first contention—prematurity of the prosecution while review was pending—moot. In the preliminary investigation, Beltran had filed a “Motion to Declare Proceedings Closed” instead of submitting counter‑affidavits, which the Court treated as a waiver of the opportunity to file counter‑affidavits.
Beltran sought relief against the RTC judge’s issuance of an arrest warrant on constitutional grounds, and the petitioners sought writs of certiorari and prohibition to annul the respondents’ acts; the petitions were heard by the Supreme ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the prosecution of petitioners premature and violative of due process because informations were filed while the finding of a prima facie case was still under review by the Secretary of Justice and the President?
- Were petitioner Beltran’s constitutional rights violated when the RTC judge issued an arrest warrant without personally examining the complainant and witnesses to determine probable cause?
- May the President initiate criminal proceedings by filing a complaint‑affidavit, or does presidential immunity fro...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)