Case Summary (G.R. No. 193494)
Key Dates
Incident: July 27, 1985 (shooting in Pantao, Masiu, Lanao del Sur).
Complaint filed before respondent judge: August 10, 1985.
Motion for reconsideration: August 14, 1985.
Decision under review: appealed to the Supreme Court (decision rendered April 14, 1988).
Applicable Law and Procedural Rules
- Rule 112, Rules of Court (1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure), particularly Section 3 (procedure for preliminary investigation) and Section 6 (when a warrant of arrest may issue); related provisions noted in the record.
- Relevant jurisprudence interpreting preliminary investigation procedure and the power of inferior court judges to issue arrest warrants after preliminary examination (e.g., Mayuga v. Maravilla; Luna v. Plaza).
- Constitutional requirement that warrants of arrest must particularly describe the person or persons to be seized.
Factual Background
On July 27, 1985 a violent incident left at least five persons dead and two wounded; competing accounts described either an attack on a residence or an ambush. A letter-complaint requesting a full preliminary investigation was filed with the Provincial Fiscal on July 28, 1985. On August 10, 1985 P.C. Sgt. Jose L. Laru-an filed a criminal complaint for multiple murder before the respondent municipal judge (docketed Criminal Case No. 1748). The judge personally examined three witnesses under oath that same day, approved the complaint, and issued a warrant of arrest naming fourteen persons (the present petitioners) and fifty John Does. Counsel for the complainant later moved to recall the warrant alleging the judge’s investigation was hasty; that motion was denied.
Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent municipal judge conducted the preliminary investigation in conformity with Section 3, Rule 112 (1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure), and whether any procedural failure amounted to denial of due process invalidating the warrant.
- Whether a municipal trial judge may issue a warrant of arrest prior to completion of the entire Section 3 preliminary investigation procedure.
- Whether issuance of a warrant naming fifty John Does was constitutionally permissible.
- Whether the judge was precluded from conducting any inquiry because the Provincial Fiscal had previously expressed intent to investigate.
Legal Framework: Two-Phase Preliminary Investigation
The Court explained that the Rule 112 mechanism contemplates two phases: (1) an initial ex parte inquiry (preliminary examination) into the sufficiency of the complaint and supporting affidavits, which either leads to dismissal or opens the second phase; and (2) a second phase in which the respondent is notified, given access to the complainant’s evidence, allowed to submit counter-affidavits, and the judge may hold a hearing and question parties and witnesses. Completion of both phases is required before filing a complaint or information in the Regional Trial Court, but the Court emphasized that the Rule does not prohibit issuance of an arrest warrant at the close of the first phase where the judge, after examining the complainant and witnesses under oath and in writing (searching questions and answers), finds probable cause and necessity for immediate custody.
Authority to Issue Warrant after Preliminary Examination
The Court held that Section 6 of Rule 112 expressly authorizes a municipal trial judge to issue a warrant of arrest after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and witnesses if the judge is satisfied that probable cause exists and immediate custody is necessary to prevent frustration of justice. Prior jurisprudence was cited to affirm that issuance of an arrest warrant after the first stage is consistent with the purpose of preliminary investigation: to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to hold the accused for trial. The Court rejected the petitioners’ contention that full completion of the second phase is a prerequisite to issuance of an arrest warrant.
Evaluation of the Judge’s Conduct and Probable Cause Finding
The record contained the judge’s own certification that he personally examined all three witnesses under oath and reduced their responses to writing. Those witnesses—separately examined—offered mutually corroborative accounts identifying the ambush, describing casualties, giving circumstances (time, place, alleged motive), and naming each of the fourteen petitioners as participants. The Court gave weight to the judge’s affirmations and to the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. Absent clear contrary proof in the record, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the judge’s determination of probable cause or in the scope and content of the questioning (searching questions and answers). The Court thus upheld the warrant insofar as it named the fourteen petitioners.
On the Validity of the Warrant as to Fifty John Does
The Court held that issuing a warrant against fifty unidentified John Does produced a general warrant, constitutionally impermissible because it did not particularly desc
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 193494)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petition filed by fourteen named individuals seeking: (1) annulment of the warrant for their arrest issued by respondent Judge Dimaporo T. Casar in Municipal Circuit Court Criminal Case No. 1748 (People v. Hadji Ibrahim Solay Pangandaman, et al.); (2) prohibition against the Judge from further taking cognizance of Criminal Case No. 1748; and (3) an order compelling the Judge to forward the entire record of Criminal Case No. 1748 to the Provincial Fiscal of Lanao del Sur for proper disposition. [1]
- Petitioners grounded their plea primarily on the claim that the warrant was issued without a proper preliminary investigation. [2]
- The Solicitor General agreed with petitioners and recommended that the petition be granted and the arrest warrant voided. [3]
Factual Background
- On July 27, 1985, a shooting incident occurred in Pantao, Masiu, Lanao del Sur, resulting in at least five persons dead and two wounded; the exact circumstances were unclear. [4]
- Two principal versions of the incident existed in the record: (a) armed men attacked a residence in Pantao, Masiu, with casualties on both sides; (b) a group traveling to Lalabuan in Masiu was ambushed. [4–5]
- On July 28, 1985, Atty. Mangurun Batuampar, claiming to represent the widow of one of the victims, filed a letter-complaint with the Provincial Fiscal at Marawi City requesting a full-blast preliminary investigation; the letter mentioned the possibility of innocent persons being implicated by parties on both sides (none identified) and promised supporting affidavits to follow. [5]
- The Provincial Fiscal immediately made a 1st indorsement to respondent Judge Casar, transmitting Atty. Batuampar’s letter and requesting that all cases relative to the incident be forwarded to the Provincial Fiscal, which had first taken cognizance of such cases. [6–7]
- No case was presented to respondent Judge until August 10, 1985, when P.C. Sgt. Jose L. Laru-an filed a criminal complaint for multiple murder before the Judge, docketed as Case No. 1748. [7]
- On August 10, 1985, the respondent Judge personally examined three witnesses under oath, reducing to writing the questions and the witnesses’ answers. [8–9]
- Thereafter the Judge approved the complaint and issued a warrant of arrest against the fourteen petitioners named by the witnesses and against fifty (50) John Does. [9–10]
- On August 14, 1985, an ex parte motion for reconsideration was filed by Atty. Batuampar (joined by Atty. Pama L. Muti) seeking recall of the warrant on grounds that the Judge’s initial investigation was hasty and manifestly haphazard, with insufficiently searching questions; the Judge denied the motion. [10–12]
Petitioners’ and Solicitor General’s Arguments
- Petitioners conceded the Judge’s authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of offenses cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts but argued the Judge failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 (1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure), which they asserted amounted to a denial of due process nullifying the proceedings that led to issuance of the warrant. [13–14]
- Petitioners contended that August 10, 1985 was a Saturday and Municipal Trial Courts operate from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., making it unlikely the Judge could determine probable cause against sixty-four persons (14 named and 50 Does) within hours and issue warrants the same day. [14–15]
- Petitioners alleged undue haste and omission to ask searching questions by the Judge, with alleged reliance mainly on supporting affidavits prepared beforehand and presented by an enlisted PC personnel acting as investigator. [15–16]
- Petitioners argued the Judge acted in disregard of the Provincial Fiscal, who had taken cognizance of the matter twelve days earlier and was poised to conduct his own investigation. [17]
- Petitioners further maintained that issuance of a warrant against fifty (50) John Does transgressed the constitutional requirement that warrants particularly describe the persons or things to be seized. [18]
- The Solicitor General agreed with petitioners and recommended voiding the warrant. [3]
Respondent Judge’s Conduct and Assertions
- Respondent Judge Casar asserted that on August 10, 1985 he personally and closely examined under oath the three witnesses to the complaint, conducting the examination through his closed and direct supervision, and reduced to writing the questions and answers. [8], [24]
- The Judge asserted he issued the warrant of arrest believing that the offenses charged had been committed and that there was probable cause to hold the named persons. [25]
- The Judge denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of basis. [11–12]
Legal Issues Presented to the Court
- Whether a municipal trial judge conducting a preliminary investigation must complete the entire procedure prescribed in Section 3 of Rule 112 before issuing a warrant of arrest.
- Whether the respondent Judge’s conduct in issuing the warrant without completing the full preliminary investigation violated petitioners’ right to due process.
- Whether the warrant issued against fifty (50) John Does is valid in light of the constitutional requirement that warrants particularly describe persons to be seized.
- Whether the Provincial Fiscal’s prior indorsement and apparent intent to investigate precluded the municipal judge from conducting his own inquiry or from issuing the warrant.
Applicable Rules, Statutes and Precedent as Applied by the Court
- Section 3, Rule 112 (1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure) prescribes a two-stage procedure for preliminary investigation of offenses cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts: (1) an ex parte inquiry into sufficiency of complaint and affidavits ending in dismissal or continuation; (2) upon continuation, notice to