0 calificaciones0% encontró este documento útil (0 votos)
78 vistas1 página
1) The petitioner, Natalio P. Amarga, filed a murder case in the Court of First Instance of Sulu based on his preliminary investigation as provincial fiscal.
2) The respondent judge, Macapanton Abbas, dismissed the case without prejudice due to a lack of evidence to establish a prima facie case based solely on a witness statement.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that while a preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor informs the case filed in court, the judge must still exercise their duty to determine probable cause before issuing an arrest warrant based on the facts presented.
1) The petitioner, Natalio P. Amarga, filed a murder case in the Court of First Instance of Sulu based on his preliminary investigation as provincial fiscal.
2) The respondent judge, Macapanton Abbas, dismissed the case without prejudice due to a lack of evidence to establish a prima facie case based solely on a witness statement.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that while a preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor informs the case filed in court, the judge must still exercise their duty to determine probable cause before issuing an arrest warrant based on the facts presented.
1) The petitioner, Natalio P. Amarga, filed a murder case in the Court of First Instance of Sulu based on his preliminary investigation as provincial fiscal.
2) The respondent judge, Macapanton Abbas, dismissed the case without prejudice due to a lack of evidence to establish a prima facie case based solely on a witness statement.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that while a preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor informs the case filed in court, the judge must still exercise their duty to determine probable cause before issuing an arrest warrant based on the facts presented.
No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. NATALIO P. AMARGA, provincial fiscal of Sulu, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE MACAPANTON ABBAS, as Judge, of the Court of First Instance of Sulu, Respondent. G.R. No. L-8666 March 28, 1956 PARAS, C.J.: NATURE OF CASE Petition for certiorari and mandamus FACTS Natalio P. Amarga, the Provincial Fiscal of Sulu, filed in the Court of First Instance of Sulu an information for murder (criminal case 1131, People of the Philippines vs. Madpirol, Awadi, Rajah, Sali, Insa and Maharajah Bapayani). At the foot of the information, Amarga certified under oath that "he has conducted the necessary preliminary investigation pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act 732." As the only supporting affidavit was that of Iman Hadji Rohmund Jubair, to the effect that the latter "was told that the deceased was shot and killed by three persons named: Hajirul Appang, Rajah Appang and Awadi Bagali," and Amarga had failed or refused to present other evidence sufficient to make out a prima facie case, Judge Macapanton Abbas (CFI of Sulu) issued an order, dismissing the case without prejudice to reinstatement should the provincial fiscal support his information with record of his investigation which in the opinion of the court may support a prima facie case. Amarga
instituted a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Supreme
Court. ISSUE OF THE CASE: Whether the preliminary investigation conducted by Amarga dispenses with the judges duty to determine probable cause exists before issuing the corresponding warrant of arrest. COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS Section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of the Constitution provides that "no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce." The question whether "probable cause" exists or not must depend upon the judgment and discretion of the judge or magistrate issuing the warrant. If he is satisfied that "probable cause" exists from the facts stated in the complaint, made upon the investigation by the prosecuting attorney, then his conclusion is sufficient upon which to issue the warrant for arrest. He may, however, if he is not satisfied, call such witnesses as he may deem necessary before issuing the warrant. The issuance of the warrant of arrest is prima facie evidence that, in his judgment at least, there existed "probable cause" for believing that the person against whom the warrant is issued is guilty of the crime charged. The preliminary investigation conducted by Amarga under Republic Act 732 which formed the basis for the filing in the Court of First Instance of Sulu of criminal case 1131 does not dispense with the judge's duty to exercise his judicial power of determining, before issuing the corresponding warrant of arrest, whether or not probable cause exists therefor. The Constitution vests such power in the judge who, however, may rely on the facts stated in the information filed after preliminary investigation by the prosecuting attorney. SUPREME COURT RULING: Wherefore, the petition is granted and the Respondent Judge ordered to proceed with criminal case No. 1131 in accordance with law, it being understood that, if within ten days after notice by the Respondent Judge, the Petitioner still fails or refuses to present other necessary evidence, the dismissal will stand for lack of prosecution. Without costs.