GR 118821; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118821 February 18, 2000
MAYOR BAI UNGGIE D. ABDULA and ODIN ABDULA, petitioners, vs. HON. JAPAL M. GUIANI, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City, respondent.
FACTS
A murder complaint was filed against petitioners and others. The Provincial Prosecutor initially dismissed the charges against petitioners, finding no prima facie case, and filed an information solely against another respondent, Kasan Mama. Respondent Judge returned the case for further investigation, noting the lack of a required resolution explaining the dismissal of the other respondents. Upon reinvestigation, a new prosecutor, considering additional affidavits, found probable cause against petitioners and recommended filing an information, which was signed by him and noted with the Provincial Prosecutor’s inhibition. An information was filed, and respondent Judge issued a warrant of arrest against petitioners the following day without bail. Petitioners filed an urgent motion to set aside the warrant and a petition for review with the Department of Justice, but the judge did not act on the motion, prompting this certiorari and prohibition petition.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest without personally determining the existence of probable cause.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the warrant, and remanded the case. The Court emphasized that under the Constitution, a judge must personally evaluate the prosecutor’s resolution and the supporting evidence before issuing a warrant of arrest. This judicial determination cannot be delegated. Here, the judge issued the warrant with undue haste, merely one day after the information was filed. He relied solely on the new prosecutor’s certification of probable cause without conducting an independent examination of the records. This failure was particularly egregious given the conflicting resolutions from two prosecutors—the first dismissing the case against petitioners and the second recommending their indictment. The judge’s admission that he had “no reason to doubt the validity of the certification” constituted an abdication of his constitutional duty. Consequently, the warrant was declared void for being issued without the requisite judicial determination of probable cause.