G.R. Nos. 94054-57 and 94266-69; February 19, 1991
VICENTE LIM, SR., et al. vs. HON. NEMESIO S. FELIX, et al.

FACTS

Petitioners were charged with multiple murder and frustrated murder following the assassination of Congressman Moises Espinosa, Sr. and his escorts. After a preliminary investigation, the Municipal Trial Court of Masbate found probable cause and issued warrants for arrest, with bail set. The case records were forwarded to the Provincial Prosecutor, who filed four murder informations with a recommendation of no bail. The Supreme Court granted a change of venue to the Regional Trial Court of Makati to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The case was raffled to Branch 56 presided by Judge Nemesio S. Felix.
Upon transfer, petitioners filed motions requesting the judge to personally examine the preliminary investigation records, particularly in light of newly submitted affidavits of recantation from key prosecution witnesses, to make an independent determination of probable cause before issuing new warrants. The prosecution opposed these motions. Respondent Judge Felix, relying solely on the prosecutor’s certification of probable cause without reviewing the case records or the recantations, issued an order denying the petitioners’ motions and affirming the need for arrest warrants.

ISSUE

May a judge, in issuing a warrant of arrest, rely solely on the prosecutor’s certification of probable cause without personally evaluating the evidence?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petitions and nullified the judge’s order. The Court emphasized that under the Constitution, no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause determined personally by the judge. This mandate requires the judge to exercise independent judgment and not serve as a mere rubber stamp of the prosecutor’s findings. The judge must have sufficient evidence before him upon which to make his own personal determination.
In this case, respondent Judge Felix committed a grave error by relying exclusively on the prosecutor’s certification. He failed to examine the case records transmitted from the Municipal Trial Court or consider the significant affidavits of recantation, which directly attacked the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. The Court noted that while a judge may rely on evidence gathered by responsible officers, the extent of such reliance is subject to sound discretion. This discretion is abused when, as here, the judge issues a warrant without any evidence before him for his personal evaluation. The judge’s duty is particularly crucial in a case with acknowledged political undertones and where witness recantations create serious doubts about the existence of probable cause.