GR L 10212; (October, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10212; October 30, 1957
JOSE ARCHES, petitioner-appellant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE, City of Roxas, and CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Roxas, respondent-appellees.
FACTS
On February 12, 1955, an information charging Jose Arches with less serious physical injuries was filed in the municipal court of Roxas City. The information contained a certification by the City Attorney, subscribed and sworn to before the Municipal Judge, stating that a preliminary investigation had been conducted under his direction, witnesses were examined under oath, and he was of the opinion that the offense was committed and there was reasonable ground to believe the accused committed it. Following his practice, the Municipal Judge, despite this certification, conducted his own investigation. He examined the complainant, Francisca Arches, who ratified her affidavit, and observed her physical injuries. Satisfied that the offense was committed and there was reasonable ground to believe the accused committed it, he issued a warrant for arrest. The accused posted bail and filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the warrant was issued without a “previous examination conducted by the judge.” The motion was denied. The accused then petitioned the Court of First Instance for a writ of certiorari and injunction to prevent the municipal judge from hearing the case. This petition was also denied, prompting the present appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Municipal Judge validly issued the warrant of arrest after conducting a sufficient examination to determine probable cause as required by the Constitution.
RULING
Yes. The appeal is without merit. The records support the finding that before issuing the warrant, the Municipal Judge conducted his own investigation to determine probable cause. His testimony, corroborated by the City Attorney, detailed how he examined the complainant, reviewed her affidavit, observed her injuries, and had her ratify her statements under oath. The Court cited established doctrine, as summarized in Amarga vs. Abbas, that the determination of probable cause is a judgment call for the judge issuing the warrant. The judge may base his conclusion on the prosecuting attorney’s statement or any other credible source, and his finding is final and conclusive if he is satisfied probable cause exists. Here, the Municipal Judge properly exercised his discretion by conducting a personal examination. Therefore, the order dismissing the petition for certiorari is affirmed.