G.R. No. L-43003 July 16, 1984
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. CIRILO V. SORIANO, Presiding Judge, City Court, Br. II, City of San Jose, and ATTY. DAVID T. SORIANO, JR., respondents.

FACTS

A complaint for estafa was filed against Atty. David T. Soriano, Jr. for allegedly misappropriating P100.00 given to him for court expenses. The City Fiscal conducted a preliminary investigation pursuant to Republic Act No. 5180 , with the accused cross-examining the complainant but waiving his right to present evidence. Finding probable cause, the Fiscal filed an Information in the City Court. The accused then filed a motion requesting the judge to conduct a preliminary examination of the witnesses before issuing a warrant of arrest, questioning the Fiscal’s impartiality and arguing a lack of probable cause from the complainant’s evidence.
The City Fiscal opposed the motion, arguing that under Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court, a judge is precluded from conducting a subsequent preliminary investigation after the fiscal’s office has conducted one under R.A. 5180. The City Court granted the accused’s motion, ordering the appearance of the complainant and witnesses for a preliminary examination. The Court of First Instance denied the Fiscal’s petition for certiorari, prompting the People’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether a judge, after the public prosecutor has conducted a preliminary investigation and filed an information for a light offense, may still conduct a preliminary examination for the purpose of determining probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the City Court’s order. The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between preliminary investigation and the judicial determination of probable cause for an arrest warrant. A preliminary investigation is an executive function to determine whether a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty, justifying the filing of an information. For offenses within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the City or Municipal Court, such as this estafa case involving P100.00, no preliminary investigation is required by law; the fiscal’s investigation is sufficient and not subject to duplication by the court.
The Court clarified that the judge’s duty under the Constitution is to personally determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. However, this determination is a separate judicial function that does not necessitate a new or second preliminary investigation. The judge can make this determination based on the prosecutor’s report, the sworn statements, and other evidence submitted. The City Court’s order for a “preliminary examination” of witnesses was effectively an unauthorized second preliminary investigation, which would cause undue delay. The proper course was for the judge to evaluate the evidence already presented by the Fiscal to satisfy himself of probable cause for arrest, not to conduct a new investigative proceeding.