Placer vs. Villanueva

A fiscal's certification of probable cause in an information does not obligate the judge to issue a warrant of arrest; the judge may disregard the certification and require the submission of supporting affidavits and documentary evidence to independently satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause.

The City Fiscal of Butuan City and his assistant city fiscals, as investigating officers, were authorized under P.D. Nos. 77 and 911 to conduct preliminary examinations and determine the existence of probable cause. The respondent, Judge Napoleon D. Villanueva, presided over Branch I of the City Court of Butuan and was concurrently assigned to Branch II following the retirement of its presiding judge. The Office of the City Fiscal of Butuan had a long-standing practice of attaching to the informations filed with the court the affidavits of prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence presented during preliminary investigation.

Between March 30 and April 14, 1982, the City Fiscal of Butuan City, Nestorio M. Placer, and his assistant city fiscals filed fourteen informations in the City Court of Butuan, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 12209 through 12222, covering charges ranging from slight physical injuries and violations of B.P. 22 to estafa, grave oral defamation, and alarm and scandal. Most of the informations bore certifications by the respective investigating fiscals stating that a preliminary examination had been conducted and that, on the basis of the sworn statements and other evidence submitted, there was reasonable ground to believe that the crime charged had been committed and that the accused was probably guilty thereof. The informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 12219 and 12220 bore a certification by 3rd Assistant Fiscal Felixberto Guiritan that the information was filed upon directive of the Minister of Justice, who upon review had found a prima facie case. Those in Criminal Cases Nos. 12221 and 12222 were certified by 2nd Assistant Fiscal Ernesto M. Brocoy, stating the information was filed upon directive of the City Fiscal pursuant to P.D. No. 911, who upon review had found a prima facie case. None of the informations were accompanied by the affidavits of prosecution witnesses or other supporting documentary evidence.

Upon receiving the informations, respondent Judge Napoleon D. Villanueva issued an order setting a hearing on April 5, 1982 for the purpose of determining the propriety of issuing the corresponding warrants of arrest. After the hearing, respondent issued orders dated April 13, 15, 16, and 19, 1982, requiring petitioners to submit the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence to aid him in exercising his power of judicial review over the fiscal's findings of probable cause. Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, contending that under P.D. Nos. 77 and 911, their determinations of probable cause were sufficient basis for the issuance of warrants of arrest. Respondent denied the motions on April 28, 1982 and reiterated the directive to submit the supporting documents within five days.

Petitioners then filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus. Meanwhile, respondent was also assigned to preside over Branch II of the City Court due to the retirement of its presiding judge, and the informations filed in that branch similarly remained dormant for want of warrants of arrest — as of July 15, 1982, no warrants had been issued in 113 informations. On July 12, 1982, respondent received the Court's May 19, 1982 Resolution requiring him to comment on the petition. Interpreting it as a denial of the petition, he issued an Omnibus Order on July 13, 1982 directing petitioners to submit immediately the supporting affidavits and evidence. Unable to secure reconsideration, petitioners submitted the required documents on July 15, 1982 to avoid further delay.

Respondent thereafter issued warrants of arrest in cases where he was satisfied that probable cause existed. However, in Criminal Cases Nos. 12417, 12418, 12419, 12420, and 12422, he refused to issue warrants and instead ordered the records remanded to the City Fiscal for further preliminary investigation or reinvestigation, finding no prima facie case against the accused on the basis of the affidavits submitted. Petitioners filed a motion with the Supreme Court to restrain respondent from enforcing the questioned orders and to compel him to accept and take cognizance of all informations filed.

• Binding Effect of Fiscal's Certification: Petitioners contended that the fiscal's certification in the information of the existence of probable cause constitutes sufficient justification for the judge to issue a warrant of arrest, and that such certification binds the judge, being supported by the presumption that the investigating fiscal had performed his duties regularly and completely.
• Statutory Authority Under P.D. Nos. 77 and 911: Petitioners maintained that under P.D. Nos. 77 and 911, they are authorized to determine the existence of probable cause in a preliminary examination or investigation, and that their findings constitute a sufficient basis for the issuance of warrants of arrest by the court.

• Judicial Power to Review Probable Cause: Respondent justified his orders as an exercise of his judicial power to review the fiscal's findings of probable cause, asserting that the issuance of a warrant of arrest is not a ministerial function but requires the exercise of judicial discretion.
• Destruction of Presumption of Regularity: Respondent maintained that the failure of petitioners to file the required affidavits destroys the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties, particularly in light of the long-standing practice of the Office of the City Fiscal of Butuan of attaching to the informations the affidavits of prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence presented during preliminary investigation.

• Probable Cause Determination: Whether the respondent city judge may, for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest, compel the fiscal to submit to the court the supporting affidavits and other documentary evidence presented during the preliminary investigation.
• Remand for Reinvestigation: Whether the respondent judge abused his discretion in ordering the remand of certain cases to the City Fiscal for further preliminary investigation or reinvestigation upon finding no prima facie case from the informations and affidavits submitted.

• Probable Cause Determination: Yes. The judge may require the fiscal to submit supporting affidavits and documentary evidence. The fiscal's certification of probable cause, while a basis for reliance, does not bind the judge; the issuance of a warrant of arrest is a judicial function requiring the judge's own satisfaction as to probable cause, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
• Remand for Reinvestigation: No. The respondent judge did not abuse his discretion in remanding the cases where he found the charges patently without basis or merit, as the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases authorizes outright dismissal under such circumstances.

• Probable Cause Determination: The constitutional mandate under Section 3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution requires that no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses. While P.D. No. 911 authorizes the fiscal or state prosecutor to determine probable cause and to certify under oath in the information that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty, this certification does not convert the judge's role into a ministerial one. Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court provides that the judge must be satisfied from the preliminary examination that the offense has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to believe the accused committed it before issuing a warrant. If, on the face of the information, the judge finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's certification and require the submission of supporting affidavits. This principle has been established since U.S. vs. Ocampo and Amarga vs. Abbas. In the present case, respondent found the informations inadequate without the supporting affidavits — which, as a matter of long-standing practice, had always been attached to informations filed in his sala. After the affidavits were submitted, respondent promptly issued warrants where probable cause was evident. Furthermore, under the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases, the filing of affidavits is mandatory; Section 9 requires the complaint or information to be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and witnesses, and Section 10 directs the court to make a preliminary determination on the basis of the information and accompanying affidavits whether to dismiss outright or require further proceedings.

• Remand for Reinvestigation: After petitioners submitted the required affidavits, respondent reviewed them and found no prima facie case in Criminal Cases Nos. 12417, 12418, 12419, 12420, and 12422. Ordering the issuance of warrants and trying the accused in such circumstances would expose them to unnecessary harassment, anxiety, and expense. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases, the judge has the power to order outright dismissal if, from the information and attached affidavits, the charges are patently without basis or merit. Remanding the cases for further preliminary investigation was thus a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

• Judicial Determination of Probable Cause — The issuance of a warrant of arrest is not a ministerial function but calls for the exercise of judicial discretion. The judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant. While the fiscal's certification of probable cause may be relied upon, it does not bind the judge; if on the face of the information the judge finds no probable cause, he may disregard the certification and require the submission of supporting affidavits and documentary evidence to aid his independent determination.
• Mandatory Submission of Affidavits Under the Rule on Summary Procedure — In cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases, the filing of affidavits of the complainant and witnesses with the court is mandatory. The court must make a preliminary determination on the basis of the information and accompanying affidavits whether to dismiss the case outright for being patently without basis or to require further proceedings.

• "The issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial function; it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of the issuing magistrate." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi, distinguishing the judge's role from a ministerial duty and establishing that the fiscal's certification does not compel the issuance of a warrant.
• "If on the face of the information the judge finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals certification and require the submission of the affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of a probable cause." — This formulation defines the scope of the judge's power to independently assess probable cause and is the operative rule applied in this case.
• "For respondent to issue the warrants of arrest and try the accused would only expose the latter to unnecessary harrassment, anxiety and expense." — This passage explains the rationale for allowing the judge to remand cases where the charges are found patently without basis, protecting the accused from unwarranted prosecution.

• U.S. vs. Ocampo, 1 Phil. 1 — Cited as early authority for the rule that the judge may disregard the fiscal's certification and require submission of supporting affidavits to independently determine probable cause.
• Amarga vs. Abbas, 98 Phil. 739 — Followed as consistent precedent reinforcing the judge's power to review the fiscal's findings of probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest.

• Section 3, Article IV, 1973 Constitution — Requires that no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Applied as the constitutional basis for the judge's independent determination of probable cause.
• Section 1(b) and (d), Republic Act No. 5180, as amended by P.D. Nos. 77 and 911 — Authorizes the fiscal or state prosecutor to determine the existence of probable cause and to certify under oath in the information that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty. Acknowledged as vesting authority in the fiscal but held not to diminish the judge's judicial discretion.
• Section 6, Rule 112, Rules of Court — Provides that the judge must be satisfied from the preliminary examination that the offense has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to believe the accused committed it before issuing a warrant of arrest. Applied as the procedural basis for requiring the judge's own satisfaction of probable cause.
• Sections 9 and 10, Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases — Requires the complaint or information to be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and witnesses, and directs the court to make a preliminary determination whether to dismiss outright or require further proceedings. Applied to cases covered by the Summary Rule, where submission of affidavits is mandatory.

Makasiar (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concurred. Aquino, J., took no part.