PANGANDAMAN vs CASAR G.R. No.

71782, April 14, 1988 Facts: The shooting incident by armed men in Lanao led to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Petitioners assert that the respondent Judge issued a warrant of arrest against fifty (50) John describe the persons or things to be sei%ed. Iss !: &hether said warrant is #alid "!l#: 'o. (nsofar as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) John oes! not one of oes! transgressing the "AD4I I5RA"IM S/6A7 PANGANDAMAN, MAGAM5AAN PANGANDAMAN, MACARIAN PANGANDAMAN, MAMIN0A6 PANGANDAMAN, PACA68ND/ PANGANDAMAN, MANG/RAMAS PANGANDAMAN, MACADA/5 P. PANG/RANGAN, 9I6A08N PANGANDAMAN, MARI/ PANGANDAMAN, MACA5IDAR PANGANDAMAN, P87A0 P. R/MAMPA0, SAN0/RANI P. DIMAP.NG.N, NASS.R P. DIMAP.NG.N AND DIAMA /PA/, P.0I0I/N.RS, 1S. DIMAP/R/ 0. CASAR, AS M8NICIPA6 CIRC8I0 0RIA6 48DG. /F P//NA5A7A5A/, 0AMPARAN AND MASI8, 6ANA/ D.6 S8R AND 0". P./P6. /F 0". P"I6IPPIN.S, R.SP/ND.N0S. D.CISI/N NAR1ASA, 4.: The petitioners as5 this "ourt6 .) to annul the warrant for their arrest issued by respondent Judge imaporo T. "asar of the 7unicipal "ircuit "ourt of 7asiu) Lanao del /ur) in "riminal "ase 'o. .234 entitled People vs. Hadji Ibrahim Solay Pangandaman, et al.!8 9) to prohibit the Judge from ta5ing further cogni%ance of said "riminal "ase 'o. .2348 and ,) to compel the Judge to forward the entire record of "riminal "ase 'o. .234 to the Pro#incial 1iscal of Lanao del /ur for proper disposition. +.Their plea is essentially grounded on the claim that the warrant for their arrest was issued by the respondent Judge without a proper preliminary in#estigation.+9- The /olicitor :eneral agrees and recommends that their petition be granted and the warrant of arrest #oided.+,;n July 92) .<45) a shooting incident occurred in Pantao) 7asiu) Lanao del whom the witnesses to the complaint could or would identify) it is of the $at r! o% a &!$!ral 'arra$t, one of a class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and once anathemati%ed as totally sub#ersi#e of the liberty of the sub*ect.! +,0- Cl!arl( violativ! o% t)! co$stit tio$al i$* $ctio$ t)at 'arra$ts o% arr!st s)o l# partic larl( #!scri+! t)! p!rso$ or p!rso$s to +! s!i,!#)+,.- the warrant must) as regards its unidentified sub*ects) be #oided. -".R.F/R., the warrant complained of is upheld and declared #alid insofar as it orders the arrest of the petitioners. /aid warrant is #oided to the e0tent that it is issued against fifty (50) John oes.! The respondent Judge is directed to forward to the Pro#incial 1iscal of Lanao del /ur the record of the preliminary in#estigation of the complaint in "riminal "ase 'o. .234 of his court for further appropriate action. "onstitutional pro#ision re$uiring that such warrants should particularly FIRS0 DI1ISI/N 2 G.R. No. 71782, April 14, 1988 3

/ur) which left at least fi#e persons dead and two others wounded. &hat in fact transpired is still unclear. =ccording to one #ersion) armed men had attac5ed a residence in Pantao) 7asiu) with both attac5ers and defenders suffering casualties.+3- =nother #ersion has it that a group that was on its way to another place) Lalabuan) also in 7asiu) had been ambushed.
+5-

propounded.+..- The respondent Judge denied the motion for lac5 of basis!8
+.9-

hence the present petition.

&hile they concede the authority of the respondent Judge to conduct a preliminary in#estigation of the offenses in#ol#ed) which are cogni%able by Cegional Trial "ourts) the petitioners and the /olicitor :eneral argue that the Judge in the case at bar failed to conduct the in#estigation in accordance with the procedure prescribed in /ection ,) Cule ..9 of the Cules of "ourt8+.,- and that that failure constituted a denial to petitioners of due process which nullified the proceedings leading to the issuance of the warrant for the petitionersA arrest.+.3- (t is further contended that =ugust .0) .<45 was a /aturday during which 7unicipal Trial "ourts are open from 4600 a.m. to .600 p.m. only) B B B! and B B B it would hardly ha#e been possible for respondent Judge to determine the e0istence of probable cause against si0ty?four (@3) persons whose participations were of #arying nature and degree in a matter of hours and issue the warrant of arrest in the same day8!+.5- and that there was undue haste and an omission to as5 searching $uestions by the Judge who relied mainly on the supporting affida#its which were ob#iously prepared already when presented to him by an enlisted P" personnel as in#estigator.!+.@The petitioners further assert that the respondent Judge conducted the preliminary in#estigation of the charges B B B in total disregard of the Pro#incial 1iscal B B B! who) as said respondent well 5new) had already ta5en cogni%ance of the matter twel#e (.9) days earlier and was poised to conduct his own in#estigation of the same8 +.2- and that issuance of a warrant of arrest against fifty (50) John oes! transgressed the "onstitutional pro#ision re$uiring that such warrants should particularly describe the persons or things to be sei%ed. +.4-

;n the following day) =tty. 7angurun >atuampar) claiming to represent the widow of one of the #ictims) filed a letter?complaint with the Pro#incial 1iscal at 7arawi "ity) as5ing for a full blast preliminary in#estigation! of the incident.+@- The letter ad#erted to the possibility of innocent persons being implicated by the parties in#ol#ed on both sides ?? none of whom was) howe#er) identified ?? and promised that supporting affida#its would shortly be filed. (mmediately the Pro#incial 1iscal addressed a .st indorsement! to the respondent Judge) transmitting =tty. >atuamparAs letter and re$uesting that all cases that may be filed relati#e BB (to the incident) that happened in the afternoon of July 92) .<45)! be forwarded to his office) which has first ta5en cogni%ance of said cases.! +2'o case relati#e to the incident was) howe#er) presented to the respondent Judge until /aturday) =ugust .0) .<45) when a criminal complaint for multiple murder was filed before him by P.". /gt. Jose L. Laru?an) which was doc5eted as "ase 'o. .234. +4- ;n that same day) the respondent Judge e0amined personally all (three) witnesses (brought by the sergeant) under oath thru B B (his) closed and direct super#ision)! reducing to writing the $uestions to the witnesses and the latterAs answers.
+<-

Thereafter the

Judge appro#ed the complaint and issued the corresponding warrant of arrest! against the fourteen (.3) petitioners (who were named by the witnesses) and fifty (50) John oes.!
+.0-

=n e0?parte! motion for reconsideration was filed on =ugust .3) .<45 by =tty. >atuampar (*oined by =tty. Pama L. 7uti)) see5ing recall of the warrant of arrest and subse$uent holding of a thorough in#estigation! on the ground that the JudgeAs initial in#estigation had been hasty and manifestly hapha%ard! with no searching $uestions! ha#ing been There can be no debate about the proposition that in conducting a preliminary in#estigation of any crime cogni%able by the Cegional Trial "ourts) a *udge of an inferior court (other than in 7etro?7anila or the chartered cities) where no authority to conduct preliminary in#estigation is

#ested in such officials) must obser#e the procedure prescribed in /ection , of Cule ..9) .<45 Cules on "riminal Procedure. =nd although not specifically so declared) the procedure mandated by the Cule actually consists of two phases or stages. The first phase consists of an e0?parte in$uiry into the sufficiency of the complaint and the affida#its and other documents offered in support thereof. =nd it ends with the determination by the Judge either6 (.) that there is no ground to continue with the in$uiry) in which case he dismisses the complaint and transmits the order of dismissal) together with the records of the case) to the pro#incial fiscal8 or (9) that the complaint and the supporting documents show sufficient cause to continue with the in$uiry and this ushers in the second phase.

complainantAs witnesses) and ha#ing come to belie#e) on the basis thereof) that the offenses charged had been committed) the respondent Judge issued the warrant now complained of against the fourteen (.3) respondents (now petitioners) named and identified by the witnesses as the perpetrators of the 5illings and in*uries) as well as against 50 John oes.! The real $uestion) therefore) is whether or not the respondent Judge had the power to issue the warrant of arrest without completing the entire prescribed procedure for preliminary in#estigation. /tated otherwise) is completion of the procedure laid down in /ection , of Cule ..9 a condition sine $ua non for the issuance of a warrant of arrestE There is no re$uirement that the entire procedure for preliminary

This second phase is designed to gi#e the respondent notice of the complaint) access to the complainantAs e#idence and an opportunity to submit counter?affida#its and supporting documents. =t this stage also) the Judge may conduct a hearing and propound to the parties and their witnesses $uestions on matters that) in his #iew) need to be clarified. The second phase concludes with the Judge rendering his resolution) either for dismissal of the complaint or holding the respondent for trial) which shall be transmitted) together with the record) to the pro#incial fiscal for appropriate action. The procedure abo#e described must be followed before the complaint or information is filed in the Cegional Trial "ourt. 1ailure to do so will result in a denial of due process.+.<-

in#estigation must be completed before a warrant of arrest may be issued. &hat the Cule+90- pro#ides is that no complaint or information for an offense cogni%able by the Cegional Trial "ourt may be filed without completing that procedure. >ut nowhere is it pro#ided that the procedure must be completed before a warrant of arrest may issue. (ndeed) it is the contrary that is true. The present /ection @ of the same Cule ..9 clearly authori%es the municipal trial court to order the respondentAs arrest e#en before opening the second phase of the in#estigation if said court is satisfied that a probable cause e0ists and there is a necessity to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of *ustice. /ec. @. &hen warrant of arrest may issue. ?? BBB

Dere) no information has as yet been filed with the Cegional Trial "ourt. There is no pretense that the preliminary in#estigation has been completed) insofar as the respondent Judge is concerned) and that he does not intend to underta5e the second phase. (n this situation) it cannot be said that he has failed to obser#e the prescribed procedure. &hat has happened is simply that after recei#ing the complaint and e0amining the

(b) >y the 7unicipal Trial "ourt. ?? (f the municipal trial *udge conducting the preliminary in#estigation is satisfied after an e0amination in writing and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching $uestions and answers) that a probable cause e0ists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of *ustice) he shall issue a warrant of

arrest.!+9.This was e$ually true under the former rules) where the first phase of the in#estigation was e0pressly denominated preliminary e0amination! to distinguish it from the second phase) or preliminary in#estigation proper. Thus) the former /ection @ of Cule ..9 pro#ided6 /F". @. Warrant of arrest, when issued. ?? (f the *udge be satisfied from the preliminary e0amination conducted by him or by the in#estigating officer that the offense complained of has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to belie#e that the accused has committed it) he must issue a warrant or order for his arrest.! (n 7ayuga #s. 7ara#illa)
+99-

complainant and the latterAs witnesses under oath) only the testimony of the complainant shall be in writing and only an abstract of the testimony of the other is re$uired. Cegarding preliminary in#estigation) it has thus been ruled that Gthe occasion is not for the full and e0hausti#e display of the partiesA e#idence8 it is for the presentation of such e#idence only as may engender well?grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.A B B B!+9,The rule on arrest after preliminary e0amination has) of course) been modified somewhat since the occurrence of the facts upon which 7ayuga was decided) but not to abrogate the authority of the in#estigating *udge to order such arrest) and only to prescribe the re$uirement that before he may do so) he must e0amine the witnesses to the complaint) the e0amination to be under oath and reduced to writing in the form of searching $uestions and answers. This modification was introduced by Cepublic =ct ,4,4) appro#ed June 99) .<@,) amending /ection 42 of the Judiciary =ct of .<34) and the searching $uestions and answers! re$uirement is incorporated in the present /ection @ of Cule ..9 already $uoted. The argument) therefore) must be re*ected that the respondent Judge acted with gra#e abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest against petitioners without first completing the preliminary in#estigation in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The rule is and has always been that such issuance need only await a finding of probable cause) not the completion of the entire procedure of preliminary in#estigation. =lso without appreciable merit is petitionersA other argument that there was scarcely time to determine probable cause against si0ty?four persons (the fourteen petitioners and fifty oes!) within a matter of hours on a /aturday when municipal trial courts are open only from 4600 a.m. to .600 p.m. That argument founders upon the respondent JudgeAs positi#e affirmations that he had personally and closely e0amined under oath the three witnesses to the complaint+93- and that he had issued the warrant of arrest belie#ing that the offense thus filed had been

this "ourt found occasion to dwell in some

detail on the process of preliminary in#estigation and) incidentally) to affirm the power of a *ustice of the peace or municipal *udge conducting a preliminary in#estigation to order the arrest of the accused after the first stage (preliminary e0amination)) saying6 =ppellant should bear in mind that a preliminary in#estigation such as was conducted by the Justice of the Peace has for its purpose only the determination of whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to belie#e the accused guilty thereof) and if so) the issuance of a warrant of arrest. =nd it should not be forgotten that a preliminary in#estigation has two stages6 1irst) a preliminary e0amination of the complainant and his witnesses prior to the arrest of the accused8 and) second) the reading to the accused after his arrest of the complaint or information filed against him) and his being informed of the substance of the e#idence against him) after which he is allowed to present e#idence in his fa#or) if he so desires. Probable cause) in regard to the first stage of preliminary in#estigation) depends on the discretion of the *udge or magistrate empowered to issue the warrant of arrest. (t suffices that facts are presented to him to con#ince him) not that a person has committed the crime) but that there is probable cause to belie#e that such person committed the crime charged. The proceeding is generally e0 parte unless the defendant desires to be present and while under the old Cules the Justice of the Peace or in#estigating officer must ta5e the testimony of the

committed.!+95- 'othing in the record before this "ourt belies or discredits those affirmations which ha#e) besides) the benefit of the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.
+9@-

petitioners and about fifty other unidentified persons8 that fi#e of the party had been 5illed and two (the witnesses Lawandato Cipors and /anny 7onib) wounded8 that e#en after they had 5illed their #ictims) the ambushers had continued to fire at the dead bodies8 that the witnesses managed to escape their attac5ers and return to Talaguian) where they informed their relati#es about what had happened) and thence went to the municipal hall in 7asiu to report to the authorities8 that the dead #ictims were reco#ered only late in the afternoon of that day because the authorities could not penetrate! the area and the ambushers refused to release the bodies8 and that the ambush was an offshoot of a grudge between the families of the ambushers and those of the #ictims. +94The witnesses named and identified the dead #ictims as "adar 7onasprang) 7acacrao :uiling) 7acrang Dad*i =lawi) =licman Cipors and 7alabato iator. =ll of them also identified by name each of the fourteen petitioners as members of the ambush group. The respondent Judge can hardly be faulted for finding enough cause to hold the petitioners named in the statements of three eyewitnesses to 5illings perpetrated in broad daylight. (n Luna vs. Pla a,+9<- this "ourt ruled that the term searching $uestions and answers! means ? B B B only) ta5ing into consideration the purpose of the preliminary e0amination which is to determine whether there is a reasonable ground to belie#e that an offense has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof so that a warrant of arrest may be issued and the accused held for trial)! such $uestions as ha#e tendency to show the commission of a crime and the perpetuator thereof. &hat would be searching $uestions would depend on what is sought to be in$uired into) such as6 the nature of the offense) the date) time) and place of its commission) the possible moti#es for its commission8 the sub*ect) his age) education) status) financial and social circumstances) his attitude toward the in#estigation) social attitudes) opportunities to commit the offense8 the #ictim) his age) status) family responsibilities) financial and social circumstances)

The

contention that the witnesses to the complaint had merely sworn before the respondent Judge to statements prepared beforehand and submitted by a military in#estigator+92- must) in #iew of the foregoing considerations and for lac5 of any support in the record) be dismissed as mere speculation. The same argument also unwarrantedly assumes that the respondent Judge limited the proceedings on preliminary e0amination to the usual /aturday office hours of 4600 a.m. to .600 p.m.) in addition to not ma5ing any persuasi#e showing that such proceedings could not ha#e been completed within that time?frame. 1or all that appears) said respondent could ha#e put off the .600 p.m. ad*ournment until he had finished interrogating the witnesses to his satisfaction. =nd there is really nothing unusual in completing within a three?hour period the $uestioning of three witnesses in a preliminary e0amination to determine the e0istence of probable cause. The record which) lac5ing proof to the contrary) must be accepted as an accurate chronicle of the $uestioned proceedings) shows prima facie that the respondent Judge had personally e0amined the witnesses to the complaint) and a consideration of the latterAs sworn answers to his $uestions satisfies this "ourt that the finding of probable cause against the petitioners was neither arbitrary nor unfounded. The three witnesses to the complaint) 7isandoning 7onasprang) a student) Lawandato Cipors) an engineering graduate) and /anny 7onib) a farmer) ga#e mutually corroborati#e accounts of the incident. Hnder separate $uestioning) they declared that they were members of a party that was passing by Pantao on its way to Lalabuan from Talaguian) all in 7asiu) Lanao del /ur) at about .0600 a.m. on July 92) .<45) when they were ambushed and fired upon by an armed group which included the

characteristics) etc. The points that are the sub*ect of in$uiry may differ than case to case. The $uestions) therefore must to a great degree depend upon the Judge ma5ing the in#estigation. B B B! Hpon this authority) and considering what has already been stated abo#e) this "ourt is not prepared to $uestion the propriety of the respondent JudgeAs finding of probable cause or substitute its *udgment for his in the matter of what $uestions to put to the witnesses during the preliminary e0amination. Hpon the facts and the law) therefore) the warrant of arrest in $uestion #alidly issued against the petitioners) such issuance ha#ing been ordered after proceedings) to which no irregularity has been shown to attach) in which the respondent Judge found sufficient cause to commit the petitioners to answer for the crime complained of. (nsofar) howe#er) as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) John oes!

>e that as it may) since the action and final resolution of the respondent Judge after completing the second stage of the preliminary in#estigation are sub*ect to re#iew by the Pro#incial 1iscal) practical considerations of e0pediency and the a#oidance of duplication of wor5 dictate that the latter official be permitted to ta5e o#er the in#estigation e#en in its present stage. -".R.F/R., the warrant complained of is upheld and declared #alid insofar as it orders the arrest of the petitioners. /aid warrant is #oided to the e0tent that it is issued against fifty (50) John oes.! The respondent Judge is directed to forward to the Pro#incial 1iscal of Lanao del /ur the record of the preliminary in#estigation of the complaint in "riminal "ase 'o. .234 of his court for further appropriate action. &ithout pronouncement as to costs. S/ /RD.R.D. !eehan"ee, #.$., #ru , %ancayco, and %ri&o'()uino, $$., concur.

not one of whom the witnesses to the complaint could or would identify) it is of the nature of a general warrant) one of a class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and once anathemati%ed as totally sub#ersi#e of the liberty of the sub*ect.!+,0- "learly #iolati#e of the constitutional in*unction that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or persons to be sei%ed)+,.- the warrant must) as regards its unidentified sub*ects) be #oided.
+9+.-

*ollo, pp. 9) .@ *ollo, pp. 2?.5 Id., pp. <,?<5) ..2 Petition8 *ollo, p. 3 =nne0es "?.) "?9) "?,) Petition8 *ollo, pp. 99?93 *ollo, pp. 3) .< *ollo, p. 90

The fact that the Pro#incial 1iscal may ha#e announced his intention of in#estigating the incident himself did not) in the #iew of the "ourt) legally inhibit the respondent Judge from conducting his own in$uiry into the matter if) as is made to appear here) it was regularly brought before him and no formal complaint was filed before the 1iscal. "ourtesy may ha#e dictated that in those circumstances he lea#e the in#estigation to the 1iscal and simply endorse to the latter the complaint filed with him8 duty did not) and if he nonetheless chose to conduct his own in#estigation) nothing in the rules states or implies that he could not do so.
+2+@+5+3+,-

+9.+4-

/ec. @) and /ec. <(b)) Cule ..9) Cules of "ourt) effecti#e January .)

Id., p. 9. Id., p. 9. (o#erleaf) Id., pp. 95) 94 Id., pp. 9@?92 Id., p. 94 The new rules on criminal procedure which became effecti#e on January

.<458 /ec. ,2) >.P. .9<8 /ec. ,) =rt. (I) "onstitution.

+99-

+<-

.4 /"C= ...5 /upra8 citing Cule .04) /ecs. .) @ and ..) of the old Cules of "ourt (now

+.0-

+9,-

/ecs. .) 5 and .9 of Cule ..9) with modifications)8 Lo ada vs.

+..-

Hernande , <9 Phil. .05.8 -iron vs. #ea, 24 Phil. @2,8 *odrigue vs. (rellano, <@ Phil. <538 0.S. vs. ,campo, .4 Phil. .8 People vs. +oreno, 22 Phil. 5348 Hashim vs. -oncan, 2. Phil. 9.@.
+93-

+.9-

+.,-

=nne0 "!) Petition8 Collo) p. 9. (o#erleaf)8 the certification written

.) .<45.
+.3-

thereon reads6 = PCFL(7('=CJ FK=7('=T(;' has been conducted in this case) ha#ing e0amined personally all witnesses under oath thru my closed and direct super#ision.!
+95-

*ollo, pp. 4?.0) 4<?<. Id., p. <3 Id., p. .3 *ollo, pp. @) ..?.9 /ec. ,) =rt. (I8 *ollo, pp. @) .9?., +ari&as vs. Siochi, .03 /"C= 39,8 !abil vs. ,ng, <. /"C= 35.8 -an on

+.5-

=nne0 1!) Petition8 Collo) p. 94 /ec. 5(m)) Cule .,.) Cules of "ourt Collo) pp. <?.0 =nne0es "?.) "?9) "?,) Petition 9@ /"C= ,.0 -ouvier1s Law /ictionary, ,rd Ce#.) Iol .) p. .,3< citing 7ay) "onst.

+.@-

+9@-

+.2-

+92-

+.4-

+94-

+.<-

+9<-

vs. #abato, etc., @3 /"C= 3.<8 People vs. Paras, 5@ /"C= 9348 People vs. (bejuela and .ndan,,4 /"C= ,938 People vs. ,andasan, 95 /"C= 9228 Luna vs. Pla a, 9@ /"C= ,..8 San /iego vs. Hernande , 93 /"C= ..08 People vs. +onton, 9, /"C= .093.
+,.+90+,0-

Dist. of Fngland =rt. (I) /ec. ,) "onstitution

/ection ,) first paragraph) of Cule ..9) Cules of "ourt) which also

e0cepts cases where a lawful arrest without warrant has been made (/ec. 2 of the same Cule).