Criminal Procedure a2010 page 80 Prof.Rowena Daroy Morales
with it the waiver of any procedural error orirregularity that may have attended the preliminaryinvestigation.
The judgment under review is herebyaffirmed
ALLADO v DIOKNO
232 SCRA 192
PEOPLE v CA (CERBO)
(Republic v CA in page 5 of the outline)301 SCRA 475PANGANIBAN
January 21, 1999
Petition for Review
- Private Respondent Jonathan Cerbo shot, atpointblank range, Rosalinda Dy in the presence andat the office of his father private respondent BillyCerbo.- An information for murder was filed against Jonathan Cerbo.- The daughter of the victim executed an affidavit-complaint charging private respondent Billy Cerbo of conspiracy in the killing.- Accordingly, the prosecution filed an amendedinformation including Billy Cerbo in the murder case.A warrant for his arrest was later issued.- Billy Cerbo filed a motion to quash warrant of arrestarguing that the same was issued without probablecause.- The respondent judge issued an order dismissingthe case against Billy Cerbo and recalling the warrantfor his arrest.- The Court of Appeals debunked the petitioner’sassertion that the trial judge committed grave abuseof discretion and that the evidence presented thusfar did not substantiate the charge.. Hence thispetition.
WON the CA erred in finding that no probable causeexists to merit the filing of charges against privaterespondent Billy Cerbo
YES- The petition is meritorious.- The determination of probable cause duringpreliminary investigation is a function that belongs tothe public prosecutor. It is an
function.- The public prosecutor has the quasi-judicialauthority to determine whether or not a criminal casemust be filed in court.- The
of a preliminary investigationis to free respondent from the inconvenience,expense, ignominy, and stress of defendinghimself/herself in the course of a formal trial, untilthe reasonable probability of his or her guilt in amore or less summary proceeding by a competentoffice designated by law for that purpose.
- Secondarily, such summary proceeding alsoprotects the state from the burden of theunnecessary expense of an effort in prosecutingalleged offenses and in holding trials arising fromfalse, frivolous, or groundless charges.
- The determination of probable cause to hold aperson for trial must be distinguished from thedetermination of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest, which is a
function.- A judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if he or she deems that there is no probablecause for doing so.- Corrollarily, the judge should not override the publicprosecutor’s determination of probable cause to holdan accused for trial, on the ground that the evidencepresented to substantiate the issuance of an arrestwarrant was insufficient, as in the present case.- Therefore, if the information is valid on its face, andthere is no showing of manifest error, grave abuse of discretion and prejudice on the part of the publicprosecutor, the trial court should respect suchdetermination.
BURGOS SR v CHIEF OF STAFF
133 SCRA 800ESCOLIN; December 26, 1984
Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus withpreliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction
- December 7, 1982 Judge Ernani Cruz-Paño CFI Rizal[Quezon City], issued two search warrants underwhich the premises known as No. 19, Road 3, Project
Ledesma v. CA, 278 SCRA 657, Sept. 5, 1997.
6, Quezon City, business address of Metropolitan Mailnewspaper, and 784 Units C & D, RMS Building,Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, business address of the "We Forum" newspaper were searched.- office and printing machines, equipment,paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles usedin the printing, publication and distribution of thesaid newspapers, as well as numerous papers,documents, books and other written literaturealleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "WeForum" newspaper, were seized.- The questioned search warrants were issued byrespondent judge upon application of Col. Rolando N.Abadilla, Intelligence Officer of the P.C. Metrocom. The application was accompanied by the JointAffidavit of Alejandro M. Gutierrez and Pedro U. Tango, members of the Metrocom Intelligence andSecurity Group under Col. Abadilla which conducteda surveillance of the premises prior to the filing of the application for the search warrants on December7, 1982.- Respondents aver that the case should bedismissed on the ground that petitioners had cometo SC without having previously sought the quashalof the search warrants before the issuing judge. Butthis procedural flaw notwithstanding, SC tookcognizance of this petition in view of the seriousnessand urgency of the constitutional issues raised, notto mention the public interest generated by thesearch.- Respondents likewise urge dismissal of the petitionon ground of laches, since said search warrants wereissued on December 7, 1982, but the instant petitionimpugning the same was filed only on June 16, 1983.However, SC found that the extrajudicial effortsexerted by petitioners quite evidently negate thepresumption that they had abandoned their right tothe possession of the seized property, therebyrefuting the charge of laches against them.
> Petitioners fault respondent judge for his allegedfailure to conduct an examination under oath oraffirmation of the applicant and his witnesses, asmandated by the constitution as well as Sec. 4, Rule126 of the Rules of Court. However, SC found that aspetitioners themselves conceded during the hearingon August 9, 1983, that an examination had indeedbeen conducted by respondent judge of Col. Abadillaand his witnesses, this issue is moot and academic.> Search Warrants No. 20-82[a] and No. 20-82[b]were used to search two distinct places: No. 19, Road3, Project 6, Quezon City and 784 Units C & D, RMS