You are on page 1of 5

PLACER VS VILLANUEVA

Facts: Certiorari and mandamus to compel respondent judge to issue warrants of arrest. The
City Fiscal of Butuan City and his assistants filed in the City Court of Butuan several
informations. Said informations were certified by the respective investigating Fiscals as having
probable cause after they have conducted the requisite examination of the complainant and his
witnesses. 4 of the informations were found to have established a prima facie case (upon
directive of the Minis-ter of Justice or City Fiscal). Judge then after receiving said informations
issued an order setting the hearing in order to determine if warrants of arrest should issue.
Afterwhich, Judge Villanueva issued orders requiring petitioners to submit to the court the
affidavits of the prosecution wit-nesses and other documentary evidence in support of the
informations to aid him in the exercise of his power of judicial review of the findings of probable
cause by petitioners (Fiscals). Petition-ers filed MRs contending that they are authorized to
determine the existence of a probable cause in a preliminary examination/investigation, and that
their findings as to the existence thereof con-stitute sufficient basis for the issuance of warrants
of arrest by the court. Judge Villanueva de-nied the same and reiterated his orders. Hence this
petition.
Meanwhile, Judge Villanueva received the Court’s resolution requiring him to comment on the
petition, which he interpreted as a denial of said petition, so the next day he issued an Omnibus
Order directing petitioners to submit immediately the supporting affidavits and other evidence.
Petitioners failed to secure a reconsideration so they finally submitted. Still, however, Judge Villanueva refused to issue warrants of arrest respecting some of the criminal cases (but he did
issue warrants of arrest), and instead ordered the records thereof remanded to the City Fiscal
“for fur-ther preliminary investigation or reinvestigation,” for on the bases of said affidavits,
respondent found no prima facie case against the accused.
Then petitioners filed a motion with SC to restrain respondent from enforcing the orders subject
of the main petition and to compel him to accept, and take cognizance of, all the informations
filed in his court. They contend 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, it being supported by the presumption that the investigating fiscal had performed his duties regularly and completely. On the other hand, Judge Villanueva justifies his order as an exercise of his judicial power to review the fiscal's findings of
probable cause. He further maintains that the failure of petitioners to file the required affidavits
destroys the presumption of regularity in the performance of petitioners' official duties,
particularly in the light of the long standing practice of the City Fiscal of attaching to the
informations filed with the court the affidavits of prosecution witnesses and other documentary
evidence presented dur-ing the preliminary investigation.
Issue: Whether Villanueva (a 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.
Held: Yes. The primary requirement for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of
probable cause (Sec. 3, Art. IV, 1973 CONST. which is basically similar to the provision in the
present CONST. in Art. III, Sec. 2). PD 911 authorizes the fiscal or state prosecutor to determine
the existence of probable cause. The judge therefore may rely upon the fiscal's certification of
the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest. But such
certifica-tion does not bind the judge to automatically issue a warrant of arrest. 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 (Sec. 6, Rule 112: “Warrant of arrest, when issued. If the judge be
satisfied from the preliminary examination conducted by him or by the investigating officer that
the of-fense complained of has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to believe
that the accused has committed it, he must issue a warrant or order for his arrest.”). This section
provides that the judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing, a
warrant or order of arrest. If on the face of the information the judge finds no probable cause, he

may disre-gard the fiscal’s 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.
Even the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases requires the submission of affidavits of
witnesses (mandatory), together with the complaint or information. The obvious purpose of requiring the submission of affidavits of the complainant and of his witnesses is to enable the court
to determine whether to dismiss the case outright or to require further proceedings. Also, Judge
Villanueva’s remanding of some of the criminal cases to the City Fiscal for further preliminary
investigation or reinvestigation cannot be questioned. He acted fully within his authority.
Petition DISMISSED.

PEOPLE vs. INTING
187 SCRA 788
Facts: Mrs. Editha Barba filed a letter-complaint against OIC-Mayor Dominador Regalado of
Tanjay, Negros Oriental with the COMELEC for allegedly transferring her, a permanent Nursing
Attendant, Grade I, in the office of the Municipal Mayor to a very remote barangay and without
obtaining prior permission or clearance from COMELEC as required by law.
After a preliminary investigation of Barba’s complaint, Atty. Lituanas found a prima facie case.
Hence, on September 26, 1988, he filed with the respondent trial court a criminal case for
violation of section 261, Par. (h), Omnibus Election Code against the OIC-Mayor. In an Order
dated September 30, 1988, the respondent court issued a warrant of arrest against the accused
OIC Mayor.
However, in an order dated October 3, 1988 and before the accused could be arrested, the trial
court set aside its September 30, 1988 order on the ground that Atty. Lituanas is not authorized
to determine probable cause pursuant to Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The trial
court later on quashed the information. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Does a preliminary investigation conducted by a Provincial Election Supervisor involving
election offenses have to be coursed through the Provincial Prosecutor, before the Regional Trial
Court may take cognizance of the investigation and determine whether or not probable cause
exists?
Held: The 1987 Constitution empowers the COMELEC to conduct preliminary investigations in
cases involving election offenses for the purpose of helping the Judge determine probable cause
and for filing an information in court. This power is exclusive with COMELEC. The evident
constitutional intendment in bestowing this power to the COMELEC is to insure the free, orderly
and honest conduct of elections, failure of which would result in the frustration of the true will of
the people and make a mere idle ceremony of the sacred right and duty of every qualified citizen
to vote. To divest the COMELEC of the authority to investigate and prosecute offenses
committed by public officials in relation to their office would thus seriously impair its effectiveness
in achieving this clear constitutional mandate. Bearing these principles in mind, it is apparent
that the respondent trial court misconstrued the constitutional provision when it quashed the
information filed by the Provincial Election Supervisor.
* We emphasize the important features of the constitutional mandate: (a) The determination of
probable cause is a function of the judge; it is not for the provincial fiscal or prosecutor to
ascertain. Only the judge and the judge alone makes this determination; (b) The preliminary
inquiry made by a prosecutor does not bind the judge. It merely assists him in making the
determination ofprobable cause. The judge does not have to follow what the prosecutor presents
to him. By itself, the prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is the report, the
affidavits, the transcript of stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting documents
behind the prosecutor's certification which are material in assisting the judge in his determination
of probable cause; and, (c)Judges and prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary
inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the

The preliminary investigation proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and therefore. ALLADO v DIOKNO 232 SCRA 192 BELLOSILLO. FACTS: Petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Even if the two inquiries be conducted inthe course of one and the same proceeding. serious doubt on VanTwest's reported death since the corpus delicti has not been established. Thereafter. there should be no confusion about their objectives. oppress. The determination of probable cause for the warrant is made by the judge. Strangely. Petitioner asks the Court to prohibit and prevent the respondents from using the iron arm of the law to harass. Instead." On the other hand. respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant for the arrest of petitioners it appearing that he did not personally examine the evidence nor did he call for the complainant and his witnesses in the face of their incredible accounts. ISSUE: WON the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. the prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual. believes and rules that probable cause exists. issue a warrant of arrest. Even crematoria use entirely closed incinerators where the corpse is subjected to intense heat. HELD: In the Order of respondent judge. on the basis thereof. a member of the democratic opposition in the Philippines. Verily. rigors and embarrassment of trial is a function of the prosecutor. and therefore. it is not for the provincial fiscal or prosecutor to ascertain. and on the basis of an allegedextrajudicial confession of a security guard (Umbal). the remains undergo a process where the bones are completely ground to dust. "However. This is highly improbable. whether or not he should be subjected to the expense. L-59524 February 18. it is expressly stated that "[t]his court after careful evaluation of the evidence on record. his counsel continued to represent him before judicial and quasijudicial proceedings. 1994 DOCTRINE: If upon the filing of the information in court. Petitioners likewise assail the prosecutors' "clear sign of bias and partiality. nor have his remains been recovered. Dispositive: Petition granted. The preliminary investigation proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and therefore. Umbal claims that Van Twest was completely burned into ashes with the use of gasoline and rubber tires from around ten o'clock in the evening to six o'clock the next morning.Mendoza. even Asst. the Office of the Solicitor General argues that the determination of probable cause is a function of the judge who is merely required to personally appreciate certain facts to convince him that the accused probably committed the crime charged. alleging that no prima facie case has been established to warrant the filing of an information for subversion against him. the trial judge. there should be no confusion about their objectives. Even if the two inquiries be conducted inthe course of one and the same proceeding. the transcript of stenographic notes (if any). and persecute him. It is the report. In Soliven v.preliminary investigation proper which ascertainswhether the offender should be held for trial or released. or. he merely relied on the certification of the prosecutors that probable cause existed. No. In People v. There is no reason to hold the accused for trial and further expose him to an open and public accusation of the crime when no cause exists. the affidavits. Inting. In the practice oftheir profession. Makasiar. 1985 Facts: The petitioner invokes the constitutionally protected right to life and liberty guaranteed by the due process clause." Petitioners maintain that the records of the preliminary investigation which respondent judge solely relied upon failed to establish probable cause against them to justify the issuance of the warrant of arrest. May 5. and. if not ridiculous. if not awkwardly. A human body cannot be pulverized into ashes by simply burning it with the use of gasoline and rubber tires in an open field. University ofthe Philippines. after Van Twest'sreported abduction which culminated in his decimation by cremation.R. there is SALONGA vs PAÑO G. may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion on the existence of probable cause. It merely assists him in making the determination ofprobable cause. otherwise. . are partners of the Law Firm ofSalonga. alumni of the College of law. We have painstakingly examined the records and we cannot find any support for his conclusion. Petitioners filed this petition and principally contended that respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in "whimsically holding that there is probable cause against petitioners without determining the admissibility of the evidence against petitioners and without even stating the basis of his findings. By itself. On the contrary. The determination of probable cause for the warrant is made by the judge. and all other supporting documents behind the prosecutor's certification which are material in assisting the judge in his determination of probable cause. (b) The preliminary inquiry made by a prosecutor does not bind the judge. we said that the judge (a)shall personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and. Hernandez and Allado. Solicitor General Estoesta believes that counsel of Van Twest doubted the latter's death. a warrant ofarrest should be issued. we are unable to see how respondent judge arrived at such ruling. he must either call for the complainant and the witnesses themselves or simply dismiss the case. (c)Judges and prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper which ascertainswhether the offender should be held for trial or released. finds that no probable cause exists. For. Only the judge and the judge alone makes this determination. The PACC relies heavily on the sworn statement of Security Guard Umbal who supposedly confessed his participation in the alleged kidnapping and murder of Van Twest. they have been accused of the heinous crime of kidnapping with murder of a German national named Van Twest by the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) and ordered arrested without bail by respondent judge. after reviewing the information and the document attached attached thereto. whether or not he should be subjected to the expense. For one. we emphasized the important features of the constitutional mandate: (a) The determination of probable cause is a function of the judge. rigors and embarrassment of trial is a function of the prosecutor. he would have found out thatthe evidence thus far presented was utterly insufficient to warrant the arrest of petitioners." and in "relying on the Resolution of the Panel and their certification that probable cause exists when the certification is flawed. we discern a number of reasons why we consider the evidence submitted to be insufficient for a finding of probable cause against petitioners. (b) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause. The judge does not have to follow what the prosecutor presents to him. Hence.

The resolutions of the said judge dated 2 December 1981 and 4 January 1982 are the subject of the present petition for certiorari. Insofar as the absence of a prima facie case to warrant the filing of subversion charges is concerned. Nonilon A. 2. after weighing the affidavits and answers given by the witnesses for the prosecution during the preliminary examination in searching questions and answers. Antonio Kho. The counsel for Salonga was furnished a copy of an amended complaint signed by Gen. .In another manifestation. the Lims reiterated that the court conduct a hearing to determine if there really exists a prima facie case against them in the light of documents which are . Nonilon Bagalihog. implicated petitioner Salonga as one of those responsible. Tantiado.. Victor Burns Lovely. on December 12. respondent Judge Rodolfo Ortiz granted the motion of respondent City Fiscal Sergio Apostol to drop the subversion case against the petitioner. and a draft ponencia was circulating for concurrences and separate opinions. charging Salonga. Nestor Lim. The petitioner states that up to the time martial law was lifted on January 17.. and despite assurance to the contrary. v. Jimmy Cabarles. 1989. Sr. .. 1991) Facts: -On March 17. On 15 October 1981. as amended by PD 885. 9211. Sr. Florencio Fernandez. doctrines. Yes. concludes that a probable cause has been established for the issuance of a warrant of arrest of named accused in the amended complaint. Benigno Aquino. he (Pano) issued a resolution ordering the filing of an information for violation of the Revised Anti-Subversion Act. Jr. Paragraph 2 of the Constitution). 1981. a consensus on the Court’s judgment had been arrived at. Enrile. Zaldy Dumalag and Rene Tualla alias Tidoy. against 40 people.” In Gonzales v. In dela Camara vs Enage (41 SCRA 1).m. the Court discussed the constitutional mandate on the preservation and development of Filipino culture for national Identity. BP 31 and PD 1736. the Center’s new charter pursuant to the President’s legislative powers under martial law. Congressman Moises Espinosa. Ronnie Fernandez. It is the contention of Salonga that no prima facie case has been established by the prosecution to justify the filing of an information against him. Jr. located at the municipality of Masbate province of Masbate. The court is constrained by this action of the prosecution and the respondent Judge to withdraw the draft ponencia from circulating for concurrences and signatures and to place it once again in the Court’s crowded agenda for further deliberations. September and October of 1980. namely. at about 7:30 o'clock in the morning. Jr. along with 39 other accused with the violation of RA 1700. Sr. 95954-7 (FEBRUARY 19. Harry O. Florencio T. Lim and Mayor Antonio Kho of the crime of multiple murder and frustrated murder in connectionwith the airport incident. Branch XVIII.The case roots backs to the rash of bombings which occurred in the Metro Manila area in the months of August. Sr. although. this decision has been rendered moot and academic by the action of the prosecution. In the habeas corpus case of Aquino. among others. 15. Despite the SC’s dismissal of the petition due to the case’s moot and academic nature. Susana Lim. at the vicinity of the airport road of the Masbate Domestic Airport. 1985. namely Provincial Guards Antonio Cortes. Jaime Liwanag. as amended. the prosecution restudied its evidence and decided to seek the exclusion of petitioner Jovito Salonga as one of the accused in the information filed under the questioned resolution. Nevertheless. Jr. TSg. Quezon City) denied the motion. He states that to sanction his further prosecution despite the lack of evidence against him would be to admit that no rule of law exists in the Philippines today. the counsel for Salonga filed a motion to dismiss the charges against Salonga for failure of the prosecution to establish a prima facie case against him. The Court had already deliberated on this case. Fernandez. the designated investigator.Mayor Susana Lim of Masbate. Jolly T. Jolly Fernandez. Gaspar Amaro. Sr. one of the victims of the bombing. Vicente Lim. and Susana Lim filed with the respondent court several motions and manifestations which in substance prayed that an order be issued requiring the transmittal of the initial records of the preliminary inquiry or investigation conducted by the Municipal Judge Barsaga of Masbate for the best enlightenment regarding the existence of a probable cause or prima facie evidence as well as the determination of the existence of guilt. the court ruled that: “The fact that the case is moot and academic should not preclude this Tribunal from setting forth in language clear and unmistakable. (which included petitioner as a coaccused). 1989 stating therein that: “. MayorNestor C. and his security escorts. SR. he has not received any copies of the charges against him nor any copies of the so-called supporting evidence. he himself suffered a gunshot wound. of the PC Criminal Investigation Service at Camp Bagong Ibalon Legazpi City filed an amended complaint with the Municipal Trial Court of Masbate accusing. Dante Siblante another security escort of Congressman Espinosa. Issues: 1. On December 10.. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. VS JUDGE FELIXGR NOS. precepts. 1980. (Article XV. -An investigation of the incident then followed. 1980″ and that petitioner was given ten (10) days from receipt of the charge sheet and the supporting evidence within which to file his counterevidence. No. dated 12 March 1981. if any. . Marcos (65 SCRA 624) whether or not the Cultural Center of the Philippines could validly be created through an executive order was mooted by Presidential Decree No. -Thereafter. -After conducting the preliminary investigation.. it has on several occasions rendered elaborate decisions in similar cases where mootness was clearly apparent.. including Salonga. pursuant to the mandatory mandate of the constitution that no warrant shall be issued unless the issuing magistrate shall have himself been personally convinced of such probable cause. or rules. when on January 18. Prospero Olivas. Section 9. Judge Ernani Cruz Pano (Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. the obligation of fidelity on the part of lower court judges to the unequivocal command of the Constitution that excessive bail shall not be required. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees. On 4 January 1982. et al. Vicente Lim. survived the assassination plot. On 2 December 1981.Petitioners Vicente Lim.” . The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles. Whether the above case dropped by the lower court still deserves a decision from the Supreme Court Held: 1. Jr. and for the purpose of preliminary investigation. the court issued an order dated July 31. the Judge Advocate General sent the petitioner a “Notice of Preliminary Investigation” in People v. LIM. Fernandez. stating that “the preliminary investigation of the above-entitled case has been set at 2:30 o’clock p. Whether the above case still falls under an actual case 2. 59 SCRA 183). Bagalihog. and Artemio Fuentes were attacked and killed by a lone assassin. the fact that the petition was moot and academic did not prevent this Court in the exercise of its symbolic function from promulgating one of the most voluminous decisions ever printed in the Reports. Pursuant to instructions of the Minister of Justice.

need to be clarified. a shooting incident occurred in Pantao.It should also be noted that the Lims also presented to the respondent Judge documents of recantation of witnesses whose testimonies were used to establish a prima facie case against them. What in fact transpired is still unclear. The rule is and has always been that such issuance need only await a finding of probable cause. At this stage also. ISSUE: WON a judge may issue a warrant of arrest without bail by simply relying on the prosecution's certification and recommendation that a probable cause exists.This was equally true under the former rules. However. The judge wrote. this Court finds it just and proper to rely on the prosecutor's certification in each information…” -Petitioners question the judgment of Judge Felix (statement immediately preceding this paragraph.. however. the respondent court issued an order denying for lack of merit the motions and manifestations and issued warrants of arrest against the accused including the petitioners herein. The letter adverted to the possibility of innocent persons being implicated by the parties involved on both sides none of whom was. this depends on the circumstances of each case. where the first phase of the investigation was expressly denominated "preliminary examination" to distinguish it from the second phase. And it ends with the determination by the Judge either:(1) that there is no ground to continue with the inquiry. Masiu. with both attackers and defenders suffering casualties.The argument.The next day. to be sure. access to the complainant's evidence and an opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and supporting documents. . Masbate which found the existence of probable cause that the offense of multiple murder was committed and that all the accused are probably guilty thereof. the general rule is that recantations are not given much weight in the determination of a case and in the granting of a new trial the respondent Judge before issuing his own warrants of arrest should. which shall be transmitted. 1990. Batuampar) of one of the widows filed a letter-complaint with the fiscal. Thereafter. the Judge approved the complaint and issued a warrant of arrest against the14 petitioners (who were named by the witnesses) and 50 "John Does. in which case he dismisses the complaint and transmits the order of dismissal.What the Rule provides is that no complaint or information for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court may be filed without completing that procedure. therefore. We cannot determine beforehand how cursory or exhaustive the Judge's examination should be. The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a commissioner for the taking of the evidence. to the provincial fiscal. respondent Judge examined personally the 3witnesses. also in Masiu. together with the record." be forwarded to his office. The extent of the reliance depends on the circumstances of each case and is subject to the Judge's sound discretion.. 1985. each information is complete in form and substance.. which left at least five persons dead and two others wounded. Felix of Branch 56. which was affirmed upon review by the Provincial Prosecutor who properly filed with the Regional Trial Court four separate informations for murder. RD: As held in Soliven v. As mentioned in the facts (stated above). transmitting Atty. On the same day. Regional Trial Court of Makati dated July 5. Indubitably.Sec 3 of rule 112 consists of 2 phases:. the Lims presented documents of recantations of the witnesses. 1985. 6 of Rule 112 clearly authorizes the MTC to issue a warrant even before opening the second phase." hence the present petition. the preliminary investigation was conducted by the Municipal Trial Court of Masbate. . not the completion . after all. However. identified and promised that supporting affidavits would shortly be filed. ISSUE: WON the respondent Judge had the power to issue the warrant of arrest without completing the entire prescribed procedure for preliminary investigation HELD YES. The second phase concludes with the Judge rendering his resolution. Batuampar seeking recall of the warrant of arrest and subsequent holding of a "thorough investigation" on the ground that the Judge's initial investigation had been "hasty and manifestly haphazard" with "no searching questions" having been propounded. .The first phase consists of an ex-parte inquiry into the sufficiency of the complaint and the affidavits and other documents offered in support thereof. the personal determination is vested in the Judge by the Constitution. the Judge does not have to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. “In the instant cases. he issues a warrant of arrest. Lanao del Sur. a criminal complaint for multiple murder was filed. 1988 FACTS . there should be necessary documents and a report supporting the Fiscal's bare certification. in his view.On Aug 14. Immediately the Provincial Fiscal addressed a"1st endorsement" to the respondent Judge. Usually. In making the required personal determination. the Judge may conduct a hearing and propound to the parties and their witnesses questions on matters that. armed men had attacked a residence in Pantao. an ex-parte motion was filed by Atty.italicized).On August 10.-On July 5.. or (2)that the complaint and the supporting documents show sufficient cause to continue with the inquiry and this ushers in the second phase. the respondent Judge (Felix) committed a grave error when he relied solely on the Prosecutor’s certification and issued the questioned Order dated July 5. 1990 without having before him any other basis for his personal determination of the existence of a probable cause. Makasiar. together with the records of the case. at the very least.. a lawyer (Atty.This second phase is designed to give the respondent notice of the complaint. to the provincial fiscal for appropriate action.recantations of some witnesses in the preliminary investigation. Considering that both the two competent officers to whom such duty was entrusted by law have declared the existence of probable cause.On July 27. Sec. which "has first taken cognizance of said cases. had been ambushed. must be rejected that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest against petitioners without first completing the preliminary investigation in accordance with the prescribed procedure. have gone over the records of the preliminary examination conducted earlier in the light of the evidence now presented by the concerned witnesses in view of the "political undertones" prevailing in the cases. RULING: The questioned Order of respondent Judge Nemesio S. Another version has it that a group that was on its way to another place. Although. PANGANDAMAN v CASAR 159 SCRA 599NARVASA. April 14.1985. (to the incident) that happened in the afternoon of July 27. Lalabuan. Masiu. either for dismissal of the complaint or holding the respondent for trial. the Judge abuses that discretion when having no evidence before him. The respondent Judge denied the motion for "lack of basis. However. 1990 is declared NULL and VOID and SET ASIDE. a Judge is not precluded from relying on the evidence earlier gathered by responsible officers. According to one version. Batuampar's letter and requesting that "all cases that may be filed relative . 1985. The Judge has to exercise sound discretion. the Judge must go beyond the Prosecutor's certification and investigation report whenever necessary. asking for a “full blast preliminary investigation”. or preliminary investigation proper . and there is no visible defect on its face. All of these should be before the Judge.

be voided.m.Insofar. one of a class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and once an athematized as "totally subversive of the liberty of the subject. . the warrant must.. to 1:00 p. as regards its unidentified subjects." Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or persons to be seized. besides. Dispositive Warrants against petitioners upheld.of the entire procedure of preliminary investigation. however. it is of the nature of a general warrant.m. Nothing in the record before this Court belies or discredits those affirmations which have. the benefit of the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. warrants against John Does denied.Also without appreciable merit is petitioners' other argument that there was scarcely time to determine probable cause against sixty-four persons (the fourteen petitioners and fifty "Does") within a matter of hours on a Saturday when municipal trial courts are open only from 8:00 a. as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) "John Does" not one of whom the witnesses to the complaint could or would Identify.