#45 CAJIPE v.

PEOPLE

RE: When warrant of arrest may issue

FACTS: Before the DOJ, Lilian filed a complaint charging multiple murder against certain police officers
from the PNP-HPG and PNP-SAF who were involved in the police action that led to the shooting of her
husband and their daughter. After preliminary investigation, the DOJ filed the Information before the RTC
indicting all the police officers charged in the complaint. On the following day, the HPG group of accused
police officers filed an omnibus motion for judicial determination of probable cause with a prayer to hold
in abeyance the issuance of warrants for their arrest. The RTC issued warrants of arrest against the SAF
officers but dismissed the case against the HPG officers for lack of probable cause. Lilian moved for
reconsideration of the dismissal but it was denied.

For a period of 112 days after receipt of the order of dismissal by the public prosecutor, the OSG via Rule
65 filed a petition for certiorari before the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC.
The CA granted the petition, ruling that the RTC gravely abused its discretion and thus ordered the
issuance of warrants of arrest against the HPG officers.

ISSUE: When should a warrant of arrest be issued?

RULING: Warrant of arrest may only issue when there is already a finding of probable cause. Probable
cause for purposes of filing a criminal information is defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and
should be held for trial. The prosecution evidence fails to establish probable cause against petitioner HPG
officers.