26. Allado v.

Diokno – 232 SCRA 192

Facts:

Petitioner Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza, are

partners of the Law firm of Salonga, Hernanderz and Allado. In the
practice of their profession and on the basis of an alleged extra-judicial
confession of a security guard, they have been accused of the heinous
crime of kidnapping with murder by the President Anti-Crime
Commission (PACC) and ordered arrested without bail by respondent
judge. The prosecution panel had issued a resolution finding a prima
facie. The information was filed before the RTC of Makati and raffled
off to branch 62 presided by responded Judge Roberto C. Diokno. The
petitioner filed an appealed with the Secretary of Justice seeking
review and reversal of undated resolution of the panel. However, the
respondent judge issued the assailed warrant of arrest against
petitioners. The petitioner filed with us the instant petition for certiorari
and prohibition with prayer for temporary restraining order. The said
temporary restraining order was granted to the petitioner, in order to
enjoining PACC from enforcing the warrant of arrest and respondent
judge from conducting further proceeding on the case.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent judge failed to establish the

probable cause against the petitioner to justify the issuance of the
warrant of arrest?
 Ruling:

The Court, ruled that respondent judge committed grave abuse

of discretion in issuing the warrant for the arrest of petitioners it
appeared that he did no personally examine the evidence nor did he
call for the complaints and his witness in the face of their incredible
accounts. Instead, he merely relied on the certification of the
prosecutor that probable cause existed, the evidence presented was
insufficient to warrant the arrest of petitioner. In Section 2, Art III, of the
1987 Constitution, lay down the requisite for the issuance of a warrant
of arrest, “…warrant of arrest shall issue only upon probable cause to
determine personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complaints and the witnesses he may produce…” In
the case of Lim v. Felix the court ruled that “the judge does not have to
personally examine the complaints and his witnesses. The prosecutor
can perform the same function as a commissioner for the taking of the
evidence. However, there should be a report and necessary document
supporting the Fiscal bare certification. All these should be before
judge.” The bill of right is to protect the people against arbitrary and
discriminatory use of political power. The petition is granted.