1/27/2020 Philippine Constitutional Law Digests: Paul G. Roberts, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.

ppeals, et al., G.R. No. 113930, March 5, 1996

More Create Blog Sign In

Philippine Constitutional Law

Digests
A site for digests of landmark Constitutional Law cases in the Philippines.

Home Privacy Policy Musings on Law All That Matters

Friday, February 10, 2012

Paul G. Roberts, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.

113930, March 5, 1996

DECISION

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

I. THE FACTS

Blog Archive
Petitioners, who are corporate officers and members of the Board of Pepsi Cola
Products Phils., Inc. were prosecuted in connection with the Pepsi “Number Fever” ▼
▼ 2012 (26)
promotion by handlers of the supposedly winning “349” Pepsi crowns. Of the four cases ►
► July (8)
filed against the petitioners, probable cause was found by the investigating prosecutor
►
► April (1)
only for the crime of estafa, but not for the other alleged offenses.
►
► March (3)
On 12 April 1993, the information was filed with the trial court without anything ▼
▼ February (11)
accompanying it. A copy of the investigating prosecutor’s Joint Resolution was forwarded Results of the 2011 Bar Examinations
to and received by the trial court only on 22 April 1993. However, no affidavits of the Out This Week...
witnesses, transcripts of stenographic notes of the proceedings during the preliminary Francisco Chavez v. Raul M.
investigation, or other documents submitted in the course thereof were found in the Gonzales and National ...
records of the case as of 19 May 1993. Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc.,
297 U.S. 233...
On 15 April 1993, petitioners Roberts, et al. filed a petition for review to the New York Times v. United States, 403
Department of Justice seeking the reversal of the finding of probable cause by the U.S. 713, Jun...
investigating prosecutor. They also moved for the suspension of the proceedings and the Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals,
holding in abeyance of the issuance of warrants of arrest against them. Meanwhile, the G.R. No. 11...
public prosecutor also moved to defer the arraignment of the accused-appellants pending Philippine Savings Bank v. Senate
the final disposition of the appeal to the Department of Justice. Impeachment Cour...
China Banking Corporation v. CA,
On 17 May 1993, respondent Judge Asuncion issued the challenged order (1) G.R. No. 140687, ...
denying, on the basis of Crespovs. Mogul, the foregoing motions respectively filed by the Paul G. Roberts, et al. v. Court of
petitioners and the public prosecutor, and directing the issuance of the warrants of arrest Appeals, et al...
“after June 1993” and setting the arraignment on 28 June 1993. In part, respondent judge Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, June 10,
stated in his order that since the case is already pending in this Court for trial, following 1968
whatever opinion the Secretary of Justice may have on the matter would undermine the Columbia Pictures v. Flores, G.R. No.
independence and integrity his court. To justify his order, he quoted the ruling of the 78631, June ...

Supreme Court in Crespo, which stated: Randolf S. David v. Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. ...
In order therefor to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion of the Secretary of Justice who
►
► January (3)
reviewed the action of the fiscal may be disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice should, as

far as practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when ►
► 2011 (11)
the complaint or information has already been filed in Court. The matter should be left entirely for the

determination of the Court. Followers

Petitioners went to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the respondent judge
had not the slightest basis at all for determining probable cause when he ordered the
issuance of warrants of arrest. After finding that a copy of the public prosecutor’s Joint
Resolution had in fact been forwarded to, and received by, the trial court on 22 April

philippineconstitutionallawdigests.blogspot.com/2012/02/paul-g-roberts-et-al-vs-court-of.html 1/5
1/27/2020 Philippine Constitutional Law Digests: Paul G. Roberts, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 113930, March 5, 1996
1993, the CA denied petitioners’ application for writ of preliminary injunction. The CA ruled Followers (19)
that the Joint Resolution “was sufficient in itself to have been relied upon by respondent
Judge in convincing himself that probable cause indeed exists for the purpose of issuing
the corresponding warrants of arrest” and that the “mere silence of the records or the
absence of any express declaration” in the questioned order as to the basis of such
finding does not give rise to an adverse inference, for the respondent Judge enjoys in his
favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duty. Roberts, et al.
sought reconsideration, but meanwhile, the DOJ affirmed the finding of probable cause by
the investigating prosecutor. The CA therefore dismissed the petition for mootness.
Follow
II. THE ISSUES

1. Did Judge Asuncion commit grave abuse of discretion in denying, on the basis About Me
of Crespo vs. Mogul, the motions to suspend proceedings and hold in abeyance the
Atty. Ed
issuance of warrants of arrest and to defer arraignment until after the petition for review
filed with the DOJ shall have been resolved? View my complete profile

2. Did Judge Asuncion commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance Labels
of warrants of arrest without examining the records of the preliminary investigation?
2011 bar exam results (1)

3. May the Supreme Court determine in this [sic] proceedings the existence of 20th century fox v. CA (1)
probable cause either for the issuance of warrants of arrest against the petitioners or for 3 readings on separate days (1)
their prosecution for the crime of estafa? 349 pepsi crowns case (1)
abadilla 5 (1)
III. THE RULING actual case or controversy (1)
alibi (1)
[The Court, in a 7-5-2 vote, GRANTED the petition. It SET ASIDE the decision angara v. electoral commission (1)
and resolution of the CA, the resolutions of the DOJ 349 Committee, and the order of ARMM elections (1)
respondent judge.] arnault v. nazareno (1)
arroyo v. de lima (1)
1. YES, Judge Asuncion committed grave abuse of discretion in denying,
bar exams (1)
on the basis of Crespo vs. Mogul, the motions to suspend proceedings and hold in
bayan v. zamora (1)
abeyance the issuance of warrants of arrest and to defer arraignment until after the
cacho-olivares v. ermita (1)
petition for review filed with the DOJ shall have been resolved.
chavez v. gonzales and ntc (1)

There is nothing in Crespo vs. Mogul which bars the DOJ from taking cognizance checkpoints case (1)
of an appeal, by way of a petition for review, by an accused in a criminal case from an china bank v. CA (1)
unfavorable ruling of the investigating prosecutor. It merely advised the DOJ to, “as far as columbia pictures v. flores (1)
practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action of the combinations and restraint of trade (1)
fiscal, when the complaint or information has already been filed in Court.” comprehensive agrarian reform program
(2)
Whether the DOJ would affirm or reverse the challenged Joint Resolution is still a constitutionality of checkpoints (2)
matter of guesswork. Accordingly, it was premature for respondent Judge Asuncion to contempt power of senate (1)
deny the motions to suspend proceedings and to defer arraignment on the following control test (1)
grounds: custodial investigation (1)
david v. arroyo (1)
This case is already pending in this Court for trial. To follow whatever opinion the Secretary of
decision in in re charges of plagiarism v.
Justice may have on the matter would undermine the independence and integrity of this Court. This Court justice del castillo (1)
is still capable of administering justice. delegation of power (1)
dissent of justice ma. lourdes sereno (1)
The real and ultimate test of the independence and integrity of this court is not the economic protectionism (1)
filing of the aforementioned motions [to suspend proceedings and issuance of warrants of election synchronization (1)
arrest and to defer arraignment] at that stage but the filing of a motion to dismiss or to
equity structure in public utilities (1)
withdraw the information on the basis of a resolution of the petition for review reversing
exclusionary rule (1)
the Joint Resolution of the investigating prosecutor. However, once a motion to dismiss or
filipino first policy (2)
withdraw the information is filed the trial judge may grant or deny it, not out of
foreign military troops in the phils. (1)
subservience to the Secretary of Justice, but in faithful exercise of judicial prerogative.
fortun v. arroyo (1)

2. YES, Judge Asuncion committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering freedom of expression (1)
the issuance of warrants of arrest without examining the records of the preliminary freedom of religion (1)
investigation. freedom of speech (1)
freedom of the press (3)
The teachings then of Soliven, Inting, Lim, Allado, and Webb reject the proposition gamboa v. teves (1)
that the investigating prosecutor’s certification in an information or his resolution which is general warrant (1)
made the basis for the filing of the information, or both, would suffice in the judicial globalization (1)
determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. In Webb, this GMA TRO (1)
Court assumed that since the respondent Judges had before them not only the 26-page grosjean v. american press (1)
resolution of the investigating panel but also the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses
hacienda luisita (2)

philippineconstitutionallawdigests.blogspot.com/2012/02/paul-g-roberts-et-al-vs-court-of.html 2/5
1/27/2020 Philippine Constitutional Law Digests: Paul G. Roberts, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 113930, March 5, 1996
and even the counter-affidavits of the respondents, they (judges) made personal hello garci (1)
evaluation of the evidence attached to the records of the case. HLI v. PARC decision july 5 2011 (1)
HLI v. PARC resolution nov. 22 2011 (1)
In this case, nothing accompanied the information upon its filing on 12 April 1993 holdover of elected ARMM officials (1)
with the trial court. A copy of the Joint Resolution was forwarded to, and received by, the iglesia ni cristo v. CA (1)
trial court only on 22 April 1993. And as revealed by the certification of respondent judge’s impeachment of cj corona (1)
clerk of court, no affidavits of the witnesses, transcripts of stenographic notes of the implied powers (1)
proceedings during the preliminary investigation, or other documents submitted in the
in re garcia (1)
course thereof were found in the records of this case as of 19 May 1993. Clearly, when
incompatible offices (1)
respondent Judge Asuncion issued the assailed order of 17 May 1993 directing, among
incorporation clause (2)
other things, the issuance of warrants of arrest, he had only the information, amended
ineligibility of the President to run for re-
information, and Joint Resolution as bases thereof. He did not have the records or
election (1)
evidence supporting the prosecutor's finding of probable cause. And strangely enough, he
inherent powers (1)
made no specific finding of probable cause; he merely directed the issuance of warrants
investigation in aid of legislation (1)
of arrest “after June 21, 1993.” It may, however, be argued that the directive presupposes
jose midas marquez (1)
a finding of probable cause. But then compliance with a constitutional requirement for the
protection of individual liberty cannot be left to presupposition, conjecture, or even justice mariano del castillo (2)
convincing logic. justice sereno's dissent in in re charges
of plagiarism vs. justice del castillo (1)
kida v. senate (1)
3. NO, the Supreme Court MAY NOT determine in this [sic] proceedings the
existence of probable cause either for the issuance of warrants of arrest against the kuroda v. jalandoni (1)
petitioners or for their prosecution for the crime of estafa. laserna v. ddb (1)
liban v. gordon (1)
Ordinarily, the determination of probable cause is not lodged with this Court. Its lis mota (1)
duty in an appropriate case is confined to the issue of whether the executive or judicial lumanog v. people (1)
determination, as the case may be, of probable cause was done without or in excess of maguindanao massacre (1)
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction. This is mandatory drug testing (1)
consistent with the general rule that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed manila hotel (1)
by injunction, preliminary or final. manila prince hotel v. gsis (1)
martial law (1)
There are, however, exceptions to the foregoing rule. But the Court refused to
meaning of the term capital in Sec. 11
reevaluate the evidence to determine if indeed there is probable cause for the issuance of Art. XII of the Constitution (1)
warrants of arrest in this case. For the respondent judge did not, in fact, find that probable monopolies (1)
cause exists, and if he did he did not have the basis therefor. Moreover, the records of the moot and academic cases (1)
preliminary investigation in this case are not with the Court. They were forwarded by the
national patrimony (1)
Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to the DOJ in compliance with the latter's 1st
new york times v. U.S. (1)
Indorsement of 21 April 1993. The trial court and the DOJ must be required to perform
office search (1)
their duty.
oil deregulation (1)
one title-one subject (1)
Posted by Anonymous at 7:51 PM
p.s. bank v. senate impeachment court
Labels: 349 pepsi crowns case, probable cause for issuance of warrant of arrest, roberts v. CA, warrant of (1)
arrest people v. exala (1)
Philippine National Red Cross (1)
pimentel v. comelec (1)
No comments:
piracy (1)
plagiarism (3)
Post a Comment
police lineup (1)
pollo v. david (1)
Enter your comment... pormento v. estrada (1)
power to promulgate rules of procedure
(1)
presentation of master tape in piracy
cases (1)
Comment as: admaningas@ Sign out
president's power to appoint ARMM
OICs (1)
prior restraint (3)
Publish Preview Notify me
privacy of communications and
correspondence (1)
probable cause for issuance of warrant
Links to this post of arrest (1)
Create a Link probable cause for the issuance of a
search warrant (1)
RA 9165 (1)
requisites of judicial review (2)
resolution in in re charges of plagiarism
v. justice del castillo (1)
review/censorship of religious tv
programs (1)

philippineconstitutionallawdigests.blogspot.com/2012/02/paul-g-roberts-et-al-vs-court-of.html 3/5
1/27/2020 Philippine Constitutional Law Digests: Paul G. Roberts, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 113930, March 5, 1996
right against self-incrimination (1)
right against unreasonable search and
seizure (2)
right of privacy (1)
right to travel (1)
roberts v. CA (1)
search and seizure (4)
search warrant (1)
secrecy of foreign currency deposits (1)
self-executing provision (1)
sjs v. ddb (1)
speedy disposition of cases (1)
stock distribution option (2)
Newer Post Home Older Post stop-and-frisk (1)
suspension of privilege of the writ of
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) habeas corpus (1)
tañada v. angara (1)
tatad v. executive secretary (1)
terry search (1)
terry v. ohio (1)
treaty (3)
TRO vs. senate impeachment court (1)
university of cebu college of law (1)
valid form of warrantless search (1)
valmonte v. de villa (2)
vinuya v. executive secretary (2)
visiting forces agreement (1)
warrant of arrest (1)
warrantless arrests (1)
warrantless search and seizure (1)
world trade organization (1)

TopBlogs.com.ph

Feedjit

Total Pageviews

390,242

Copyright 2011-2012 by Atty. Ed. Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.

philippineconstitutionallawdigests.blogspot.com/2012/02/paul-g-roberts-et-al-vs-court-of.html 4/5
1/27/2020 Philippine Constitutional Law Digests: Paul G. Roberts, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 113930, March 5, 1996

philippineconstitutionallawdigests.blogspot.com/2012/02/paul-g-roberts-et-al-vs-court-of.html 5/5