SOLIVEN VS.

MAKASIAR
G.R. No. 8287, November 14, 1988

FACTS:
The case at bar is a petition raised by one of the petitioners, Beltran, who
wants to call for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the
issuance of warrants of arrest.

The petitioner assailed that his constitutional right was violated when
respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally
examining the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to determine probable
cause
Beltran's interpretation of the words "determined personally" convinced him
that the judge is solely responsible to personally examine the complainant
and his witnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of
warrants of arrest.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran were violated when
respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally
examining the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to determine probable
cause.
RULING:
No. The constitutional rights of Beltran were not violated.
Nachura: It is sufficient that the judge “personally determine” the
existence of probable cause. It is not necessary that he should personally
examine the complainant and his witnesses.

What the Constitution requires is that the issuing judge must satisfy himself
first with the criteria in finding probable cause. And to satisfy himself
doesn’t mean to he is required to personally examine the complainant and
his witnesses. The Constitution mandates that he shall:

(1)Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents

submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and,
on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest;
(2)If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard
the fiscal’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits
of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence
of probable cause.
Wherefore, the petition is dismissed.