G.R.

L-82585 November 14, 1988

Maximo V. Soliven, et.al., petitioners
Vs.
The Hon. Ramon P. Makasiar, Presiding Judge of the RTC of Manila, Branch 85, et.al.,
repondents

Per Curiam:
Facts: The Secretary of Justice denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and
upheld the resolution of the Undersecretary of Justice sustaining the City Fiscal’s
finding of a prima facie case against the petitioners. A second motion for
reconsideration filed by petitioner Beltran was denied by the Secretary of Justice. On
appeal, the President, through the Executive Secretary, affirmed the resolution of the
Secretary of Justice.
The allegation of denial of due process of law in the preliminary investigation is
negated by the fact that instead of submitting his counter-affidavits, petitioner Beltran
filed a "Motion to Declare Proceedings Closed", in effect waiving his right to refute the
complaint by filing counter-affidavits.
Petitioner also question the interpretation of the constitutional provision on the
issuance of warrant of arrest, and contends that if criminal proceedings ensue by virtue
of the President's filing of her complaint-affidavit, would in an indirect way defeat her
privilege of immunity from suit, as by testifying on the witness stand, she would be
exposing herself to possible contempt of court or perjury.

Issue: (1) whether or not petitioner were denied due process due to latter was unable to
file counter-affidavits.
(2) 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.
(3) whether or not the President of the Philippines filed a complaint affidavit
would defeat her privilege of immunity from suit.

Ruling: (1) No. Due process of law does not require that the respondent in a criminal
case actually file his counter-affidavits before the preliminary investigation is deemed
completed. All that is required is that the respondent be given the opportunity to submit
counter-affidavits if he is so minded.
(2) No. Article III Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution stated that the right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.
The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his
witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, 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; or (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 concluding as
to the existence of probable cause.
(3) No. The privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the President by virtue of
the office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office; not by any other person in
the President's behalf. Thus, an accused in a criminal case in which the President is
complainant cannot raise the presidential privilege as a defense to prevent the case from
proceeding against such accused.
Moreover, there is nothing in our laws that would prevent the President from
waiving the privilege. Thus, if so minded the President may shed the protection afforded
by the privilege and submit to the court's jurisdiction. The choice of whether to exercise
the privilege or to waive it is solely the President's prerogative. It is a decision that
cannot be assumed and imposed by any other person.

Critique: If the judge must personally examine every complainant and his witnesses
before issuing warrant of arrest, the probable cause and the danger that the accused may
inflict will be disregarded.