MURAO, JOSE PEPITO III

I. Article III Section 2:

Roberts v. CA G.R. No. 113930

Facts:
From February to June 1992, Pepsi held their “Number Fever Promotion” with the promise that the holders
of Pepsi, Mirinda, Mountain Dew, and Seven-Up crowns/caps with the winning 3-digit number that day,
will win the amount indicated on the cap. For May 25, 1992 however, they refused to honor the winning
number. Hence 7,000 holders of the winning cap number ‘349’ filed a complaint with the Office of the City
Prosecutor against herein petitioners who were officers of Pepsi.
The said complaint was for estafa, violation of the Consumer Act of the Philippines, and Violation of Act
against Untrue or Misleading Advertisement. For the defense of the Pepsi officers, they reason that the caps
should have unique security codes and that 2 security codes of the claimers kept popping up. The
investigating prosecutor filed a Joint Resolution recommending the filing of information for estafa against
the Pepsi officers. The recommendation for information was approved upon authority of the City
Prosecutor so the Pepsi officers filed a motion for reconsideration with the Office of the City Prosecutor
and a petition for review with the Deparment of Justice.
However, respondent Judge Maximiniano Asuncion denied the petition and motions of the petitioners and
issued warrants for the arrest of the Pepsi officials. Such denial of the motions and issuance of warrants of
arrest were supposedly made since the case was already on trial and whatever opinion rendered by the
Secretary of Justice would undermine the independence and integrity of the court. Herein petitioners
challenge such warrants, as the judge did not have basis to determine probable cause since he only had the
Joint Resolution of the investigating officer/public prosecutor to rely on.
Issue:
W/N Judge Asuncion committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the subject warrants of arrest?
Held:
YES. Jurisprudence dictates that the prosecutor’s certification/Joint Resolution for filing of information is
not enough to comply with personally determining probable cause to issue warrants of arrest. The Clerk of
Court certified that there were no affidavits, transcripts, or other documents were found in the records of
this case. In fact, Judge Asuncion merely issued warrants of arrest to be effective after June 21,1993,
without specifically indicating that he had found probable cause. Hence, the order of Judge Asuncion is
SET ASIDE and he is directed to CEASE and DESIST from this case.