TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, JR.

VS
MAGDALENO M. PEÑA
G.R. No. 143591, November 23, 2007

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Respondent Magdaleno Peña instituted a civil case for recovery of agent’s

compensation against Urban Bank and the petitioners, for when he allegedly entered
into an agreement with the petitioners wherein Peña undertook to perform acts
necessary to prevent any intruders or squatters from unlawfully occupying Urban
Bank’s property. Petitioners presented documents to show that the respondent Peña was
appointed as agent by ISCI (former owner of the banks property) and not by Urban
Bank or by the petitioners.

Peña claimed that said documents were falsified because the alleged signatories did not
actually affix their signatures, and the signatories were neither stockholders nor officers
and employees of ISCI. The City Prosecutor rules in favor of Peña and concluded that
the petitioners were guilty of crime of introducing falsified documents, subsequently,
information were filed with the MTCC of Bago City, Negros, Occidental. The Judge
subsequently issued warrants for the arrest of the petitioners. Petitioners filed an
Omnibus Motion to Recall Warrants of Arrest and insisted that they were denied due
process because they were not afforded the right to submit their counter-affidavits. And
avers that since they were not afforded to submit their counter -
affidavit, the trial judge merely relied on the complaint-affidavit and attachments of
the respondent in issuing the warrants of arrest, in contravention of the Rules. Petitioners
further prayed that the information be quashed for lack of probable cause.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Petitioners are entitled to submit counter-affidavit before a warrant of
arrest shall be issued against them.

RULING:
No. The prosecutor may take the appropriate action based on the affidavits and other
supporting documents submitted by the complainant. It means that the prosecutor may
either dismiss the complaint if he does not see sufficient reason to proceed with the case
or file the information if he finds probable cause.
Probable cause may then be determined on the basis alone of the affidavits, without
infringing on the constitutional rights of the petitioners.
Although the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his
witnesses he shall personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents
submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause, and on the basis
thereof, he may already make a personal determination of the existence of probable
cause;