Ho vs.

People
G.R. No. 106632 & 106678
Ponente: PANGANIBAN, J
Decision Date: Oct 9, 1997
The Supreme Court declares a warrant of arrest null and void, ruling that a judge cannot
solely rely on the prosecutor's report to determine probable cause, but must have
access to the evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation.
Facts:
The case of Ho v. People involves the Supreme Court declaring a warrant of arrest null
and void. The Anti-Graft League of the Philippines filed a complaint against five
individuals, including Doris Teresa Ho and Rolando S. Narciso, for alleged violation of
Section 3(g) of Republic Act 3019. After due notice, all respondents filed their respective
counter-affidavits with supporting documents. The resolution of the case recommended
that an information be filed against Narciso, while the case against the other
respondents be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. However, upon review, it was
recommended that both Narciso and Ho be charged with violation of Section 3(e) of
R.A. 3019. The Ombudsman approved the recommendation and petitioners were
charged accordingly before the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan issued a warrant
of arrest against Ho and Narciso based solely on the information and resolution
attached thereto, without other supporting evidence.
Issue:
The main issue raised in the case is whether a judge can determine probable cause and
issue a warrant of arrest solely on the basis of the resolution of the prosecutor, without
having before him any of the evidence submitted at the preliminary investigation.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and declared the warrant of arrest
null and void.
Ratio:
The Court emphasized that the judge has the exclusive and personal responsibility to
determine probable cause. The judge cannot rely solely on the report of the prosecutor,
but must independently evaluate the evidence submitted to determine the existence of
probable cause. The judge must have supporting evidence, other than the prosecutor's
report, to legally sustain his own findings on probable cause. The Court clarified that it is
not required for the judge to examine the complete records of the case during the
preliminary investigation, but he must have sufficient supporting documents upon which
to make his independent judgment. In this case, the Sandiganbayan solely relied on the
prosecutor's findings and recommendation, without examining other evidence, which
constituted grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, the warrant of arrest issued by the
Sandiganbayan was declared null and void.