MAYOR BAI UNGGIE vs HON JAPAL GUIANI

MAYOR BAI UNGGIE vs HON JAPAL GUIANI

[G.R. No. 118821. February 18, 2000]

SC’s Full Text link: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/118821.html

FACTS:

A complaint for murder was filed before the Criminal Investigation service command, ARMM Region, in connection with the death of Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC registrar of Maguindanao. Provincial prosecutor Salick Pandain a Resolution dismissed the charges of murder against herein petitioners and recommended filing of information for murder against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Respondent Judge ordered for further investigation. Upon return of the records of the case it was assigned to Second assistant Prosecutor Enok T. Dimaraw for further investigation. Prosecutor Dimaraw, found a Prima Facie evidence, thus, recommended filing the charges against Bai Unggie Abdula  and Odin Abdula.

ISSUES:

1.     Whether the Second Information for murder filed is valid?

2.     Validity of the Warrant of Arrest issued against petitioners.

HELD:

Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition are Granted.

RATIONALE:

In order to disqualify a Judge on the basis of Prejudice, petitioner must prove the same by clear and convincing evidence.

Rules of Court: No complaint or information shall be filed or dismissed by an investigating Fiscal without the prior written authority or approval of the Provincial or City Fiscal or Chief of State Prosecutor. A complaint or information can only be filed if it is approved or authorized by the Provincial or City Fiscal or Chief of State Prosecutor.

Soliven vs Makasiar, In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause, the Judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.

Ho vs People, In the case at bench, respondent admits that the issued Warrant is questionable as there was no “reason for him to doubt the validity of the Certification made by the Assistant Prosecutor that a Preliminary Investigation was conducted and that Probable Cause was found to exist as against those charged in the information filed.

DOCTRINE, the Judge shall:

1.     Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted byt the fiscal regarding the existence of Probable Cause and, on the basis , 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.

Ho vs People (Inting)

1.     DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE BY THE PROSECUTOR:

Whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charge and should be held for trial is what the prosecutor passes on.

Determination of Probable Cause by a Judge: Warrant of Arrest

2.     The Judge should decide independently, hence, he must have supporting evidence, other than the Prosecutor’s bare report, upon which to legally sustain his own findings on the existence of probable cause to issue an arrest order.

[G.R. No. 118821. February 18, 2000]

SC’s Full Text link: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/118821.html

FACTS:

A complaint for murder was filed before the Criminal Investigation service command, ARMM Region, in connection with the death of Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC registrar of Maguindanao. Provincial prosecutor Salick Pandain a Resolution dismissed the charges of murder against herein petitioners and recommended filing of information for murder against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Respondent Judge ordered for further investigation. Upon return of the records of the case it was assigned to Second assistant Prosecutor Enok T. Dimaraw for further investigation. Prosecutor Dimaraw, found a Prima Facie evidence, thus, recommended filing the charges against Bai Unggie Abdula  and Odin Abdula.

ISSUES:

1.     Whether the Second Information for murder filed is valid?

2.     Validity of the Warrant of Arrest issued against petitioners.

HELD:

Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition are Granted.

RATIONALE:

In order to disqualify a Judge on the basis of Prejudice, petitioner must prove the same by clear and convincing evidence.

Rules of Court: No complaint or information shall be filed or dismissed by an investigating Fiscal without the prior written authority or approval of the Provincial or City Fiscal or Chief of State Prosecutor. A complaint or information can only be filed if it is approved or authorized by the Provincial or City Fiscal or Chief of State Prosecutor.

Soliven vs Makasiar, In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause, the Judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.

Ho vs People, In the case at bench, respondent admits that the issued Warrant is questionable as there was no “reason for him to doubt the validity of the Certification made by the Assistant Prosecutor that a Preliminary Investigation was conducted and that Probable Cause was found to exist as against those charged in the information filed.

DOCTRINE, the Judge shall:

1.     Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted byt the fiscal regarding the existence of Probable Cause and, on the basis , 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.

Ho vs People (Inting)

1.     DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE BY THE PROSECUTOR:

Whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charge and should be held for trial is what the prosecutor passes on.

Determination of Probable Cause by a Judge: Warrant of Arrest

2.     The Judge should decide independently, hence, he must have supporting evidence, other than the Prosecutor’s bare report, upon which to legally sustain his own findings on the existence of probable cause to issue an arrest order.

Case Digest of Pita vs CA

Personal determination by a Judge

PITA vs CA

FACTS:

An anti-smut campaign initiated by the Mayor of City of Manila, Ramon Bagatsing, seized & confiscated from dealers, distributors, news stand owners and peddlers along sidewalks, magazines, publications and other reading materials believe to be obscene, pornographic and indecent and later burned the seized materials in public at University belt along CM Recto Avenue. Among the publications seized, and later burned was “Pinoy Playboy” magazines and Co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita.

Pita assailed, Preliminary Injunction, as to whether or not the defendants and or their agents can without a Court order confiscate or seize plaintiffs magazine before any judicial finding is made on which is said may be obscene or not.

HELD:

Petition is GRANTED, reversed & set-aside.

RATIONALE:

TEST OF OBSCENITY (PEOPLE vs KOTTINGER)

1.       Whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or other article charged is being obscene may fall.

2.       Those that shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency

PASEI vs DRILON (Definition of Police Power)

State authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote GENERAL WELFARE

PROCEDURE (OBSCENE MATERIALS)

1.       The authorities must apply for the issuance of a Search Warrant from a Judge, in in their opinion, an obscenity rap is in order;

2.       The authorities must convince the Court that the materials sought to be seized are “obscene”, and pose a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER of an evil substantive enough to warrant a State interference and action;

3.       The Judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed “obscene” the question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on his hand’s sound discretion;

4.       If, in the opinion of the Court, probable cause exists, it may issue the Search Warrant;

5.       Paper suit, Article 201;

6.       Any conviction is subject to appeal

PADERANGA vs DRILON

Personal determination by a Judge

PADERANGA vs DRILON

FACTS:

Definition of Preliminary Examination – Generally inquisitorial, often only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information.

The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the Fiscal. He has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine wither or not a criminal case should be filed in Court.

General Rule:

Injunction will not be granted to restrain a criminal prosecution

Exception (Brocka vs Enrile):

1.       Afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused

2.       Necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions

3.       When there is a prejudicial question

4.       When the acts of the officers are without or excess of authority

5.       Double jeopardy is clearly apparent

6.       When the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense

7.       A case of persecution rather than prosecution

8.       The charges are manifestly false and motivated by vengeance

9.       Clearly no Prima Facie case against the accused

The right of the accused to ask clarificatory questions is not ABSOLUTE.

QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE required in preliminary investigation is such such evidence sufficient to “engender” a well-founded belief as to the fact of the omission of a crime and respondents probable guilt.