Abdula v. Guiani
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A complaint for murder was filed against petitioners Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, and six others, in connection with the death of Abdul Dimalen, former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. The complaint alleged that petitioners paid P200,000.00 for the victim's death. Procedural History: The Provincial Prosecutor initially dismissed the murder charges against petitioners and five others for lack of a prima facie case, recommending charges only against Kasan Mama. The respondent judge, however, returned the case for further investigation, noting the lack of a resolution explaining the exclusion of other respondents. Upon reinvestigation by another prosecutor, two new affidavits were submitted, and a resolution dated December 28, 1994, found a prima facie case against petitioners as principals by inducement and three others as principals by direct participation. Provincial Prosecutor Salick U. Panda inhibited himself due to prior handling of the case and affinity to the victim. An information for murder was filed on January 2, 1995, against petitioners, Kasan Mama, Cuenco Usman, and Jun Mama. The respondent judge issued a warrant of arrest on January 3, 1995. Petitioners filed an Urgent Ex-parte Motion to set aside the warrant and a petition for review with the Department of Justice. Despite the pending petition for review, the respondent judge did not act on the motion. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to set aside the warrant of arrest and disqualify the respondent judge. This Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the implementation of the arrest order and further proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the warrant of arrest without personally determining probable cause. Whether the information for murder was validly filed despite not being approved by the Provincial Prosecutor. Whether the respondent judge exhibited bias and prejudice against the petitioners.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED. The temporary restraining order enjoining the implementation and execution of the order of arrest dated January 3, 1995, is made permanent. Criminal Case No. 2376 is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City for a proper determination of whether a warrant of arrest should be issued and for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the legality of the warrant of arrest: The Court found merit in the petitioners' contention that the warrant of arrest was illegally issued. The 1987 Constitution requires the judge to determine probable cause "personally" after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and witnesses. In this case, the respondent judge admitted that he issued the warrant because he had "no reason 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." This statement is an admission that the judge relied solely and completely on the certification of the fiscal, abdicating his constitutional duty to determine probable cause independently. The Court reiterated that a judge fails in this duty if he relies merely on the certification or report of the investigating officer, citing Ho vs. People. The circumstances, including the conflicting resolutions and the inordinate haste in issuing the warrant, required the judge to look beyond the bare certification and examine the supporting documents. Therefore, the warrant of arrest was declared null and void. On the validity of the information: The Court ruled that the information was validly filed. While the Rules of Court require the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city fiscal, the notation by Provincial Prosecutor Salick U. Panda clearly showed that Investigating Prosecutor Enok Dimaraw was authorized to "dispose of the case without his approval" due to his inhibition. The investigating prosecutor acted within the authority granted to him by the provincial prosecutor, thus complying with the Rules of Court. On the alleged bias and prejudice of the respondent judge: The Court found no sufficient evidence to support the petitioners' claim of bias and prejudice. The argument that the respondent judge ordered a reinvestigation due to the Ombudsman's complaint was refuted by the timeline, which showed the judge's order predated the complaint. Furthermore, the issue of disqualification was rendered moot and academic by the respondent judge's retirement. The Court emphasized that to disqualify a judge on the ground of bias and prejudice, clear and convincing evidence is required, which the petitioners failed to discharge. The imputation of bias was directed against the respondent judge, not the investigating prosecutor, and the discretion to file an information rests with the prosecutor.
Main Doctrine
A judge fails in the constitutionally mandated duty to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest if the judge relies merely on the certification or report of the investigating officer, without personally evaluating the evidence or supporting documents.