[Consti 2 DIGEST] 203- Pangandaman vs Casar.doc

7/27/2019 [Consti 2 DIGEST] 203- Pangandaman vs Casar.doc

1/7

PANGANDAMAN vs CASAR

G.R. No. 71782, April 14, 1988

Facts:The shooting incident by armed men in Lanao led to the issuance of

a warrant of arrest. Petitioners assert that the respondent Judge issued a

warrant of arrest against fifty (50) John oes! transgressing the"onstitutional pro#ision re$uiring that such warrants should particularly

describe the persons or things to be sei%ed.

Iss!: &hether said warrant is #alid

"!l#:'o.

nsofar as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) John oes! not one of

whom the witnesses to the complaint could or would identify it is of the

$atr! o% a &!$!ral 'arra$t,one of a class of writs long proscribed as

unconstitutional and once anathemati%ed as totally sub#ersi#e of the

liberty of the sub*ect.!+,0-Cl!arl( violativ! o% t)! co$stittio$al

i$*$ctio$ t)at 'arra$ts o% arr!st s)ol# particlarl( #!scri+! t)!

p!rso$ or p!rso$s to +! s!i!#+,-the warrant must as regards its

unidentified sub*ects be #oided.

-"RF/R,the warrant complained of is upheld and declared #alid

insofar as it orders the arrest of the petitioners. /aid warrant is #oided tothe etent that it is issued against fifty (50) John oes.! The respondent

Judge is directed to forward to the Pro#incial 1iscal of Lanao del /ur the

record of the preliminary in#estigation of the complaint in "riminal "ase

'o. 234 of his court for further appropriate action.

FIRS0 DIISI/N

G.R. No. 71782, April 14, 1988 3

"ADI I5RA"IM S/6A PANGANDAMAN, MAGAM5AANPANGANDAMAN, MACARIAN PANGANDAMAN, MAMIN0A6

PANGANDAMAN, PACA6ND/ PANGANDAMAN, MANG/RAMAS

PANGANDAMAN, MACADA/5 P. PANG/RANGAN, I6A0N

PANGANDAMAN, MARI/ PANGANDAMAN, MACA5IDAR

PANGANDAMAN, PA0 P. R/MAMPA0, SAN0/RANI P.

DIMAPNGN, NASSR P. DIMAPNGN AND DIAMA /PA/,

P0I0I/NRS, S. DIMAP/R/ 0. CASAR, AS MNICIPA6 CIRCI0

0RIA6 DG /F P//NA5AA5A/, 0AMPARAN AND MASI, 6ANA/

D6 SR AND 0" P/P6 /F 0" P"I6IPPINS, RSP/NDN0S.

D C I S I / N

NARASA, .:

The petitioners as this "ourt6) to annul the warrant for their arrest issued by respondent Judge

imaporo T. "asar of the 7unicipal "ircuit "ourt of 7asiu Lanao del/ur in "riminal "ase 'o. 234 entitled People vs. Hadji Ibrahim SolayPangandaman, et al.!8

9) to prohibit the Judge from taing further cogni%ance of said "riminal

"ase 'o. 2348 and,) to compel the Judge to forward the entire record of "riminal "ase 'o.

234 to the Pro#incial 1iscal of Lanao del /ur for proper disposition.+-

Their plea is essentially grounded on the claim that the warrant for their

arrest was issued by the respondent Judge without a proper preliminary

in#estigation.+9-The /olicitor :eneral agrees and recommends that their

petition be granted and the warrant of arrest #oided.+,-

;n July 92


2/7

/ur which left at least fi#e persons dead and two others wounded. &hat in

fact transpired is still unclear. =ccording to one #ersion armed men had

attaced a residence in Pantao 7asiu with both attacers and defenders

suffering casualties.+3-=nother #ersion has it that a group that was on its

way to another place Lalabuan also in 7asiu had been ambushed.+5-

;n the following day =tty. 7angurun >atuampar claiming to represent the

widow of one of the #ictims filed a letter?complaint with the Pro#incial

1iscal at 7arawi "ity asing for a full blast preliminary in#estigation! of

the incident.+@-The letter ad#erted to the possibility of innocent persons

being implicated by the parties in#ol#ed on both sides ?? none of whom

was howe#er identified ?? and promised that supporting affida#its would

shortly be filed. mmediately the Pro#incial 1iscal addressed a st

indorsement! to the respondent Judge transmitting =tty. >atuamparAs

letter and re$uesting that all cases that may be filed relati#e BB (to the

incident) that happened in the afternoon of July 92


3/7

#ested in such officials) must obser#e the procedure prescribed in /ection

, of Cule 9 ut nowhere is it pro#ided that the procedure must be

completed before a warrant of arrest may issue. ndeed it is the contrary

that is true. The present /ection @ of the same Cule 9 clearly authori%es

the municipal trial court to order the respondentAs arrest e#en before

opening the second phase of the in#estigation if said court is satisfied that

a probable cause eists and there is a necessity to place the respondent

under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of *ustice.

/ec. @. &hen warrant of arrest may issue. ??

BBB

(b) >y the 7unicipal Trial "ourt. ?? f the municipal trial *udge conducting

the preliminary in#estigation is satisfied after an eamination in writing

and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the form of

searching $uestions and answers that a probable cause eists and that

there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in

order not to frustrate the ends of *ustice he shall issue a warrant of


4/7

arrest.!+9-

This was e$ually true under the former rules where the first phase of the

in#estigation was epressly denominated preliminary eamination! to

distinguish it from the second phase or preliminary in#estigation proper.

Thus the former /ection @ of Cule 9 pro#ided6

/F". @. Warrant of arrest, when issued.?? f the *udge be satisfied from the

preliminary eamination conducted by him or by the in#estigating officer

that the offense complained of has been committed and that there is

reasonable ground to belie#e that the accused has committed it he must

issue a warrant or order for his arrest.!

n 7ayuga #s. 7ara#illa+99-this "ourt found occasion to dwell in some

detail on the process of preliminary in#estigation and incidentally to

affirm the power of a *ustice of the peace or municipal *udge conducting a

preliminary in#estigation to order the arrest of the accused after the first

stage (preliminary eamination) saying6

=ppellant should bear in mind that a preliminaryin#estigation such as

was conducted by the Justice of the Peace has for its purpose only the

determination of whether a crime has been committed and whether there

is probable cause to belie#e the accused guilty thereof and if so the

issuance of a warrant of arrest. =nd it should not be forgotten that a

preliminary in#estigation has two stages6 1irst a preliminary eamination

of the complainant and his witnesses prior to the arrest of the accused8

and second the reading to the accused after his arrest of the complaint or

information filed against him and his being informed of the substance of

the e#idence against him after which he is allowed to present e#idence in

his fa#or if he so desires. Probable cause in regard to the first stage of

preliminary in#estigation depends on the discretion of the *udge or

magistrate empowered to issue the warrant of arrest. t suffices that facts

are presented to him to con#ince him not that a person has committed the

crime but that there is probable cause to belie#e that such person

committed the crime charged. The proceeding is generally e parte unless

the defendant desires to be present and while under the old Cules the

Justice of the Peace or in#estigating officer must tae the testimony of the

complainant and the latterAs witnesses under oath only the testimony of

the complainant shall be in writing and only an abstract of the testimony of

the other is re$uired. Cegarding preliminary in#estigation it has thus been

ruled that Gthe occasion is not for the full and ehausti#e display of the

partiesA e#idence8 it is for the presentation of such e#idence only as may

engender well?grounded belief that an offense has been committed and

that the accused is probably guilty thereof.A B B B!+9,-

The rule on arrest after preliminary eamination has of course been

modified somewhat since the occurrence of the facts upon which 7ayuga

was decided but not to abrogate the authority of the in#estigating *udge to

order such arrest and only to prescribe the re$uirement that before he

may do so he must eamine the witnesses to the complaint the

eamination to be under oath and reduced to writing in the form of

searching $uestions and answers. This modification was introduced by

Cepublic =ct ,4,4 appro#ed June 99


5/7

committed.!+95-'othing in the record before this "ourt belies or discredits

those affirmations which ha#e besides the benefit of the legal

presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.+9@-The

contention that the witnesses to the complaint had merely sworn before

the respondent Judge to statements prepared beforehand and submitted

by a military in#estigator+92-must in #iew of the foregoing considerations

and for lac of any support in the record be dismissed as mere

speculation.

The same argument also unwarrantedly assumes that the respondent

Judge limited the proceedings on preliminary eamination to the usual

/aturday office hours of 4600 a.m. to 600 p.m. in addition to not maing

any persuasi#e showing that such proceedings could not ha#e been

completed within that time?frame. 1or all that appears said respondent

could ha#e put off the 600 p.m. ad*ournment until he had finished

interrogating the witnesses to his satisfaction. =nd there is really nothing

unusual in completing within a three?hour period the $uestioning of three

witnesses in a preliminary eamination to determine the eistence of

probable cause.

The record which lacing proof to the contrary must be accepted as an

accurate chronicle of the $uestioned proceedings showsprima faciethat

the respondent Judge had personally eamined the witnesses to the

complaint and a consideration of the latterAs sworn answers to his

$uestions satisfies this "ourt that the finding of probable cause against the

petitioners was neither arbitrary nor unfounded.

The three witnesses to the complaint 7isandoning 7onasprang a student

Lawandato Cipors an engineering graduate and /anny 7onib a farmer

ga#e mutually corroborati#e accounts of the incident. Hnder separate

$uestioning they declared that they were members of a party that was

passing by Pantao on its way to Lalabuan from Talaguian all in 7asiu

Lanao del /ur at about 0600 a.m. on July 92


6/7

characteristics etc. The points that are the sub*ect of in$uiry may differ

than case to case. The $uestions therefore must to a great degree depend

upon the Judge maing the in#estigation. B B B!

Hpon this authority and considering what has already been stated abo#e

this "ourt is not prepared to $uestion the propriety of the respondent

JudgeAs finding of probable cause or substitute its *udgment for his in the

matter of what $uestions to put to the witnesses during the preliminary

eamination.

Hpon the facts and the law therefore the warrant of arrest in $uestion

#alidly issued against the petitioners such issuance ha#ing been ordered

after proceedings to which no irregularity has been shown to attach in

which the respondent Judge found sufficient cause to commit the

petitioners to answer for the crime complained of.

nsofar howe#er as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) John oes!

not one of whom the witnesses to the complaint could or would identify it

is of the nature of a general warrant one of a class of writs long proscribed

as unconstitutional and once anathemati%ed as totally sub#ersi#e of the

liberty of the sub*ect.!+,0-"learly #iolati#e of the constitutional in*unction

that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or persons

to be sei%ed+,-the warrant must as regards its unidentified sub*ects be

#oided.

The fact that the Pro#incial 1iscal may ha#e announced his intention of

in#estigating the incident himself did not in the #iew of the "ourt legally

inhibit the respondent Judge from conducting his own in$uiry into the

matter if as is made to appear here it was regularly brought before him

and no formal complaint was filed before the 1iscal. "ourtesy may ha#e

dictated that in those circumstances he lea#e the in#estigation to the

1iscal and simply endorse to the latter the complaint filed with him8 duty

did not and if he nonetheless chose to conduct his own in#estigation

nothing in the rules states or implies that he could not do so.

>e that as it may since the action and final resolution of the respondent

Judge after completing the second stage of the preliminary in#estigation

are sub*ect to re#iew by the Pro#incial 1iscal practical considerations of

epediency and the a#oidance of duplication of wor dictate that the latter

official be permitted to tae o#er the in#estigation e#en in its present

stage.

-"RF/R,the warrant complained of is upheld and declared #alid

insofar as it orders the arrest of the petitioners. /aid warrant is #oided to

the etent that it is issued against fifty (50) John oes.! The respondent

Judge is directed to forward to the Pro#incial 1iscal of Lanao del /ur the

record of the preliminary in#estigation of the complaint in "riminal "ase

'o. 234 of his court for further appropriate action. &ithout

pronouncement as to costs.

S/ /RDRD.

!eehan"ee, #.$., #ru, %ancayco,and %ri&o'()uino, $$.,concur.

+-*ollo,pp. 9 @

+9-*ollo,pp. 2?5

+,-Id.,pp.


7/7

+4-Id.,p. 9

+

Documents

[Consti 2 DIGEST] 203- Pangandaman vs Casar.doc