Allado vs. Diokno, G.R. No.

113630 May 5, 1994 death since the corpus delicti has not been established, nor have his remains
been recovered.
We are reminded of the leading case of U.S. v. Samarin, decided ninety-two
Facts: years ago where this Court ruled that when the supposed victim is wholly
On September 16, 1993, a Security Guard and a discharged unknown, his body not found, and there is but one witness who testifies to the
Philippine Constabulary named Escolastico Umbal executed a killing, the corpus delicti is not sufficiently proved. In People v. Inting, we
sworn statement implicating petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado emphasized the important features of the constitutional mandate: (a) The
and Roberto Mendoza who are partners in the Law Firm of determination of probable cause is a function of the judge; it is not for the
Salonga, Hernandez and Allado. He accused them as the provincial fiscal or prosecutor to ascertain. Only the judge and the judge alone
brains behind the alleged kidnapping and slaying of Eugen makes this determination; (b) The preliminary inquiry made by a prosecutor does
Alexander Van Twest, a German national. Based on that not bind the judge. It merely assists him in making the determination of probable
confession of Umbal, a search warrant was issued by Judge cause. The judge does not have to follow what the prosecutor presents to him.
Roberto Barrios of the RTC of Manila. By itself, the prosecutors certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is the
Then, the operatives of the Presidential Anti-Crime report, the affidavits, the transcript of stenographic notes (if any), and all other
Commission (PACC), armed with the search warrant issued supporting documents behind the prosecutors certification which are material in
separately raided the dwellings of police officers who were assisting the judge in his determination of probable cause; and, (c) Judges and
also pointed by Umbal as the perpetrators of the crimes. prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines
Several firearms and ammunitions were found in the raid probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary
including Van Twest's Cartier sunglasses. So, the two lawyers investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial
or released. Even if the two inquiries be conducted in the course of one and the
and their other co-defendants were charged with illegal
same proceeding, there should be no confusion about their objectives. The
possession of firearms and ammunitions, carnapping,
determination of probable cause for the warrant is made by the judge. The
kidnapping for ransom with murder, and usurpation of
preliminary investigation proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to
authority. Their case was referred by the PACC to the DOJ who
believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and therefore, whether
took over the case.
or not he should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial
After preliminary investigation, the Judge Roberto Diokno
is a function of the prosecutor
found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest without
bail. The petitioners questioned the issued warrants of arrests.
The extrajudicial statement of Umbal suffers from material inconsistencies. In
They claim that Judge Diokno acted with grave abuse of
Lim v. Felix, where we reiterated Soliven v. Makasiar and People v. Inting, we
discretion and in excess of his jurisdiction as there is lack of
said -
probable cause for him to issue the warrants. They further
The Judge does not have to personally examine the complainant and his
contend that the judge did not personally determine the
witnesses. The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a commissioner
admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence where the
for the taking of the evidence. However, there should be a report and necessary
investigation was based from.
documents supporting the Fiscals bare certification. All these should be before
the Judge.
Issue: Whether or not a warrant of arrest without bail can be
set aside and the case be dismissed for lack of probable cause
The extent of the Judges personal examination of the report and its annexes
even if the accused was not in the custody of the court.
depends on the circumstances of each case. We cannot determine beforehand
how cursory or exhaustive the Judges examination should be.
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining The Judge has to exercise sound discretion for, after all, the personal
order enjoining the PACC from enforcing the warrant of arrest determination is vested in the Judge by the Constitution. It can be as brief or as
and the respondent judge therein from further proceeding in detailed as the circumstances of each case require. To be sure, the judge must
the case on the ground of lack of probable cause. As with go beyond the Prosecutors certification and investigation report whenever
other earlier cases resolved by the high court, the accused is necessary. He should call for the complainant and witnesses themselves to
deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
answer the courts probing questions when the circumstances of the case
court upon seeking affirmative relief. Notwithstanding such,
there is no requirement that the accused be in the custody of so require.
the law. Various reliefs can be granted by the Supreme Court
to accused even if they are not in the custody of the law.
G.R. No. 113630 May 5, 1994
DIOSDADO JOSE ALLADO and ROBERTO L. MENDOZA,
Allado v. DioknoG.R. No. 113630 May 5, 1994 petitioners,
Facts: vs.
The crime alleged to petitioner Allado and Mendoza, by the PACC HON. ROBERTO C. DIOKNO, Presiding Judge, Br. 62,
[Presidential Anti-Crime Commission], is heinous crime of kidnapping Regional Trial Court, Makati, Metro Manila, and
with murder of Eugen Alexander Van Twest, a German national, who PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-CRIME COMMISSION, respondents.
is reportedly an international fugitive from justice. BELLOSILLO, J.:
o Other incidental crimes charged were illegal possession
of firearms and ammunition, carnapping, and usurpation
of authority. On balance at the fulcrum once again are the intrinsic right of
The whole investigation was triggered by an extrajudicial confession the State to prosecute perceived transgressors of the law,
by a Security Guard Escolastico Umbal, a discharge of the Philippine which can be regulated, and the innate value of human
Constabulary. liberty, which can hardly be weighed.
o Based on the confession of Umbal, Judge Barrios of RTC
Br 11 issued a search warrant against petitioners.
For the institution of criminal proceedings the DOJ took over the Some twelve years ago we were confronted with a similar
case, after a new panel of prosecutors were recommended and after problem when former Senator Jovito R. Salonga invoked
preliminary investigation found probable cause that accused before this Court his "right to life and liberty guaranteed by
committed the crime and submitted the case for trial which was the due process clause, alleging that no prima facie case has
assigned to Judge Diokno of Br 62. Judge Diokno after finding
probable cause issued warrant of arrest.
been established to warrant the filing of an information for
Issue: subversion against him." 1 We resolved the issue then and
WON the judge erred in finding probable cause issuing the search warrant. sustained him. He is now back before us, this time as counsel
pleading the cause of petitioners herein who, he claims, are in
Ruling: a situation far worse than his predicament twelve (12) years
Yes, there is no probable cause in this case. ago. He postulates that no probable cause likewise exists in
The probable cause test is an objective one, for in order that there be probable this case, and what is worse is that no bail is recommended.
cause the facts and circumstances must be such as would warrant a belief by a
reasonably discreet and prudent man that the accused is guilty of the crime
which has just been committed. There is serious doubt on Van Twests reported
This petition gives us an opportunity to revisit the concept and Atty. Roberto L. Mendoza and Atty. Allado of
implication of probable cause, the existence of which is Salonga, Hernandez and Allado Law Offices .
necessary for the prosecutor to have an accused held for trial . . planned and conspired with other
and for a trial judge to issue a warrant for his arrest. It is suspects to abduct and kill the German
mandatory therefore that there be probable cause before an national Alexander Van Twest in order to
information is filed and a warrant of arrest issued. eliminate him after forcing the victim to sign
Unfortunately, however, at times a criminal case is filed, a several documents transferring ownership of
warrant of arrest issued and a person consequently several properties amounting to several
incarcerated on unsubstantiated allegations that only feign million pesos and caused the withdrawal of
probable cause. P5M deposit from the victim's bank account.

Petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza, Thereafter, Senior State Prosecutor Ferdinand prosecutor
alumni of the College of Law, University of the Philippines, are Ferdinand R. Abesamis issued a subpoena to petitioners
partners of the Law Firm of Salonga, Hernandez and Allado. In informing them that a complaint
the practice of their profession, and on the basis of an alleged was filed against them by PACC TF-Habagat, directing them to
extrajudicial confession of a security guard, they have been appear on
accused of the heinous crime of kidnapping with murder by 30 September 1993 at the Multi-Purpose Hall of the
the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) and ordered Department of Justice and to submit their counter-affidavits.
arrested without bail by respondent judge. Attached to the subpoena were copies of the affidavits
executed by Umbal and members of the team who raided the
two (2) dwellings of Santiago. 5
The focal source of the information against petitioners is the
sworn statement dated 16 September 1993 of Security Guard
Escolastico Umbal, a discharge of the Philippine Constabulary, Not satisfied merely with the affidavits attached to the
implicating them as the brains behind the alleged kidnapping subpoena, petitioner Mendoza moved for the production of
and slaying of one Eugen Alexander Van Twest, a German other documents for examination and copying to enable him
national. 2 In that extrajudicial confession, Umbal claimed that to fully prepare for his defense and to submit an intelligible
he and his companions were met by petitioners at Silahis counter-affidavit. 6 Specifically, petitioner Mendoza was
Hotel and in exchange for P2.5M the former undertook to interested in (a) the "several documents transferring
apprehend Van Twest who allegedly had an international ownership of several properties amounting to several million
warrant of arrest against him. Thus, on 16 June 1992, after pesos and the withdrawal of P5M deposits from the victim's
placing him under surveillance for nearly a month, Umbal, Ex- bank account," as stated in the complaint; (b) the complete
policeman Rolando Gamatero, AFPCIG Agent Roberto Santiago records of the PACC's investigation, including investigations
and SPO2 Sergio Antonino abducted Van Twest. They blocked on other suspects and their disposition, PACC's Order of Battle
his blue Nissan Pathfinder under the Alabang overpass and for 1992 and early 1993; and, (c) such other written
forced him into their car. They brought him to a "safe house" statements issued in the above-entitled case, and all other
just behind the New Bilibid Prisons. Umbal was tasked to documents intended to be used in this case. 7 Petitioners
watch over their quarry. After four (4) days, Gamatero, likewise sought the inhibition of the members of the panel of
Santiago and Antonino returned to the "safe house" together prosecutors, which was created to conduct the preliminary
with petitioners and SPO2 Roger Bato, known to Umbal also as investigation, on the ground that they were members of the
"Batok." SPO2 Bato faked the interrogation of Van Twest, legal staff assigned to PACC and thus could not act with
pretending it was official, and then made him sign certain impartiality.
documents. The following day, Gamatero shot Van Twest in
the chest with a baby armalite, after which Antonino stabbed
In its Order of 11 October 1993, 8 the new panel of
him repeatedly, cut off his private part, and later burned his
prosecutors composed of Senior State Prosecutor Bernelito R.
cadaver into fine ashes using gasoline and rubber tires. Umbal
Fernandez as Chairman, with Rogelio F. Vista and Purita M.
could not recall the exact date when the incident happened,
Deynata as Members, confirmed that the motion for inhibition
but he was certain it was about a year ago.
of the members of the old panel as well as the appeal to the
Secretary of Justice was resolved on 8 October 1993 resulting
A day after Umbal executed his extrajudicial confession, the in the creation of a new panel. Thereafter, the new panel
operatives of the PACC, armed with a search warrant issued granted the prayer of petitioner Mendoza for the production of
by Judge Roberto A. Barrios of the Regional Trial Court of additional documents used or intended to be used against
Manila, Br. 11, 3 separately raided the two (2) dwellings of him. Meanwhile, Task Force Habagat, in compliance with the
Santiago, one located at No. 7 Sangley Street, and the other, order, submitted only copies of the request for verification of
along Amalingan Street, both in Green Heights Subdivision, the firearms seized from the accused, the result of the request
Paraaque. The raiders recovered a blue Nissan Pathfinder for verification, and a Philippine Times Journal article on the
and assorted firearms and ammunition and placed Santiago case with a marginal note of President Fidel V. Ramos
and his trusted aide, Efren Madolid, under arrest. Also addressed to the Chief of the Philippine National Police
arrested later that day were Antonio and Bato who were found directing the submission of a report and summary of actions
to have in their possession several firearms and ammunition taken thereon.
and Van Twest's Cartier sunglasses.
Not having been provided with the requested documents,
After evaluating the pieces of evidence gathered by PACC petitioners nevertheless submitted their respective counter-
operatives, Sr., Supt. Panfilo Lacson, Chief of PACC Task Force affidavits denying the accusations against them. 9
Habagat, referred the case to the Department of Justice for
the institution of criminal proceedings against AFPCIG Agent
After a preliminary hearing where clarificatory questions were
Roberto Santiago, SPO1 Sergio Antonino, SPO2 Roger Bato,
additionally propounded, the case was deemed submitted for
Ex-policeman Rolando Gamatero, Efren Madolid, and
resolution. But before the new panel could resolve the case,
petitioners herein, Atty. Diosdado Jose Allado and Atty. Roberto
SPO2 Bato filed a manifestation stating that he was
L. Mendoza, for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition,
reconsidering the earlier waiver of his right to file counter-
carnapping, kidnapping for ransom with murder, and
affidavit, 10 and "in the greater interest of truth, justice and
usurpation of authority. 4 In his letter to the State Prosecutor
fair play" moved for the admissions of his counter-affidavit 11
dated 17 September 1993, Sr. Supt. Lacson charged that
confessing participation in the abduction and slaying of Van
Twest and implicating petitioners Allado and Mendoza.
Sometime in January 1994, however, before petitioners could
refute Bato's counter-affidavit, he moved to suppress it on the determined personally by the judge after examination under
ground that it was extracted through intimidation and duress. oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce.
On 3 February 1994, with the new penal failing to act on the
twin motions of SPO2 Bato, petitioners heard over the radio As early as 1915, in Buchanan v. Viuda de Esteban, 23 this
that the panel had issued a resolution finding a prima facie Court speaking through Associate Justice Sherman Moreland
case against them and that an information had already been defined probable cause as "the existence of such facts and
filed in court. Upon verification with the Department of Justice, circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable
however, petitioners were informed that the resolution was mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the
not yet ready for release, but later that afternoon they were prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime
able to secure a copy of the information for kidnapping with for which he was prosecuted." This definition is still relevant
murder against them 12 and the 15-page undated resolution today as we continue to cite it in recent cases. 24 Hence,
under the letterhead of PACC, signed by the panel of probable cause for an arrest or for the issuance of a warrant
prosecutors, with the Head of the PACC Task Force of arrest has been defined as such facts and circumstances
recommending approval thereof. 13 That same day, the which would lead a reasonable discreet and prudent man to
information was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati believe that an offense has been committed by the person
and raffled off to Branch 62 presided by respondent Judge sought to be arrested. 25 And as a protection against false
Roberto C. Diokno. prosecution and arrest, it is the knowledge of facts, actual or
apparent, strong enough to justify a reasonable man in the
belief that he was lawful grounds for arresting the accused. 26
On 4 February 1994, respondent judge, in response to
petitioners' request, gave them until 8 February 1994 to
submit their opposition to the issuance of a warrant of arrest Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan 27 sets a standard for determining the
against all the accused. 14 On 7 February 1994, petitioners existence of probable cause. While it appears in that case that we have
complied with the order of respondent judge. 15 The following granted the prosecutor and the trial judge seemingly unlimited latitude
in determining the existence of absence of probable cause by affirming
day, the long-standing procedure that they can base their findings merely
8 February 1994, petitioner Allado filed an appeal with the on their personal opinion and reasonable belief, yet, this
Secretary of Justice seeking review and reversal of the permissiveness should not be interpreted as giving them arbitrary
undated resolution of the panel powers and letting them loose in the determination of the existence of
of prosecutors, 16 which appeal was adopted by petitioner probable cause, a delicate legal question which can result in the
Mendoza. 17 On harassment and deprivation of liberty of the person sought to be
charged or arrested. There we said
11 February 1994, petitioner Allado moved to defer the
proceedings before the trial court pending resolution of his
appeal before the Secretary of Justice. 18 However, on even Probable cause is a reasonable ground of
date, respondent judge issued the assailed warrant of arrest presumption that a matter is, or may be, well
against petitioners. 19 Hence, on 15 February 1994, petitioners founded, such a state of facts in the mind of the
prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary
filed with us the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition
caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an
with prayer for a temporary restraining order. honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The
term does not mean "actual and positive cause"
nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely
On 16 February 1994, we required respondents to comment
based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a
on the petition and set the case for hearing on 28 February finding of probable cause does not require an
1994. After the hearing, we issued a temporary restraining inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to
order enjoining PACC from enforcing the warrant of arrest and procure a conviction. It is enough that it is it
respondent judge from conducting further proceedings on the believed that the act or omission complained of
case and, instead, to elevate the records to us. Meanwhile, on constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is
27 February 1994, petitioners voluntarily surrendered at the a trial for the reception of evidence of the
prosecution in support of the charge.
Headquarters of the Capital Command (CAPCOM), Philippine
National Police (PNP), Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Metro
Manila, and on 29 February 1994, they were released on the Whether an act was done causing undue injury to
basis of our temporary restraining order. the government and whether the same was done
with manifest partiality or evident bad faith can
only be made out by proper and sufficient
Petitioners, in their 335-page petition, inclusive of annexes, testimony. Necessarily, a conclusion can be arrived
principally contend that respondent judge acted with grave at when the case has already proceeded on
abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in sufficient proof. 28
"whimsically holding that there is probable cause against
petitioners without determining the admissibility of the Accordingly, before issuing a warrant of arrest, the judge must
evidence against petitioners and without even stating the satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted there is
basis of his findings," 20 and in "relying on the Resolution of sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and that the
the Panel and their certification that probable cause exists person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof. In the Order
when the certification is flawed." 21 Petitioners maintain that of respondent judge dated 11 February 1994, it is expressly
the records of the preliminary investigation which respondent stated that "[t]his court after careful evaluation of the
judge solely relied upon failed to establish probable cause evidence on record, believes and rules that probable cause
against them to justify the issuance of the warrant of arrest. exists; and therefore, a warrant of arrest should be issued."
Petitioners likewise assail the prosecutors' "clear sign of bias However, we are unable to see how respondent judge arrived
and impartiality (sic)." 22 at such ruling. We have painstakingly examined the records
and we cannot find any support for his conclusion. On the
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General argues contrary, we discern a number of reasons why we consider
that the determination of probable cause is a function of the the evidence submitted to be insufficient for a finding of
judge who is merely required to personally appreciate certain probable cause against petitioners.
facts to convince him that the accused probably committed
the crime charged. The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission relies heavily on the
sworn statement of Security Guard Umbal who supposedly
Section 2, Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution, lays down the confessed his participation in the alleged kidnapping and
requirements for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, i.e., a murder of Van Twest. For one, there is serious doubt on Van
warrant of arrest shall issue only upon probable cause to be Twest's reported death since the corpus delicti has not been
established, nor have his remains been recovered. Umbal no explanation was offered. Did these documents really exist?
claims that Van Twest was completely burned into ashes with Or could the
the use of gasoline and rubber tires from around ten o'clock in non-existence of these documents be the reason why PACC
the evening to six o'clock the next morning. 29 This is highly was not able to comply with the order of the prosecutors to
improbable, if not ridiculous. A human body cannot be produce them during the preliminary investigation? And then,
pulverized into ashes by simply burning it with the use of what happened to the P2.5M that was supposedly offered by
gasoline and rubber tires in an open field. Even crematoria petitioners in exchange for the abduction of Van Twest? These
use entirely closed incinerators where the corpse is subjected and more remain unanswered.
to intense heat. 30 Thereafter, the remains undergo a process
where the bones are completely ground to dust.
Most perplexing however is that while the whole investigation
was supposedly triggered off by Umbal's confession of 16
In the case of Van Twest, there is not even any insinuation September 1993, the application of the PACC operatives for a
that earnest efforts were exerted to recover traces of his search warrant to be served in the
remains from the scene of the alleged cremation. 31 Could it two (2) dwellings of Santiago was filed and granted by the
be that the government investigators did to the place of Regional Trial Court of Manila on 15 September 1993, a day
cremation but could not find any? Or could it be that they did before Umbal executed his sworn statement. In support of the
not go at all because they knew that there would not be any application, the PACC agents claimed that Umbal had been in
as no burning ever took place? To allege then that the body of their custody since 10 September 1993. Significantly,
Van Twest was completely burned to ashes in an open field although he was said to be already under their custody,
with the use merely of tires and gasoline is a tale too tall to Umbal claims he was never interrogated until 16 September
gulp. 1993 and only at the security barracks of Valle Verde V, Pasig,
where he was a security guard. 39
Strangely, if not awkwardly, after Van Twest's reported
abduction on The alleged counter-affidavit of SPO2 Bato, which the panel of
16 June 1992 which culminated in his decimation by prosecutors also considered in filing the charges against
cremation, his counsel continued to represent him before petitioners, can hardly be credited as its probative value has
judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. Thus on 31 July 1992, tremendously waned. The records show that the alleged
his counsel filed in his behalf a petition for review before this counter-affidavit, which is self-incriminating, was filed after
Court, docketed as G.R. Nos. 106253, and on 18 March 1993, the panel had considered the case submitted for resolution.
a memorandum before the Securities and Exchange And before petitioners could refute this counter-affidavit, Bato
Commission in SEC Case No. 3896. On moved to suppress the same on the ground that it was
26 November 1993, during the preliminary investigation extracted through duress and intimidation.
conducted by the panel of prosecutors, counsel again
manifested that "even then and even as of this time, I stated
For sure, the credibility of Umbal is badly battered. Certainly,
in my counter-affidavit that until the matter of death is to be
his bare allegations, even if the State invokes its inherent
established in the proper proceedings, I shall continue to
right to prosecute, are insufficient to justify sending two
pursue my duties and responsibilities as counsel for Mr. Van
lawyers to jail, or anybody for that matter. More importantly,
Twest." 32 Hence, even Asst. Solicitor General Estoesta
the PACC operatives who applied for a warrant to search the
believes that counsel of Van Twest doubted the latter's
dwellings of Santiago never implicated petitioners. In fact they
death. 33 Obviously, counsel himself does not believe that his
claimed that according to Umbal, it was Santiago, and not
client is in fact already dead otherwise his obligation to his
petitioners, who masterminded the whole affair. 40 While there
client would have ceased except to comply with his duty "to
may be bits of evidence against petitioners'
inform the court promptly of such death . . . and to give the
co-accused, i.e., referring to those seized from the dwellings
name and residence of his executor, administrator, guardian
of Santiago, these do not in the least prove petitioners'
or other legal representative," 34 which he did not.
complicity in the crime charged. Based on the evidence thus
far submitted there is nothing indeed, much less is there
Under the circumstances, we cannot discount petitioners' probable cause, to incriminate petitioners. For them to stand
theory that the supposed death of Van Twest who is reportedly trial and be deprived in the meantime of their liberty, however
an international fugitive from justice, a fact substantiated by brief, the law appropriately exacts much more to sustain a
petitioners and never refuted by PACC, is a likely story to stop warrant for their arrest facts and circumstances strong
the international manhunt for his arrest. In this regard, we are enough in themselves to support the belief that they are
reminded of the leading case of U.S. v. Samarin 35 decided guilty of a crime that in fact happened. Quite obviously, this
ninety-two years ago where this Court ruled that when the has not been met.
supposed victim is wholly unknown, his body not found, and
there is but one witness who testifies to the killing, the corpus
Verily, respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion
delicti is not sufficiently proved.
in issuing the warrant for the arrest of petitioners it appearing
that he did not personally examine the evidence nor did he
Then, the extrajudicial statement of Umbal suffers from call for the complainant and his witnesses in the face of their
material inconsistencies. In his sworn statement, he said that incredible accounts. Instead, he merely relied on the
he together with his cohorts was met by petitioners in Silahis certification of the prosecutors that probable cause existed.
Hotel where they hatched the plan to abduct Van Twest. 36 For, otherwise, he would have found out that the evidence
However, during the preliminary investigation, he stated that thus far presented was utterly insufficient to warrant the
he was not part of the actual meeting as he only waited arrest of petitioners. In this regard, we restate the procedure
outside in the car for his companions who supposedly we outlined in various cases we have already decided.
discussed the plan inside Silahis Hotel. 37
In Soliven v. Makasiar, 41 we said that the judge (a) shall
Umbal also said that petitioners arrived with Bato and personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents
conducted a mock interrogation of Van Twest who thereafter submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable
signed various documents upon being compelled to do so. 38 cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or,
During the clarificatory questioning, however, Umbal changed (b) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, may
his story and said that he was asked to go outside of the "safe disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of
house" at the time Van Twest was interrogated and thus did supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
not see if Van Twest indeed signed certain documents. Why conclusion on the existence of probable cause.
Umbal had to be sent out of the "safe house,"
In People v. Inting, 42 we emphasized the important features of If they really believed that petitioners were probably guilty,
the constitutional mandate: (a) The determination of probable they should have armed themselves with facts and
cause is a function of the judge; it is not for the provincial circumstances in support of that belief; for mere belief is not
fiscal or prosecutor to ascertain. Only the judge and the judge enough. They should have presented sufficient and credible
alone makes this determination; (b) The preliminary inquiry evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable cause. For
made by a prosecutor does not bind the judge. It merely the prosecuting officer "is the representative not of an
assists him in making the determination of probable cause. ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose
The judge does not have to follow what the prosecutor obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its
presents to him. By itself, the prosecutor's certification of obligation to govern all; and whose interest, therefore, in a
probable cause is ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that
the transcript of stenographic notes (if any), and all other justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very
supporting documents behind the prosecutor's certification definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which
which are material in assisting the judge in his determination is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may
of probable cause; and, (c) Judges and prosecutors alike prosecute with earnestness and vigor indeed, he should do
should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper
the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to
the offender should be held for trial or released. Even if the use every legitimate means to bring about a just one" 46
two inquiries be conducted in the course of one and the same
proceeding, there should be no confusion about their
In the case at bench, the undue haste in the filing of the
objectives. The determination of probable cause for the
information and the inordinate interest of the government
warrant is made by the judge. The preliminary investigation
cannot be ignored. From the gathering of evidence until the
proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe
termination of the preliminary investigation, it appears that
that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and
the state prosecutors were overly eager to file the case and
therefore, whether or not he should be subjected to the
secure a warrant for the arrest of the accused without bail and
expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial is a function of
their consequent detention. Umbal's sworn statement is laden
the prosecutor.
with inconsistencies and improbabilities. Bato's counter-
affidavit was considered without giving petitioners the
In Lim v. Felix, 43 where we reiterated Soliven v. Makasiar and People v. opportunity to refute the same. The PACC which gathered the
Inting, we said evidence appears to have had a hand in the determination of
probable cause in the preliminary inquiry as the undated
[T]he Judge does not have to personally examine resolution of the panel not only bears the letterhead of PACC
the complainant and his witnesses. The Prosecutor but was also recommended for approval by the head of the
can perform the same functions as a commissioner PACC Task Force. Then petitioners were given the runaround in
for the taking of the evidence. However, there securing a copy of the resolution and the information against
should be a report and necessary documents them.
supporting the Fiscal's bare certification. All these
should be before the Judge.
Indeed, the task of ridding society of criminals and misfits and
The extent of the Judge's personal examination of sending them to jail in the hope that they will in the future
the report and its annexes depends on the reform and be productive members of the community rests
circumstances of each case. We cannot determine both on the judiciousness of judges and the prudence of
beforehand how cursory or exhaustive the Judge's prosecutors. And, whether it is a preliminary investigation by
examination should be. The Judge has to exercise the prosecutor, which ascertains if the respondent should be
sound discretion for, after all, the personal
held for trial, or a preliminary inquiry by the trial judge which
determination is vested in the Judge by the
Constitution. It can be as brief or as detailed as determines if an arrest warrant should issue, the bottomline is
the circumstances of each case require. To be that there is a standard in the determination of the existence
sure, the judge must go beyond the Prosecutor's of probable cause, i.e., there should be facts and
certification and investigation report whenever circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a
necessary. He should call for the complainant and prudent and cautious man to believe that the accused is guilty
witnesses themselves to answer the court's of the crime with which he is charged. Judges and prosecutors
probing questions when the circumstances of the
are not off on a frolic of their own, but rather engaged in a
case so require.
delicate legal duty defined by law and jurisprudence.

Clearly, probable cause may not be established simply by 47

showing that a trial judge subjectively believes that he has In this instance, Salonga v. Pao finds application
good grounds for his action. Good faith is not enough. If
subjective good faith alone were the test, the constitutional The purpose of a preliminary investigation is
protection would be demeaned and the people would be to secure the innocent against hasty,
"secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" only in malicious and oppressive prosecution, and
the fallible discretion of the judge. 44 On the contrary, the to protect him from an open and public
probable cause test is an objective one, for in order that there accusation of crime, from the trouble,
be probable cause the facts and circumstances must be such expense and anxiety of a public trial, and
as would warrant a belief by a reasonably discreet and also to protect the state from useless and
prudent man that the accused is guilty of the crime which has expensive trial (Trocio v. Manta, 118 SCRA
just been committed. 45 This, as we said, is the standard. 241, citing Hashim v. Boncan, 71 Phil. 216).
Hence, if upon the filing of the information in court the trial The right to a preliminary investigation is a
judge, after reviewing the information and the documents statutory grant, and to withhold it would be
attached thereto, finds that no probable cause exists must to transgress constitutional due process
either call for the complainant and the witnesses themselves (People v. Oandasa, 25 SCRA 277). However,
or simply dismiss the case. There is no reason to hold the in order to satisfy the due process clause it
accused for trial and further expose him to an open and public is not enough that the preliminary
accusation of the crime when no probable cause exists. investigation is conducted in the sense of
making sure that the transgressor shall not
But then, it appears in the instant case that the prosecutors escape with impunity. A preliminary
have similarly misappropriated, if not abused, their discretion. investigation serves not only for the
purposes of the State. More importantly, it is
 a part of the guarantees of freedom and fair oblivious of human rights protected by the fundamental law.
play which are birthrights of all who live in While we greatly applaud their determined efforts to weed
the country. It is therefore imperative upon society of felons, let not their impetuous eagerness violate
the fiscal or the judge as the case may be, constitutional precepts which circumscribe the structure of a
to relieve the accused from the pain of civilized community.
going thru a trial once it is ascertained that
the evidence is insufficient to sustain a
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is
prima facie case or that no probable cause
GRANTED. The temporary restraining order we issued on 28
exists to form a sufficient belief as to the
February 1994 in favor of petitioners, Atty. Diosdado Jose
guilt of the accused (emphasis supplied).
Allado and Atty. Roberto L. Mendoza, is made permanent. The
warrant of arrest issued against them is SET ASIDE and
The facts of this case are fatefully distressing as they respondent Judge Roberto C. Diokno is ENJOINED from
showcase the seeming immensity of government power which proceeding any further against herein petitioners in Crim.
when unchecked becomes tyrannical and oppressive. Hence Case No. 94-1757 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati.
the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, defines the
limits beyond which lie unsanctioned state actions. But on
SO ORDERED
occasion, for one reason or another, the State transcends this
parameter. In consequence, individual liberty unnecessarily
suffers. The case before us, if uncurbed, can be illustrative of Cruz, Davide, Jr., Quiason and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
a dismal trend. Needless injury of the sort inflicted by
government agents is not reflective of responsible
government. Judges and law enforcers are not, by reason of
their high and prestigious office, relieved of the common
obligation to avoid deliberately inflicting unnecessary injury.

The sovereign power has the inherent right to protect itself

and its people from vicious acts which endanger the proper
administration of justice; hence, the State has every right to
prosecute and punish violators of the law. This is essential for
its self- preservation, nay, its very existence. But this does not
confer a license for pointless assaults on its citizens. The right
of the State to prosecute is not a carte blanche for
government agents to defy and disregard the rights of its
citizens under the Constitution. Confinement, regardless of
duration, is too high a price to pay for reckless and impulsive
prosecution. Hence, even if we apply in this case the
"multifactor balancing test" which requires the officer to weigh
the manner and intensity of the interference on the right of
the people, the gravity of the crime committed and the
circumstances attending the incident, still we cannot see
probable cause to order the detention of petitioners. 48

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people

against arbitrary and discriminatory use of political power.
This bundle of rights guarantees the preservation of our
natural rights which include personal liberty and security
against invasion by the government or any of its branches or
instrumentalities. Certainly, in the hierarchy of rights, the Bill
of Rights takes precedence over the right of the State to
prosecute, and when weighed against each other, the scales
of justice tilt towards the former. Thus, relief may be availed
of to stop the purported enforcement of criminal law where it
is necessary to provide for an orderly administration of justice,
to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an
oppressive and vindictive manner, and to afford adequate
protection to constitutional rights. 49

Perhaps, this case would not have reached this Court if

petitioners were ordinary people submissive to the dictates of
government. They would have been illegally arrested and
detained without bail. Then we would not have the
opportunity to rectify the injustice. Fortunately, the victims of
injustice are lawyers who are vigilant of their rights, who fight
for their liberty and freedom not otherwise available to those
who cower in fear and subjection.

Let this then be a constant reminder to judges, prosecutors

and other government agents tasked with the enforcement of
the law that in the performance of their duties they must act
with circumspection, lest their thoughtless ways, methods and
practices cause a disservice to their office and maim their
countrymen they are sworn to serve and protect. We thus
caution government agents, particularly the law enforcers, to
be more prudent in the prosecution of cases and not to be