flil>

,,1{({,,'{;E~il......,
1

·r.
\~AJ,
~1,/'.t'' • ~"',
~. :t
!tf

r.-.
~..
'.;.Li ·
.. •
.'.':-..~,-
~
Ill

j\'

~..r;tYTit~~'"'

31.\epublic of tlJe -Jbilippincs

$>upre1ne QCourt
:§ltlani!a
SECOND DIVISION

JESSIE TAGASTASON, G.R. No. 222870

ROGELIO TAGASTASON, JR.,
ANNIE BACALA-TAGASTASON,
and JERSON TAGASTASON, Present:
Petitioners,
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
- versus - CAGUIOA,
REYES, J., JR., and
LAZARO-JAVIER, JJ.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR OF BUTUAN
,t

CITY, SUSANO BACALA, and

BELINDA BACALA, Promulgated:
x- _______ Respondents. ______________ _ ffltM~~19 ____ x
DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 assailing the

22 January 2015 Decision2 and the 6 November 2015 Resolution3 of the
Court of Appeals Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. SP No. 04924-MIN. The
Court of Appeals denied the petition assailing the Order of the Regional
Trial Court of Butuan City, Branch 3, which denied petitioners' Motion to
Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of Warrants of Arrest.

1
Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Denominated as petition for certiorari under
Rule 45.
2
Rollo, pp. 102-114. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of this
Court), with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Pablito A. Perez concurring.
3
Id.atl23-126.

~
Decision 2 G.R. No. 222870

The Antecedent Facts

In March 2012, Susano Bacala and Emalyn Bacala, together with their
witnesses, filed a Complaint-Affidavit for Murder and Frustrated Murder
against Jessie Tagastason, Rogelio Tagastason, Jr., Marlon Tagastason,
Jerson Tagastason, Elias Tagastason4, Annie Bacala-Tagastason, Gil
Ugacho, 5 and Merlyn Bacala-Ugacho6 (collectively referred to as the
accused). The accused, through their counsel, filed a Motion for Extension
of Time to File their Counter-Affidavits. The City Prosecutor partially
granted the motion by giving the accused an extension until 4 April 2012
instead of 10 April 2012, which was the date prayed for by the accused. On 4
April 2012, the City Prosecutor issued an Omnibus Motion finding probable
cause for Murder and Frustrated Murder. Accordingly, the City Prosecutor
filed the Informations on the same date. On 10 April 2012, the cases were
raffled to the sala of Executive Judge Francisco F. Maclang (Judge Maclang)
who was also the same judge handling all the other cases pending between
the parties. On the same day, Judge Maclang issued the Warrants of Arrest
against the accused.

The accused learned about the partial grant of their motion for
extension to file their counter-affidavits, the City Prosecutor's Omnibus
Motion, the filing of the Informations, and the issuance of the warrants
of arrest only on 10 April 2012. The accused then filed the following:
(1) Petition for Review before the Department of Justice (DOJ);
(2) Administrative Complaint against the City Prosecutor; and (3) Motion
for Inhibition and Holding in Abeyance the Issuance of Warrants of Arrest
before the trial court.

Judge Maclang denied the Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Issuance

of Warrants of Arrest but set the Motion for Inhibition for hearing. The
accused filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of their Motion to
Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of Warrants of Arrest. During the pendency
of their motion for reconsideration, the accused filed a Petition for Certiorari
and Prohibition before the Court of Appeals, citing extreme urgency as a
ground because the cases involved the deprivation of their liberty.

The Decision of the Court of Appeals

In its 22 January 2015 Decision, the Court of Appeals denied the

petition.

The Court of Appeals noted that the City Prosecutor issued an Order
dated 23 March 2012, giving the accused until 4 April 2012 to file their

4
Also referred to in the records as Elias Tagastason, Jr.

~
5
Also referred to in the records as Gil Ugatso and Gil Ogacho.
6
Also referred to in the records as Merlyn Bacala-Ugatso and Merlyn Bacala-Ogacho.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 222870

counter-affidavits. However, the mailing envelope of the Order was stamped

"registered 4/4/12" which was the deadline for the filing of the counter-
affidavits. The Court of Appeals also noted that the Informations were filed
on 4 April 2012 at 12:00 noon, before the end of the deadline at the end of
office hours on even date. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals ruled that
there was no denial of due process because lawyers should not assume that
their motions for extension would be granted as a matter of course. The
Court of Appeals ruled that the grant or denial of the motion for
reconsideration rests with the sound discretion of the City Prosecutor and
that the accused's lawyer should have followed-up their motion.

As regards the allegation that the accused were denied due process
and that there was no preliminary investigation, the Court of Appeals
ruled that the accused may still file their motion for reconsideration or an
appeal, and noted that the accused actually filed an appeal before the DOJ
Secretary.

The Court of Appeals ruled that there was no prohibition for Judge
Maclang from issuing the warrants of arrest on the day the cases were
raffled to him. The Court of Appeals stated that the resolution of the City
Prosecutor pertains only to the positive identification of the accused as the
perpetrators of the crime. The Court of Appeals further ruled that the motion
for inhibition of Judge Maclang was set for hearing and has not yet been
resolved when the accused filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Yet, the accused wanted the Court of Appeals to rule on the motion for
inhibition whose resolution is anchored upon the sound discretion of Judge
Maclang. According to the Court of Appeals, the accused alleged partiality
against Judge Maclang without presenting evidence to support their
allegation.

The accused filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 6 November

2015 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the motion.

Jessie Tagastason, Rogelio Tagastason, Jr., Annie Bacala-Tagastason,

and Jerson Tagastason (petitioners) assailed the Court of Appeals' decision
via a petition for review filed before this Court.

The Issues

The following issues are now before this Court:

( 1) Whether the bourt of Appeals committed a reversible error m

sustaining the farrants of arrest issued by Judge Maclang; and

(2) Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error m

ruling that petitioners were not deprived of due process.

~
Decision 4 G.R. No. 222870

The Ruling of this Court

The petition has no merit.

Petitioners assail the issuance of the warrants of arrest against them by

Judge Maclang. However, the issuance of a warrant of arrest is within the
discretion of the issuing judge upon determination of the existence of
probable cause.

In Mendoza v. People, 7 the Court distinguished between the two kinds

of determination of probable cause. Citing People v. Castillo and Mejia, 8 the
Court stated:

There are two kinds of determination of probable cause: executive

and judicial. The executive determination of probable cause is one made
during preliminary investigation. It is a function that properly pertains to
the public prosecutor who is given a broad discretion to determine
whether probable cause exists and to charge those whom he believes to
have committed the crime as defined by law and thus should be held for
trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi-judicial authority to
determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed in court. Whether
or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public
prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment of
the existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court
itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon.

The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, is

one made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be
issued against the accused. The judge must satisfy himself that based on
the evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the judge finds no
probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant.

The difference is clear: The executive determination of probable

cause concerns itself with whether there is enough evidence to support an
Information being filed. The judicial determination of probable cause, on
the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.
xx x. 9

The Court further stated:

While it is within the trial court's discretion to make an

independent assessment of the evidence on hand, it is only for the
purpose of determining whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. The
judge does not act as an appellate court of the prosecutor and has no
capacity to review the prosecutor's determination of probable cause;
rather, the judge makes a determination of probable cause independent of
the prosecutor's finding. 10 ~

7
733 Phil. 603 (2014).
✓
8
607 Phil. 754 (2009).
9
Supra note 7, at 610.
10 Supra note 7, at 611.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 222870

We stress that the function of the judge to issue a warrant of arrest

upon the determination of probable cause is exclusive and cannot be
deferred pending the resolution of a petition for review by the Secretary of
Justice as to the finding of probable cause, which is a function that is
executive in nature. 11 To defer the implementation of the warrant of arrest
would be an encroachment on the exclusive prerogative of the judge to issue
a warrant of arrest. 12

Further, as correctly argued by the Office of the Solicitor General

(OSG), an appeal before the DOJ Secretary does not hold in abeyance the
proceeding before the trial court pursuant to the 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal 13
which provides:
SECl'ION 5. Contents of petition. - The petition shall contain or state: (a)
the names and addresses of the parties; (b) the Investigation Slip number
(LS. No.) and criminal case number, if any, and title of the case,
including the offense charged in the complaint; (c) the venue of the
preliminary investigation; (d) the specific material dates showing that it
was filed on time; (e) a clear and concise statement of the facts, the
assignment of errors, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the
allowance of the appeal; and (f) proof of service of a copy of the petition
to the adverse party and the Prosecution Office concerned.

The petition shall be accompanied by legible duplicate original or

certified true copy of the resolution appealed from together with legible
true copies of the complaint, affidavits/sworn statements and other
evidence submitted by the parties during the preliminary investigation/
reinvestigation.

If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the appealed

resolution, a copy of the motion to defer proceedings filed in court must
also accompany the petition. The investigating/reviewing/approving
prosecutor shall not be impleaded as party respondent in the petition. The
party taking the appeal shall be referred to in the petition as either
"Complainant-Appellant" or "Respondent-Appellant."

In this case, no motion to defer proceedings has been filed in the trial
court.

On the denial of due process, which is anchored on the validity of the

filing of the Informations, we note that the petition for review is still
pending before the DOJ Secretary. It is premature for this Court to preempt
the DOJ Secretary in resolving the issue. We also agree with the Court of
Appeals that while petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file
their counter-affidavits, they should not assume that their motion would be
granted. The 2008 Revised Manual for Prosecutors also provides that
extensions of time to submit a counter-affidavit for any reason should not

11

12
13
Viudez JI v. Court ofAppeals, 606 Phil. 337 (2009).
Id. V
Department Circular No. 70 dated 3 July 2000.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 222870

exceed ten days. In this case, the OSG pointed out that the petitioners asked
for an extension of 15 days and the City Prosecutor acted accordingly in
granting them an extension of only ten days.

As regards the motion for inhibition filed by petitioners, we agree

with the Court of Appeals that its resolution is within the discretion of Judge
Maclang. In addition, the accused, who included herein petitioners, filed the
petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals without
waiting for Judge Maclang, who set the motion for inhibition for hearing, to
resolve it. Finally, petitioners did not present sufficient evidence to support
the alleged prejudice committed by Judge Maclang against them.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition.

SO ORDERED.

az::,
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:
~

bft,~
ESTELA M!~$RLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
Decision 7 G.R. No. 222870

a-;(_-~~
~~E C. ~YES, JR.
Associate Justice

~RO-JAVIER
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Associate Justice
Chairperson
Decision 8 G.R. No. 222870

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.