This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-08-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is well to remember that there is a distinction between the preliminary inquiry, which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, and the preliminary investigation proper, which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or be released. The determination of probable cause for purposes of issuing a warrant of arrest is made by the judge. The preliminary investigation proper - whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged - is the function of the investigating prosecutor.[32] | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is well to remember that there is a distinction between the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or be released. The determination of probable cause for purposes of issuing the warrant of arrest is made by the judge. The preliminary investigation proper - whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged - is the function of the investigating prosecutor.[48] | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The Court has also ruled that the personal examination of the complainant and his witnesses is not mandatory and indispensable in the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The necessity arises only when there is an utter failure of the evidence to show the existence of probable cause.[53] Otherwise, the judge may rely on the report of the investigating prosecutor, provided that he likewise evaluates the documentary evidence in support thereof. | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Needless to say, a full-blown trial is to be preferred to ferret out the truth.[63] If, as respondents claim, there is no evidence of their culpability, then their petition for bail would easily be granted. Thereafter, the credibility of the prosecution's and the accused's respective evidence may be tested during the trial. It is only then that the guilt or innocence of respondents will be determined. Whether the criminal prosecution was merely a tool for harassment or whether the prosecution's evidence can pass the strict standards set by the law and withstand the exacting scrutiny of the court will all be resolved at the trial of the case. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. But the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause, and on the basis thereof, he may already make a personal determination of the existence of probable cause; and (2) if he is not satisfied that probable cause exists, he may disregard the prosecutor'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.[37] | |||||