Lim vs Felix G.R. Nos.

94054-57, February 19, 1991 Facts: At the vicinity of the airport road of the Masbate Domestic Airport, located at the municipality of Masbate province of Masbate, Congressman Moises Espinosa, Sr. and his security escorts, namely Provincial Guards Antonio Cortes, Gaspar Amaro, and Artemio uentes !ere attac"ed and "illed by a lone assassin. Dante Siblante another security escort of Congressman Espinosa, Sr. survived the assassination plot, although, he himself suffered a gunshot !ound. or the crime of multiple murder and frustrated murder, the accused !ere #icente $im, Sr., Mayor Susana $im of Masbate %petitioners in G.&. 'os. ()*+),+-., /olly 0. ernande1, lorencio 0. ernande1, /r., 'onilon A. 2agalihog, Mayor 'estor C. $im and Mayor Antonio 3ho %petitioners in G.&. 'os. ()455,5(.. 0he &0C of Masbate concluded that a probable cause has been established for the issuance of !arrants of arrest. 6n the same 7rder, the court ordered the arrest of the petitioners plus bail for provisional liberty. 0he entire records of the case !ere transmitted to the Provincial Prosecutor of Masbate. &espondent Acting iscal Antonio C. Alfane !as designated to revie! the case. A petition to transfer the venue of the &egional 0rial Court of Masbate to the &egional 0rial Court of Ma"ati !as filed by petitioners and granted by the SC. 7n /uly +, 8((*, the respondent court %&0C Ma"ati. issued !arrants of arrest against the accused including the petitioners herein. 0he respondent /udge said9 :6n the instant cases, the preliminary investigation !as conducted by the Municipal 0rial Court of Masbate, Masbate !hich found the e;istence of probable cause that the offense of multiple murder !as committed and that all the accused are probably guilty thereof, !hich !as affirmed upon revie! by the Provincial Prosecutor !ho properly filed !ith the &egional 0rial Court four separate informations for murder. Considering that both the t!o competent officers to !hom such duty !as entrusted by la! have declared the e;istence of probable cause, each information is complete in form and substance, and there is no visible defect on its face, this Court finds it <ust and proper to rely on the prosecutor=s certification in each information ;;;> ssue: ?hether or not a <udge may issue a !arrant of arrest !ithout bail by simply relying on the prosecution=s certification and recommendation that a probable cause e;ists !el": 'o. 0he /udge cannot ignore the clear !ords of the 8(@- Constitution !hich reAuires :; ; ; probable cause to be personally determined by the /udge ; ; ;:, not by any other officer or person. 6f a /udge relies solely on the certification of the Prosecutor as in this case !here all the records of the investigation are in Masbate, he or she has not personally determined probable cause. 0he determination is made by the Provincial Prosecutor. 0he constitutional reAuirement has not been satisfied. 0he /udge commits a grave abuse of discretion. 0he records of the preliminary investigation conducted by the Municipal Court of Masbate and revie!ed by the respondent iscal !ere still in Masbate !hen the respondent iscal issued the !arrants of arrest against the petitioners. 0here !as no basis for the respondent /udge to ma"e his o!n personal determination regarding the e;istence of a probable cause for the issuance of a !arrant of arrest as mandated by the Constitution. Be could not possibly have "no!n !hat transpired in Masbate as he had nothing but a certification. Significantly, the respondent /udge denied the petitionersC motion for the transmittal of the records on the ground that the mere certification and recommendation of the respondent iscal that a probable cause e;ists is sufficient for him to issue a !arrant of arrest.

#N $%N& ' G.R. Nos. 94054-57, February 19, 1991 ( ) &#N*# L +, ,R. %N- +%./R ,0,%N% L +, 1#* * /N#R,, ),. !/N. N#+#, / ,. F#L 2 %N- !/N. %N*/N / %LF%N#, R#,1/N-#N*,. 'G.R. N/,. 94344-49. F#$R0%R. 19, 1991( 5/LL. *. F#RN%N-#6, FL/R#N& / *. F#RN%N-#6, 5R., N/N L/N %. $%G%L !/G, +%./R N#,*/R &. L + %N- +%./R %N*/N / 7!/, 1#* * /N#R,, ),. !/N. N#+#, / ,. F#L 2 %N- 1R/,#&0*/R %N*/N / &. %LF%N#, R#,1/N-#N*,. -#& G0* #RR#6, 5R., 5.: May a /udge !ithout ascertaining the facts through his o!n personal determination and relying solely on the certification or recommendation of a prosecutor that a probable cause e;ists issue a !arrant of arrestD 7n March 8-, 8(@(, at about -9E* o=cloc" in the morning, at the vicinity of the airport road of the Masbate Domestic Airport, located at the municipality of Masbate province of Masbate, Congressman Moises Espinosa, Sr. and his security escorts, namely Provincial Guards Antonio Cortes, Gaspar Amaro, and Artemio uentes !ere attac"ed and "illed by a lone assassin. Dante Siblante another security escort of Congressman Espinosa, Sr. survived the assassination plot, although, he himself suffered a gunshot !ound. An investigation of the incident then follo!ed. 0hereafter, and for the purpose of preliminary investigation, the designated investigator, Barry 7. 0antiado, 0Sg, of the PC Criminal 6nvestigation Service at Camp 2agong 6balon, $ega1pi City filed an amended complaint !ith the Municipal 0rial Court of Masbate accusing, among others, #icente $im, Sr., Mayor Susana $im of Masbate %petitioners in G.&. 'os. ()*+),+-., /olly 0. ernande1, lorencio 0. ernande1, /r., 'onilon A. 2agalihog, Mayor 'estor C. $im and Mayor Antonio 3ho %petitioners in G.&. 'os. ()455,5(. of the crime of multiple murder and frustrated murder in connection !ith the airport incident. 0he case !as doc"eted as Criminal Case 'o. (488. After conducting the preliminary investigation, the court issued an order dated /uly E8, 8(@( stating therein that9 :;;; after !eighing the affidavits and ans!ers given by the !itnesses for the prosecution during the preliminary e;amination in searching Auestions and ans!ers, concludes that a probable cause has been established for the issuance of a !arrant of arrest of named accused in the amended complaint, namely, /immy Cabarles, &onnie ernande1, 'onilon 2agalihog, /olly ernande1, lorencio ernande1, /r., #icente $im, Sr., Susana $im, 'estor $im, Antonio 3ho, /aime $i!anag, Faldy Dumalag and &ene 0ualla alias 0idoy.: %&ollo, p. +@, G.&. 'os. ()*+),+-. ;;; ;;; ;;; 6n the same 7rder, the court ordered the arrest of the petitioners and recommended the amount of P4**,***.** as bail for the provisional liberty of each of the accused. Petitioners /olly ernande1 and 'onilon 2agalihog filed a motion for the reduction of bail !hich !as granted by the court and they !ere allo!ed to post bail in the amount of P8+*,***.** each. E;cept for /immy Cabarles, all the rest of the accused posted bail at P4**,***.** each. 7n August 4(, 8(@(, the entire records of the case consisting of t!o hundred si;ty one %458. pages !ere transmitted to the Provincial Prosecutor of Masbate. &espondent Acting iscal Antonio C. Alfane !as designated to revie! the case. 7n September 44, 8(@(, iscal Alfane issued a &esolution !hich affirmed the finding of a prima facie case against the , /N

petitioners but differed in the designation of the crime in that he ruled that :;;; all of the accused should not only be charged !ith Multiple Murder ?ith rustrated Murder: but for a case of MG&DE& for each of the "illing of the four victims and a physical in<uries case for inflicting gunshot !ound on the buttoc"s of Dante Siblante.: %Anne; =B=, Comment of iscal Alfane, p. 8@5, &ollo, G.&. 'os. ()*+),+-. A motion to reconsider the &esolution filed by petitioners #icente $im, Sr. and Mayor Susana $im !as denied. 7n 7ctober E*, 8(@(, iscal Alfane filed !ith the &egional 0rial Court of Masbate, four %). separate informations of murder against the t!elve %84. accused !ith a recommendation of no bail. 7n 'ovember 48,8(@(, petitioners #icente $im, Sr. and Susana $im filed !ith us a verified petition for change of venue. %Case 'o. A.M. 'o. @(,88,84-*,M0C, formerly, G.&. 'os. (*+@-,(*.. 7n December 8), 8(@(, !e issued an en banc &esolution authori1ing the change of venue from the &egional 0rial Court of Masbate to the &egional 0rial Court of Ma"ati to avoid a miscarriage of <ustice, to !it9 :Acting on the petition for change of venue of the trial of Criminal Cases 'os. +@88, +@84, +@8E, and +@8) from the &egional 0rial Court, Masbate, Masbate to any of the &egional 0rial Courts at Hue1on City or Ma"ati, the Court &esolved to %a. G&A'0 the aforesaid petition for transfer of venue in order to avoid miscarriage of <ustice %Article #666, Section +%). of the Philippine Constitution.I %b. D6&EC0 the Cler" of Court, &egional 0rial Court, Masbate, Masbate to transmit the records of the aforesaid cases to the E;ecutive /udge, &egional 0rial Court, Ma"ati, for raffling among the other branches of the courtI and %c. 7&DE& the &egional 0rial Court of Masbate, Masbate to desist from further ta"ing cogni1ance of the said cases until such time that the petition is finally resolved.: 0he cases !ere raffled to 2ranch +5 presided by respondent /udge 'emesio S. eli;. Petitioners #icente $im, Sr. and Susana $im filed !ith the respondent court several motions and manifestations !hich in substance prayed for the follo!ing9 :8. An order be issued reAuiring the transmittal of the initial records of the preliminary inAuiry or investigation conducted by the Municipal /udge 2arsaga of Masbate for the best enlightenment of this Bonorable Court in its personal determination of the e;istence of a probable cause or prima facie evidence as !ell as its determination of the e;istence of guilt, pursuant to the mandatory mandate of the constitution that no !arrant shall issue unless the issuing magistrate shall have himself been personally convinced of such probable cause. 4. Movants be given ample opportunity to file their motion for preliminary investigation as a matter of rightI and E. 6n the event that this court may later be convinced of the e;istence of a probable cause, to be allo!ed to file a motion for reduction of bail or for admission of bail.: %p. 8-, &ollo, G.&. 'os. ()*+),+-.. 6n another manifestation, the $ims reiterated that the court conduct a hearing to determine if there really e;ists a prima facie case against them in the light of documents !hich are recantations of some !itnesses in the preliminary investigation. 0he motions and manifestations !ere opposed by the prosecution. 7n /uly +, 8((*, the respondent court issued an order denying for lac" of merit the motions and manifestations and issued !arrants of arrest against the accused including the petitioners herein. 0he respondent /udge said9 :6n the instant cases, the preliminary investigation !as conducted by the Municipal 0rial Court of Masbate, Masbate !hich found the e;istence of probable cause that the offense of multiple murder !as committed and that all the accused are probably guilty thereof, !hich !as affirmed upon revie! by the Provincial Prosecutor !ho properly filed !ith the &egional 0rial Court four separate informations for murder. Considering that both the t!o competent officers to !hom such duty !as entrusted by la! have declared the e;istence of probable cause, each information is complete in form and substance, and there is no visible defect on its face, this Court finds it <ust and proper to rely on the prosecutor=s certification in each information !hich reads9: %pp. 8(,4*, &ollo, G.&. 'os. ()*+),+-I Emphasis supplied. ;;; ;;; ;;; 0he petitioners then filed these consolidated petitions Auestioning the /uly +, 8((* 7rder. 6n a &esolution dated /uly 8-, 8((* in G.&. 'os. ()*+),+-, !e issued :;;; a 0EMP7&A&J &ES0&A6'6'G 7&DE&, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court, ordering the respondent <udge or his duly authori1ed representatives or agents to CEASE and DES6S0 from enforcing or implementing the !arrant of arrest !ithout bail issued against the petitioners in his 7rder dated /uly +, 8((* in Criminal Cases 'os. +@88,8).:

6n another &esolution dated /uly E8, 8((* in G.&. 'os. ()455,5(, !e resolved9 ;;; ;;;

;;;

:;;;0o 6SSGE !rits of %8. P&E$6M6'A&J MA'DA07&J 6'/G'C067', ordering and directing the respondent <udge to recallKset aside andKor annul the legal effects of the !arrants of arrest !ithout bail issued against and served upon herein petitioners /olly 0. ernande1, lorencio 0. ernande1, /r. and 'onilon 2agalihog and release them from confinement at PC,C6S Detention Center, Camp Crame, Hue1on CityI and %4. 0EMP7&A&J &ES0&A6'6'G 7&DE&, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court, ordering the respondent <udge or his duly authori1ed representatives or agents, to CEASE and DES6S0 from enforcing or implementing the !arrants of arrest !ithout bail issued against petitioners Mayors 'estor C. $im and Antonio 0. 3ho.: 0he primary issue in these consolidated petitions centers on !hether or not a <udge may issue a !arrant of arrest !ithout bail by simply relying on the prosecution=s certification and recommendation that a probable cause e;ists. 0his is not a novel Auestion. 6n the case of Placer v. #illanueva %845 SC&A )5E L8(@EM., !e ruled that a <udge may rely upon the fiscal=s certification of the e;istence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a !arrant of arrest. Bo!ever, the certification does not bind the <udge to come out !ith the !arrant of arrest. 0his decision interpreted the :search and sei1ure: provision of the 8(-E Constitution !hich provides9 :=; ; ; no search !arrant or !arrant of arrest shall issue e;cept upon probable cause to be determined by the <udge, or such other responsible officer as may authori1ed by la!, after e;amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the !itnesses he may produce ; ; ;.> ?e ruled9 :; ; ; 0he issuance of a !arrant is not a mere ministerial functionI it calls for the e;ercise of <udicial discretion on the part of the issuing magistrate. 0his is clear from the follo!ing provisions of Section 5, &ule 884 of the &ules of Court. ?arrant of arrest, !hen issued. , 6f the <udge be satisfied from the preliminary e;amination conducted by him or by the investigating officer that the offense complained of has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed it, he must issue a !arrant or order for his arrest. Gnder this section, the <udge must satisfy himself of the e;istence of probable cause before issuing a !arrant or order of arrest. 6f on the face of the information the <udge finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal=s certification and reAuire the submission of the affidavits of !itnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the e;istence of a probable cause. 0his has been the rule since G. S. v. 7campo %8@ Phil. 8. and Amarga v. Abbas %(@ Phil. -E(.. And this evidently is the reason for the issuance by respondent of the Auestioned orders of April 8E, 8+, 85, 8(, 8(@4 and /uly 8E, 8(@4. ?ithout the affidavits of the prosecution !itnesses and other evidence !hich, as a matter of long,standing practice had been attached to the information filed in his sala, respondent found the informations inadeAuate bases for the determination of probable cause. or as the ensuing events !ould sho!, after petitioners had submitted the reAuired affidavits, respondent !asted no time in issuing the !arrants of arrest in the case !here he !as satisfied that probable cause e;isted.: 0he case of Soliven v. Ma"asiar %85- SC&A E(E L8(@@M. !as decided after the effectivity of the 8(@- Constitution. ?e stated9 :0he second issue, raised by petitioner 2eltran, calls for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of !arrants of arrest. 0he pertinent provision reads9 NArt. 666, Sec. 4. 0he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and sei1ures of !hatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search !arrant or !arrant of arrest shall issue e;cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the <udge after e;amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the !itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei1ed.C 0he addition of the !ord NpersonallyC after the !ord =determined= and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 8(-E Constitution to issue !arrants to Nother respondent officers as may be authori1ed by la!C, has apparently convinced petitioner 2eltran that the Constitution no! reAuires the <udge to personally e;amine the complainant and his !itnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of !arrants of arrest. 0his is not an accurate interpretation. ?hat the Constitution underscores is the e;clusive and personal responsibility of the issuing <udge to satisfy himself of the e;istence of probable cause. 6n satisfying himself of the e;istence of probable cause for the issuance of a !arrant

of arrest, the <udge is not reAuired to personally e;amine the complainant and his !itnesses. ollo!ing established doctrine and procedures, he shall9 %8. personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the e;istence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a !arrant of arrestI or %4. if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscalCs report and reAuire the submission of supporting affidavits of !itnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the e;istence of probable cause. Sound policy dictates this procedure, other!ise <udges !ould be unduly laden !ith the preliminary e;aminations and investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts.: 0he decision in People v. Bonorable EnriAue 2. 6nting, et al. %G.&. 'o. @@(8(, /uly 4+, 8((*., reiterated the above interpretation of :personal: determination by the /udge9 :?e emphasi1e important features of the constitutional mandate that O; ; ; no search !arrant or !arrant of arrest shall issue e;cept upon probable cause to be determined personally the by <udge ; ; ;= %Article 666, Section 4, Constitution.. irst, the determination of probable cause is a function of the /udge. 6t is not for the Provincial iscal or Prosecutor nor for the Election Supervisor to ascertain. 7nly the /udge and the /udge alone ma"es this determination. Second, the preliminary inAuiry made by a Prosecutor does not bind the /udge. 6t merely assists him to ma"e the determination of probable cause. 0he /udge does not have to follo! !hat the Prosecutor presents to him. 2y itself, the Prosecutor=s certification of probable cause is ineffectual. 6t is the report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes %if any., and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor=s certification !hich are material in assisting the /udge to ma"e his determination. And third, /udges and Prosecutors ali"e should distinguish the preliminary inAuiry !hich determines probable cause for the issuance of a !arrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper !hich ascertains !hether the offender should be held for trial or released. Even if the t!o inAuiries are conducted in the course of one and the same proceeding, there should be no confusion about the ob<ectives. 0he determination of probable cause for the !arrant of arrest is made by the /udge. 0he preliminary investigation proper , !hether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and, therefore, !hether or not he should be sub<ected to the e;pense, rigors and embarrassment of trial , is the function of the Prosecutor. 0he Court made this clear in the case of Castillo v. #illalu1 %8-8 SC&A E( L8(@(M.9 O/udges of &egional 0rial Courts %formerly Courts of irst 6nstance. no longer have authority toC conduct preliminary investigations, 0hat authority, at one time reposed in them under Sections 8E, 8) and 85, &ule 884 of the &ules of Court of 8(5), %See Sec. ), &ule 8*@, &ules of Court of 8()*I People v. Solon, )- Phil. ))E, cited in Moran, Comments on the &ules, 8(@* ed., #ol. ), pp. 88+,885. !as removed from them by the 8(@+ &ules on Criminal Procedure, effective on /anuary 8, 8(@+, %Promulgated on 'ovember 88, 8(@). !hich deleted all provisions granting that po!er to said /udges. ?e had occasion to point this out in Salta v. Court of Appeals, 8)E SC&A 44@, and to stress as !ell certain other basic propositions, namely9 %8. that the conduct of a preliminary investigation is Nnot a <udicial function ; ; ; %but. part of the prosecution=s <ob, a function of the e;ecutive,C %4. that !henever Othere are enough fiscals or prosecutors to conduct preliminary investigations, courts are counseled to leave this <ob !hich is essentially e;ecutive to them,C and the fact Nthat a certain po!er is granted does not necessary mean that it should be indiscriminately e;ercised. 0he 8(@@ Amendments to the 8(@+ &ules on Criminal Procedure, declared effective on 7ctober 8, 8(@@, %0he 8(@@ Amendments !ere published in the issue of 2ulletin 0oday of 7ctober 4(, 8(@@. did not restore that authority to /udges of &egional 0rial CourtsI said amendments did not in fact deal at all !ith the officers or courts having authority to conduct preliminary investigations. 0his is not to say, ho!ever, that some!here along the line &0C /udges also lost the po!er to ma"e a preliminary e;amination for the purpose of determining !hether probable cause e;ists to <ustify the issuance of a !arrant of arrest %or search !arrant.. Such a po!er ,, indeed, it is as much a duty as it is a po!er ,, has been and remains vested in every <udge by the provisions in the 2ill of &ights in the 8(E+, the 8(-E and the present L8(@-M Constitutions securing the people against unreasonable searches and sei1ures, thereby placing it beyond the competence of mere Court &ule or Statute to revo"e. 0he distinction must, therefore, be made clear !hile an &0C /udge may no longer conduct preliminary investigations to ascertain !hether there is sufficient ground for the filing of a criminal complaint or information, he retains the authority, !hen such a pleading is filed !ith his court, to determine !hether there is

probable cause <ustifying the issuance of a !arrant of arrest. 6t might be added that this distinction accords, rather than conflicts, !ith the rationale of Salta because both la! and rule, in restricting to <udges the authority to order arrest, recogni1e the function to be <udicial in nature.C ?e reiterate that preliminary investigation should be distinguished as to !hether it is an investigation for the determination of a sufficient ground for the filing of the information or it is an investigation for the determination of a probable cause for the issuance of !arrant of arrest. 0he first "ind of preliminary investigation is e;ecutive in nature. 6t is part of the prosecution=s <ob. 0he second "ind of preliminary investigation !hich is more properly called preliminary e;amination is <udicial in nature and is lodged !ith the /udge. ; ; ;.: inally in the recent case of People v. Delgado, et al. %G. &. 'os. (E)8(,E4, September 8@, 8((*. there is a statement that the <udge may rely on the resolution of C7ME$EC to file the information by the same to"en that it may rely on the certification made by the prosecutor !ho conducted the preliminary investigation in the issuance of the !arrant of arrest. ?e, ho!ever, also reiterated that :; ; ; the court may reAuire that the record of the preliminary investigation be submitted to it to satisfy itself that there is probable cause !hich !ill !arrant the issuance of a !arrant of arrest.: %Section 4, Article 666, Constitution.. &eliance on the C7ME$EC resolution or the Prosecutor=s certification presupposes that the records of either the C7ME$EC or the Prosecutor have been submitted to the /udge and he relies on the certification or resolution because the records of the investigation sustain the recommendation. 0he !arrant issues not on the strength of the certification standing alone but because of the records !hich sustain it. 6t is obvious from the present petition that not!ithstanding the above decisions, some /udges are still bound by the inertia of decisions and practice under the 8(E+ and 8(-E Constitutions and are sadly confused or hesitant. Prosecutors are also interested in a clear cut ruling. ?e !ill, therefore, restate the rule in greater detail and hopefully clearer terms. 0here is no problem !ith search !arrants !hich are relatively fe!er and far bet!een and !here there is no duplication of !or" bet!een the /udge and the Prosecutor. 0he problem lies !ith !arrants of arrest especially in metropolitan or highly urban areas. 6f a <udge has to personally Auestion each complainant and !itness or go over the records of the Prosecutor=s investigation page by page and !ord for !ord before he acts on each of a big pile of applications for arrest !arrants on his des", he or she may have no more time for his or her more important <udicial functions. At the same time, the /udge cannot ignore the clear !ords of the 8(@- Constitution !hich reAuires :; ; ; probable cause to be personally determined by the /udge ; ; ;:, not by any other officer or person. 6f a /udge relies solely on the certification of the Prosecutor as in this case !here all the records of the investigation are in Masbate, he or she has not personally determined probable cause. 0he determination is made by the Provincial Prosecutor. 0he constitutional reAuirement has not been satisfied. 0he /udge commits a grave abuse of discretion. 0he records of the preliminary investigation conducted by the Municipal Court of Masbate and revie!ed by the respondent iscal !ere still in Masbate !hen the respondent iscal issued the !arrants of arrest against the petitioners. 0here !as no basis for the respondent /udge to ma"e his o!n personal determination regarding the e;istence of a probable cause for the issuance of a !arrant of arrest as mandated by the Constitution. Be could not possibly have "no!n !hat transpired in Masbate as he had nothing but a certification. Significantly, the respondent /udge denied the petitionersC motion for the transmittal of the records on the ground that the mere certification and recommendation of the respondent iscal that a probable cause e;ists is sufficient for him to issue a !arrant of arrest. ?e reiterate the ruling in Soliven v. Ma"asiar that the /udge does not have to personally e;amine the complainant and his !itnesses. 0he Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a commissioner for the ta"ing of the evidence. Bo!ever, there should be a report and necessary documents supporting the iscal=s bare certification. All of these should be before the /udge. 0he e;tent of the /udge=s personal e;amination of the report and its anne;es depends on the circumstances of each case. ?e cannot determine beforehand ho! cursory or e;haustive the /udge=s e;amination should be. 0he /udge has to e;ercise sound discretion for, after all, the personal determination is vested in the /udge by the Constitution. 6t can be as brief or as detailed as the circumstances of each case reAuire. 0o be sure, the /udge must go beyond the Prosecutor=s certification and investigation report !henever necessary. Be should call for the complainant and !itnesses themselves to ans!er the court=s probing Auestions !hen circumstances of the case so reAuire. 6t is !orthy to note that petitioners #icente $im, Sr. and Susana $im presented to the respondent /udge documents of

recantation of !itnesses !hose testimonies !ere used to establish a prima facie case against them. Although, the general rule is that recantations are not given much !eight in the determination of a case and in the granting of a ne! trial %0an Ang 2un v. Court of Appeals, et al. G. &. 'o. $,)--)-, ebruary 8+, 8((*, People v. $ao ?an Sing, )5 SC&A 4(@ L8(-4M. the respondent /udge before issuing his o!n !arrants of arrest should, at the very least, have gone over the records of the preliminary e;amination conducted earlier in the light of the evidence no! presented by the concerned !itnesses in vie! of the :political undertones: prevailing in the cases. Even the Solicitor General recogni1ed the significance of the recantations of some !itnesses !hen he recommends a reinvestigation of the cases, to !it9 :6t must be pointed out, ho!ever, that among the documents attached to this Petition are Oaffidavits of recantation subseAuently e;ecuted by /immy Cabarles and Danilo $o1ano and an affidavit e;ecuted by one, Camilo Sanano, father of the complainantCs !itnesses, &enato and &omeo Sanano. 6t !as precisely on the strength of these earlier !ritten statements of these !itnesses that the Municipal 0rial Court of Masbate found the e;istence of a prima facie case against petitioners and accordingly recommended the filing of a Criminal 6nformation. Evidently, the same !ritten statements !ere also the very basis of the = iscal=s Certification=, since the attached affidavits of recantation !ere not yet then available. Since the credibility of the prosecution !itnesses is no! assailed and put in issue and, since the petitioners have not yet been arraigned, it !ould be to the broader interest of <ustice and fair play if a reinvestigation of this case be had to secure the petitioners against hasty prosecution and to protect them from an open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble, e;pense and an;iety of a public trial, and also to protect the State from useless and e;pensive trials %Salonga v. PaPo, G. &. 'o. +(+4), ebruary 8@, 8(@+.. %&ollo of G. &. 'os. ()*+),+5, pp. 4**, 4*8. ?e reiterate that in ma"ing the reAuired personal determination, a /udge is not precluded from relying on the evidence earlier gathered by responsible officers. 0he e;tent of the reliance depends on the circumstances of each case and is sub<ect to the /udge=s sound discretion. Bo!ever, the /udge abuses that discretion !hen having no evidence before him, he issues a !arrant of arrest. 6ndubitably, the respondent /udge committed a grave error !hen he relied solely on the Prosecutor=s certification and issued the Auestioned 7rder dated /uly +, 8((* !ithout having before him any other basis far his personal determination of the e;istence of a probable cause. ?BE&E 7&E, the instant petitions are hereby G&A'0ED. 0he Auestioned 7rder of respondent /udge 'emesio S. eli; of 2ranch +5, &egional 0rial Court of Ma"ati dated /uly +, 8((* is declared 'G$$ and #76D and SE0 AS6DE. 0he 0emporary &estraining 7rders and Preliminary Mandatory 6n<unction issued in the instant Petitions are made PE&MA'E'0. S7 7&DE&ED. Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Hererra, Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea , and Re alado, JJ., concur. !ar"ien#o, J., no part, the victim !as a close friend and compadre.