PEOPLE v.

GREY

GR. no. 180109 July 26, 2010

Facts: An Information for Murder was filed against respondent Joseph Grey, former Mayor
of San Jorge, Samar; his son, respondent Francis Grey; and two others for the death of
Rolando Diocton before the RTC of Gandara, Samar. The Information was accompanied by
other supporting documents and a motion for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Meanwhile,
Presiding Judge Rosario Bandal denied the motion for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
Judge Bandal found the prosecutions evidence to be insufficient to link respondents to the
crime charged. She directed the prosecution to present, within five days, additional
evidence. Later, the judge inhibited. Thereafter, the venue was changed and Judge
Naviadad continued the proceedings of the case. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari
seeking TRO and preliminary injunction alleging that the filing of the murder charge are
based on perjured statements since Joseph Grey announced his candidacy for the
Congressional election. The CA held that Judge Naviadad failed to abide with the
constitutional mandate of personally examining the existence of probable cause. Thus, this
petition.

Issue: Whether or not Judge Naviadad erred in personally examining for the existence of
probable cause.

Ruling: No.

What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the
issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause.

In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant
of arrest, 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 fiscal regarding the existence of
probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis
thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals 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. He should not rely solely on the report of the investigating
prosecutor. It is not mandatory in the determination of probable cause for the issuance of the
warrant of arrest.

In this case, the judge, upon his personal examination of the complaint and evidence
before him, determined that there was probable cause to issue the warrants of arrest after
the provincial prosecution, based on the affidavits presented by complainant and her
witnesses, found probable cause to file the criminal Information. This finding of the Provincial
Prosecutor was affirmed by the Secretary of Justice.