Amarga vs Abbas

Facts: The respondent Judge, Macapanton Abbas, after receiving An information with a certification
stating that the petitioner fiscal, Amarga has conducted a sufficient preliminary investigation pursuant
to the provision of RA 732, and2) One supporting affidavit of one witness (Jubair) stating that he saw the
deceased Dugusan Paspasan was shot and killed by three gunmen, Dismissed the criminal handled by
the petitioner against Appang et. al on the ground that;

1. The affidavit of Jubair is hearsay and does not possess gravity for the establishment of the existence
of probable cause.

2. So as the certification of the petitioner fiscal wont warrant the existence of probable cause.
Therefore, there can be no prima facie evidence as to necessity for the issuance of warrant of arrest
against the accused. Thus, the petitioner filed a petitioner for certiorari and mandamus contending that
petitioner has already conducted a preliminary examination and thus it is ministerial function for the
respondent to issue arrest warrants. Upon the other hand, the respondent judge argues that the
issuance of a warrant of arrest involves a judicial power which necessarily imposes upon him the legal
duty of first satisfying himself that there is probable cause, independently of and notwithstanding the
preliminary investigation made by the provincial fiscal under Republic Act No. 732; and to that end he
may require the fiscal to submit such evidence as may be sufficient to show at least a prima facie case.

Issue: Whether or not the certification of a prosecutor is sufficient to issue a warrant of arrest.

Held: No. The constitution mandates that the determination of probable cause depends upon the
judgment and discretion of the judge or magistrate in issuing warrant of arrest. It simply means that
sufficient facts must be presented to the judge or magistrate issuing the warrant to convince him, not
that the particular person has committed the crime, but that there is probable cause for believing that
the person whose arrest is sought committed the crime charged. In the case at bar, the petitioner’s
certification that he had already conducted a preliminary investigation in the case does not sufficiently
warrant the existence of probable cause. Nor the single affidavit submitted to the respondent as it is not
enough for the respondent judge to exercise his judicial function to determine the existence of probable
cause. However, the petition is granted to continue the hearing of the case in the ground of lack of
prosecution and that refusal of the prosecution to submit additional affidavit is not a valid ground for
the dismissal of a case.

Amarga v. Abbas 98 Phil. 739 (1956)

Facts: Municipal Judge Samulde conducted a preliminary investigation of Arangale upon acomplaint for
robbery filed by complainant Magbanua, alleging that Arangale harvested palay from a portion of her
land directly adjoining Arangale’s land. After the PI, Samulde transmitted the records of the case to
Provincial Fiscal Salvani with his finding that “there is prima facie evidence of robbery as charged in the
complaint”. Fiscal Salvani returned the records to Judge Samulde on the ground that the transmittal of
the records was “premature” because Judge Samulde failed to include the warrant of arrest (WA)
against the accused. Judge Samulde sentthe records back to Fiscal Salvani stating that although he found
that a probable cause existed, he did not believe that Arangale should be arrested. Fiscal Salvani filed a
mandamus case against Judge Samulde to compel him to issue a WA. RTC dismissed the petition on the
ground that the fiscal had not shown that he has a clear, legal right to the performance of the act to be
required of the judge and that the latter had an imperative duty to perform it. Nevertheless, Judge
Samulde was ordered to issue a WA in accordance with Sec. 5, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not it is mandatory for the investigating judge to issue a WA of the accused in view of
his finding, after conducting a PI, that there exists prima facie evidence that the accused committed the
crime charged.

Ruling: THE PURPOSE OF A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION DOES NOTCONTEMPLATE THE ISSUANCE OF A

WA BY THE INVESTIGATING JUDGE OROFFICER. Under Rule 112 of the 1985 ROC, a PI is conducted on
the basis of affidavits to determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the accused for
trial. To determine whether a WA should issue, the investigating judge must have examined in writing
and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching questions and answers; he must be
satisfied that a probable cause exists; and there must be a need to place the accused under immediate
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. It is not obligatory, but merely discretionary, upon
the investigating judge to issue a WA, for the determination of whether it is necessary to arrest the
accused in order not to frustrate the ends of justice, is left to his sound judgment or discretion. The fiscal
should, instead, have filed an information immediately so that the RTC may issue a warrant for the
arrest of the accused.

(I don’t know which is which paki edit to langen kabsat!) 