FACTS:

The case involves two consolidated petitions for certiorari challenging the Sandiganbayan's resolution allowing a judge to issue a warrant of arrest solely based on the report and recommendation of the investigating prosecutor, without personally examining the evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation.

On August 8, 1991, a complaint was filed against several respondents for alleged violation of Republic Act 3019. The respondents submitted their counter-affidavits with supporting documents, and two resolutions were submitted by different prosecutors. One prosecutor recommended charges against one respondent, while another prosecutor recommended charges against two respondents for a different offense. The modified resolution was approved by the Ombudsman, and the petitioners were charged accordingly. The Sandiganbayan issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioners based on the information and the attached resolutions filed by the Ombudsman.

The petitioners questioned the issuance of the warrant, claiming that the Sandiganbayan violated the Constitution and settled jurisprudence by relying solely on the information and resolution without other supporting evidence. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, stating that it considered the facts and evidence appearing in the resolution/memorandum of the investigators/prosecutors in determining probable cause. The petitioners argued that a judge must have sufficient evidence submitted by the parties to support their determination of probable cause and the issuance of an arrest warrant. They cited the case of People vs. Inting, which held that the judge should have all relevant supporting documents to make a proper determination.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the judges have the exclusive and personal responsibility to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

2. Whether the judge is required to personally examine the complainant and witnesses to determine probable cause.

3. Whether the judge can rely on the prosecutor's certification of probable cause.

4. Whether the judge's determination of probable cause should go beyond the prosecutor's certification and investigation report.

5. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan judge personally determined the existence of probable cause before issuing the warrant of arrest against the petitioners.

6. Whether or not the reliance of the Sandiganbayan on the information, resolution, and memorandum of the investigating officer and prosecutor is sufficient to justify the issuance of the warrant of arrest.

7. Whether the judge can rely solely on the report of the prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

8. What documents should the judge examine to make an independent judgment on the existence of probable cause.

9. Whether or not the warrant issued by the Sandiganbayan for the arrest of the petitioners is valid.

RULING:

1. Yes, judges have the exclusive and personal responsibility to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

2. No, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and witnesses to determine probable cause.

3. Yes, the judge can rely on the prosecutor's certification of probable cause, but there should be a report and necessary documents supporting the certification.

4. Yes, the judge's determination of probable cause should go beyond the prosecutor's certification and investigation report, and the judge may call the complainant and witnesses to answer probing questions when necessary.

5. The Sandiganbayan judge did not personally determine the existence of probable cause before issuing the warrant of arrest against the petitioners.

6. The reliance of the Sandiganbayan on the information, resolution, and memorandum of the investigating officer and prosecutor is not sufficient to justify the issuance of the warrant of arrest.

7. The judge cannot rely solely on the report of the prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The judge must decide independently and have supporting evidence, other than the prosecutor's report, upon which to legally sustain his own findings on the existence or nonexistence of probable cause.

8. The judge is not required to examine the complete or entire records of the case during the preliminary investigation. What is required is that the judge must have sufficient supporting documents (such as the complaint, affidavits, counter-affidavits, sworn statements of witnesses or transcripts of stenographic notes, if any) upon which to make his independent judgment, or at the very least, upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause.

9. The Court held that the warrant of arrest issued by the Sandiganbayan is null and void. The Court found that the Sandiganbayan relied solely on the findings and recommendation of the Ombudsman in determining the existence of probable cause, without independently evaluating the evidence. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause should be made by a judge based on his own examination of the evidence and not solely on the recommendations of the Ombudsman.

PRINCIPLES:

• The judge has the exclusive and personal responsibility to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

• The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and witnesses to determine probable cause.

• The judge may rely on the prosecutor's certification of probable cause, but there should be supporting documents and records.

• The judge's determination of probable cause should go beyond the prosecutor's certification and investigation report, and may involve questioning the complainant and witnesses when necessary.

• An arrest warrant can only be issued if there are facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. The judge must personally evaluate the evidence to determine probable cause.

• The judge is not tasked to review in detail the evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation. It is sufficient that he personally evaluates such evidence in determining probable cause.

• The judge merely determines the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of the accused and does not need to conduct a de novo hearing.

• The judge should have access to the records and evidence supporting the prosecutor's finding of probable cause.

• The approval of the Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor is not enough to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The judge must personally determine the existence of probable cause based on the evidence presented.

• The determination of probable cause by the prosecutor is different from that which is made by the judge.

• The judge must determine personally and independently the existence or nonexistence of probable cause in the issuance of warrants of arrest.

• The judge cannot rely solely and entirely on the prosecutor's recommendation.

• The judge must have sufficient supporting documents upon which to make his independent judgment on the existence of probable cause.

• The judge is not required to examine the complete records of the case, but at least have the necessary supporting documents.

• Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest should be determined by a judge based on his own examination of the evidence, not solely on the recommendations of the Ombudsman.

• A warrant of arrest that is issued solely based on the findings and recommendation of the Ombudsman, without an independent evaluation of the evidence by the issuing judge, is null and void.