FACTS:

During the height of the MILF rebellion and Mindanao armed conflict in the 1990s, a complaint for murder was filed against the petitioners and six other individuals. The complaint alleged that the petitioners paid the six respondents an amount for the murder of Abdul Dimalen. The Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents, finding no prima facie case against them. Only one respondent, Kasan Mama, was recommended for murder charges. However, additional evidence submitted during the investigation led to the recommendation of murder charges against the petitioners and three other respondents. The former prosecutor recused himself and authorized the investigating prosecutor to proceed without his approval. Based on this, an information for murder was filed against the petitioners and others, and a warrant of arrest was issued by the respondent judge. The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest and disqualify the respondent judge from hearing the case. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order to halt the implementation of the warrant of arrest and further proceedings in the case.

In their petition, the petitioners argued that the respondent judge was orchestrating the murder charge against them and exhibited extreme hostility. They cited instances where the respondent judge allegedly issued illegal orders in another case and claimed that he illegally released municipal funds. The Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao found sufficient basis to proceed with the preliminary investigation of the case filed by the petitioners against the respondent judge and others. The petitioners also alleged that the respondent judge berated petitioner Bai Unggie Abdula in open court. The respondent judge denied the allegations and claimed that the complaint was a harassment suit. The court noted that the issue of disqualification was moot as the respondent judge was no longer hearing the case. The court emphasized that clear and convincing evidence of bias and prejudice is necessary to disqualify a judge.

The petitioners also argued that the respondent judge's order for reinvestigation showed bias and prejudice against them. However, the court found that the timing of the complaint filed by the petitioners with the Ombudsman negated their claim of retaliation by the respondent judge. The court further stated that a judge has authority to order a reinvestigation even after the provincial prosecutor's dismissal of the case, if deemed necessary. Therefore, the petitioners' argument of bias and prejudice due to the reinvestigation order was without merit.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the respondent judge should be disqualified from proceeding with the case on the ground of bias and prejudice.

2. Whether the respondent judge had the authority to order a reinvestigation of the murder charge against the petitioners.

3. Whether the information charging the petitioners with murder is null and void because it was filed without the authority of the provincial prosecutor.

4. Whether or not the warrant of arrest issued by the respondent judge is legal.

5. Whether or not the respondent judge violated the guidelines set forth in Allado vs. Diokno.

6. Whether the judge must independently determine the existence of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest.

7. Whether the judge is required to examine the complete records of the case during the preliminary investigation.

RULING:

1. The issue of whether the respondent judge should be disqualified from the case has been rendered moot and academic as he is no longer hearing the case against the petitioners. It is sufficient to say that in order to disqualify a judge on the ground of bias and prejudice, the petitioner must prove the same by clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proof lies with the petitioner, and in this case, the petitioners failed to discharge this burden. The Supreme Court requires clear and convincing evidence of acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before disqualification on the ground of bias and prejudice can be made.

2. The respondent judge did not abuse his discretion in ordering a reinvestigation of the murder charge. The records show that the complaint against the respondent judge was filed after he issued the order for reinvestigation, which indicates that the order could not have been a retaliatory act. Furthermore, the respondent judge did not unduly interfere with the prosecutor's duty to conduct a preliminary investigation. The judge's order merely directed the return of the records to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation or reinvestigation, and it was still the prosecutor who had the final say in determining whom to include in the information.

3. The information charging the petitioners with murder is not null and void. While it is true that the information was not approved by the provincial prosecutor, the filing of the information without his approval was authorized. The resolution and information contain a notation by the provincial prosecutor stating that he is inhibiting himself from the case and authorizing the investigating prosecutor to dispose of the case without his approval. This authorization is sufficient compliance with the requirement of the Rules of Court.

4. The Supreme Court found merit in the contention of the petitioners and ruled that the warrant of arrest issued by the respondent judge is not legal. The Court emphasized that the 1987 Constitution requires the judge to determine probable cause "personally." This means that the judge must personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. The Court further stated that the judge cannot solely rely on the report of the prosecutor in finding probable cause, and must conduct an independent evaluation. The Court also ruled that the respondent judge violated the guidelines set forth in Allado vs. Diokno, as he did not personally examine the evidence and did not issue an order stating the existence of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest.

5. Yes, the judge must independently determine the existence of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest. The judge cannot solely rely on the prosecutor's recommendation. The judge must 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. The responsibility of determining personally and independently the existence or nonexistence of probable cause is mandated by the Constitution.

6. No, it is not required that the complete or entire records of the case during the preliminary investigation be submitted to and examined by the judge. What is required is that the judge must have sufficient supporting documents 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.

PRINCIPLES:

• A judge can be disqualified on the ground of bias and prejudice if such bias and prejudice are proven by clear and convincing evidence.

• A judge does not abuse discretion in ordering a reinvestigation of a criminal charge as long as there is no undue interference with the prosecutor's duty to conduct a preliminary investigation.

• The authority or approval of the provincial, city, or chief state prosecutor is required for the filing of a complaint or information, but this authority or approval can be delegated or authorized to another prosecutor.

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

• The judge is required to personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause.

• The judge cannot solely rely on the report of the prosecutor in finding probable cause and must conduct an independent evaluation.

• The determination of probable cause by the prosecutor is for a different purpose than that of the judge in issuing a warrant of arrest.

• The judge must comply with the requirement of the Constitution to determine probable cause personally.

• The judge must independently determine the existence of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest.

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

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

• It is not required for the judge to examine the complete records of the case during the preliminary investigation.