DOCTRINE:

No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable

cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.
NATALIO P. AMARGA, provincial fiscal of Sulu, Petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE MACAPANTON ABBAS, as Judge, of the Court of First
Instance of Sulu, Respondent.
G.R. No. L-8666
March 28, 1956
PARAS, C.J.:
NATURE OF CASE
Petition for certiorari and mandamus
FACTS
Natalio P. Amarga, the Provincial Fiscal of Sulu, filed in the Court of First
Instance of Sulu an information for murder (criminal case 1131, People of
the Philippines vs. Madpirol, Awadi, Rajah, Sali, Insa and Maharajah
Bapayani). At the foot of the information, Amarga certified under oath that
"he has conducted the necessary preliminary investigation pursuant to the
provisions of Republic Act 732."
As the only supporting affidavit was that of Iman Hadji Rohmund Jubair, to
the effect that the latter "was told that the deceased was shot and killed
by three persons named: Hajirul Appang, Rajah Appang and Awadi Bagali,"
and Amarga had failed or refused to present other evidence sufficient to
make out a prima facie case, Judge Macapanton Abbas (CFI of Sulu) issued
an order, dismissing the case without prejudice to reinstatement should
the provincial fiscal support his information with record of his investigation
which in the opinion of the court may support a prima facie case. Amarga

instituted a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Supreme

Court.
ISSUE OF THE CASE:
Whether the preliminary investigation conducted by Amarga dispenses
with the judges duty to determine probable cause exists before issuing the
corresponding warrant of arrest.
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS
Section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of the Constitution provides that "no
warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce." The question whether "probable cause"
exists or not must depend upon the judgment and discretion of the judge
or magistrate issuing the warrant. If he is satisfied that "probable cause"
exists from the facts stated in the complaint, made upon the investigation
by the prosecuting attorney, then his conclusion is sufficient upon which to
issue the warrant for arrest. He may, however, if he is not satisfied, call
such witnesses as he may deem necessary before issuing the warrant. The
issuance of the warrant of arrest is prima facie evidence that, in his
judgment at least, there existed "probable cause" for believing that the
person against whom the warrant is issued is guilty of the crime charged.
The preliminary investigation conducted by Amarga under Republic Act
732 which formed the basis for the filing in the Court of First Instance of
Sulu of criminal case 1131 does not dispense with the judge's duty to
exercise his judicial power of determining, before issuing the corresponding
warrant of arrest, whether or not probable cause exists therefor. The
Constitution vests such power in the judge who, however, may rely on the
facts stated in the information filed after preliminary investigation by the
prosecuting attorney.
SUPREME COURT RULING:
Wherefore, the petition is granted and the Respondent Judge ordered to
proceed with criminal case No. 1131 in accordance with law, it being
understood that, if within ten days after notice by the Respondent Judge,
the Petitioner still fails or refuses to present other necessary evidence, the
dismissal will stand for lack of prosecution. Without costs.