Download viudez-v.-ca PDF

Titleviudez-v.-ca
TagsComplaint Certiorari Probable Cause Arrest Arrest Warrant
File Size38.4 KB
Total Pages3
Document Text Contents
Page 1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_152889_2009.html#fnt6

Page 2

W/N a pending resolution of a petition for review filed with the Secretary of Justice
concerning a finding of probable cause will suspend the proceedings in the
trialcourt, including the implementation of a warrant of arrest.

HELD:

Petitioner's contention is wrong.The task of the presiding judge when the
Information is filed with the court is firstand foremost to determine the existence or
non-existence of probable cause for thearrest of the accused…

The purpose of the mandate of the judge to first determine probable cause for the
arrest of the accused is to insulate from the very start those falsely charged with
crimes from the tribulations, expenses and anxiety of a public trial.

The function of the judge to issue a warrant of arrest upon the determination
of probable cause is exclusive; thus, the consequent implementation of a warrant of
arrest cannot be deferred pending the resolution of a petition for review by the
Secretary of Justice as to the finding of probable cause, a function that
is executive in nature. To defer the implementation of the warrant of arrest would be
an encroachment on the exclusive prerogative of the judge.
Nowhere in the said provision does it state that the court must hold theproceedings
in abeyance. Therfore, the discretion of the court whether or not to suspend the
proceedings or the implementation of the warrant of arrest, upon the motion of the
appellant or the trial prosecutor, remains unhindered. This is in consonance with the
earlier ruling of this Court that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any
disposition of the case as to its dismissal, or the conviction or acquittal of the
accused, rests on the sound discretion of the said court, as it is the best and sole
judge of what to do with the case before
it.The factual antecedents in Ledesma, Solar Team Entertainment, Inc,., Dimatulac
and Marcelo clearly show that a common issue among them is whether the
arraignment of an accused may be deferred pending resolution by the Secretary
of Justice of a petition for review on the finding of probable cause, to which this
Court ruled in the affirmative. Nowhere in the said decisions did it state that the
implementation
or enforcement of the warrant of arrest was also deferred or suspended, as herein
petitioner prays for. WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari with prayer for
the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction
dated April 25, 2002is

DENIED

-- the petition for review, for lack of merit; and the issuance of TRO
and/or preliminary injunction, for being moot and academic. *

Similer Documents