PEOPLE V. CA GR 126005 JAN.

21, 1999
Facts: Jonathan Cerbo was charged in an information for murder in connection with the
fatal shooting of Rosalinda Dy inside the office of his father, Billy Cerbo. The information
was amended to include Billy Cerbo as one of the accused and a warrant for his rrest
was correspondingly issued. Respondent judge, in a motion to quash warrant of arrest,
dismissed the
case against Billy for insufficiency of evidence, recalled the warrant issued, and ordered
the prosecution to withdraw its amended information and to file a new one charging
Jonathan Cerbo only. The private prosecutor's motion for reconsideration was denied,
hence, his resort to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, in affirming the trial court
held that the trial court RTC has authority to reverse the prosecutor's finding of probable
cause and dismiss the
information on the ground that the evidence presented did not substantiate the charge.

Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that no probable cause exists to
merit the filing of charges against private respondent Billy Cerbo.

Ruling: Yes. The determination of probable cause to hold a person for trial is a function
that belongs to the public prosecutor. It is an executive function, the
correctness of the exercise of which is a matter that the trial court itself does not and
may not be compelled to pass upon. The judge should not override
the public prosecutor's determination of probable cause on the ground that the evidence
presented to substantiate the issuance of a warrant of arrest was
insufficient. As a general rule, if the information is valid on its face and there is no
showing of manifest error, grave abuse of discretion or prejudice on the
part of the public prosecutor, courts should not dismiss it for want of evidence because
evidentiary matters should be presented and heard during the trial.

CAJIPE VS. PEOPLE April 23, 2014, 723 SCRA 615

ABAD, J.

FACTS: Lilian De Vera alleged that the PNP Special Action Force (SAF) and Highway
Patrol Group (HPG) conspired to carry out a plan to shoot and kill her husband Jun and
daughter Lia. In December 2008, Lilian called her husband to meet them in Pasay. She
got to the place but her husband and daughter did not show up. Their housekeeper
called her to inform her that her husband and daughter was involved in a shoot out in
their village. Jun was shot dead on the head and Lia, the 7-year old daughter died in the
hospital as she was rushed due to a head wound caused by a gunshot. In December
2009, the DOJ found probable cause to indict all the police officers involved in the shoot
out. The RTC dismissed the case against the HPG officers for lack of probable cause;
while the court issued a warrant of arrest for the SAF officers for finding a probable
cause. Before the CA, the court appreciated the affidavits of witnesses stating that the
HPG officers joined the SAF officers in pursuing and shooting of Jun while bringing Lia
to a safer place. Thus, it issued warrants of arrest for the HPG officers. The CA denied
the motions to quash these warrants, hence this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in issuing the warrants of arrest for the HPG
officers.

HELD: YES. The CA clearly erred in not denying the petition for being a wrong remedy.
The fact, is that Section 1, Rule 122 of the same rules provides that an appeal may be
taken in a criminal action from a judgment or final order like the RTC's order dismissing
the case against petitioner HPG officers for lack of probable cause. It is a final order
since it disposes of the case, terminates the proceedings, and leaves the court with
nothing further to do with respect to the case against petitioner HPG officers.
Since the OSG filed its petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on behalf of the People 112
days from receipt of the dismissal order by the city prosecutor of Parañaque, the petition
was filed out of time. The order of dismissal is thus beyond appellate review.
Of course, the People may refile the case if new evidence adduced in another
preliminary investigation will support the filing of a new information against them. But
that is another matter.
The RTC judge was within his powers to dismiss the case against petitioner HPG
officers. Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the judge
"may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause." The CA should have denied the People's petition for special civil action
of certiorari that assails the correctness of the order of dismissal since Section 1 of Rule
65 provides that such action is available only when "there is no appeal, or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."

PANGANDAMAN vs CASAR
G.R. No. 71782, April 14, 1988

Facts: The shooting incident by armed men in Lanao led to the issuance of a warrant of
arrest. Petitioners assert that the respondent Judge issued a warrant of arrest against
fifty (50) “John Does” transgressing the Constitutional provision requiring that such
warrants should particularly describe the persons or things to be seized.

Issue:  Whether said warrant is valid

Held: No.
Insofar as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) “John Does” not one of whom the
witnesses to the complaint could or would identify, it is of the nature of a general
warrant, one of a class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and once
anathematized as “totally subversive of the liberty of the subject.”[30] Clearly violative of
the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the
person or persons to be seized,[31]  the warrant must, as regards its unidentified
subjects, be voided.
WHEREFORE,  the warrant complained of is upheld and declared valid insofar as it
orders the arrest of the petitioners. Said warrant is voided to the extent that it is issued
against fifty (50) “John Does.” The respondent Judge is directed to forward to the
Provincial Fiscal of Lanao del Sur the record of the preliminary investigation of the
complaint in Criminal Case No. 1748 of his court for further appropriate action.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENANTE MENDEZ and

BABY CABAGTONG [G.R. No. 147671. November 21, 2002]

Facts:
Rico Dolim is the father of the victim. He testified that, in the morning of December 8,
1996, Candy Dolim, then 13 years old, left their house to collect bets on the PBA ending
games from the local residents. When she did not return home that evening, Rico asked
his father Ambrosio and his daughter Jinky to look for Candy, but they did not find her.
On December 12, 1996, word reached Rico that a young girl was found dead in Sitio
Tinotogasan. Rico immediately went to the place and found the lifeless body of Candy.
Her panty and shorts were hanging from an ankle, while her shirt was rolled up to her
throat. She had wounds in different parts of her body. o Rico sought the help of the
police and Barangay Captain Pedro Gomba. Having heard that a certain Ronnie
Cabagtong was involved in the killing of his daughter, Rico filed a complaint against
Ronnie, who was then investigated by the police. While Ronnie was under investigation
at the police headquarters, his mother, Aurea
Cabagtong, came to the station. She told Rico Dolim that she knew what actually
happened to Candy and offered to be a witness. Aurea
Cabagtong pointed to accused appellants Baby Cabagtong and
Renante Mendez as the perpetrators of the crime. o According to Ronnie, he was about
three meters away when he later saw accused-appellants. Renante Mendez was on top
of Candy, having sexual intercourse with her, while Baby Cabagtong was holding the
victim's hands. It was raining and there was no moonlight, but Ronnie said he
recognized Renante and Baby because of a lantern which illuminated the place.
According to Ronnie, he proceeded home and, at about 9 o'clock that night, he heard
someone calling from the outside. It was accused-appellants Renante Mendez and
Baby Cabagtong. Ronnie said he asked his mother to let the two inside their house. He
noticed that they had bloodstains on their shirts. He said the two washed their clothes to
remove the stains and later slept in his room. They warned Ronnie not to tell anyone
about what he saw or else they would kill him and his family. Ronnie said that he and
accused-appellants then went to sleep. The next morning, accused-appellants left. On
cross-examination, SPO2
Cernio told the court that the arrest of accused-appellant Renante
Mendez without a warrant was based on their knowledge of his guilt. He claimed that
they had released accused-appellant Renante Mendez from custody, but he did not
want to leave because he was afraid of getting involved in the case. Magno Mejica
arrested Rene "Baby" Cabagtong, also without a warrant, based on the citizens' arrest
law. Mejica knew about the case because he was from Barangay Burabud and a
member of the Citizens' Crime Watch and an NPA surrenderee. The trial court found the
evidence for the prosecution, particularly the testimonies of Ronnie Cabagtong and his
mother, credible and rendered judgment for the prosecution.

Issue:
Whether Or Not the warrantless arrest of accused Renante Mendez and Baby
Cabagtong justified

Held:
No
Ratio:
Nor can we close our eyes to the palpable violations of the rights of accused-appellants
during the period of their detention. The record shows that accused-appellants were
arrested without any warrants from the courts. Contrary to his claim, SPO2 Cernio did
not have personal knowledge of the commission of the crime so as to Justify the
warrantless arrest of Renante Mendez. Personal knowledge of facts in arrests without
warrant under §5(b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure must be based
upon "probable cause," which means "an actual belief or reasonable grounds of
suspicion." The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when it is based on actual facts,
i.e., when it is supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create
the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. Accused-appellant Baby
Cabagtong, on the other hand, was arrested byZosimo Mejica, a member of the
Citizens' Crime Watch, on the basis of the citizens' arrest law. Mejica was neither a
police officer nor a witness to the incident. He was not a member of the investigating
team. He did not have any personal knowledge of the incident. He admitted during
cross-examination that he merely based his arrest on the information supplied by Aurea
Cabagtong to the police. This does not constitute personal knowledge to warrant a
citizens' arrest. Finally, the records do not show that accused-appellants were assisted
by counsel in the course of the investigation. During their questioning at the
headquarters, only the police investigators were present. Nowhere in the records was it
shown that they were apprised of their rights under the Constitution. While no
confession was obtained from them, their interrogation at that time could nonetheless
have given the police valuable leads into the unsolved crime. Accused-appellants also
insist that they did not receive a copy of the order requiring them to submit counter-
affidavits. The Clerk of Court of the MCTC of Gamay merely testified as to the issuance
of said order, but testimony does not confirm that such it was received by accused-
appellants. The fact that these irregularities were never raised before arraignment, and
were therefore considered waived when accused appellants entered their pleas, does
not justify the short cuts. These procedural lapses clearly indicate that the police had
shut its mind off to the possibility that other parties might have committed the crime.