Section 5. Resolution of investigating judge and its review (DELETED)
A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC:
All First Level Courts shall continue with the preliminary investigation
of cases pending with them and terminate them not later than December 31,
Upon the effectivity of these amendments, First Level Courts shall no
longer accept new cases for preliminary investigation which fall under
the exclusive jurisdiction of courts of other levels.
These amendments shall take effect on October 3, 2005 following their
publication in a newspaper of general circulation not later than September
Section 6. When warrant of arrest may issue
WHEN WARRANT OF ARREST MAY ISSUE
- If the judge finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of
arrest or a commitment order if the accused had already been
arrested and hold him for trial. If the judge is satisfied that
there is no necessity for placing the accused under custody, he
may issue summons instead of warrant of arrest.
Judges of the RTCs and inferior courts need not personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses in the determination of probable cause for
the issuance of the warrant of arrest. He is only required to:
1. Personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted
by the prosecutor;
2. On the basis of the report, he may:
b. Issue a warrant
c. Require further affidavits
INVALID: A warrant issued by the judge solely on the basis of the report
and recommendation of the investigating prosecutor, without personally
determining the existence of probable cause by independently examining
sufficient evidence submitted by the parties during the Preliminary
Effect of a finding of probable cause It merely binds over the suspect
to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.
WHAT THE ACCUSED, WHO BELIEVES THAT THERE IS NO
PROBABLE CAUSE TO HOLD HIM FOR TRIAL, MAY DO:
1. to file with the trial court a motion to dismiss on such ground or
for determination of the probable cause.
2. if the warrant of arrest has been issued, the accused may file a
motion to quash the arrest warrant or to recall the same on the
ground of lack of probable cause.
Where an information has already been filed in court, and the Secretary
of Justice reversed the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause, what
should the trial court do upon the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss?
- He must make his own assessment of the evidence and not just rely
on the conclusion of the prosecutor; otherwise the court becomes a
mere rubber stamp.
- Once the complaint or information is filed in court, any motion for
reinvestigation is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
While the trial court judge has the power to order the reinvestigation
of the case by the prosecutor, he may not, before the prosecutor
concluded the reinvestigation, recall said order, set the case for
arraignment and trial, without gravely abusing his discretion.
MUNICIPAL JUDGE MAY ISSUE ARREST WARRANT BEFORE
CONCLUSION OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IF:
1. he finds that probable cause exists and
2. there is a necessity of placing respondent under immediate custody.
- The rule is now that the investigating judge’s power to order the
arrest of the accused is limited to instances in which there is a
necessity for placing him in custody in order not to frustrate the
ends of justice. Thus, even if the judge finds probable cause, he
cannot, on such ground alone, issue a warrant of arrest. He must
further find there is a necessity of placing the accused under
immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
The investigating judge has no power to reduce or change the crime
charged in order to justify the grant of bail to the accused. The
power belongs to the prosecutor.
After the conclusion of his PI, the judge has to transmit to the
provincial prosecutor his resolution and entire records of the case,
regardless of whether he finds a probable cause or sufficient ground
to issue a warrant of arrest.