1. Arrest by Virtue of a Warrant; Requisites for Issuance

The Judge Issues a Warrant of Arrest in Two Instances:

• Upon the filing of the information by the prosecutor.

In issuing this kind of warrant, the judge does not personally examine the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, but he merely evaluates personally the report and supporting documents and other evidence adduced during the preliminary investigation and submitted to him by the prosecutor, and if he finds probable cause on the basis thereof, he issues the warrant for the arrest of the accused.

• Upon application of a peace officer

In this kind of warrant, the judge must personally examine the applicant and the witnesses he may produce, to find out whether there exists probable cause, otherwise, the warrant issued is null and void. He must subject the complainant and the witnesses to searching questions. The reason for this is there is yet no evidence on record upon which he may determine the existence of probable cause.

Essential Requisites of a Valid Warrant of Arrest:

• The arrest warrant must be issued upon PROBABLE CAUSE.
• Probable cause must be DETERMINED PERSONALLY by a judge.
• There must be an examination UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
• The warrant must PARTICULARLY DESCRIBE the person to be seized. (PHIL. CONST. art. III, Sec. 2)

When warrant of arrest may issue

If the judge, upon the filing of the complaint or information with the court, finds probable cause, he/she shall issue a warrant of arrest or a commitment order (if the accused had already been arrested) and hold him/her for trial.

If the judge does not find probable cause, he may either dismiss the case or give the prosecutor a period of 5 days to file additional evidence (Rule 112, Sec. 5).

However, if the evidence on record shows that, more likely than not, the crime charged has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty of the same, the judge should not dismiss the case and thereon, order the parties to proceed to trial. (Young vs. People, GR No. 213910, 2016)

The validity and merits of a party’s defense or accusation, as well as the admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the level of determining probable cause. Thus, the judge shall not consider the defenses in finding probable cause (Hasegawa v. Giron, G.R. No. 184536 August 14, 2013).

The judge will order the arrest if the imposable penalty of the offense is more than 4 years, 2 months and 1 day.

For crimes under summary procedure, an arraignment has to be set.

What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall:

• Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or
• If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.

Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary examination and investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts. (Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. Nos. L-82585, L-82827, and L-83979, 1988)

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 Investigation is not valid.