PANGANDAMAN v.

CASAR
April 14, 1988 | Narvasa, J. | | Procedure for issuance of warrant of arrest
PETITIONER: Hadji Ibrahim Solay, Magambaan, Macarian, Mamintal, Pacalundo, Mangoramas, Macadaob, Kilatun, Mario,
Macabidar all surnamed Pangandaman, Puyat Romampat, Santorani Dimapengen, Nasser Dimapengen and Diama Opao
RESPONDENT: Dimaporo Casar, as Municipal Circuit Trial Judge of Poonabayabao, Tamparan and Masiu, Lanao del Sur and
The People of the Philippines
SUMMARY: A warrant of arrest was issued by Judge Casar against 14 petitioners and 50 John Does following a preliminary
investigation of a shooting incident in Pantao, Masiu, Lanao del Sur which left 5 persons dead and 2 injured. The petitioners
averred that the Judge failed to follow the preliminary investigation procedure prescribed under Sec. 3 of Rule 112, thus amounting
to a denial of due process.
DOCTRINE: A warrant of arrest may issue even before the completion of the entire preliminary investigation, upon a finding of
probable cause and if there is a necessity to place respondent under immediate custody. (see also the underlined section)
FACTS:
1. July 27, 1985: A shooting incident occurred in Pantao,
Masiu, Lanao del Sur, leaving 5 persons dead and 2 others
wounded. According to one version, armed men attacked
a residence in Pantao with both sides suffering casualties,
while in another, 1 group was on its way to Lalabuan,
Masiu when it was ambushed.
2. The following day, Atty. Mangurun Batuampar filed a
letter-complaint with the Provincial Fiscal of Marawi
City, asking for a full blast preliminary investigation.
The Fiscal addressed a 1
st
endorsement to Judge Casar,
and requested that all cases relative to the incident may be
forwarded to his office, which has 1
st
taken cognizance
of said cases.
3. Sat, Aug 10, 1985: A criminal complaint for multiple
murder was filed by PC Sgt. Jose Laru-an, docketed as
Case No. 1748. On the same day, the Judge examined
personally all 3 witnesses (2 were the wounded victims of
the incident) under oath thru his closed and direct
supervision, and reduced to writing the questions and
answers. He approved the complaint and issued a warrant
of arrest against the 14 petitioners and 50 John Does.
4. Petitioners and SolGen argued that the Judge failed to
conduct an investigation in accordance with Sec. 3, Rule
112 of the RoC, constituting a denial to petitioners of due
process, thus, nullifying the proceedings leading to the
issuance of the arrest warrant. Petitioners further averred
that the arrest warrant constituted a general warrant for
issuing against 50 John Does.

ISSUE/S: WoN the completion of the procedure laid down in
Sec. 3 of Rule 112 is a condition sine qua non for the issuance
of a warrant of arrest NO.

RULING: Warrant VALID insofar as it orders the arrest of
petitioners, but VOIDED to the extent that it is issued against
50 John Does. Respondent Judge directed to forward the
record of the preliminary investigation to the Provincial Fiscal
of Lanao del Sur.

RATIO:
1. The procedure in conducting a preliminary investigation,
as prescribed by Sec. 3 of Rule 112 (1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure), consists of 2 phases:
a. 1
st
Phase: An ex-parte inquiry into the sufficiency of
the complaint, affidavits and other documents offered
in support thereof. 2 results: (1) No ground to
continue with the inquiry, causing the dismissal of
the complaint and the transmission of the order of
dismissal, together with the records of the case, to the
provincial fiscal. (2) Complaint and supporting
documents show sufficient cause to continue with the
inquiry, ushering in the 2
nd
phase.
b. 2
nd
Phase: Designed to give respondent a notice of
the complaint, access to complainants evidence and
an opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and
supporting documents. The Judge may also conduct a
hearing and propound to the parties and their
witnesses questions that need to be clarified. Judge
renders his resolution, either for dismissal or holding
the respondent for trial, which shall be transmitted,
together with the record, to the provincial fiscal for
appropriate action.
Procedure must be followed before a complaint or an
information is filed with the RTC, otherwise, it will result
in a denial of due process.
2. In the case at bar, no information has yet been filed. There
is no pretense that the preliminary investigation has been
completed, and that he has no intention to undertake the
2
nd
phase. It cannot be said that he has failed to observe
the prescribed procedure.
3. What the rule provides is that no complaint or information
for an offense cognizable by the RTC may be filed
without completing the procedure. Nowhere is it provided
that the procedure must be completed before an arrest
warrant may issue. Sec. 6 of Rule 112 clearly authorizes
the MTC to order respondents arrest even before opening
the 2
nd
phase if the court is satisfied that a probable cause
exists and there is a necessity to place respondent under
immediate custody in order to not frustrate the ends of
justice. The same is true under the former rules where the
1
st
phase was expressly denominated preliminary
examination to distinguish it from the 2
nd
phase,
preliminary investigation proper.
4. The rule on arrest after preliminary examination only
prescribes that, before the issuance of a warrant of arrest,
the Judge must examine the witnesses, that the
examination be under oath and reduced to writing in the
form of searching questions and answers. Such issuance
need only await a finding of probable cause, not the
completion of the entire preliminary investigation
procedure.
5. The issuance of the warrant against 50 John Does is of the
nature of a general warrant, which is violative of the
constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should
particularly describe the person/s to be seized. The
warrant, as regards the unidentified subjects, is voided.