Soliven v. Makasiar (G.R. No. 82585, November 14, 1988)
| Category | Summary |
|---|---|
| Facts | Petitioners, who were Philippine journalists (including Maximo V. Soliven and Luis D. Beltran), were charged with libel for articles allegedly defaming the incumbent President Corazon C. Aquino. The President initiated the criminal proceedings by filing a complaint-affidavit. The presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court issued warrants for the petitioners’ arrest. Petitioner Beltran challenged the issuance of the warrant, arguing that his constitutional rights were violated because the judge failed to personally examine the complainant and witnesses to determine probable cause. Petitioners also argued that they were denied due process because the informations were filed while the finding of a prima facie case was still under review by the Department of Justice and the President. The review process was eventually concluded, affirming the finding of a prima facie case. |
| Issues | 1. Whether or not the constitutional rights of Petitioner Beltran were violated when the respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and witnesses, if any, to determine probable cause, pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. 2. Whether or not the President of the Philippines, under the Constitution, may initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners through the filing of a complaint-affidavit. (The issue concerning the denial of administrative remedies/due process in the preliminary investigation was rendered moot and academic by subsequent events). |
| Ruling | “WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondents, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petitions in G. R. Nos. 82585, 82827 and 83979. The Order to maintain the status quo contained in the Resolution of the Court en banc dated April 7, 1988 and reiterated in the Resolution dated April 26, 1988 is LIFTED.” |
| Essential Elements of Jurisprudence | 1. Determination of Probable Cause for Arrest Warrant (Article III, Sec. 2): The constitutional provision (Art. III, Sec. 2) mandates the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. The Court clarified that the judge’s personal determination does not require a mandatory and exclusive method of personally examining the complainant and his witnesses. The legal procedure for the judge in satisfying himself of probable cause is that the Constitution does not require the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. The judge may personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor to determine probable cause. The personal examination of the judge is not a mandatory and exclusive method. The judge shall: (1) 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 (2) if he finds no probable cause, he may require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses. 2. Presidential Immunity from Suit and Waiver: The rationale for presidential immunity is to ensure the exercise of Presidential duties free from hindrance or distraction. This privilege may be invoked only by the holder of the office. There is nothing in the laws that prevents the President from waiving this privilege and submitting to the court’s jurisdiction. The choice to exercise or waive immunity is solely the President’s prerogative and cannot be assumed or imposed by any other person (such as the accused in a criminal case). 3. Due Process in Preliminary Investigation: Due process does not require that a respondent actually file counter-affidavits before a preliminary investigation is deemed completed; only that the respondent be given the opportunity to submit them. |
| Sample Q&A | Q: Under the 1987 Constitution, when a prosecutor files an Information and submits supporting documents following a preliminary investigation, what is the mandatory minimum procedure the issuing judge must follow under Article III, Section 2 to satisfy the requirement of personally determining probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, and what action may the judge take if the submitted documents are insufficient? A: The constitutional requirement that “no… warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge” (Art. III, Sec. 2) underscores the exclusive and personal responsibility of the judge. The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Instead, the judge shall: (1) 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. If, based on this evaluation, the judge finds no probable cause, he or she may disregard the fiscal’s report and (2) require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid in determining probable cause. |
#SolivenVMakasiar #ProbableCause #WarrantOfArrest #PhilippineConstitution #ArticleIIISec2 #PresidentialImmunity #PreliminaryInvestigation #DueProcess #SupremeCourtPH #PhilippineJurisprudencePhilippineLaw #LegalDoctrinePH #RuleOfLawPH #PhilippineJusticeSystem #RemedialLaw #CriminalProcedurePH #ConstitutionalLawPH #JudicialReviewPH #LawStudentsPH #BarExamPHLegalEducation #KnowYourRightsPH #LawSchoolLife #JusticeForAll #LegalCommunityPH #LawyerLife #CourtroomStories #LegalAwarenessPH #PhilippinesLegal
Leave a Reply