617 Cabilao v Sardido

July 14, 1995 A.M. No. MTJ-93-818 Kapunan, J.

Article 3, Section 2 Your name
Petitioners: Respondents:
Enriquito Cabilao and Ronald Mart Dayot Judge Agustin T. Sardido

Doctrine:
The Rules do not require for preliminary investigation to be completed before a warrant of
arrest is issued, as long as the court has satisfied itself of the existence of probable cause.

Facts:
1. Cabilao and Dayot were in the courtroom of Judge Sardido to attend a hearing for Grave
Oral Defamation filed by Parcon against Cabilao.
2. Before the court session, the Judge talked to Cabilao. When the case was called, Cabilao
requested for the postponement of the hearing. Judge Sardido granted Sabilao’s
request.
3. Upon leaving the courtroom, Cabilao and Dayot were served a Warrant of Arrest issued
by Judge Sardido, in connection with another complaint charging the two with robbery.
4. Cabilao and Dayot filed a complaint against Judge Sardido accusing him of grave
ignorance of the law, gross misconduct and abuse of discretion.
a. They allege the legality of the warrant since Judge Sardido did not give Cabilao
and Dayot any hint that there was a warrant of arrest against them when they
were at the judge’s courtroom earlier.
b. The judge should have furnished them with copies of the complaint and allow
them to file their counter-affidavits to determine the existence of probable
cause.
5. In his answer, Judge Sardido states that he conducted the preliminary investigation
twice and that the warrant of arrest was issued after he was convinced of the existence
of a probable cause.
a. However, he also admitted that that he did not do the examination in writing in
the form of searching questions as it was impossible due to his workload as
there were many cases coming up in the courts he was handling.
6. The complainants informed the investigating judge of their desire not to attend the
investigations and to withdraw their complaint against Judge Sardido due to their work.
7. The investigating judge stated that Judge Sardido should be absolved but was given a
warning in case he does the same again in the future

Issue/s: Ruling:
1. WON the issuance of the warrant without prior warning to the 1. NO
Cabilao & Dayot violated Art. 3, Sec 2 of the 1987 Constitution
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:
1. Completion of the entire procedure for preliminary investigation is not required
before a warrant of arrest may be issued.
As previously decided in Pangandaman v Cesar, what the rule requires is that no
complaint or information for an offense cognizable by the RTC can be filed without prior
completion of that procedure. Section 6, Rule 112 allows the MTC to order an arrest if
the court is satisfied of the existence of probable cause.