484. Pangandaman vs.

Casar, 159 SCRA 599 (1988)

FACTS: The case originated in Lanao. The offended party was ambushed in
Lanao, but he survived. Based on his description, there were around 50 persons
who staged the ambush from both sides of the hill. However, he could not
recognize anyone of the 50. But he filed a case against all 50 ambushers, all
“JOHN DOES”. The court issued a warrant of arrest against the 50 John Does.
The petitioners contend that the Judge in the case at bar failed to conduct the
investigation in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112
of the Rules of Court;- that failure constituted a denial to petitioners of due
process which nullified the proceedings leading to the issuance of the warrant for
the petitioners' arrest that issuance of a warrant of arrest against fifty (50) "John
Does" transgressed the Constitutional provision requiring that such warrants
should particularly describe the persons or things to be seized.
ISSUE: WON the warrant of arrest is valid? Can a court issue a warrant of arrest
against an unknown accused.
HELD: NO it is not valid. Said warrant is voided to the extent that it is issued
against fifty (50)
"John Does." The respondent Judge is directed to forward to the Provincial Fiscal
of Lanao del Sur the record of the preliminary investigation of the complaint in
Criminal Case No. 1728 of his court for further appropriate action.

It is of the nature of a general warrant, one of a call of writs long prescribed as

unconstitutional and once anathematized as totally subversive of the liberty of
the subject. Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of
arrest should particularly describe the person or persons to be seized. The
warrant as against unidentified subjects will be considered as null and void.