People Vs.

Grey

NARRATION OF THE CASE:

FACTS:

● Dec. 11, 2006, information for murder was filed against respondent Joseph Grey,
former mayor of San Jorge Samar, Francis Grey and 2 others for the death of
Rolando Diocton, Municipal Govt. Employee
● Filed in Branch 41, RTC - Gandara, Samar
● The information was accompanied with other supporting documents & motion for the
issuance of warrant, directing the prosecution to present additional evidence within 5
days due to insufficiency.
● The prosecution filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration & motion for inhibition of
Judge Bandal. Judge denied the MR and inhibited herself from the case.
● Prosecution filed a petition for change of venue, attaching the letter of victims' fear for
their lives.
● In a resolution dated 01/04/2007, Sec. of Justice dismissed the petition for review &
respondents counter charge of perjury. Later then denied.
● Subsequently, prosecution withdrew their motion to change venue due to financial
difficulties.
● Respondents opposed motion and prayed for suspension of proceedings until after
05/14/2007 elections.
● Respondents filed their own petition for change of venue on 02/19/2007. Alleging the
judge, Roberto Natividad, was a pawn in the political prosecution. Petition was
denied on 08/22/2007.
● In an order dated, 02/20/2007, it ruled that the finding of probable cause was
supported by evidence on record. He then issued a warrant of arrest against the
respondents.
● Respondents filed a petition for certiorari & prohibition alleging Judge Natividad
gravely abused his discretion. In issuing the order and seeking TRO and Writ of
Injunction.
● The CA 18th Division Issued a TRO on March 13, 2007. The CA made the TRO
permanent. Setting aside the Arrest and Dismissal of CC w/out prejudice.
● The CA held that the judge failed to abide by the constitutional mandate for him to
examine the existence of probable cause.
● The CA ruled that the information was not supported by the allegations in the
submitted affidavits.

ISSUE:

Whether Judge Natividad failed to personally determine the existence of probable cause.

RULING:
No. The personal examination of the complainant and his witnesses is not mandatory and
indispensable in the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
The necessity arises only when there is an utter failure of the evidence to show the
existence of probable cause. Otherwise, the judge may rely on the report of the investigating
prosecutor, provided that he likewise evaluates the documentary evidence in support
thereof.

What the law requires as personal determination on the part of a judge is that he should not
rely solely on the report of the investigating prosecutor. This means that the judge should
consider not only the report of the investigating prosecutor but also the affidavit and the
documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the accused and his witnesses,
as well as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation, if
any, submitted to the court by the investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information.