Topic Author Case Title GR No Tickler Date Doctrine Facts: Constitutional Law Ii

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
TOPIC SECTION 2, ART. III: SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AUTHOR

6_Loda
CASE TITLE MANTARING V. ROMAN GR NO A.M. No. RTJ-93-
964
TICKLER Illegal possession of firearms bc. Firearms in his house DATE February 28, 1996
DOCTRINE 1) Determination of probable cause in search and arrest warrants

2) Requisites for a judge to issue warrant of arrest (see ruling)
FACTS
Respondent Judge Ireneo B. Molato is the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Bongabon,
Oriental Mindoro, together with Judge Manuel A. Roman, Jr., presiding judge of the Regional Trial
Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro was charged administratively for conduct unbecoming of
members of the judiciary by herein complainant Mantaring, Sr. Said complaint, as well as the motion
for reconsideration were denied by the SC for lack of merit. Subsequently, a Supplemental Complaint
was filed by the same complainant charging Judge Molato with harassment. It is alleged that because
of the filing of the first complaint against him, respondent Judge Ireneo B. Molato should have
inhibited himself from conducting the preliminary investigation of a criminal case considering that
the respondents in that case were complainant and his son. Instead, it is alleged, he took cognizance
of the case and ordered the arrest of complainant and his son, Leovigildo Mantaring, Jr., out of
hatred and revenge for them because of the filing of the first case by the complainant.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in its recommendation stated, among others, that It is
erroneous for herein complainant to equate the application for the issuance of search warrant with
the institution and prosecution of criminal action in a trial court. (Malaloan vs. Court of Appeals, 232
SCRA 249) Complainant cannot insist that since his name was not included in the search warrant,
the house designated to be searched did not belong to him, and that he was not present at the
preliminary investigation of witnesses preparatory to the issuance of the questioned warrant of
arrest, there was no basis for respondent judge to order his arrest.
(Petitioner’s Points)
a. As the search warrant was issued only against Joel Gamo and Mantaring, Jr. it was wrong for
respondent judge to find probable cause against him on the theory that, as owners of the
house in which the firearms and ammunition were found, they had constructive possession
of the same
b. respondent judge did not inhibit himself until after the preliminary examination was
terminated and the warrant of arrest issued, and only after complainant had filed a petition
for inhibition which the Executive Judge found to be well taken
(Respondent’s Points)
a. On the application by SPO4 Pacifico L. Fradejas, he issued a search warrant which resulted in
the seizure from a certain Joel Gamo of a home-made gun, a hand grenade, five live
ammunitions for Cal. 38 and three live ammunitions for 12 gauge shotgun
b. A complaint for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition was filed against Joel Gamo
in which the herein complainant Leovigildo, Sr. and his son, Leovigildo, Jr., were included
c. Finding that the house in which the firearms and ammunition had been found was owned by
complainant and his son, he concluded that there was probable cause to believe that
1
complainant and his son were guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition and
accordingly ordered their arrest.
d. He inhibited himself from the case after he was ordered by the Executive Judge, RTC, Branch
41, Pinamalayan Oriental Mindoro.
ISSUE/S Procedural
1. Whether or not there is probable cause for Mantaring, Sr. cannot to be proceeded against,
although he was not included in the search warrant issued against Gamo and Mantaring, Jr.
Substantive
1. Whether or not the issuance of the warrants of arrest against complainant and his son was
proper.
RULING/S Procedural
1. Yes. There is probable cause to conduct preliminary investigation.
It cannot be contended that complainant Leovigildo Mantaring, Sr. could not be proceeded
against simply because he was not included in the search warrant issued against Gamo and
Leovigildo Mantaring, Jr., who is apparently his son. The determination of probable cause in
preliminary investigations is based solely on the evidence presented by the complainant,
regardless of whether or not the respondent in that case is named in the proceedings for a
search warrant. The issuance of a search warrant and of a warrant of arrest requires the
showing of probabilities as to different facts. In the case of search warrants, the
determination is based on the finding that (1) the articles to be seized are connected to a
criminal activity and (2) they are found in the place to be searched. It is not necessary that
a particular person be implicated. On the other hand, in arrest cases, the determination of
probable cause is based on a finding that a crime has been committed and that the person
to be arrested has committed it.
In this case, the arrest of herein complainant and his son, together with Joel Gamo, was
ordered on the basis of respondent's finding that the place from where the guns and
ammunition were seized belonged to complainant Leovigildo Mantaring, Sr. and the
testimonies of witnesses presented by SPO4 Fradejas. Of course complainant denies that the
house in which the firearms and ammunition were found belonged to him and claims that at
the time of the search he was in Manila. The provincial prosecutor subsequently dismissed
the case against complainant on precisely these grounds, i.e., that the house did not belong
to complainant and he was in Manila at the time the search and seizure were conducted. But
to say this is not to say that respondent acted arbitrarily or that he abused his powers so as
to give ground for administrative disciplinary action against him. It is only to say that he
committed an error of judgment for which complainant's remedy is judicial.
Substantive
1. No. It was improper for respondent judge to have issued the warrants of arrest against
complainant and his son without any finding that it was necessary to place them in
immediate custody in order to prevent a frustration of justice.
In issuing warrants of arrest in preliminary investigations, the investigating judge must:

(a) have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by
searching questions and answers;
2
(b) be satisfied that probable cause exists; and
(c) that there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice.
In this case, respondent judge justified the issuance of the warrant of arrest on the ground
that there is sufficient probable cause that the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm and
Ammunition was committed and that the named three (3) accused Joel Gamo, Leovigildo
Mantaring, Sr. and Leovigildo Mantaring, Jr. are the ones probably guilty thereof for which
reason Warrant of Arrest was issued by undersigned against them. He thus ordered the
issuance of warrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable cause, totally omitting to
consider the third requirement that there must be a need to place the respondent under
immediate custody "in order not to frustrate the ends of justice."
The framers of the Constitution confined the determination of probable cause as basis for
the issuance of warrants of arrest and search warrants to judges the better to secure the
people against unreasonable searches and seizures. Respondent judge failed to live up to this
expectation by not only refusing to inhibit himself even when his very impartiality was in
question, but worse, by issuing a warrant of arrest without determining whether or not it
was justified by the need to prevent a frustration of the ends of justice.
NOTES

Topic Author Case Title GR No Tickler Date Doctrine Facts: Constitutional Law Ii

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic Author Case Title GR No Tickler Date Doctrine Facts: Constitutional Law Ii

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic Author Case Title GR No Tickler Date Doctrine Facts: Constitutional Law Ii

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

TOPIC SECTION 2, ART. III: SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AUTHOR

DOCTRINE 1) Determination of probable cause in search and arrest warrants

In issuing warrants of arrest in preliminary investigations, the investigating judge must:

You might also like