Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 95 views

    Ponsica V Ignalaga Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    iezner1
    1) In 1985, demonstrators were dispersed by police using water hoses and tear gas which led to deaths, and the town mayor conducted an investigation and issued arrest warrants. 2) Petitioners argued the mayor no longer had authority to conduct investigations or issue warrants under the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. 3) The court ruled the warrants were invalid because only judges, not mayors, have authority to determine probable cause and issue warrants under the current rules. Probable cause was not properly determined in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ponsica V Ignalaga Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    iezner1
    95 views2 pages
    1) In 1985, demonstrators were dispersed by police using water hoses and tear gas which led to deaths, and the town mayor conducted an investigation and issued arrest warrants. 2) Petitioners argued the mayor no longer had authority to conduct investigations or issue warrants under the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. 3) The court ruled the warrants were invalid because only judges, not mayors, have authority to determine probable cause and issue warrants under the current rules. Probable cause was not properly determined in this case.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Ponsica v Ignalaga case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) In 1985, demonstrators were dispersed by police using water hoses and tear gas which led to deaths, and the town mayor conducted an investigation and issued arrest warrants. 2) Petitioners argued the mayor no longer had authority to conduct investigations or issue warrants under the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. 3) The court ruled the warrants were invalid because only judges, not mayors, have authority to determine probable cause and issue warrants under the current rules. Probable cause was not properly determined in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    95 views2 pages

    Ponsica V Ignalaga Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    iezner1
    1) In 1985, demonstrators were dispersed by police using water hoses and tear gas which led to deaths, and the town mayor conducted an investigation and issued arrest warrants. 2) Petitioners argued the mayor no longer had authority to conduct investigations or issue warrants under the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. 3) The court ruled the warrants were invalid because only judges, not mayors, have authority to determine probable cause and issue warrants under the current rules. Probable cause was not properly determined in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Ponsica v. Ignalaga, G.R. No.

    72301, July 31, 1987

    Topic: Probable cause determined personally by the judge

    Facts:

     September 20, 1985, an attempt was made by firemen and soldiers to disperse a crowd of
    demonstrators massed in front of the Municipal Building of Escalante, Negros Occidental, by
    using water hoses, then later using tear gas and eventually there was gunfire. Moments later,
    there are dead rallyists on the National Road.
     While Municipal Circuit Court Judge (Emilio Ignalaga) was on leave, Mayor Braulio Lumayno the
    town Mayor took attention of a complaint filed by the Military Station Commander charging
    some of the rallyists with sedition, after conducting investigation of the witnesses, the mayor
    issued an order of the arrest of some demonstrators.
     The petitioners urgent motion to quash the warrant of arrest on the ground that a mayor no
    longer has the authority to conduct preliminary investigations or issue warrants of arrest that
    authority having been withheld in the 1985 New Rules on Criminal Procedure.
     The Station Commander opposed the petitioners where it is stated that under section 143 of the
    Local Government Code “In case of temporary absence of the judge assigned to the municipality,
    the mayor may conduct the preliminary examination in criminal cases when the investigation
    cannot be delayed without prejudice to the interest of justice.”
     Petitioners filed and replied that the “power of the municipal mayor to conduct preliminary
    investigation and issue a warrant of arrest under the 1964 Revised Rules of Court had been
    impliedly repealed by the 1985 New Rules on Criminal Procedure.”
     The judge declared that the mayor had conducted the examination personally and having in the
    in the exercise of his discretion found probable cause, issued, issued the warrants of arrest in
    question; and conceding arguendo irregularity in that the preliminary examination was
    conducted without according the parties the assistance of lawyers.

    Issues:

     Whether or not the warrant of arrest is valid where the judge personally determined the
    probable cause.

    Ruling:

     No, the warrant of arrest is not valid.


    Under the 1964 Rules of Court explicitly gave the mayor authority to conduct preliminary
    investigations. “SEC.3. Preliminary examination by the municipal mayor. -- In case of temporary
    absence of both the municipal and the auxiliary municipal judges from the municipality, town, or
    place wherein they exercise their... jurisdiction, the municipal mayor shall make the preliminary
    examination in criminal cases when such examination cannot be delayed without prejudice to
    the interest of justice. He shall make a report of any preliminary examination so made to the
    municipal or... to the auxiliary municipal judge immediately upon the return of one or the other.
    He shall have authority in such cases to order the arrest of the defendant and to grant him bail in
    the manner and cases provided for in Rule 114.” Conditions under which the mayor could
    conduct preliminary investigations are also indicated, (1) in case of the temporary absence of the
    judge assigned to the municipality; and (2) in his (the mayor’s) opinion, the investigation cannot
    be delayed without prejudice to the interests of justice. On these occasions, the mayor may
    order the arrest of the accused upon a finding of probable cause after searching examination of
    the complainant and the witnesses the latter may present. In the case at bar, the conditions had
    been met. As the law now stands, the mayor may no longer conduct preliminary investigation,
    the authority to do so being limited under Section 2, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court to (1)
    provincial or city fiscals and their assistants; (2) judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and
    Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; (3) national and regional state prosecutors; and (4) such other
    officers as may be authorized by law. But only the judge may issue search and warrant of arrest
    after due determination of probable cause.
    The evidence can not justify the action taken by the respondent Mayor and Judge. The Court
    thus declares as sorely inadequate and mortally defective the avowed evidentiary foundation for
    Mayor Lumayno's finding of probable cause respecting the commission by... the petitioners of
    the crime of inciting to sedition. The affiants' declarations in their sworn statements which
    might otherwise be pertinent to the offense, are generalities, mere conclusions of theirs, not
    positive averments of particular facts within their... personal knowledge. They do not identify
    the specific persons supposed to have perpetrated the crime charged, except two. But even the
    identification of these two is of no moment. For except as regards Capt. Sanson, whose...
    testimony, to repeat, is in any case ineffectual to prove the precise offense ascribed to the
    petitioners, there had been no searching interrogation by Mayor Lumayno of the witnesses as
    required by the Constitution. Hence, whatever credit could... possibly have been accorded to
    the affidavit of Hoyo-A -- which ventures to quote the exact words allegedly shouted by
    petitioners Arnaiz and Gempesela, and an unidentified woman -- was thereby effectively
    foreclosed.

     Therefore, the warrant of arrest is not valid.

    Held:

    WHEREFORE, the writs of certiorari and prohibition are granted. The order of respondent Mayor
    Lumayno issued on September 20, 1985 and the resolution promulgated by respondent Judge Ignalaga
    on October 11, 1985 are annulled and set aside, and... the respondents are perpetually forbidden to
    enforce or in any way implement the orders for the arrest of any of the petitioners. No costs.

    You might also like