Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 Samulde Vs Salvani

    Uploaded by

    John Ambas
    490 views1 page

    Original Title

    15-Samulde-vs-Salvani

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    490 views1 page

    15 Samulde Vs Salvani

    Uploaded by

    John Ambas

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    GELACIO V. SAMULDE vs. RAMON M. SALVANI, Jr.

    G. R. No. 78606 September 26, 1988

    Facts:

    Municipal Judge Samulde conducted a preliminary investigation (PI) of Arangale


    upon a complaint for robbery filed by complainant Magbanua, alleging that Arangale
    harvested palay from a portion of her land directly adjoining Arangale’s land. After
    the PI, Samulde transmitted the records of the case to Provincial Fiscal Salvani with
    his finding that “there is prima facie evidence of robbery as charged in the complaint”.
    Fiscal Salvani returned the records to Judge Samulde on the ground that the
    transmittal of the records was “premature” because Judge Samulde failed to include
    the warrant of arrest (WA) against the accused. Judge Samulde sent the records back
    to Fiscal Salvani stating that although he found that a probable cause existed, he did
    not believe that Arangale should be arrested. Fiscal Salvani filed a mandamus case
    against Judge Samulde to compel him to issue a WA. RTC dismissed the petition on
    the ground that the fiscal had not shown that he has a clear, legal right to the
    performance of the act to be required of the judge and that the latter had an imperative
    duty to perform it. Neverhteless, Judge Samulde was ordered to issue a WA in
    accordance with Sec. 5, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Court.

    ISSUE:

    Whether it is mandatory for the investigating judge to issue a warrant of arrest of


    the accused in view of his finding, after conducting a preliminary investigation, that
    there exists prima facie evidence that the accused committed the crime charged.

    HELD:

    The purpose of a preliminary investigation does not contemplate the issuance of a


    warrant of arrest by the investigating judge or officer. Under Rule 112 of the 1985
    ROC, a PI is conducted on the basis of affidavits to determine whether or not there is
    sufficient ground to hold the accused for trial. To determine whether a WA should
    issue, the investigating judge must have examined in writing and under oath the
    complainant and his witnesses by searching questions and answers; he must be
    satisfied that a probable cause exists; and there must be a need to place the accused
    under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. It is not
    obligatory, but merely discretionary, upon the investigating judge to issue a WA, for
    the determination of whether it is necessary to arrest the accused in order not to
    frustrate the ends of justice, is left to his sound judgment or discretion. The fiscal
    should, instead, have filed an information immediately so that the RTC may issue a
    warrant for the arrest of the accused.

    You might also like