Scribd
Upload
149 views2 pages

Cruz vs. Areola, March 6, 2002 Case Digest

This case discusses a complaint filed against Judge Areola for ignoring a motion for reinvestigation filed by Marilyn Carreon. The judge initially considered the motion a "mere scrap of paper" and issued a warrant for Carreon's arrest. However, the judge later deferred and suspended the warrant. The court upheld the investigating justice's findings, distinguishing a preliminary inquiry to determine probable cause for an arrest warrant from a preliminary investigation to determine if a defendant should stand trial. The court affirmed that a judge determines probable cause for an arrest warrant based on a prosecutor's report, while the prosecutor determines if there is enough evidence for formal charges.

Uploaded by

Ella Kriziana Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
149 views2 pages

Cruz vs. Areola, March 6, 2002 Case Digest

This case discusses a complaint filed against Judge Areola for ignoring a motion for reinvestigation filed by Marilyn Carreon. The judge initially considered the motion a "mere scrap of paper" and issued a warrant for Carreon's arrest. However, the judge later deferred and suspended the warrant. The court upheld the investigating justice's findings, distinguishing a preliminary inquiry to determine probable cause for an arrest warrant from a preliminary investigation to determine if a defendant should stand trial. The court affirmed that a judge determines probable cause for an arrest warrant based on a prosecutor's report, while the prosecutor determines if there is enough evidence for formal charges.

Uploaded by

Ella Kriziana Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Cruz vs.

Areola, March 6, 2002

Facts:

On November 26, 1998, the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation


Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman issued a Resolution
recommending the filing of an Information for Estafa against Marilyn
Carreon, an employee of the Land Transportation Office.

On January 19, 1999, Marilyn Carreon filed with the trial court an
Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation. However, the respondent Judge
Areola considered the said motion a mere scrap of paper for
noncompliance with Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. Thereafter, a warrant of arrest was issue and released by
respondent and Branch Clerk of Court respectively.

On February 10, 1999, respondent Judge issued another Order


deferring the implementation of the Warrant of Arrest against the accused
pending the resolution of her Motion for Reinvestigation.

On June 16, 1999, respondent Judge granted Carreon’s Motion for


Reconsideration and directed the Branch Trial Prosecutor to conduct
areinvestigation of the case.

On September 20, 1999, Carreon filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to


Suspend Proceedings and to Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of Warrant of
Arrest. Subsequently, on September 27, 1999, respondent granted
Carreon’s motion and suspended further proceedings.

By virtue of the aforementioned events, the complainants filed the


instant complaint charging both respondent Judge and his Branch Clerk
of Court with ignorance of the law.

Issue:

Whether or not the report of investigating prosecutor that there exist a


probable cause requires the judge to issue a warrant of arrest.

Ruling:

Yes. The Court upheld the findings of the investigating Justice.


Distinguishing the preliminary inquiry from preliminary investigation,
the Court held:
“Judges and Prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry
which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
from the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the
offender should be held for trial or released . . . The determination of
probable cause for the warrant of arrest is made by the judge. The
preliminary investigation proper-whether or not there is reasonable
ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and,
therefore, whether or not he should be subjected to the expense, rigors
and embarrassment of trial—is the function of the Prosecutor.

We reiterate that preliminary investigation should be distinguished as


to whether it is an investigation for the determination of a sufficient
ground for the filing of the information or it is an investigation for the
determination of a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
The first kind of preliminary investigation is executive in nature. It is part
of the prosecution’s job. The second kind of preliminary investigation
which is more properly called preliminary examination is judicial in
nature and is lodged with the judge.

You might also like