Lim

v. Felix
Facts: - An assassination took place in Masbate Domestic Airport. In this incident, Congressman Moises Espinosa and his security escorts were attacked and killed by a lone assassin (bad ass). - Upon preliminary investigation, it was found that probable cause had been established for the issuances of arrest of accused Vicente Lim Sr. and 11 other dudes for the crime of Multiple Murder With Frustrated Murder. This investigation was based on affidavits and answers given by witnesses .This case was then brought to the RTC of Masbate by respondent Fiscal Alfane. - Petitioners Vicente Lim Sr. and Susana Lim filed a petition to change the venue from the RTC of Masbate to the RTC of Makati, which was subsequently granted. Their case was raffled to herein respondent Judge Felix. - In the Makati RTC, Vicente and Susana filed a motion for all the initial records of the preliminary investigation which was conducted in Masbate to be transmitted to Makati. This was done so that the Makati RTC would be best enlightened when they try to determine probable cause/prima facie evidence against them. - In another manifestation, the Lims reiterated that the court should conduct a hearing to determine if there really was prima facie evidence against them based on the documents from the preliminary investigation. This was denied for lack of merit by respondent Judge Felix. In this denial, he stated that the investigation in Masbate had already established prima facie evidence against them, and that this was confirmed by the Provincial Prosecutor in Masbate. Given that they were both competent officers, he found no reason to re-examine the documents. Petitioners then filed this case questioning respondent judges order. Issue and Held: 1) WON a judge may issue a warrant of arrest without bail by simply relying on the prosecutions certification and recommendation that probable cause exists. >> NO. Respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion by relying solely on prosecutors certification. - The 1987 Constitution expressly requires probable cause to be personally determined by the judge (Art 3., Sec. 2). If a judge relies solely on the certification of the Prosecutor like in this case, he or she has not personally determined probable cause. This means that a constitutional requirement has not been met and therefore the judge has committed grave abuse of discretion. - In this case, the records of the preliminary investigation conducted in Masbate were still in Masbate when the warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioners. There was no basis for the respondent Judge to make his own personal determination regarding the existence of a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest as mandated by the Constitution. He could not possibly have known what transpired in Masbate as he had nothing but a certification. Significantly, the respondent Judge denied the petitioners' motion for the transmittal of the records on the ground that the mere certification and recommendation of the respondent Fiscal that a probable cause exists is sufficient for him to issue a warrant of arrest. - The doctrine in Soliven v. Makasiar still stands. The judge does not have to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a commissioner for the taking of evidence. However, there should be a report and necessary documents supporting the Fiscals bare certification, which were not present in this case.

- What constitutes personal examination depends on the circumstances of each case. The judge has discretion to be as brief or as detailed in his or her examination. However, to be sure, the judge must at least go beyond the Prosecutors bare certification. - In this case, the evidence the petitioners presented to the judge were documents of recantation (retraction) of witnesses whose testimonies were used to establish prima facie evidence against them. Although, the general rule is that recantations are not given much weight in the determination of a case and in the granting of a new trial, the respondent Judge before issuing his own warrants of arrest should, at the very least, have gone over the records of the preliminary examination conducted earlier in the light of the evidence now presented by the concerned witnesses in view of the "political undertones" prevailing in the cases.