Below is a concise yet comprehensive discussion of the requisites for the issuance of a warrant of arrest under Philippine law, particularly under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure, in relation to the 1987 Philippine Constitution and pertinent jurisprudence.

1. Constitutional Basis

a. 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article III, Section 2)

Text: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
Key Points:
1. Probable Cause is required.
2. It must be personally determined by a judge.
3. The judge must conduct an examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and/or witnesses (although jurisprudence clarifies the extent of such examination).
4. The warrant must particularly describe the person/s to be arrested.

The constitutional provision sets the minimum safeguard against arbitrary arrests. Any warrant issued in violation of these requirements is considered void, and the arrest can be quashed.

2. Statutory/Procedural Rules: Rule 113 (Arrest) in Relation to Rule 112 (Preliminary Investigation)

While the Constitution provides the fundamental requirements, the Rules of Court set forth the procedure by which courts (particularly the trial courts) issue warrants of arrest.

a. Determination of Probable Cause by the Judge (Judicial Determination)

Upon the filing of an Information or complaint in court, the judge is duty-bound to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence (usually the records of the preliminary investigation, including affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence, etc.).
If the judge finds probable cause to believe:
1. That an offense has been committed, and
2. That the accused is probably guilty thereof,
then the judge will issue a warrant of arrest.
Alternatively, the judge may opt to personally examine the complainant and his/her witnesses if the court is not satisfied with the documents on record. This is a discretionary step: the judge may require additional evidence or clarifications if the records are insufficient.

b. Personal Examination is Not Always Mandatory

Leading jurisprudence (e.g., Soliven v. Makasiar, People v. Inting) clarifies that a judge may issue a warrant of arrest based solely on the prosecutor’s report and supporting documents if these are complete and convincing enough to establish probable cause.
However, should the judge find the records inadequate, the judge must require the submission of additional evidence or personally question witnesses in a searching manner.

c. No Automatic Reliance on Prosecutor’s Findings

The judge cannot simply rely on the certification or recommendation of the prosecutor. While the prosecutor’s findings of probable cause (often called “executive” or “prosecutorial probable cause”) are crucial, the Constitution requires a separate judicial determination of probable cause.
Should the judge find no probable cause based on the records, the judge can:
- Dismiss the case, or
- Require the prosecution to present additional evidence or clarificatory statements to cure the deficiency.

3. What Constitutes “Probable Cause” for Issuing an Arrest Warrant

“Probable cause” for the issuance of an arrest warrant means:

A reasonable ground of suspicion or belief, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves, to warrant a prudent person to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof.

a. Contrast with Preliminary Investigation Probable Cause

During preliminary investigation, the prosecutor determines if there is sufficient ground to indict the respondent and file an information in court (“executive or prosecutorial probable cause”).
Once in court, the judge independently determines if there is probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest (“judicial probable cause”). Both are grounded on the concept of “probable cause,” but they occur in different stages and under different authorities (prosecutor vs. judge).

b. Degree of Evidence

Probable cause does not require evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It also does not require clear and convincing evidence or preponderance of evidence. It merely demands that the evidence leads a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe in the likelihood of the accused’s guilt.

4. Procedure Under the Rules

a. Rule 112, Section 6 (When Warrant of Arrest May Issue)

Filing of the Information: The information is filed in court upon a finding of probable cause by the prosecutor.
Judge’s Evaluation: The judge examines:
- The information;
- The affidavits and supporting evidence of the prosecution.
Possible Actions by the Judge:
- Find probable cause and issue a warrant of arrest;
- If not satisfied, order the prosecutor to present additional evidence or personally examine the witnesses;
- If probable cause is lacking, dismiss the case or refuse to issue the warrant of arrest.

b. Rule 113, Section 1 (Definition of Arrest)

An “arrest” is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. A warrant of arrest is the usual means of implementing this process, except in lawful warrantless arrests.

5. Jurisprudential Principles

People v. Inting: Clarifies that a judge’s personal examination of witnesses is not always mandatory if documentary evidence on record is sufficient. However, if the judge has doubts, then a personal examination is warranted.
Soliven v. Makasiar: Emphasizes that “personal determination” of probable cause does not require the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses through questioning. A thorough scrutiny of the preliminary investigation records can suffice.
Allado v. Diokno: Stressing that judges cannot be a mere “rubber stamp” of the prosecutor’s findings. There must be an independent judicial determination.

6. Summary of Requisites

To validly issue a warrant of arrest, the following must be met:

Existence of Probable Cause
- There is a sufficient factual basis to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty.
Personal Determination by a Judge
- The judge must independently decide if probable cause exists, not merely rely on a prosecutor’s say-so.
Examination Under Oath or Affirmation (If Necessary)
- If the judge deems the records inadequate or incomplete, the judge must conduct an examination under oath of the complainant and/or any witnesses to supplement the documentary submissions.
Particular Description
- The warrant must clearly identify the person to be arrested and must set forth the offense charged.
Constitutional Compliance
- The judge’s issuance must strictly comply with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to protect the constitutional right against unreasonable seizures.

7. Practical/Procedural Notes

Warrantless Arrest Exceptions: While the subject here is the warrant of arrest, remember there are scenarios where no warrant is necessary (Rule 113, Section 5) such as:
1. Arrest in flagrante delicto
2. Hot pursuit
3. Escapee
These exceptions do not require the requisites outlined above because they are authorized by law without prior judicial intervention.
Remedies if Warrant is Invalid:
- The accused can move to quash the warrant or to dismiss the case if the judge acted in excess of authority or without compliance with the requirements for probable cause.
- If a suspect is illegally arrested, the arrest’s illegality does not automatically render the subsequent information void. However, evidence obtained as a result of an invalid arrest may be challenged as “fruit of the poisonous tree” if it violates constitutional safeguards.
Ethical Considerations:
- Judges must discharge their duty impartially and independently, ensuring not to become a mere conduit of the prosecution.
- Prosecutors have the ethical duty to present only evidence that supports a finding of probable cause in a just manner. They must also be candid and complete in their submissions to the court to assist the judge’s determination.
- Defense counsel has the right to challenge any irregularity or deficiency in the issuance of the warrant of arrest.

8. Key Takeaways

Core Constitutional Right: The requirement that “no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause, personally determined by the judge,” is a cornerstone of due process and protection against unreasonable seizures.
Dual Probable Cause Determinations: One by the prosecutor (executive) for filing the information, another by the judge (judicial) for issuing the arrest warrant.
Not a Rubber Stamp: The judge’s role is active and independent; there must be a real and personal evaluation of the evidence.
Consequences of Non-Compliance: An invalid warrant can lead to the suppression of evidence or dismissal of the case; it may also expose the issuing judge or the prosecutor to administrative or civil liability in extreme cases of grave abuse.
Practical Litigation Strategy:
- For the prosecution: Ensure thorough, well-documented, and properly substantiated records during preliminary investigation to streamline the judge’s determination of probable cause.
- For the defense: Review the Information, evidence, and the judge’s basis for the arrest warrant. Challenge any shortfall in compliance with the rules and constitutional standards.

Final Word

The requisites for the issuance of a warrant of arrest revolve around ensuring that no person is arrested absent a well-grounded belief of their commission of a crime, personally confirmed by a judge. This mechanism upholds the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable seizures and underscores the independence and integrity of judicial processes in criminal proceedings in the Philippines.