Legal analysis of arrest warrants issued despite filing a counter affidavit

Legal Analysis of Arrest Warrants Issued Despite Filing a Counter-Affidavit
(Philippine Context)

I. Introduction

In Philippine criminal procedure, individuals facing criminal complaints typically undergo a preliminary investigation before a case is filed in court. During this preliminary investigation, the respondent (the person charged) is given the opportunity to submit a counter-affidavit (and other supporting evidence) to refute the allegations against them. Despite this procedural safeguard, there are instances where, once the case reaches the courts, a warrant of arrest may still be issued—even if a counter-affidavit has been filed at the prosecutor’s office or presented during the preliminary investigation.

This article aims to provide a comprehensive legal analysis of the underlying principles, procedural rules, and jurisprudential guidelines that govern why and how arrest warrants can be issued despite the respondent having filed a counter-affidavit.

II. Constitutional and Legal Foundations

  1. Constitutional Basis for Arrest Warrants

    • Article III, Section 2, 1987 Philippine Constitution: Provides the right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
    • Article III, Section 2 and Section 3(1), 1987 Philippine Constitution: Requires that no warrant 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.

  2. Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 112 & Rule 113)

    • Rule 112 outlines the process of preliminary investigation, including the submission of counter-affidavits, the finding of probable cause by the investigating prosecutor, and the filing of the information in court.
    • Rule 113, Section 4 covers the issuance and execution of arrest warrants. The court, upon finding probable cause, issues the warrant to ensure the presence of the accused at arraignment and trial.

III. Preliminary Investigation and the Role of the Counter-Affidavit

  1. Purpose of Preliminary Investigation
    The preliminary investigation is designed to protect an individual from groundless, unsupported, or vexatious suits. It is a substantive right under Philippine law, serving two main purposes:

    1. To determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof; and
    2. To secure the innocent from an open and public accusation of crime, as well as from the trouble, expense, and anxiety of a public trial.

  2. Filing of Counter-Affidavits

    • The counter-affidavit is the respondent’s primary defense tool at the preliminary investigation stage.
    • Under Rule 112, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, the respondent must be given the opportunity to submit a counter-affidavit within a reasonable period.
    • The counter-affidavit should address factual allegations in the complaint and, ideally, rebut them with evidence or legal arguments.

  3. Prosecutor’s Determination of Probable Cause

    • After examining the complaint, supporting affidavits, and the respondent’s counter-affidavit (and any other submissions), the investigating prosecutor determines whether “probable cause” exists to hold the respondent for trial.
    • If probable cause is found, the prosecutor prepares a corresponding Information and files it in the appropriate trial court.

Key Point: The existence of a counter-affidavit does not automatically negate a finding of probable cause by the prosecutor. Its primary function is to aid the prosecutor in evaluating the complaint’s merits.

IV. Court’s Role in the Issuance of Arrest Warrants

  1. Judicial Determination of Probable Cause

    • Upon the filing of an Information in court, the trial judge performs a personal evaluation of the records, which include the complaint-affidavit, counter-affidavit, and other supporting evidence.
    • The judge must determine if probable cause exists to issue an Arrest Warrant. This is distinct from the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause for filing the Information.
    • The judge need not always conduct a hearing; a personal examination of the written evidence is sufficient, as decided in Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585 (1988) and subsequent cases.

  2. Effect of Filing a Counter-Affidavit in Court’s Probable Cause Determination

    • Even if a counter-affidavit was filed during preliminary investigation, the judge is not bound to dismiss the case solely because the respondent raised defenses in that affidavit.
    • The judge will consider all evidence forwarded by the prosecutor, including the respondent’s counter-affidavit. However, the judge may still find probable cause if the prosecution evidence strongly suggests that the crime was likely committed by the respondent.

  3. Why Arrest Warrants May Be Issued Despite a Counter-Affidavit

    • Standards of Probable Cause: Probable cause does not require absolute certainty of guilt. It only requires a reasonable belief that the respondent committed the offense. The judge can still believe that the prosecution’s evidence surpasses any defenses raised in the counter-affidavit.
    • Nature of the Counter-Affidavit: A counter-affidavit’s purpose at the preliminary investigation stage is primarily to persuade the prosecutor. Once the information is filed, the judge makes a separate, independent assessment.
    • Protecting the Integrity of Judicial Process: The warrant ensures the accused’s attendance at trial and protects the judicial process from being frustrated by the accused’s potential non-appearance.

V. Remedies and Recourses for the Accused

Even if a warrant of arrest is issued despite the filing of a counter-affidavit, the accused (or respondent) is not left without remedies. Here are some of the key options:

  1. Post Bail (If Offense is Bailable)

    • If the offense charged is bailable under Philippine law, the accused may post bail as a matter of right (subject to certain exceptions for offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong).
    • Filing a petition for bail is a primary remedy to regain temporary liberty while awaiting trial.

  2. Motion to Quash the Information or Warrant of Arrest

    • The accused may file a Motion to Quash the Information if there are jurisdictional defects or if the Information fails to charge an offense.
    • A separate motion or pleading may be filed to question the validity of the arrest warrant if it was issued without probable cause.

  3. Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause (or Reconsideration)

    • Though a judge normally makes a personal determination of probable cause ex parte, a respondent can still move for reconsideration or raise arguments that probable cause was insufficient to justify the warrant.
    • The Supreme Court has held that the judge has the prerogative to either hold a summary hearing or simply decide the motion based on the records.

  4. Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65)

    • If the accused believes the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the arrest warrant, a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court can be filed with a higher court.
    • The petitioner must show that the trial court’s action in issuing the warrant was arbitrary or without basis in facts or law.

VI. Relevant Jurisprudence

  1. Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585 (1988)

    • Clarifies that the judge’s personal examination of the prosecutor’s resolution and attached documents is generally sufficient for a finding of probable cause.
    • The Supreme Court held that it is not mandatory for the judge to conduct an additional hearing on probable cause, though the judge has the discretion to do so.

  2. Allado v. Diokno, G.R. No. 113630 (1994)

    • Stresses that prosecutorial harassment through groundless complaints should not be tolerated. However, so long as the evidence shows probable cause, the issuance of a warrant of arrest can be proper.

  3. Ho v. People, G.R. No. 139166 (2002)

    • Explains the distinction between the prosecutor’s probable cause (for filing an information) and the judge’s probable cause (for issuing an arrest warrant). Both are required to protect individual rights and ensure legitimate prosecution.

  4. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 144491 (2002)

    • Underscores the fact that a counter-affidavit, while important, does not bind the judge to dismiss the charge if the totality of evidence supports a conclusion that the accused committed the crime.

VII. Practical Insights

  • Filing a Detailed Counter-Affidavit: Respondents should ensure their counter-affidavit is well-supported by evidence (e.g., documents, witness affidavits). Although it may not prevent the prosecutor or judge from finding probable cause, a strong rebuttal may influence the outcome or lead to the prosecutor’s dismissal of the complaint at the preliminary investigation stage.

  • Monitoring the Preliminary Investigation: It is crucial for respondents (and their counsel) to monitor the steps taken by the prosecutor—whether the investigating prosecutor fully considered the counter-affidavit. If there is reason to believe the prosecutor overlooked critical defenses, the respondent can file a petition for review in the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor, if applicable.

  • Legal Representation: Given the complexity and the need to raise timely objections or petitions, it is vital for the accused to engage legal counsel who can strategically navigate both the prosecutorial phase and the judicial phase.

  • Respecting the Court’s Discretion: Courts enjoy wide discretion in determining the existence of probable cause. Challenging a court’s issuance of a warrant requires demonstrating that the court acted in a capricious, arbitrary, or whimsical manner—an inherently demanding legal standard.

VIII. Conclusion

The issuance of an arrest warrant despite the filing of a counter-affidavit may appear counterintuitive to laypersons, but it is a routine and legally permissible outcome in Philippine criminal procedure. The crux of this procedure lies in the two-tiered probable cause determination:

  1. The prosecutor’s determination that probable cause exists to file the Information in court; and
  2. The judge’s independent determination of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest.

Filing a counter-affidavit at the preliminary investigation stage is crucial, but it does not guarantee the avoidance of criminal charges or an arrest warrant. Ultimately, whether a warrant issues depends on the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution vis-à-vis the defenses raised by the respondent. If an arrest warrant is issued, the law provides ample remedies—such as posting bail, filing motions to quash or for reconsideration, or elevating the case via a petition for certiorari—to protect the respondent’s rights and to ensure that judicial discretion is exercised within constitutional and legal bounds.

References:

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution
  • Rules of Court, Rule 112 (Preliminary Investigation) & Rule 113 (Arrest)
  • Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585 (1988)
  • Allado v. Diokno, G.R. No. 113630 (1994)
  • Ho v. People, G.R. No. 139166 (2002)
  • People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 144491 (2002)

This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Individuals facing criminal charges or legal questions are encouraged to consult a qualified attorney for advice specific to their situation.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login