Scribd
Upload
53 views7 pages

Samulde v. Salvani, Jr.

The case of Samulde v. Salvani, Jr. addresses the conflict between an investigating judge and a provincial fiscal regarding the necessity of issuing a warrant for the arrest of an accused after a preliminary investigation found prima facie evidence of a crime. The ruling clarified that it is discretionary for the investigating judge to issue a warrant, as the purpose of the preliminary investigation does not mandate such action. The fiscal was advised to file an information to allow the RTC to issue a warrant if deemed necessary.

Uploaded by

Paula Resultay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
53 views7 pages

Samulde v. Salvani, Jr.

The case of Samulde v. Salvani, Jr. addresses the conflict between an investigating judge and a provincial fiscal regarding the necessity of issuing a warrant for the arrest of an accused after a preliminary investigation found prima facie evidence of a crime. The ruling clarified that it is discretionary for the investigating judge to issue a warrant, as the purpose of the preliminary investigation does not mandate such action. The fiscal was advised to file an information to allow the RTC to issue a warrant if deemed necessary.

Uploaded by

Paula Resultay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Samulde v. Salvani, Jr.

G.R. No. 78606


September 26, 1988
About the case:
This case involves a disagreement between an investigating
judge and the provincial fiscal on whether it is mandatory for the
former to issue a warrant for the 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.
(Crim. Case No. 2046-B, entitled "People of the Philippines vs.
Pelayo Arangale")
Facts:
Municipal Judge Samulde conducted a preliminary investigation of Arangale. After the
preliminary investigation, 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 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 warrant of arrest. 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. Nevertheless, Judge Samulde
was ordered to issue a warrant of arrest in accordance with Sec. 5, Rule 112 of the 1985
ROC.
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.

4
Ruling:
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 preliminary investigation 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
warrant of arrest 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.
Ruling:
It is not obligatory, but merely discretionary, upon the
investigating judge to issue a warrant of arrest, 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.
7

You might also like