Cruz v People; G.R. No. 110436; 27 Jun 1994; 233 SCRA 439

FACTS:
Two informations involving the same set of facts were filed with the Sandiganbayan against petitioner, the first for violation of Republic Act 3019, as amended, and the second for estafa through falsification of public documents. The two cases were consolidated and later remanded to the Office of the Ombudsman for reinvestigation.
ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the warrant of arrest was invalid because the determination of probable cause was made by the provincial prosecutor.

RULING:
NO. In a preliminary examination for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the court is not tasked to review in detail the evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation. It is sufficient that the judge personally evaluates the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecution in determining probable cause.

The resolutions appealed from are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

Tags: , ,

Category: Legal Chyme

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *