If a warrant of arrest has been issued against a person, is he already guilty of the crime he is being charged of?

 

This is another misconception that I often heard before I entered law school. That a person is already guilty – that he is the person who committed and perpetrated the crime – if a warrant of arrest was issued against him. Thus, in this week’s column, we will address such misconception and will discuss the concept and purpose of a warrant of arrest as well as the process of its issuance.

 

What is a warrant of arrest? A warrant of arrest is a written order issued and signed by a magistrate/judge, directed to a peace officer or some other person specially named therein, and commanding him to arrest the body of a person named in it, who is accused of an offense. (Black’s Law Dictionary). One of the purposes of arresting a person thru a warrant of arrest is in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused or the person who is being charged of a crime. In Gomez vs People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 216824), it was stated that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his or her (1) arrest or apprehension, with or without a warrant; or (2) voluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the court. The acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused is necessary as the same allows the court to render a decision that is binding on the accused.

 

When may a warrant of arrest be issued? Section 6 of Rule 112 states: When warrant of arrest may issue. – (a) By the Regional Trial Court. – Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest xxx.

 

In order to have a better grasp of the process of issuance of warrant of arrest, it is imperative to distinguish first the difference between the determination of probable cause for filing a criminal complaint or to hold a person for trial (Executive) from the determination of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest (Judicial).

 

The executive determination of probable cause is one made during preliminary investigation. Preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before a criminal case may be filed in court if the crime of a person being accused of is punishable by imprisonment of at least 4 years 2 months and 1 day. It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those whom he believes to have committed the crime as defined by law and thus should be held for trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed in court.

 

Probable cause for purpose of filing a criminal information defined as such facts are sufficient to engender a well- founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof.” A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.

 

Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, on the other hand, is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.

 

At this stage of the criminal proceeding, the judge is not yet tasked to review in detail the evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation. It is sufficient that he personally evaluates such evidence in determining probable cause. What is required, rather, is that the judge must have sufficient supporting documents (such as the complaint, affidavits, counter-affidavits, sworn statements of witnesses or transcript of stenographic notes, if any) upon which to make his independent judgment, or at the very least, upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to existence of probable cause. The point is: a judge should not rely solely and entirely on the prosecutor’s recommendation

 

Hence, the judge, before issuing a warrant of arrest, “must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof.” In Webb v. De Leon, it is stressed that in its determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge, merely determines the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of the accused. “Probable cause” should be differentiated from “proof beyond reasonable doubt” which is the quantum or amount of evidence required or needed in order to sustain a conviction.

 

To put it simply, a warrant of arrest is an order or a writ for the apprehension of a person accused of a crime issued by a judge after it determines that there is probable cause or that such person is probably guilty of the crime he is being accused of. The reason for the apprehension is for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused for it to have the power and authority to render a decision that shall bind the accused.

 

Clearly, a person arrested thru a warrant of arrest is not yet guilty of the crime he is being accused of. The issuance of a warrant of arrest and the apprehension of the accused are pre-requisite for the commencement of the trial in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.