Time is really still on their side prior to arrest.But once arrested,they can no longer afford the luxury of time for they have to remain in jail as their offense is non-bailable. Coupled with the inhuman conditions inside our jail particularly in Quezon City, it is easier to understand why they are moving heaven and earth to forestall the issuance of warrants for their arrests.Under such dire circumstances, they would rather expedite the termination of their case much more so if they are not guilty.
For lesser mortals who stand accused of such crime, warrants of arrests are issued by now. Arrest warrants are usually issued when an information, or accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the State Prosecutor who conducted a preliminary investigation, has already been filed in Court. A prudent judge normally considers such filing as an indication that the prosecutor has found probable cause or a reasonable ground to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested after a careful, prudent, discreet and objective evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case.In the Kuratong case, such information has already been filed in Court by the DOJ prosecutors. This means that there is already a reasonable ground to believe that the murderous rub-out has been committed and that the accused are probably guilty thereof so they should be arrested and held for trial.
Technically of course, "probable cause" is determined either for the purpose of deciding whether or not to charge the accused in court which is the main job of the prosecutor; or for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest which is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the court or judge (Section 2, Art. III Consitution). Apparently, the Kuratong accused are banking on this constitutional provision, as they now ask the judge to personally satisfy herself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants. But as held in Soliven and Beltran vs. Makasiar, (G.R. 8287, Nov. 14, 1988), the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses and on the basis thereof issue a warrant of arrest. She may also rely on the prosecutor’s report and its accompanying affidavits, transcript of stenographic notes and other supporting documents.Not because a judge is asked to personally determine probable cause for issuing arrest warrant should he grant it.Especially when the existence of such probable cause is already substantiated by the records.
It is only when she finds no probable cause on the basis of an inadequate and incomplete prosecutor’s report should she disregard it and require the submission of affidavits to aid her in arriving at the conclusion as to the existence of probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants. Even then, while her personal examination should be exhaustive in the form of searching questions and answers, not merely routinary and pro-forma, (Pendon vs. Court of Appeals,G.R.84873, Nove.16,1990) it should not take long because only proof of probable cause, not evidence to establish guilt is necessary( Henry vs. United States, 361US 102).
The latest move of the accused in this very much delayed case should not, therefore, be the cause of further delay. The longer this case drags on,the greater is the danger that witnesses and the victims’ relatives may be subjected to "irresistible" pressure until the prosecution will be once more left holding an empty bag of evidence.