Allado vs. Diokno, G.R. No. 113630 May 5, 1994

Crim Pro - Jurisdiction

Facts:

On September 16, 1993, a Security Guard and a discharged Philippine Constabulary named Escolastico Umbal executed a sworn statement implicating petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto Mendoza who are partners in the Law Firm of Salonga, Hernandez and Allado. He accused them as the brains behind the alleged kidnapping and slaying of Eugen Alexander Van Twest, a German national. Based on that confession of Umbal, a search warrant was issued by Judge Roberto Barrios of the RTC of Manila. 

Then, the operatives of the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC), armed with the search warrant issued separately raided the dwellings of police officers who were also pointed by Umbal as the perpetrators of the crimes. Several firearms and ammunitions were found in the raid including Van Twest's Cartier sunglasses. So, the two lawyers and their other co-defendants were charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions, carnapping, kidnapping for ransom with murder, and usurpation of authority. Their case was referred by the PACC to the DOJ who took over the case. 

After preliminary investigation, the Judge Roberto Diokno found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest without bail. The petitioners questioned the issued warrants of arrests. They claim that Judge Diokno acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of his jurisdiction as there is lack of probable cause for him to issue the warrants. They further contend that the judge did not personally determine the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence where the investigation was based from.

Issue: Whether or not a warrant of arrest without bail can be set aside and the case be dismissed for lack of probable cause even if the accused was not in the custody of the court.

Held: Yes. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the PACC from enforcing the warrant of arrest and the respondent judge therein from further proceeding in the case on the ground of lack of probable cause. As with other earlier cases resolved by the high court, the accused is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court upon seeking affirmative relief. Notwithstanding such, there is no requirement that the accused be in the custody of the law. Various reliefs can be granted by the Supreme Court to accused even if they are not in the custody of the law.