2015 Remedial Law, Q10

An information for murder was filed against Rapido. The RTC judge, after personally evaluating the prosecutor’s resolution, documents and parties’ affidavits submitted by the prosecutor, found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest. Rapido’s lawyer examined the rollo of the case and found that it only contained the copy of the information, the submissions of the prosecutor and a copy of the warrant of arrest. Immediately, Rapido’s counsel filed a motion to quash the arrest warrant for being void, citing as grounds:
a.) The judge before issuing the warrant did not personally conduct a searching examination of the prosecution witnesses in violation of his client’s constitutionally-mandated rights;
b.) There was no prior order finding probable cause before the judge issued the arrest warrant.
May the warrant of arrest be quashed on the grounds cited by Rapido’s counsel? State your reason for each ground. (4%)

Quick check

What is required of a judge when determining probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest?

Is a trial judge required to personally examine prosecution witnesses before issuing an arrest warrant?

Does the absence of a separate prior order finding probable cause render an arrest warrant void?

When may a trial judge personally conduct a searching examination of witnesses in determining probable cause?

Choices available with full access.

What is the proper action on a motion to quash an arrest warrant based on lack of personal witness examination by the judge?

Choices available with full access.

Unlock the full Remedial Law answers

Learn more about these topics

1. Judicial Probable Cause
Under Section 2, Article III of the Constitution and Rule 112, Section 5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judge issuing a warrant of arrest is only required to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting documents. The judge is not mandated to personally conduct a searching examination of the complainant and witnesses. Personal examination is only discretionary when the judge finds the prosecutor's report and submitted affidavits insufficient to establish probable cause for issuing an arrest warrant.

2. Warrant Order Requirement
The absence of a separate, prior written order finding probable cause does not invalidate a warrant of arrest. The actual issuance of the warrant itself carries the legal presumption that the trial judge personally evaluated the evidence and determined the existence of probable cause. The Constitution and procedural rules do not require a formal written resolution or separate order prior to or accompanying the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

3. Motion to Quash
A motion to quash a warrant of arrest on the grounds of lack of personal examination or absence of a prior written order must be denied when the record shows judicial compliance. When the trial judge personally reviews the prosecutor's summary, information, and supporting affidavits before issuing the warrant, the constitutional mandate is fully satisfied. Allegations of procedural irregularity without proof that the judge failed to personally evaluate the records will not justify quashing the warrant.

About these questions and answers
The questions reproduced here are the official texts of the Philippine Bar Examinations, published by the Supreme Court. They are reproduced for study purposes.The suggested answers are the author’s own.

They are not official answers, have no connection with the Supreme Court, the Office of the Bar Confidant, or any bar review institution, and are not endorsed by any of them. Official answer keys, where released, should be preferred over anything here.Nothing on this page is legal advice, and reading it creates no lawyer-client relationship. Do not rely on any suggested answer in an actual legal matter. Consult counsel on your own facts.Suggested answers reflect the law and jurisprudence the author considers applicable as of the date shown.

Where a question comes from an earlier examination, the suggested answer applies the law as it now stands, which may differ from the law in force when the question was given, and may therefore differ from what would have been the correct answer at that time. Where the difference is material, the answer notes it.The practice scoring feature measures wording overlap with the suggested answer. It is not a grade, carries no official weight, and says nothing about whether your reasoning is sound.Errors are possible. If you find one, please tell me and I will correct it.Last reviewed: October 2026