Soliven v Makasiar Nov 14, 1988 G.R. No.

82585
Per Curiam
(Topic on Warrant Issued by RTC)
Facts:
Soliven broadcasted the statement that President Aquino hid under her
bed during a coup d' etat. The President sued for libel. Soliven claimed
that he can't be sued because the President was immune from suit.
Issue: WON Beltran's rights were violated when the RTC issued a
warrant of arrest without personally examining the complainant and
the witnesses to determine probable cause.
Held: No
Ratio:
In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause to issue a
warrant of arrest, the judge isn't required to examine the complainant
and the witnesses.
He shall only personally evaluate the report and supporting documents
submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and
issue a warrant of arrest on the basis thereof.
Also, if he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report
and required the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid
him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
Otherwise, judges would be burdened with preliminary investigation
instead of hearing cases.
Second issue
This calls for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the
issuance of warrants of arrest:

Art. III, Sec.2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Petitioner Beltran is convinced that the Constitution requires the judge
to personally examine the complainant and his witness in his
determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of
arrests.
-However, what the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and
personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the
existence of probable cause. In doing so, the judge is not required to
personally examine the complainant and his witness.

Following the established doctrine of procedure, the judge

shall: (1) Personally evaluate the report and supporting
documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of
probable cause (and on the basis, thereof, issue a warrant of
arrest); or (2) If on the basis thereof he finds no probable
cause, he may disregard the fiscals report and require the
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
arriving at a conclusion as to the evidence of probable cause.