Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 270 views

    Cruz vs. Areola

    Uploaded by

    Erickson Agco
    1. The Ombudsman recommended filing an estafa case against Marilyn Carreon based on a complaint. Carreon requested reinvestigation from the trial court judge. 2. The trial court judge issued an arrest warrant for Carreon but deferred implementation pending resolution of the reinvestigation motion. The judge granted reinvestigation. 3. After reinvestigation, the prosecutor recommended proceeding to trial. The judge again suspended proceedings pending Carreon's motion. Complainants alleged the judge and clerk ignored the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cruz vs. Areola

    Uploaded by

    Erickson Agco
    270 views2 pages
    1. The Ombudsman recommended filing an estafa case against Marilyn Carreon based on a complaint. Carreon requested reinvestigation from the trial court judge. 2. The trial court judge issued an arrest warrant for Carreon but deferred implementation pending resolution of the reinvestigation motion. The judge granted reinvestigation. 3. After reinvestigation, the prosecutor recommended proceeding to trial. The judge again suspended proceedings pending Carreon's motion. Complainants alleged the judge and clerk ignored the law.

    Original Description:

    Constitutional Law

    Original Title

    03. Cruz vs. Areola

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The Ombudsman recommended filing an estafa case against Marilyn Carreon based on a complaint. Carreon requested reinvestigation from the trial court judge. 2. The trial court judge issued an arrest warrant for Carreon but deferred implementation pending resolution of the reinvestigation motion. The judge granted reinvestigation. 3. After reinvestigation, the prosecutor recommended proceeding to trial. The judge again suspended proceedings pending Carreon's motion. Complainants alleged the judge and clerk ignored the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    270 views2 pages

    Cruz vs. Areola

    Uploaded by

    Erickson Agco
    1. The Ombudsman recommended filing an estafa case against Marilyn Carreon based on a complaint. Carreon requested reinvestigation from the trial court judge. 2. The trial court judge issued an arrest warrant for Carreon but deferred implementation pending resolution of the reinvestigation motion. The judge granted reinvestigation. 3. After reinvestigation, the prosecutor recommended proceeding to trial. The judge again suspended proceedings pending Carreon's motion. Complainants alleged the judge and clerk ignored the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    AM No.

    RTJ-01-1642 March 6, 2002


    P/Supt. Severino Cruz, et.al., complainants
    Vs.
    Judge Pedro M. Areola, et.al., respondents

    Puno, J:
    Facts: The Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau of the Office of the
    Ombudsman issued a Resolution recommending the filing of an Information for Estafa
    against Marilyn Carreon, an employee of the LTO based on the complaint filed by
    complainants.
    Accused Carreon filed with the trial court an Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation.
    Respondent Judge considered the said motion. On the same date, a Warrant of Arrest
    was issued by the respondent Judge and released by respondent Branch Clerk of Court.
    However, Respondent Judge issued another Order deferring the implementation of the
    Warrant of Arrest against the accused pending the resolution of her Motion for
    Reinvestigation and respondent Judge granted Carreon’s Motion for Reconsideration
    and directed the Branch Trial Prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation of the case.
    The Office of the City Prosecutor issued a Resolution finding no cogent reason to
    reverse, modify, or alter the resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman and
    recommended that the case be set for trial. Carreon filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to
    Suspend Proceedings and to Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest as she
    intended to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of the Reinvestigation or
    a petition for review before the Secretary of Justice. Respondent Judge granted
    Carreon’s motion and suspended further proceedings in the said case. Then,
    complainants filed the instant complaint charging both respondent Judge and his
    Branch Clerk of Court with ignorance of the law.

    Issue: Whether or not the orders of respondent Judge and the release of warrant of
    arrest by respondent Branch Clerk of Court constitute ignorance of the law.

    Ruling: No. The arrest of the accused can be ordered only in the event the prosecutor
    files the case and the judge finds probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
    The determination of whether a probable cause exists and whether it is necessary to
    arrest the accused in order not to frustrate the ends of justice, is left to his sound
    judgment or discretion.
    It appears from the records that the challenged Orders issued by the respondent
    Judge were not at all baseless. The respondent Judge merely exercised his sound
    discretion in immediately issuing the warrant of arrest and in suspending further
    proceedings pending reinvestigation of the case.
    Thus, the administrative complaint is dismissed.
    Critique: A judge would not release a warrant of arrest that is baseless. As long as the
    judge finds a probable cause, in the discretion of the judge, the judge can issue the
    warrant of arrest.

    You might also like