Imagine that you're accused of a non-bailable crime, a warrant of arrest is issued, but you believe you're innocent and file a DOJ appeal. Can you delay your arrest by merely filing that appeal?

TOPIC: Top 10 Philippine Supreme Court jurisprudence discussing the proper execution of a warrant of arrest: Part 3 of 10 

CAN A COURT BE FORCED TO SUSPEND THE ENFORCEMENT OF A WARRANT OF ARREST JUST BECAUSE A PETITION FOR REVIEW IS PENDING BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE?

Case Title: ENRIQUE V. VIUDEZ II, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and HON. BASILIO R. GABO, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 11, Regional Trial Court, Malolos, Bulacan G.R. No. 152889 | June 5, 2009

 

Facts of the Case

On June 9, 2000, Mayor Honorato Galvez and his driver were shot dead in San Ildefonso, Bulacan. Shortly thereafter, two separate complaints for murder were filed—first by the PNP-CIDG, and later by Estrella Galvez, the widow of the deceased, who specifically named Enrique Viudez II among the accused.

By March 31, 2001, the Investigating Prosecutor found probable cause against Viudez and others. This led to the filing of two murder Informations before RTC Branch 11, Malolos, Bulacan, on September 19, 2001. The court issued warrants of arrest the same day.

Viudez, however, invoked Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 70, which provides that court proceedings should be held "in abeyance" pending a DOJ Petition for Review. On September 21, 2001, he moved to suspend the proceedings and the enforcement of the arrest warrant, claiming that a pending DOJ review justified such relief.

RTC Judge Basilio R. Gabo denied the motion on September 28, 2001, emphasizing that (1) jurisdiction over Viudez had not yet been acquired, and (2) no compelling reason existed to recall a valid warrant. Viudez’s motion for reconsideration was also denied.

Viudez then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), claiming grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA initially issued a TRO against the enforcement of the arrest warrant. However, by December 19, 2001, it dismissed the petition for lack of merit, ruling that a DOJ circular cannot override judicial discretion. The CA emphasized that no law or jurisprudence mandated the suspension of arrest warrants just because a DOJ Petition for Review is pending.

Meanwhile, the DOJ eventually resolved Viudez’s Petition for Review in his favor on September 13, 2002, ordering the withdrawal of the murder Informations. The trial court granted the motion to withdraw the Informations on October 23, 2002. Despite this, Viudez pursued the case to the Supreme Court, asking for a categorical ruling on whether DOJ Circular No. 70 could justify the suspension of arrest warrants.

 

Main Issue

Whether a pending Petition for Review before the Secretary of Justice suspends the implementation of a warrant of arrest previously issued by a trial court.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. It ruled that the authority to determine probable cause for purposes of issuing a warrant of arrest lies solely with the judge, and the implementation of such a warrant cannot be suspended merely due to a pending DOJ review. DOJ Circular No. 70 does not bind courts to halt the execution of their orders.

The Court stressed that allowing an executive circular to suspend judicial processes would violate the doctrine of separation of powers. The discretion to suspend court proceedings—including warrants—is judicial, not executive.

 

Dispositive Portion

“WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction dated April 25, 2002 is DENIED – the Petition for Review, for lack of merit; and the issuance of TRO and/or preliminary injunction, for being moot and academic.”

 

Should a person facing a non-bailable offense be allowed to delay arrest just because they filed a DOJ appeal—despite the judge’s finding of probable cause? Is this a loophole or a safeguard of rights?

 

Key Doctrines Cited

1. “The determination of probable cause for purposes of issuing a warrant of arrest is a judicial function.”
   – Only judges, not prosecutors or executive officers, can issue and control arrest warrants.
2. “Preliminary investigation is executive in nature; the issuance of arrest warrants is judicial.”
   – There is a clear demarcation between the roles of prosecutors (who determine whether to prosecute) and judges (who determine whether to arrest).
3. “A DOJ circular cannot bind the court or divest it of discretion.”
   – Administrative issuances cannot override the constitutional independence of the judiciary.
4. “Filing of a Petition for Review with the DOJ does not suspend court proceedings as a matter of right.”
   – Courts may, in their discretion, defer proceedings, but they are not obligated to do so.

 

Classification: Remedial Law

 

Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!

📢DISCLAIMER:

This content is for educational purposes only and does not guarantee the infallibility of the legal content presented. All content was created using premium AI tools and reviewed for accuracy to the best of our abilities. Always consult a qualified legal professional for legal advice.

CHAT WITH ME! (CLICK HERE)

Read full text of the decision here

🎓 LAW SCHOOL DOCTRINE RECALL SERIES

 

INTRODUCTION:
In this video, we explore Viudez II v. Court of Appeals, a landmark Remedial Law case that clarifies judicial discretion in the implementation of arrest warrants—an essential concept for law students, bar candidates, and baristas. We’ll break down 10 core doctrines to aid in faster recall and deeper understanding.

 

📌 CASE OVERVIEW:
Title: Enrique V. Viudez II vs. Court of Appeals and Hon. Basilio R. Gabo, Jr.
G.R. No.: 152889
Date: June 5, 2009
Nature: Remedial Law – Criminal Procedure / Judicial Discretion / Arrest Warrants

Summary:
Viudez, accused of murder, sought to stop his arrest by invoking DOJ Department Circular No. 70, citing a pending Petition for Review before the Secretary of Justice. The trial court and CA denied his motion. The Supreme Court upheld that judges—not DOJ circulars—control warrant enforcement.

Main Issue:
Can a DOJ Petition for Review suspend the enforcement of a validly issued warrant of arrest?
The Supreme Court ruled NO—judicial discretion prevails.

💭 Should executive issuances be allowed to restrict judicial processes like arrest enforcement? Comment below!

 

🔟 IMPORTANT DOCTRINES IN VIUDEZ II v. CA (G.R. No. 152889)

1. Judicial Determination of Probable Cause Is Exclusive
   Only judges—not prosecutors or the DOJ—have authority to determine probable cause for arrest.
   📖 Source: Viudez II v. CA, citing People v. Inting
2. Arrest Warrant Implementation Is a Judicial Act
   The court’s decision to enforce a warrant cannot be deferred by DOJ circulars or pending appeals.
   📖 Viudez II ruling, para. on judicial discretion
3. Preliminary Investigation ≠ Preliminary Inquiry
   Preliminary investigation (DOJ) determines if the accused should be charged; preliminary inquiry (court) decides on arrest.
   📖 Viudez II, citing AAA v. Carbonell
4. Department Circulars Are Not Binding on Courts
   Circulars like DOJ No. 70 guide prosecutors—not judges. Courts are not compelled to follow them.
   📖 Viudez II, ruling on Section 9 of DOJ Circular
5. Court Discretion Is Supreme After Filing of Information
   Once a case is filed, any dismissal or motion—including withdrawal of information—is under the court’s sound discretion.
   📖 Citing Marcelo v. CA, Crespo v. Mogul
6. Filing a DOJ Review Does Not Halt Warrant Execution
   Pending DOJ review does not suspend the court’s valid issuance and implementation of a warrant.
   📖 Main holding of Viudez II
7. TROs Cannot Nullify Court’s Original Jurisdiction
   A TRO by the CA or SC may delay, but not nullify, the original judicial power to order arrests.
   📖 Procedural history in Viudez II
8. No Due Process Violation in Warrant Enforcement
   Enforcing a valid warrant based on court-determined probable cause does not violate due process—even if DOJ review is pending.
   📖 Viudez II, discussion on liberty and due process
9. Judicial Discretion Requires No Deference to Executive Opinions
   The judge’s duty to evaluate probable cause and act on motions stands independent of DOJ positions.
   📖 Viudez II, reaffirming judicial independence
10. Final DOJ Resolution Can Lead to Case Withdrawal, Not Automatic Dismissal
    Only upon a motion to withdraw can a case be dropped—and the court can still deny such motion.
    📖 Viudez II, citing Ledesma v. CA, Solar Team v. How

 

📌 DISCLAIMER:
This content is for educational purposes only and not guaranteed to be infallible. Created using premium AI tools. Always consult official sources or legal counsel for authoritative interpretations.

👍 Like, 💬 comment your insights, and 🔔 subscribe for more law doctrine digests.