Quashal of Warrant of Arrest

A warrant of arrest may be quashed on the ground that it was issued without probable cause. In Allado vs. Diokno (G.R. No. 113630, May 5, 1994), the Supreme Court declared that "probable cause for an arrest or for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested."

In the same case, the Supreme Court found no probable cause in the issuance of the warrant of arrest considering the following circumstances:

(1) The accounts of the complainant and his witnesses were incredible, laden with inconsistencies and improbabilities;

(2) The evidence thus far presented was utterly insufficient;

(3) The judge did not personally examine the evidence nor did he call for the complainant and his witnesses in the face of their incredible accounts;

(4) Instead, the judge merely relied on the certification of the prosecutors that probable cause existed; and

(5) The prosecutors themselves have similarly misappropriated, if not abused, their discretion to determine probable cause.

The Supreme Court said:

"Clearly, probable cause may not be established simply by showing that a trial judge subjectively believes that he has good grounds for his action. Good faith is not enough. If subjective good faith alone were the test, the constitutional protection would be demeaned and the people would be "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" only in the fallible discretion of the judge."