Probable Cause for Arrest Warrants: Insights from the Relampagos v. Sandiganbayan Ruling

The Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Relampagos v. Sandiganbayan offers a clear and practical guide to one of the most misunderstood concepts in Philippine criminal procedure: probable cause. For anyone facing a criminal complaint, or simply trying to understand how arrest warrants are issued, the case draws an important line between two distinct determinations of probable cause—one made by prosecutors, the other by judges.

The case arose from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or “pork barrel” scam. Petitioners, then-Department of Budget and Management (DBM) officials and staff, were charged before the Sandiganbayan for allegedly facilitating the release of funds to non-existent NGOs. They argued that the charges against them lacked probable cause, pointing out that they did not prepare the relevant documents and that their participation was merely ministerial.

The Two Kinds of Probable Cause

The Court reiterated that there are two kinds of probable cause: executive and judicial.

Executive probable cause is determined during the preliminary investigation conducted by the public prosecutor or the Ombudsman. It is a function that belongs to the prosecutor, who has broad discretion to decide whether a case should be filed in court.

Judicial probable cause, on the other hand, is determined by a judge or, in this case, the Sandiganbayan, to decide whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. The judge must be satisfied that, based on the evidence submitted, there is a necessity for placing the accused under custody.

The Court explained that once the court has made its own judicial determination of probable cause and issued arrest warrants, any challenge to the prosecutor’s earlier finding becomes moot. The two determinations are distinct, and the court is not compelled to review the correctness of the prosecutor’s executive determination.

The Standard for Issuing an Arrest Warrant

The Court defined probable cause for purposes of issuing a warrant of arrest as “facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.”

This standard is less stringent than the proof required for conviction. The Court stressed that probable cause “does not call for the application of rules or standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.” What is required is only a “probability of guilt,” not clear and convincing evidence or absolute certainty.

One notable point: probable cause can be established even with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. The determination relies on common sense rather than technical rules of evidence.

Why the Petitioners’ Arguments Failed

The petitioners raised several defenses: that they did not prepare the Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs) and Notices of Cash Allocation (NCAs), that one petitioner signed only in a ministerial capacity, and that the prosecution’s case was based on hearsay.

The Court found these arguments unavailing. These were matters relating to the Ombudsman’s executive determination of probable cause, which had already been rendered moot by the Sandiganbayan’s independent judicial finding. The Court noted that the Sandiganbayan found sufficient evidence showing each petitioner’s participation in the scheme.

The Court also rejected the motion for a bill of particulars, finding that the petitioners had intelligently addressed all charges against them, and that the factual and legal issues they raised were evidentiary matters best resolved after a full trial.

Practical Takeaways

• Probable cause for arrest is a low threshold. It requires only a reasonable belief of probable guilt, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Even hearsay can support it if there is a substantial basis to credit it.
• A court’s finding of probable cause is hard to overturn. To set aside a warrant of arrest, a petitioner must show grave abuse of discretion—that the court acted in a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary manner. Mere disagreement with the court’s assessment is not enough.
• Challenging the prosecutor’s finding after arrest is usually futile. Once the court has independently determined probable cause and issued warrants, arguments against the prosecutor’s earlier finding are considered moot.
• Defenses on the merits belong at trial. Issues like whether an accused actually signed documents or acted ministerially are evidentiary matters that should be raised during trial, not in a motion to quash the arrest warrant.
• The distinction matters in practice. Understanding whether a probable cause challenge targets the executive or judicial determination can determine the strategy and timing of a legal response.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.