Uploaded by vj hernandez

assignment no 2 case digest

Gr No. L-82585
Maximo Soliven vs Hon. Ramon Makasiar
On March 30, 1988, the Secretary of Justice denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and upheld
the resolution of the Undersecretary of Justice sustaining the finding of the City Fiscal of a prima facie
case against petitioner. Second motion for reconsideration filed by Beltran was denied by the Sec of
Justice. On appeal, the president through the Executive Sec affirmed the resolution of the Sec of Justice.
The motion for reconsideration was denied by the Exec Secretary. With this, petitioner contended that
they have been denied the administrative remedies available under the law.
Whether or not petitioners were denied due process?
Whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran were violated when the respondent judge issued a
warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and witnesses
1. Due process of law does not require that the respondent in a criminal case actually file his
counter-affidavits before preliminary investigation is deemed complete. All that is required is
athat the respondent be given the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits if he is so minded.
2. No. what the constitution requires is that the issuing judge must satisfy himself first with the
criteria in finding probable cause and to satisfy himself doesn’t mean to he is required to
personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. The constitution mandates that he shall:
(1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal
regarding the existence of probable cause, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis he
finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s report and require the submission of
supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
probable cause.