DORIS TERESA HO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (represented by the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman) and the SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division), respondents; ROLANDO S. NARCISO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (represented by the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman) and the SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division), respondents

Summary

This consolidated case established that judges cannot issue warrants of arrest based solely on prosecutor's reports but must personally examine sufficient supporting evidence to determine probable cause independently. The Supreme Court En Banc ruled that the Sandiganbayan violated constitutional due process when it issued arrest warrants against Ho and Narciso relying only on the Ombudsman's information and attached prosecutor reports, without examining underlying evidence from the preliminary investigation. The Court emphasized that the 1987 Constitution's use of 'personally' in the probable cause determination requirement places greater responsibility on judges than previous constitutions. While judges need not examine complete preliminary investigation records, they must have sufficient supporting documents beyond the prosecutor's bare recommendation to make independent judicial determinations. This decision reinforced the constitutional separation between prosecutorial and judicial functions in warrant issuance procedures.