Distinguish probable cause of fiscal from that of a judge 1 The determination by the prosecutor of probable cause is for the purpose of either filing an information in court or dismissing the charges against the respondent, which is an executive function. Based on such finding, the investigating prosecutor files the corresponding complaint or information in the competent court against the accused. The determination of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest is a judicial function.
A judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if he or she believes honestly that there is no probable cause for doing so People vs. Hi good evening po,,tinawagan po ako ng hr dept namin sayi g na may warrant of arrest daw po ako today and 3pm po ang serve. Skip to content. Requisites of a valid warrant of arrest 1 Requisites for arrest warrant issued by a RTC judge under Sec.
When warrant of arrest may issue 1 a By the Regional Trial Court. Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation 1 No preliminary investigation is required in the following cases: a If filed with the prosecutor. Remedies of accused if there was no preliminary investigation 1 One remedy if there was no preliminary investigation is to hold in abeyance the proceedings and order the prosecutor to hold preliminary investigation Pilapil vs. Determination of Probable Cause for issuance of warrant of arrest 1 It is the judge alone who determines the probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest.
Notify of. Inline Feedbacks. Val deem. If the warrant of arrest is issued by the MTC and if the preliminary investigation was conducted by the prosecutor, the same procedure as above is followed. When the accused is already in detention issued by the MTC 2.
When the accused was arrested by virtue of a lawful arrest without warrant 3. When the penalty is of a fine only 4. Those covered by a summary procedure. The reason may be apparent from the face of the complaint or may be provided by the federal law enforcement officer or attorney for the government. See comparable provision in rule 9. Subdivision b 3 deals with the situation in which conditions change after a summons has issued.
It affords the government an opportunity to demonstrate the need for an arrest warrant. This may be done in the district in which the defendant is located if this is the convenient place to do so. Subdivision c provides that a warrant or summons may issue on the basis of hearsay evidence. What constitutes probable cause is left to be dealt with on a case-to-case basis, taking account of the unlimited variations in source of information and in the opportunity of the informant to perceive accurately the factual data which he furnishes.
See e. Texas , U. Ventresca , U. Illinois , U. Harris , U. Cipes , Supp. Amendments Proposed by the Supreme Court. Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure deals with arrest procedures when a criminal complaint has been filed. It provides in pertinent part:. If it appears. Upon the request of the attorney for the government a summons instead of a warrant shall issue.
The Supreme Court's amendments make a basic change in Rule 4. As proposed to be amended, Rule 4 gives priority to the issuance of a summons instead of an arrest warrant. Committee Action. The Committee agrees with and approves the basic change in Rule 4. The decision to take a citizen into custody is a very important one with far-reaching consequences. That decision ought to be made by a neutral official a magistrate rather than by an interested party the prosecutor.
It has been argued that undesirable consequences will result if this change is adopted—including an increase in the number of fugitives and the introduction of substantial delays in our system of criminal justice.
Rakestraw and convincingly demonstrated that the undesirable consequences predicted will not necessarily result. The major difference between the present rule and the proposed rule is that the present rule vests the decision to issue a summons or a warrant in the prosecutor, while the proposed rule vests that decision in a judicial officer.
Thus, the basic premise underlying the arguments against the proposed rule is the notion that only the prosecutor can be trusted to act responsibly in deciding whether a summons or a warrant shall issue. The Committee rejects the notion that the federal judiciary cannot be trusted to exercise discretion wisely and in the public interest.
The Committee recast the language of Rule 4 b. No change in substance is intended. The Committee deleted two sentences from Rule 4 c. These sentences permitted a magistrate to question the complainant and other witnesses under oath and required the magistrate to keep a record or summary of such a proceeding. The Committee does not intend this change to discontinue or discourage the practice of having the complainant appear personally or the practice of making a record or summary of such an appearance.
Rather, the Committee intended to leave Rule 4 c neutral on this matter, neither encouraging nor discouraging these practices. The Committee added a new section that provides that the determination of good cause for the issuance of a warrant in lieu of a summons shall not be grounds for a motion to suppress evidence. This provision does not apply when the issue is whether there was probable cause to believe an offense has been committed.
Rule 4 e 3 deals with the manner in which warrants and summonses may be served. The House version provides two methods for serving a summons: 1 personal service upon the defendant, or 2 service by leaving it with someone of suitable age at the defendant's dwelling and by mailing it to the defendant's last known address.
The Senate version provides three methods: 1 personal service, 2 service by leaving it with someone of suitable age at the defendant's dwelling, or 3 service by mailing it to defendant's last known address. The language of Rule 4 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules.
These changes are intended to be stylistic, except as noted below. The first non-stylistic change is in Rule 4 a , which has been amended to provide an element of discretion in those situations when the defendant fails to respond to a summons.
Under the current rule, the judge must in all cases issue an arrest warrant. The revised rule provides discretion to the judge to issue an arrest warrant if the attorney for the government does not request that an arrest warrant be issued for a failure to appear.
Current Rule 4 b , which refers to the fact that hearsay evidence may be used to support probable cause, has been deleted. That language was added to the rule in , apparently to reflect emerging federal case law. A similar amendment was made to Rule 41 in In the intervening years, however, the case law has become perfectly clear on that proposition.
Thus, the Committee believed that the reference to hearsay was no longer necessary. Furthermore, the limited reference to hearsay evidence was misleading to the extent that it might have suggested that other forms of inadmissible evidence could not be considered. For example, the rule made no reference to considering a defendant's prior criminal record, which clearly may be considered in deciding whether probable cause exists.
See, e. Rather than address that issue, or any other similar issues, the Committee believed that the matter was best addressed in Rule d 3 , Federal Rules of Evidence. New Rule 4 b , which is currently Rule 4 c , addresses the form of an arrest warrant and a summons and includes two non-stylistic changes. This new language accurately reflects the thrust of the original rule, that time is of the essence and that the defendant should be brought with dispatch before a judicial officer in the district.
Second, the revised rule states a preference that the defendant be brought before a federal judicial officer. Rule 4 b 2 has been amended to require that if a summons is issued, the defendant must appear before a magistrate judge. This change is consistent with the preference for requiring defendants to appear before federal judicial officers stated in revised Rule 4 b 1. Rule 4 c currently Rule 4 d includes three changes.
First, current Rule 4 d 2 states the traditional rule recognizing the territorial limits for executing warrants. Rule 4 c 2 includes new language that reflects the recent enactment of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act Pub.
See also 14 U. Second, current Rule 4 d 3 provides that the arresting officer is only required to inform the defendant of the offense charged and that a warrant exists if the officer does not have a copy of the warrant. As revised, Rule 4 c 3 A explicitly requires the arresting officer in all instances to inform the defendant of the offense charged and of the fact that an arrest warrant exists. The new rule continues the current provision that the arresting officer need not have a copy of the warrant, but if the defendant requests to see it, the officer must show the warrant to the defendant as soon as possible.
The rule does not attempt to define any particular time limits for showing the warrant to the defendant.
0コメント