G.R. No.

162808 April 22, 2008

FELICIANO GALVANTE, petitioner,
vs.
HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, Depu! O"#u$%"&' (or )e Mili&r! &'$
O)er L&* E'(or+e"e' O((i+e%, ,IENVENIDO C. ,LANCAFLOR, Dire+or,
DENNIS L. GARCIA, Gr&( I'-e%i.&io' &'$ /ro%e+uio' O((i+er, S/O0
RAMIL AVENIDO, /O1 EDDIE DEGRAN, /O1 VALENTINO R1FANO, &'$
/O1 FEDERICO ,ALOLOT, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
A1STRIA2MARTINE3, J.4
Assailed herein by Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court are the October 30, 2003 Resolution

of the Office of the !eputy

O"buds"an for the #ilitary and Other $a% &nforce"ent Offices ' Office of the
O"buds"an (O"buds"an) %hich dis"issed for lac* of probable cause the cri"inal
co"plaint, doc*eted as O#+'P'C'02'00,'+, filed by -eliciano .alvante
2

(petitioner) a/ainst 0PO1 +en2a"in Conde, PO Ra"il Avenido, PO &ddie !e/ran,
PO 3alentino Rufano, and PO -ederico +alolot (private respondents) for arbitrary
detention, ille/al search and /rave threats4 and the 5anuary 20, 2001 O"buds"an
Order
3
%hich denied his "otion for reconsideration.
6he facts are of record.
7n the afternoon of #ay 1, 200 at 0itio Cahi'an, 8apatun/an, 6rento, A/usan del
0ur, private respondents confiscated fro" petitioner one colt pistol super .39
auto"atic %ith serial no. 6:,:3, one short "a/a;ine, and nine super .39 live
a""unitions.
1
6he confiscated "aterials %ere covered by an e<pired #e"orandu"
Receipt dated 0epte"ber 2, ,,,.
5
Conse=uently, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor filed a/ainst petitioner an
7nfor"ation
6
for 7lle/al Possession of -irear"s and A""unitions in Relation to
Co""ission on &lections (Co"elec) Resolution >o. 3259, doc*eted as Cri"inal Case
>o. 501:, before the Re/ional 6rial Court (R6C), Prosperidad, A/usan del 0ur.
Pendin/ resolution of Cri"inal Case >o. 501:, petitioner filed a/ainst private
respondents an ad"inistrative case, doc*eted as Ad"inistrative Case >o. 7A0O+'
02000: for .rave #isconduct, before the 7nternal Affairs 0ervice (7A0), Re/ion ?777,
!epart"ent of 7nterior and $ocal .overn"ent (!7$.)4
:
and a cri"inal case, doc*eted
as O#+'P'C'02'00,'+ for Arbitrary !etention, 7lle/al 0earch and .rave 6hreats,
before the O"buds"an.
9
7n the 5une 2, 200 Affidavit'Co"plaint he filed in both cases, petitioner narrated
ho%, on #ay 1, 200, private respondents ai"ed their lon/ firear"s at hi",
arbitrarily searched his vehicle and put hi" in detention, thus@
. 6hat so"eti"e on #ay 1, 200 7 left "y house at around @00 oAcloc* in
the afternoon after havin/ lunch for 0itio Cahi'an, +r/y. 8apatun/an, 6rento,
A/usan del 0ur to "eet retired police Percival Pla;a and in=uire about the
retire"ent procedure for police"en4
2. 6hat upon arrival at the house of retired police Percival Pla;a, to/ether %ith
$oren;o 0anoria, !elfin Ra"ire; and Pedro Ra"as %ho as*ed for a ride fro"
the hi/h%ay in /oin/ to 0itio Cahi'an, 7 i""ediately %ent do%n of the 2eep
but before 7 could call #r. Pla;a, four police"en in unifor" bloc*ed "y %ay4
3. 6hat the four police"en %ere Bprivate respondentsC PO Ro"il Avenido
P>P, PO 3alentino Rufano, P>P both "e"ber of 12nd Co"pany, Re/ional
#obile .roup and PO &ddie !e/ran P>P and PO -ederico +alolot P>P
"e"bers of 103 ProvAl #obile .roup, all of +una%an +roo*, +una%an,
A/usan del 0ur4 %ho all pointed their lon/ firear"s ready to fire BatC "e,
havin/ heard the sound of the release of the safety loc*4
1. 6hat raisin/ "y ar"s, 7 heard Bprivate respondentC PO Avenido sayin/,
DA>. 7#O>. PE07$, 7FA6A.D %hich "eans D.ive "e your firear",D to
%hich 7 ans%ered, DGA$A #A> 8OAH PE07$D translated as D7 have no
firear",D sho%in/ "y %aistline %hen 7 raised "y 6'shirt4
5. 6hat "y other co"panions on the 2eep also %ent do%n and raised their ar"s
and sho%ed their %aistline %hen the sa"e police"en and a person in civilian
attire holdin/ an ar"alite also pointed their firear"s to the" to %hich #r.
Percival Pla;a %ho ca"e do%n fro" his house told the" not to harass "e as 7
a" also a for"er police officer but they did not heed #r. Pla;aAs state"ents4
6. 6hat %hile %e %ere raisin/ our ar"s Bprivate respondentC 0PO1 +en2a"in
Conde, 5r. %ent near "y o%ner type 2eep and conducted a search. 6o %hich 7
as*ed the" if they have any search %arrant4
:. 6hat after a %hile they sa% "y super .39 pistol under the floor"at of "y
2eep and as*ed "e of the #R of the firear" but due to fear that their lon/ ar"s
%ere still pointed to us, 7 searched "y %allet and /ave the as*ed BsicC
docu"ent4
9. 6hat i""ediately the police"en left "e and "y co"panions %ithout sayin/
anythin/ brin/in/ %ith the" the firear"4
,. 6hat at about 2@30 p."., 7 left #r. PercivalAs house and %ent to 6rento Police
0tation %here 7 sa% a person in civilian attire %ith a revolver tuc*ed on his
%aist, to %hich 7 as*ed the police officers includin/ those %ho searched "y
2eep to apprehend hi" also4
0. 6hat nobody a"on/ the police"en at the station "ade a "ove to
apprehend the ar"ed civilian person so 7 %ent to the office of Police Chief
Rocacorba %ho i""ediately called the ar"ed civilian to his office and %hen
already inside his office, the disar"in/ %as done4
. 6hat after the disar"in/ of the civilian 7 %as put to 2ail %ith the said
person by Police Chief Rocacorba and %as released only at 1@00 oAcloc* in the
afternoon of #ay 6, 200 after postin/ a bailbond4
2. 6hat 7 caused the e<ecution of this docu"ent for the purpose of filin/
cases of 7lle/al 0earch, .rave #isconduct and Abuse of Authority a/ainst
0PO1 +en2a"in Conde, 5r., of 6rento Police 0tation4 PO Ra"il Avenido,
PO 3elantino Rufano, PO -ederico +alolot and PO &ddie !e/ran.
,
Petitioner also sub"itted the 5oint Affidavit
0
of his %itnesses, $oren;o 0anoria and
Percival Pla;a.
Private respondent Conde filed a Counter'Affidavit dated #arch 20, 2002, %here he
interposed the follo%in/ defenses@
-irst, he had nothin/ to do %ith the detention of petitioner as it %as Chief of
PoliceIOfficer'in'Char/e Police 7nspector !ioscoro #ehos Rocacorba %ho ordered
the detention. Petitioner hi"self ad"itted this fact in his o%n Co"plaint'Affidavit4

and
0econd, he denies searchin/ petitionerAs vehicle,
2
but ad"its that even thou/h he %as
not ar"ed %ith a %arrant, he searched the person of petitioner as the latter, in plain
vie%, %as co""ittin/ a violation of Co"elec Resolutions >o. 3259 and >o. 3329 by
carryin/ a firear" in his person.
Private respondents Avenido, !e/ran, Rufano and +alolot filed their 5oint'Affidavit
dated #arch 25, 2002, %hich contradicts the state"ents of private respondent Conde,
viz@
. that %e e<ecuted a 2oint counter'affidavit dated Au/ust 29, 200 %here %e
stated a"on/ other thin/s, that D%e sa% -eleciano D>aniD .alvante ar"ed
%ith a hand/unIpistol tuc*ed on his %aist4D
2. that this state"ent is not accurate because the truth of the "atter is that the
said hand/un %as ta*en by 0PO1 +&>5A#7> CO>!&, 5R., %ho %as actin/
as our tea" leader durin/ the #ay 1, 200 &lections, fro" the 2eep of #r.
.alvante after searchin/ the sa"e4 and
3. that %e noticed the afore"entioned discrepancy in our affidavit dated
Au/ust 29, 200 after %e have already affi<ed our si/natures thereon.
3
Conse=uently, petitioner filed an Affidavit of !esistance dated #arch 25, 2002 %ith
both the 7A0 and O"buds"an, absolvin/ private respondents Avenido, !e/ran,
Rufano and +alolot, but "aintainin/ that private respondent Conde alone be
prosecuted in both ad"inistrative and cri"inal cases.
1
On 5uly :, 2002, the 7A0 issued a !ecision in Ad"inistrative Case >o. 7A0O+'
02000:, findin/ all private respondents /uilty of /rave "isconduct but penali;ed the"
%ith suspension only. 6he 7A0 noted ho%ever that private respondents %ere "erely
bein/ DBenthusiasticC in the conduct of the arrest in line of duty.D
5
#ean%hile, in Cri"inal Case >o. 501:, petitioner filed %ith the R6C a #otion for
Preli"inary 7nvesti/ation and to Fold in Abeyance the 7ssuance of or Recall the
Garrant of Arrest.
6
6he R6C /ranted the sa"e in an Order
:
dated Au/ust :, 200.
Epon reinvesti/ation, Prosecutor 77 &liseo !ia;, 5r. filed a DReinvesti/ation %ith
#otion to !is"issD dated >ove"ber 22, 200, reco""endin/ the dis"issal of
Cri"inal Case >o. 501: on the /round that Dthe action of the police"en %ho
conducted the %arrantless search in spite of the absence of any circu"stances
2ustifyin/ the sa"e intruded into the privacy of the accused and the security of his
property.D
9
Officer'in'Char/e Prosecutor 77 3ictoriano Pa/'on/ approved said
reco""endation.
,
6he R6C /ranted the prosecutionAs "otion to dis"iss in an Order
20
dated 5anuary 6,
2003.
Apparently una%are of %hat transpired in Cri"inal Case >o. 501:, O"buds"an
7nvesti/ation J Prosecution Officer !ennis $. .arcia issued in O#+'P'C'02'00,'+,
the October 30, 2003 Resolution, to %it@
After a careful evaluation, the undersi/ned prosecutor finds no probable cause
for any of the offenses char/ed a/ainst above'na"ed respondents.
6he alle/ations of the co"plainant failed to establish the factual basis of the
co"plaint, it appearing from the records that the incident stemmed from a
valid warrantless arrest. 6he subse=uent e<ecution of an affidavit of
desistance by the co"plainant rendered the co"plaint even "ore uncertain and
sub2ect to doubt, especially so since it "erely e<culpated so"e but not all of
the respondents. 6hese circu"stances, coupled %ith the presu"ption of
re/ularity in the perfor"ance of duty, ne/ates any cri"inal liability on the part
of the respondents.
GF&R&-OR&, pre"ises considered, it is hereby reco""ended that the
above'captioned case be dis"issed for lac* of probable cause.
2
(&"phasis
supplied)
Epon the reco""endation of !irector +ienvenido C. +lancaflor, !eputy O"buds"an
for the #ilitary Orlando C. Casi"iro (!eputy O"buds"an) approved the October 30,
2003 Resolution.
22
7n his #otion for Reconsideration,
23
petitioner called the attention of the O"buds"an
to the earlier 7A0 !ecision, the Reinvesti/ation %ith #otion to !is"iss of Prosecutor
77 &liseo !ia;, 5r. and the R6C Order, all of %hich declared the %arrantless search
conducted by private respondents ille/al,
21
%hich are contradicted by the October 30,
2003 O"buds"an Resolution declarin/ the %arrantless search le/al.
6he O"buds"an denied petitionerAs "otion for reconsideration on the /round that the
latter offered Dno ne% evidence or errors of la% %hich %ould %arrant the reversal or
"odificationD
25
of its October 30, 2003 Resolution.
Petitioner filed the present petition, attributin/ to !eputy O"buds"an Casi"iro,
!irector +lancaflor and Prosecutor .arcia (public respondents) the follo%in/ acts of
/rave abuse of discretion@
7. Public respondents acted %ithout or in e<cess of their 2urisdiction andIor
%ith /rave abuse of discretion a"ountin/ to lac* or e<cess of 2urisdiction
%hen, in their Resolution dated October 30, 2003, public respondents found
that the incident upon %hich petitionerAs cri"inal co"plaint %as based
ste""ed fro" a valid %arrantless arrest and dis"issed petitionerAs co"plaint
despite the fact that@
A. Petitioner has clearly sho%n that the search conducted by the
private respondents %as "ade %ithout a valid %arrant, nor does it fall
under any of the instances of valid %arrantless searches.
+. >ot%ithstandin/ the absence of a valid %arrant, petitioner %as
arrested and detained by the private respondents.
77. Public respondents acted %ithout or in e<cess of their 2urisdiction andIor
%ith /rave abuse of discretion a"ountin/ to lac* or e<cess of 2urisdiction
%hen, in their Order dated 5anuary 20, 2001, public respondents denied the
petitionerAs "otion for reconsideration in a capricious, %hi"sical, despotic and
arbitrary "anner.
26
7n its #e"orandu",
2:
the Office of the 0olicitor .eneral ar/ued that public
respondents acted %ithin the bounds of their discretion in dis"issin/ O#+'P'C'02'
00,'+ /iven that private respondents co""itted no cri"e in searchin/ petitioner and
confiscatin/ his firear" as the for"er %ere "erely perfor"in/ their duty of enforcin/
the la% a/ainst ille/al possession of firear"s and the Co"elec ban a/ainst the
carryin/ of firear"s outside of oneAs residence.
Private respondent Conde filed a Co""ent
29
and a #e"orandu" for hi"self.
2,

Private respondents Avenido, !e/ran, Rufano and +alolot filed their separate $etter'
Co""ent dated 5une 25, 2001.
30
6he petition lac*s "erit.
6he Constitution vests in the O"buds"an the po%er to deter"ine %hether there e<ists
reasonable /round to believe that a cri"e has been co""itted and that the accused is
probably /uilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the correspondin/ infor"ation %ith the
appropriate courts.
3
6he Court respects the relative autono"y of the O"buds"an to
investi/ate and prosecute, and refrains fro" interferin/ %hen the latter e<ercises such
po%ers either directly or throu/h the !eputy O"buds"an,
32
e<cept %hen the sa"e is
sho%n to be tainted %ith /rave abuse of discretion a"ountin/ to lac* or e<cess of
2urisdiction.
33
.rave abuse of discretion is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to
perfor" a duty en2oined by la% or to act in conte"plation of la% as %hen 2ud/"ent
rendered is not based on la% and evidence but on caprice, %hi" and despotis".
31
6his
does not obtain in the present case.
7t is noted that the cri"inal co"plaint %hich petitioner filed %ith the O"buds"an
char/es private respondents %ith %arrantless search, arbitrary detention, and /rave
threats.
6he co"plaint for *&rr&'le%% %e&r+) char/es no cri"inal offense. 6he conduct of a
%arrantless search is not a cri"inal act for it is not penali;ed under the Revised Penal
Code (RPC) or any other special la%. Ghat the RPC punishes are only t%o for"s of
searches@
Art. 2,. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of
those legally obtained. ' 7n addition to the liability attachin/ to the offender for
the co""ission of any other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
"a<i"u" period to prision correccional in its "ini"u" period and a fine not
e<ceedin/ P,000.00 pesos shall be i"posed upon any public officer or
e"ployee %ho shall procure a search %arrant %ithout 2ust cause, or, havin/
le/ally procured the sa"e, shall e<ceed his authority or use unnecessary
severity in e<ecutin/ the sa"e.
Art. 30. Searching domicile without witnesses. ' 6he penalty of arresto
mayor in its "ediu" and "a<i"u" periods shall be i"posed upon a public
officer or e"ployee %ho, in cases %here a search is proper, shall search the
do"icile, papers or other belon/in/s of any person, in the absence of the latter,
any "e"ber of his fa"ily, or in their default, %ithout the presence of t%o
%itnesses residin/ in the sa"e locality.
Petitioner did not alle/e any of the ele"ents of the fore/oin/ felonies in his Affidavit'
Co"plaint4 rather, he accused private respondents of conductin/ a search on his
vehicle %ithout bein/ ar"ed %ith a valid %arrant. 6his situation, %hile la"entable, is
not covered by Articles 2, and 30 of the RPC.
6he re"edy of petitioner a/ainst the %arrantless search conducted on his vehicle is
civil,
35
under Article 32, in relation to Article 22,
36
(6) and (0) of the Civil Code,
%hich provides@
Art. 32. Any public officer or e"ployee, or any private individual, %ho
directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any "anner i"pedes or
i"pairs any of the follo%in/ ri/hts and liberties of another person shall be
liable to the latter for da"a/es@
< < < <
(,) 6he ri/ht to be secure in oneAs person, house, papers, and effects a/ainst
unreasonable searches and sei;ures4
< < < <
6he inde"nity shall include "oral da"a/es. &<e"plary da"a/es "ay also be
ad2udicated.
andIor disciplinary and ad"inistrative, under 0ection 1 of Republic Act >o. 6,:5.
3:
6o avail of such re"edies, petitioner "ay file a/ainst private respondents a co"plaint
for da"a/es %ith the re/ular courts
39
or an ad"inistrative case %ith the P>PI!7$.,
3,

as petitioner did in Ad"inistrative Case >o. 7A0O+'02000:, and not a cri"inal action
%ith the O"buds"an.
Public respondentsA dis"issal of the cri"inal co"plaint for ille/al search %hich
petitioner filed %ith the O"buds"an a/ainst private respondents %as therefore
proper, althou/h the reasons public respondents cited for dis"issin/ the co"plaint are
rather off the "ar* because they relied solely on the findin/ that the %arrantless
search conducted by private respondents %as valid and that the Affidavit of
!esistance %hich petitioner e<ecuted cast doubt on the veracity of his co"plaint.
10

Public respondents co"pletely overloo*ed the fact that the cri"inal co"plaint %as
not co/ni;able by the O"buds"an as ille/al search is not a cri"inal offense.
>evertheless, the result achieved is the sa"e@ the dis"issal of a /roundless cri"inal
co"plaint for ille/al search %hich is not an offense under the RPC. 6hus, the Court
need not resolve the issue of %hether or not public respondents erred in their findin/
on the validity of the search for that issue is co"pletely hypothetical under the
circu"stance.
6he cri"inal co"plaint for abitrary detention %as li*e%ise properly dis"issed by
public respondents. 6o sustain a cri"inal char/e for arbitrary detention, it "ust be
sho%n that (a) the offender is a public officer or e"ployee, (b) the offender detained
the co"plainant, and (c) the detention is %ithout le/al /rounds.
1
6he second ele"ent
%as not alle/ed by petitioner in his Affidavit'Co"plaint. As pointed out by private
respondent Conde in his Co""ent
12
and #e"orandu",
13
petitioner hi"self identified
in his Affidavit'Co"plaint that it %as Police Chief Rocacorba %ho caused his
detention. >o%here in said affidavit did petitioner alle/e that private respondents
effected his detention, or %ere in any other %ay involved in it.
11
6here %as, therefore,
no factual or le/al basis to sustain the cri"inal char/e for arbitrary detention a/ainst
private respondents.
-inally, on the cri"inal co"plaint for /rave threats, the 0olicitor .eneral aptly
pointed out that the sa"e is based "erely on petitionerAs bare alle/ation that private
respondents ai"ed their firear"s at hi".
15
0uch bare alle/ation stands no chance
a/ainst the %ell'entrenched rule applicable in this case, that public officers en2oy a
presu"ption of re/ularity in the perfor"ance of their official function.
16
6he 7A0
itself observed that private respondents "ay have been carried a%ay by their
Denthusias" in the conduct of the arrest in line of duty.D
1:
Petitioner e<pressed the
sa"e vie% %hen, in his Affidavit of !esistance, he accepted that private respondents
"ay have been "erely follo%in/ orders %hen they pointed their lon/ firear"s at hi".
All said, public respondents did not act %ith /rave abuse of discretion in dis"issin/
the cri"inal co"plaint a/ainst private respondents.
5HEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
>o costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No%. 162060262 7u'e 1, 2006
VICENTE /. LADLAD, NATHANAEL S. SANTIAGO, RANDALL ,.
ECHANIS, &'$ RE8 CLARO C. CASAM,RE, Petitioners,
vs.
SENIOR STATE /ROSEC1TOR EMMAN1EL 8. VELASCO, SENIOR STATE
/ROSEC1TOR 7OSELITA C. MENDO3A, SENIOR STATE /ROSEC1TOR
AILEEN MARIE S. G1TIERRE3, STATE /ROSEC1TOR IR5IN A.
MARA8A, &'$ STATE /ROSEC1TOR MER,A A. 5AGA, i' )eir +&p&+i! &%
"e"#er% o( )e Dep&r"e' o( 7u%i+e p&'el o( pro%e+uor% i'-e%i.&i'. I.S.
No%. 20062229, 20062226 &'$ 200622:0, 71STICE SECRETAR8 RA1L M.
GON3ALE3, DIRECTOR GENERAL ART1RO C. LOMI,AO, i' )i% +&p&+i!
&% C)ie(, /)ilippi'e N&io'&l /oli+e, /;CS1/T. RODOLFO ,. MENDO3A, 7R.,
&'$ /;S1/T. 8OLANDA G. TANIG1E, Respondents.
<' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '<
G.R. No%. 162060266 7u'e 1, 2006
LI3A L. MA3A, 7OEL G. VIRADOR, SAT1RNINO C. OCAM/O, TEODORO
A. CASI<O, CRIS/IN ,. ,ELTRAN, &'$ RAFAEL V. MARIANO, Petitioners,
vs.
RA1L M. GON3ALE3, i' )i% +&p&+i! &% Se+re&r! o( )e Dep&r"e' o(
7u%i+e, 7OVENCITO R. 31<O, i' )i% +&p&+i! &% C)ie( S&e /ro%e+uor, )e
/&'el o( I'-e%i.&i'. /ro%e+uor% +o"po%e$ o( EMMAN1EL 8. VELASCO,
7OSELITA C. MENDO3A, AILEEN MARIE S. G1TIERRE3, IR5IN A.
MARA8A &'$ MER,A A. 5AGA =/&'el>, RODOLFO ,. MENDO3A, i' )i%
+&p&+i! &% A+i'. Depu! Dire+or, Dire+or&e (or I'-e%i.&io' &'$ Dee+i-e
M&'&.e"e' =DIDM>, 8OLANDA G. TANIG1E, i' )er +&p&+i! &% A+i'.
E?e+ui-e O((i+er o( DIDM, )e DE/ARTMENT OF 71STICE =DO7>, &'$ )e
/HILI//INE NATIONAL /OLICE =/N/>, Respondents.
<' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '<
G.R. No. 16901: 7u'e 1, 2006
CRIS/IN ,. ,ELTRAN, Petitioner,
vs.
/EO/LE OF THE /HILI//INES, SECRETAR8 RA1L M. GON3ALE3, i' )i%
+&p&+i! &% )e Se+re&r! o( 7u%i+e &'$ o-er&ll %uperior o( )e /u#li+
/ro%e+uor%, HONORA,LE ENCARNACION 7A7A G. MO8A, i' )er +&p&+i!
&% /re%i$i'. 7u$.e o( Re.io'&l Tri&l Cour o( M&@&i Ci!, ,r&'+) 106, &'$
HONORA,LE ELMO M. ALAMEDA, i' )i% +&p&+i! &% /re%i$i'. 7u$.e o(
Re.io'&l Tri&l Cour o( M&@&i Ci!, ,r&'+) 190, Respondents.
! & C 7 0 7 O >
CAR/IO, J.:
6he Case
6hese are consolidated petitions for the %rits of prohibition and certiorari to en2oin
petitionersK prosecution for Rebellion and to set aside the rulin/s of the !epart"ent of
5ustice (!O5) and the Re/ional 6rial Court of #a*ati City (R6C #a*ati) on the
investi/ation and prosecution of petitionersK cases.
6he -acts
Petitioner in ..R. >o. :503, Crispin +. +eltran (+eltran), and petitioners in ..R.
>os. :20:1':6, $i;a $. #a;a (#a;a), 5oel .. 3irador (3irador), 0aturnino C.
Oca"po (Oca"po), 6eodoro A. CasiLo (CasiLo), and Rafael 3. #ariano (#ariano),

are "e"bers of the Fouse of Representatives representin/ various party'list /roups.
2

Petitioners in ..R. >os. :20:0':2 are private individuals. Petitioners all face char/es
for Rebellion under Article 31 in relation to Article 35 of the Revised Penal Code in
t%o cri"inal cases pendin/ %ith the R6C #a*ati.
..R. >o. :503 (6he +eltran Petition)
-ollo%in/ the issuance by President .loria #acapa/al'Arroyo of Presidential
Procla"ation >o. 0: on 21 -ebruary 2006 declarin/ a D0tate of >ational
&"er/ency,D police officers
3
arrested +eltran on 25 -ebruary 2006, %hile he %as en
route to #arilao, +ulacan, and detained hi" in Ca"p Cra"e, Mue;on City. +eltran
%as arrested %ithout a %arrant and the arrestin/ officers did not infor" +eltran of the
cri"e for %hich he %as arrested. On that evenin/, +eltran %as sub2ected to an in=uest
at the Mue;on City Fall of 5ustice for 7ncitin/ to 0edition under Article 12 of the
Revised Penal Code based on a speech +eltran alle/edly /ave durin/ a rally in
Mue;on City on 21 -ebruary 2006, on the occasion of the 20
th
anniversary of the
&!0A Revolution. 6he in=uest %as based on the 2oint affidavit of +eltranKs arrestin/
officers %ho clai"ed to have been present at the rally. 6he in=uest prosecutor
1

indicted +eltran and filed the correspondin/ 7nfor"ation %ith the #etropolitan 6rial
Court of Mue;on City (#e6C).
5
6he authorities brou/ht bac* +eltran to Ca"p Cra"e %here, on 2: -ebruary 2006, he
%as sub2ected to a second in=uest, %ith
st
$t. $a%rence 0an 5uan (0an 5uan), this
ti"e for Rebellion. A panel of 0tate prosecutors
6
fro" the !O5 conducted this second
in=uest. 6he in=uest %as based on t%o letters, both dated 2: -ebruary 2006, of
Holanda 6ani/ue (6ani/ue) and of Rodolfo #endo;a (#endo;a). 6ani/ue is the
Actin/ &<ecutive Officer of the Cri"inal 7nvesti/ation and !etection .roup (C7!.),
Philippine >ational Police (P>P), %hile #endo;a is the Actin/ !eputy !irector of
the C7!.. 6he letters referred to the !O5 for appropriate action the results of the
C7!.Ks investi/ation i"plicatin/ +eltran, the petitioners in ..R. >os. :20:1':6, 0an
5uan, and several others as Dleaders and pro"otersD of an alle/ed foiled plot to
overthro% the Arroyo /overn"ent. 6he plot %as supposed to be carried out 2ointly by
"e"bers of the Co""unist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the #a*abayan/
8a%al n/ Pilipinas (#8P), %hich have for"ed a Dtactical alliance.D
On 2: -ebruary 2006, the !O5 panel of prosecutors issued a Resolution findin/
probable cause to indict +eltran and 0an 5uan as DleadersIpro"otersD of Rebellion.
6he panel then filed an 7nfor"ation %ith the R6C #a*ati. 6he 7nfor"ation alle/ed
that +eltran, 0an 5uan, and other individuals Dconspirin/ and confederatin/ %ith each
other, < < <, did then and there %illfully, unla%fully, and feloniously for" a tactical
alliance bet%een the CPPI>PA, rena"ed as Partidon/ 8o"unista n/ Pilipinas (P8P)
and its ar"ed re/ular "e"bers as 8atipunan n/ Ana* n/ +ayan (8A+) %ith the
#a*abayan/ 8a%al n/ Pilipinas (#8P) and thereby rise publicly and ta*e up ar"s
a/ainst the duly constituted /overn"ent, < < <.D
:
6he 7nfor"ation, doc*eted as
Cri"inal Case >o. 06'152, %as raffled to +ranch 3: under Presidin/ 5ud/e 5enny
$ind R. Aldecoa'!elorino (5ud/e !elorino).
+eltran "oved that +ranch 3: "a*e a 2udicial deter"ination of probable cause
a/ainst hi".
9
+efore the "otion could be resolved, 5ud/e !elorino recused herself
fro" the case %hich %as re'raffled to +ranch 16 under 5ud/e &ncarnacion 5a2a'
#oya (5ud/e #oya).
7n its Order dated 3 #ay 2006, +ranch 16 sustained the findin/ of probable cause
a/ainst +eltran.
,
+eltran sou/ht reconsideration but 5ud/e #oya also inhibited herself
fro" the case %ithout resolvin/ +eltranKs "otion. 5ud/e &l"o #. Ala"eda of +ranch
50, to %ho" the case %as re'raffled, issued an Order on 2, Au/ust 2006 denyin/
+eltranKs "otion.
Fence, the petition in ..R. >o. :503 to set aside the Orders dated 3 #ay 2006 and
2, Au/ust 2006 and to en2oin +eltranKs prosecution.
7n his Co""ent to the petition, the 0olicitor .eneral clai"s that +eltranKs in=uest for
Rebellion %as valid and that the R6C #a*ati correctly found probable cause to try
+eltran for such felony.
..R. >os. :20:0':2 and :20:1':6 (6he #a;a and $adlad Petitions)
+ased on 6ani/ue and #endo;aKs letters, the !O5 sent subpoenas to petitioners on 6
#arch 2006 re=uirin/ the" to appear at the !O5 Office on 3 #arch 2006 Dto /et
copies of the co"plaint and its attach"ent.D Prior to their receipt of the subpoenas,
petitioners had =uartered the"selves inside the Fouse of Representatives buildin/ for
fear of bein/ sub2ected to %arrantless arrest.
!urin/ the preli"inary investi/ation on 3 #arch 2006, the counsel for the C7!.
presented a "as*ed "an, later identified as 5ai"e -uentes (-uentes), %ho clai"ed to
be an eye%itness a/ainst petitioners. -uentes subscribed to his affidavit before
respondent prosecutor &""anuel 3elasco %ho then /ave copies of the affidavit to
"edia "e"bers present durin/ the proceedin/s. 6he panel of prosecutors
0
/ave
petitioners 0 days %ithin %hich to file their counter'affidavits. Petitioners %ere
furnished the co"plete copies of docu"ents supportin/ the C7!.Ks letters only on :
#arch 2006.
Petitioners "oved for the inhibition of the "e"bers of the prosecution panel for lac*
of i"partiality and independence, considerin/ the political "ilieu under %hich
petitioners %ere investi/ated, the state"ents that the President and the 0ecretary of
5ustice "ade to the "edia re/ardin/ petitionersK case,

and the "anner in %hich the

prosecution panel conducted the preli"inary investi/ation. 6he !O5 panel of
prosecutors denied petitionersK "otion on 22 #arch 2006. Petitioners sou/ht
reconsideration and additionally prayed for the dis"issal of the cases. Fo%ever, the
panel of prosecutors denied petitionersK "otions on 1 April 2006.
Petitioners no% see* the nullification of the !O5 Orders of 22 #arch 2006 and 1
April 2006.
Actin/ on petitionersK prayer for the issuance of an in2unctive %rit, the Court issued a
status =uo order on 5 5une 2006. Prior to this, ho%ever, the panel of prosecutors, on
2 April 2006, issued a Resolution findin/ probable cause to char/e petitioners and 16
others %ith Rebellion. 6he prosecutors filed the correspondin/ 7nfor"ation %ith
+ranch 5: of the R6C #a*ati, doc*eted as Cri"inal Case >o. 06',11 (later
consolidated %ith Cri"inal Case >o. 06'152 in +ranch 16), char/in/ petitioners and
their co'accused as Dprincipals, "aster"inds, BorC headsD of a Rebellion.
2

Conse=uently, the petitioners in ..R. >os. :20:0':2 filed a supple"ental petition to
en2oin the prosecution of Cri"inal Case >o. 06',11.
7n his separate Co""ent to the #a;a petition, the 0olicitor .eneral sub"its that the
preli"inary investi/ation of petitioners %as not tainted %ith irre/ularities. 6he
0olicitor .eneral also clai"s that the filin/ of Cri"inal Case >o. 06',11 has "ooted
the #a;a petition.
6he 7ssues
6he petitions raise the follo%in/ issues@
. 7n ..R. >o. :503, (a) %hether the in=uest proceedin/ a/ainst +eltran for
Rebellion %as valid and (b) %hether there is probable cause to indict +eltran for
Rebellion4 and
2. 7n ..R. >os. :20:0':2 and :20:1':6, %hether respondent prosecutors should be
en2oined fro" continuin/ %ith the prosecution of Cri"inal Case >o. 06',11.
3
6he Rulin/ of the Court
Ge find the petitions "eritorious. On the +eltran Petition
6he 7n=uest Proceedin/ a/ainst +eltran for Rebellion is 3oid.
7n=uest proceedin/s are proper only %hen the accused has been la%fully arrested
%ithout %arrant.
1
0ection 5, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Cri"inal Procedure
provides the instances %hen such %arrantless arrest "ay be effected, thus@
Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person "ay,
%ithout a %arrant, arrest a person@
(a) Ghen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co""itted, is actually
co""ittin/, or is atte"ptin/ to co""it an offense4
(b) Ghen an offense has 2ust been co""itted and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal *no%led/e of facts or circu"stances that the person to be arrested
has co""itted it4 and
< < < <
7n cases fallin/ under para/raphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested %ithout a
%arrant shall be forth%ith delivered to the nearest police station or 2ail and shall be
proceeded a/ainst in accordance %ith section : of Rule 2.
6he 2oint affidavit of +eltranKs arrestin/ officers
5
states that the officers arrested
+eltran, %ithout a %arrant,
6
for 7ncitin/ to 0edition, and not for Rebellion. 6hus, the
in=uest prosecutor could only have conducted N as he did conduct N an in=uest for
7ncitin/ to 0edition and no other. Conse=uently, %hen another /roup of prosecutors
sub2ected +eltran to a second in=uest proceedin/ for Rebellion, they overstepped their
authority renderin/ the second in=uest void. >one of +eltranKs arrestin/ officers sa%
+eltran co""it, in their presence, the cri"e of Rebellion. >or did they have personal
*no%led/e of facts and circu"stances that +eltran had 2ust co""itted Rebellion,
sufficient to for" probable cause to believe that he had co""itted Rebellion. Ghat
these arrestin/ officers alle/ed in their affidavit is that they sa% and heard +eltran
"a*e an alle/edly seditious speech on 21 -ebruary 2006.
:
7ndeed, under !O5 Circular >o. 6, dated 2 0epte"ber ,,3, the initial duty of the
in=uest officer is to deter"ine if the arrest of the detained person %as "ade Din
accordance %ith the provisions of para/raphs (a) and (b) of 0ection 5, Rule 3.D
9
7f
the arrest %as not properly effected, the in=uest officer should proceed under 0ection
, of Circular >o. 6 %hich provides@
Ghere Arrest >ot Properly &ffected.O 0hould the 7n=uest Officer find that the arrest
%as not "ade in accordance %ith the Rules, he shall@
a) reco""end the release of the person arrested or detained4
b) note do%n the disposition on the referral docu"ent4
c) prepare a brief "e"orandu" indicatin/ the reasons for the action ta*en4 and
d) for%ard the sa"e, to/ether %ith the record of the case, to the City or
Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.
Ghere the reco""endation for the release of the detained person is approved by the
City or Provincial Prosecutor but the evidence on hand %arrant the conduct of a
re/ular preli"inary investi/ation, the order of release shall be served on the officer
havin/ custody of said detainee and shall direct the said officer to serve upon the
detainee the subpoena or notice of preli"inary investi/ation, to/ether %ith the copies
of the char/e sheet or co"plaint, affidavit or s%orn state"ents of the co"plainant and
his %itnesses and other supportin/ evidence. (&"phasis supplied)
-or the failure of +eltranKs panel of in=uest prosecutors to co"ply %ith 0ection :,
Rule 2 in relation to 0ection 5, Rule 3 and !O5 Circular >o. 6, %e declare
+eltranKs in=uest void.
,
+eltran %ould have been entitled to a preli"inary
investi/ation had he not as*ed the trial court to "a*e a 2udicial deter"ination of
probable cause, %hich effectively too* the place of such proceedin/.
6here is >o Probable Cause to 7ndict
+eltran for Rebellion.
Probable cause is the De<istence of such facts and circu"stances as %ould e<cite the
belief in a reasonable "ind, actin/ on the facts %ithin the *no%led/e of the
prosecutor, that the person char/ed %as /uilty of the cri"e for %hich he %as
prosecuted.D
20
6o accord respect to the discretion /ranted to the prosecutor and for
reasons of practicality, this Court, as a rule, does not interfere %ith the prosecutorKs
deter"ination of probable cause for other%ise, courts %ould be s%a"ped %ith
petitions to revie% the prosecutorKs findin/s in such investi/ations.
2
Fo%ever, in the
fe% e<ceptional cases %here the prosecutor abused his discretion by i/norin/ a clear
insufficiency of evidence to support a findin/ of probable cause, thus denyin/ the
accused his ri/ht to substantive and procedural due process, %e have not hesitated to
intervene and e<ercise our revie% po%er under Rule 65 to overturn the prosecutorKs
findin/s.
22
6his e<ception holds true here.
Rebellion under Article 31 of the Revised Penal Code is co""itted N
B+Cy risin/ publicly and ta*in/ ar"s a/ainst the .overn"ent for the purpose of
re"ovin/ fro" the alle/iance to said .overn"ent or its la%s, the territory of the
Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, or any body of land, naval, or other
ar"ed forces or deprivin/ the Chief &<ecutive or the $e/islature, %holly or partially,
of any of their po%ers or prero/atives.
6he ele"ents of the offense are@
. 6hat there be a (a) public uprisin/ and (b) ta*in/ ar"s a/ainst the
.overn"ent4 and
2. 6hat the purpose of the uprisin/ or "ove"ent is either N
(a) to re"ove fro" the alle/iance to said .overn"ent or its la%s@
() the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof4 or
(2) any body of land, naval, or other ar"ed forces4 or
(b) to deprive the Chief &<ecutive or Con/ress, %holly or partially, of
any of their po%ers and prero/atives.
23
6hus, by its nature, rebellion is a cri"e of the "asses or "ultitudes involvin/ cro%d
action done in furtherance of a political end.
21
6he evidence before the panel of prosecutors %ho conducted the in=uest of +eltran
for Rebellion consisted of the affidavits and other docu"ents
25
attached to the C7!.
letters. Ge have /one over these docu"ents and find "erit in +eltranKs contention that
the sa"e are insufficient to sho% probable cause to indict hi" for Rebellion. 6he bul*
of the docu"ents consists of affidavits, so"e of %hich %ere s%orn before a notary
public, e<ecuted by "e"bers of the "ilitary and so"e civilians. &<cept for t%o
affidavits, e<ecuted by a certain Ruel &scala (&scala), dated 20 -ebuary 2006,
26
and
Raul Cachuela (Cachuela), dated 23 -ebruary 2006,
2:
none of the affidavits "entions
+eltran.
29
7n his affidavit, &scala recounted that in the afternoon of 20 -ebruary 2006,
he sa% +eltran, Oca"po, CasiLo, #a;a, #ariano, 3irador, and other individuals on
board a vehicle %hich entered a chic*en far" in +ucal, Padre .arcia, +atan/as and
that after the passen/ers ali/hted, they %ere "et by another individual %ho loo*ed
li*e 0an 5uan. -or his part, Cachuela stated that he %as a for"er "e"ber of the CPP
and that () he attended the CPPKs D0
th
Plenu"D in ,,2 %here he sa% +eltran4 (2) he
too* part in cri"inal activities4 and (3) the ar"s he and the other CPP "e"bers used
%ere purchased partly fro" contributions by Con/ressional "e"bers, li*e +eltran,
%ho represent party'list /roups affiliated %ith the CPP.
6he alle/ations in these affidavits are far fro" the proof needed to indict +eltran for
ta*in/ part in an ar"ed public uprisin/ a/ainst the /overn"ent. Ghat these
docu"ents prove, at best, is that +eltran %as in +ucal, Padre .arcia, +atan/as on 20
-ebruary 2006 and that 1 years earlier, he %as present durin/ the ,,2 CPP Plenu".
>one of the affidavits stated that +eltran co""itted specific acts of pro"otin/,
"aintainin/, or headin/ a rebellion as found in the !O5 Resolution of 2: -ebruary
2006. >one of the affidavits alle/ed that +eltran is a leader of a rebellion. +eltranKs
alle/ed presence durin/ the ,,2 CPP Plenu" does not auto"atically "a*e hi" a
leader of a rebellion.
7n fact, CachuelaKs affidavit stated that +eltran attended the ,,2 CPP Plenu" as
DChair"an, 8ilusan/ #ayo Eno (8#E).D Assu"in/ that +eltran is a "e"ber of the
CPP, %hich +eltran does not ac*no%led/e, "ere "e"bership in the CPP does not
constitute rebellion.
2,
As for the alle/ed fundin/ of the CPPKs "ilitary e=uip"ent fro"
+eltranKs con/ressional funds, CachuelaKs affidavit "erely contained a /eneral
conclusion %ithout any specific act sho%in/ such fundin/. Cachuela "erely alle/ed
that Dan/ "/a iban/ "/a pondo na"in ay /alin/ sa "/a party list na naihalal sa
8on/reso tulad n/ +AHA> #E>A N pi"u"unuan nila 0A6ER OCA#PO at
CR70P7> +&$6RA>, < < <.D
30
0uch a /eneral conclusion does not establish probable
cause.
7n his Co""ent to +eltranKs petition, the 0olicitor .eneral points to -uentesK
affidavit, dated 25 -ebruary 2006,
3
as basis for the findin/ of probable cause a/ainst
+eltran as -uentes provided details in his state"ent re/ardin/ "eetin/s +eltran and
the other petitioners attended in 2005 and 2006 in %hich plans to overthro% violently
the Arroyo /overn"ent %ere alle/edly discussed, a"on/ others.
6he clai" is untenable. -uentesK affidavit %as not part of the attach"ents the C7!.
referred to the !O5 on 2: -ebruary 2006. 6hus, the panel of in=uest prosecutors did
not have -uentesK affidavit in their possession %hen they conducted the Rebellion
in=uest a/ainst +eltran on that day. 7ndeed, althou/h this affidavit is dated 25
-ebruary 2006, the C7!. first presented it only durin/ the preli"inary investi/ation
of the other petitioners on 3 #arch 2006 durin/ %hich -uentes subscribed to his
state"ent before respondent prosecutor 3elasco.
Respondent prosecutors later tried to re"edy this fatal defect by "otu proprio
sub"ittin/ to +ranch 3: of the R6C #a*ati -uentesK affidavit as part of their
Co""ent to +eltranKs "otion for 2udicial deter"ination of probable cause. 0uch
belated sub"ission, a tacit ad"ission of the dearth of evidence a/ainst +eltran durin/
the in=uest, does not i"prove the prosecutionKs case. Assu"in/ the" to be true, %hat
the alle/ations in -uentesK affidavit "a*e out is a case for Conspiracy to Co""it
Rebellion, punishable under Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code, not Rebellion
under Article 31. Attendance in "eetin/s to discuss, a"on/ others, plans to brin/
do%n a /overn"ent is a "ere preparatory step to co""it the acts constitutin/
Rebellion under Article 31. &ven the prosecution ac*no%led/ed this, since the
felony char/ed in the 7nfor"ation a/ainst +eltran and 0an 5uan in Cri"inal Case >o.
06'152 is Conspiracy to Co""it Rebellion and not Rebellion. 6he 7nfor"ation
"erely alle/ed that +eltran, 0an 5uan, and others conspired to for" a Dtactical
allianceD to co""it Rebellion. 6hus, the R6C #a*ati erred %hen it nevertheless
found probable cause to try +eltran for Rebellion based on the evidence before it.
6he "inutes
32
of the 20 -ebruary 2006 alle/ed "eetin/ in +atan/as bet%een "e"bers
of #8P and CPP, includin/ +eltran, also do not detract fro" our
findin/.1a!"phi1.net >o%here in the "inutes %as +eltran i"plicated. Ghile the
"inutes state that a certain DCrisD attended the alle/ed "eetin/, there is no other
evidence on record indicatin/ that DCrisD is +eltran. 0an 5uan, fro" %ho" the Dflash
driveD containin/ the so'called "inutes %as alle/edly ta*en, denies *no%in/ +eltran.
6o repeat, none of the affidavits alle/es that +eltran is pro"otin/, "aintainin/, or
headin/ a Rebellion. 6he 7nfor"ation in Cri"inal Case >o. 06'152 itself does not
"a*e such alle/ation. 6hus, even assu"in/ that the 7nfor"ation validly char/es
+eltran for ta*in/ part in a Rebellion, he is entitled to bail as a "atter of ri/ht since
there is no alle/ation in the 7nfor"ation that he is a leader or pro"oter of the
Rebellion.
33
Fo%ever, the 7nfor"ation in fact "erely char/es +eltran for Dconspirin/
and confederatin/D %ith others in for"in/ a Dtactical allianceD to co""it rebellion. As
%orded, the 7nfor"ation does not char/e +eltran %ith Rebellion but %ith Conspiracy
to Co""it Rebellion, a bailable offense.
31
On the $adlad and #a;a Petitions
6he Preli"inary 7nvesti/ation %as 6ainted
Gith 7rre/ularities.
As in the deter"ination of probable cause, this Court is si"ilarly loath to en2oin the
prosecution of offenses, a practice rooted on public interest as the speedy closure of
cri"inal investi/ations fosters public safety.
35
Fo%ever, such relief in e=uity "ay be
/ranted if, a"on/ others, the sa"e is necessary (a) to prevent the use of the stron/
ar" of the la% in an oppressive and vindictive "anner
36
or (b) to afford ade=uate
protection to constitutional ri/hts.
3:
6he case of the petitioners in ..R. >os. :20:0'
:2 and :20:1':6 falls under these e<ceptions.
6he procedure for preli"inary investi/ation of offenses punishable by at least four
years, t%o "onths and one day is outlined in 0ection 3, Rule 2 of the Revised Rules
of Cri"inal Procedure, thus@
Procedure.O6he preli"inary investi/ation shall be conducted in the follo%in/
"anner@
(a) 6he co"plaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be
acco"panied by the affidavits of the co"plainant and his %itnesses, as %ell as
other supportin/ docu"ents to establish probable cause. 6hey shall be in such
nu"ber of copies as there are respondents, plus t%o (2) copies for the official
file. 6he affidavits shall be subscribed and s%orn to before any prosecutor or
/overn"ent official authori;ed to ad"inister oath, or, in their absence or
unavailability, before a notary public, each of %ho" "ust certify that he
personally e<a"ined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily
e<ecuted and understood their affidavits.
(b) Githin ten (0) days after the filin/ of the co"plaint, the investi/atin/
officer shall either dis"iss it if he finds no /round to continue %ith the
investi/ation, or issue a subpoena to the respondent attachin/ to it a copy of
the co"plaint and its supportin/ affidavits and docu"ents.
6he respondent shall have the ri/ht to e<a"ine the evidence sub"itted by the
co"plainant %hich he "ay not have been furnished and to copy the" at his
e<pense. 7f the evidence is volu"inous, the co"plainant "ay be re=uired to
specify those %hich he intends to present a/ainst the respondent, and these
shall be "ade available for e<a"ination or copyin/ by the respondent at his
e<pense.
Ob2ects as evidence need not be furnished a party but shall be "ade available
for e<a"ination, copyin/, or photo/raphin/ at the e<pense of the re=uestin/
party.
(c) Githin ten (0) days fro" receipt of the subpoena %ith the co"plaint and
supportin/ affidavits and docu"ents, the respondent shall sub"it his counter'
affidavit and that of his %itnesses and other supportin/ docu"ents relied upon
for his defense. 6he counter'affidavits shall be subscribed and s%orn to and
certified as provided in para/raph (a) of this section, %ith copies thereof
furnished by hi" to the co"plainant. 6he respondent shall not be allo%ed to
file a "otion to dis"iss in lieu of a counter'affidavit.
(d) 7f the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not sub"it
counter'affidavits %ithin the ten (0) day period, the investi/atin/ officer shall
resolve the co"plaint based on the evidence presented by the co"plainant.
(e) 6he investi/atin/ officer "ay set a hearin/ if there are facts and issues to
be clarified fro" a party or a %itness. 6he parties can be present at the hearin/
but %ithout the ri/ht to e<a"ine or cross'e<a"ine. 6hey "ay, ho%ever, sub"it
to the investi/atin/ officer =uestions %hich "ay be as*ed to the party or
%itness concerned.
6he hearin/ shall be held %ithin ten (0) days fro" sub"ission of the counter'
affidavits and other docu"ents or fro" the e<piration of the period for their
sub"ission. 7t shall be ter"inated %ithin five (5) days.
(f) Githin ten (0) days after the investi/ation, the investi/atin/ officer shall
deter"ine %hether or not there is sufficient /round to hold the respondent for
trial. (&"phasis supplied)
7nstead of follo%in/ this procedure scrupulously, as %hat this Court had "andated in
an earlier rulin/, Dso that the constitutional ri/ht to liberty of a potential accused can
be protected fro" any "aterial da"a/e,D
39
respondent prosecutors nonchalantly
disre/arded it. Respondent prosecutors failed to co"ply %ith 0ection 3(a) of Rule 2
%hich provides that the co"plaint (%hich, %ith its attach"ent, "ust be of such
nu"ber as there are respondents) be acco"panied by the affidavits of the co"plainant
and his %itnesses, subscribed and s%orn to before any prosecutor or /overn"ent
official authori;ed to ad"inister oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a
notary public. Respondent prosecutors treated the unsubscribed letters of 6ani/ue and
#endo;a of the C7!., P>P as co"plaints
3,
and accepted the affidavits attached to the
letters even thou/h so"e of the" %ere notari;ed by a notary public %ithout any
sho%in/ that a prosecutor or =ualified /overn"ent official %as unavailable as
re=uired by 0ection 3(a) of Rule 2.
-urther, 0ection 3(b) of Rule 2 "andates that the prosecutor, after receivin/ the
co"plaint, "ust deter"ine if there are /rounds to continue %ith the investi/ation. 7f
there is none, he shall dis"iss the case, other%ise he shall Dissue a subpoena to the
respondents.D Fere, after receivin/ the C7!. letters, respondent prosecutors
pere"ptorily issued subpoenas to petitioners re=uirin/ the" to appear at the !O5
office on 3 #arch 2006 Dto secure copies of the co"plaints and its attach"ents.D
!urin/ the investi/ation, respondent prosecutors allo%ed the C7!. to present a
"as*ed -uentes %ho subscribed to an affidavit before respondent prosecutor 3elasco.
3elasco proceeded to distribute copies of -uentesK affidavit not to petitioners or their
counsels but to "e"bers of the "edia %ho covered the proceedin/s. Respondent
prosecutors then re=uired petitioners to sub"it their counter'affidavits in 0 days. 7t
%as only four days later, on : #arch 2006, that petitioners received the co"plete
copy of the attach"ents to the C7!. letters.1a!"phi1.net
6hese uncontroverted facts belie respondent prosecutorsK state"ent in the Order of 22
#arch 2006 that the preli"inary investi/ation D%as done in accordance %ith the
Revised Rules oBfC Cri"inal Procedure.D
10
7ndeed, by pere"ptorily issuin/ the
subpoenas to petitioners, toleratin/ the co"plainantKs antics durin/ the investi/ation,
and distributin/ copies of a %itnessK affidavit to "e"bers of the "edia *no%in/ that
petitioners have not had the opportunity to e<a"ine the char/es a/ainst the",
respondent prosecutors not only triviali;ed the investi/ation but also lent credence to
petitionersK clai" that the entire proceedin/ %as a sha".
A preli"inary investi/ation is the crucial sieve in the cri"inal 2ustice syste" %hich
spells for an individual the difference bet%een "onths if not years of a/oni;in/ trial
and possibly 2ail ter", on the one hand, and peace of "ind and liberty, on the other
hand. 6hus, %e have characteri;ed the ri/ht to a preli"inary investi/ation as not Da
"ere for"al or technical ri/htD but a DsubstantiveD one, for"in/ part of due process in
cri"inal 2ustice.
1
6his especially holds true here %here the offense char/ed is
punishable by reclusion perpetua and "ay be non'bailable for those accused as
principals.
Contrary to the sub"ission of the 0olicitor .eneral, respondent prosecutorsK filin/ of
the 7nfor"ation a/ainst petitioners on 2 April 2006 %ith +ranch 5: of the R6C
#a*ati does not "oot the petitions in ..R. >os. :20:0':2 and :20:1':6. Our
po%er to en2oin prosecutions cannot be frustrated by the si"ple filin/ of the
7nfor"ation %ith the trial court.1a!"phi1.net
On Respondent ProsecutorsK $ac* of 7"partiality
Ge find "erit in petitionersK doubt on respondent prosecutorsK i"partiality.
Respondent 0ecretary of 5ustice, %ho e<ercises supervision and control over the panel
of prosecutors, stated in an intervie% on 3 #arch 2006, the day of the preli"inary
investi/ation, that, DGe Bthe !O5C %ill 2ust declare probable cause, then itKs up to the
BCCourt to decide < < <.D
12
Petitioners raised this issue in their petition,
13
but
respondents never disputed the veracity of this state"ent. 6his clearly sho%s pre'
2ud/"ent, a deter"ination to file the 7nfor"ation even in the absence of probable
cause.
A -inal Gord
6he obvious involve"ent of political considerations in the actuations of respondent
0ecretary of 5ustice and respondent prosecutors brin/s to "ind an observation %e
"ade in another e=ually politically char/ed case. Ge reiterate %hat %e stated then, if
only to e"phasi;e the i"portance of "aintainin/ the inte/rity of cri"inal
prosecutions in /eneral and preli"inary investi/ations in particular, thus@
BGCe cannot e"phasi;e too stron/ly that prosecutors should not allo%, and should
avoid, /ivin/ the i"pression that their noble office is bein/ used or prostituted,
%ittin/ly or un%ittin/ly, for political ends, or other purposes alien to, or subversive
of, the basic and funda"ental ob2ective of observin/ the interest of 2ustice
evenhandedly, %ithout fear or favor to any and all liti/ants ali*e, %hether rich or poor,
%ea* or stron/, po%erless or "i/hty. Only by strict adherence to the established
procedure "ay be publicKs perception of the i"partiality of the prosecutor be
enhanced.
11
1a!"phi1.net
GF&R&-OR&, %e .RA>6 the petitions. 7n ..R. >o. :503, %e 0&6 A07!& the
Order dated 3 #ay 2006 of the Re/ional 6rial Court, #a*ati City, +ranch 16 and
the Order dated 2, Au/ust 2006 of the Re/ional 6rial Court, #a*ati City, +ranch 50.
7n ..R. >os. :20:0':2 and :20:1':6, %e 0&6 A07!& the Orders dated 22 #arch
2006 and 1 April 2006 issued by respondent prosecutors. Ge OR!&R the Re/ional
6rial Court, #a*ati City, +ranch 50 to !70#700 Cri"inal Case >os. 06'152 and 06'
,11.
0O OR!&R&!.
G.R. No%. 162060262 7u'e 1, 2006
VICENTE /. LADLAD, NATHANAEL S. SANTIAGO, RANDALL ,.
ECHANIS, &'$ RE8 CLARO C. CASAM,RE, Petitioners,
vs.
SENIOR STATE /ROSEC1TOR EMMAN1EL 8. VELASCO, SENIOR STATE
/ROSEC1TOR 7OSELITA C. MENDO3A, SENIOR STATE /ROSEC1TOR
AILEEN MARIE S. G1TIERRE3, STATE /ROSEC1TOR IR5IN A.
MARA8A, &'$ STATE /ROSEC1TOR MER,A A. 5AGA, i' )eir +&p&+i! &%
"e"#er% o( )e Dep&r"e' o( 7u%i+e p&'el o( pro%e+uor% i'-e%i.&i'. I.S.
No%. 20062229, 20062226 &'$ 200622:0, 71STICE SECRETAR8 RA1L M.
GON3ALE3, DIRECTOR GENERAL ART1RO C. LOMI,AO, i' )i% +&p&+i!
&% C)ie(, /)ilippi'e N&io'&l /oli+e, /;CS1/T. RODOLFO ,. MENDO3A, 7R.,
&'$ /;S1/T. 8OLANDA G. TANIG1E, Respondents.
<' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '<
G.R. No%. 162060266 7u'e 1, 2006
LI3A L. MA3A, 7OEL G. VIRADOR, SAT1RNINO C. OCAM/O, TEODORO
A. CASI<O, CRIS/IN ,. ,ELTRAN, &'$ RAFAEL V. MARIANO, Petitioners,
vs.
RA1L M. GON3ALE3, i' )i% +&p&+i! &% Se+re&r! o( )e Dep&r"e' o(
7u%i+e, 7OVENCITO R. 31<O, i' )i% +&p&+i! &% C)ie( S&e /ro%e+uor, )e
/&'el o( I'-e%i.&i'. /ro%e+uor% +o"po%e$ o( EMMAN1EL 8. VELASCO,
7OSELITA C. MENDO3A, AILEEN MARIE S. G1TIERRE3, IR5IN A.
MARA8A &'$ MER,A A. 5AGA =/&'el>, RODOLFO ,. MENDO3A, i' )i%
+&p&+i! &% A+i'. Depu! Dire+or, Dire+or&e (or I'-e%i.&io' &'$ Dee+i-e
M&'&.e"e' =DIDM>, 8OLANDA G. TANIG1E, i' )er +&p&+i! &% A+i'.
E?e+ui-e O((i+er o( DIDM, )e DE/ARTMENT OF 71STICE =DO7>, &'$ )e
/HILI//INE NATIONAL /OLICE =/N/>, Respondents.
<' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '<
G.R. No. 16901: 7u'e 1, 2006
CRIS/IN ,. ,ELTRAN, Petitioner,
vs.
/EO/LE OF THE /HILI//INES, SECRETAR8 RA1L M. GON3ALE3, i' )i%
+&p&+i! &% )e Se+re&r! o( 7u%i+e &'$ o-er&ll %uperior o( )e /u#li+
/ro%e+uor%, HONORA,LE ENCARNACION 7A7A G. MO8A, i' )er +&p&+i!
&% /re%i$i'. 7u$.e o( Re.io'&l Tri&l Cour o( M&@&i Ci!, ,r&'+) 106, &'$
HONORA,LE ELMO M. ALAMEDA, i' )i% +&p&+i! &% /re%i$i'. 7u$.e o(
Re.io'&l Tri&l Cour o( M&@&i Ci!, ,r&'+) 190, Respondents.
! & C 7 0 7 O >
CAR/IO, J.:
6he Case
6hese are consolidated petitions for the %rits of prohibition and certiorari to en2oin
petitionersK prosecution for Rebellion and to set aside the rulin/s of the !epart"ent of
5ustice (!O5) and the Re/ional 6rial Court of #a*ati City (R6C #a*ati) on the
investi/ation and prosecution of petitionersK cases.
6he -acts
Petitioner in ..R. >o. :503, Crispin +. +eltran (+eltran), and petitioners in ..R.
>os. :20:1':6, $i;a $. #a;a (#a;a), 5oel .. 3irador (3irador), 0aturnino C.
Oca"po (Oca"po), 6eodoro A. CasiLo (CasiLo), and Rafael 3. #ariano (#ariano),

are "e"bers of the Fouse of Representatives representin/ various party'list /roups.
2

Petitioners in ..R. >os. :20:0':2 are private individuals. Petitioners all face char/es
for Rebellion under Article 31 in relation to Article 35 of the Revised Penal Code in
t%o cri"inal cases pendin/ %ith the R6C #a*ati.
..R. >o. :503 (6he +eltran Petition)
-ollo%in/ the issuance by President .loria #acapa/al'Arroyo of Presidential
Procla"ation >o. 0: on 21 -ebruary 2006 declarin/ a D0tate of >ational
&"er/ency,D police officers
3
arrested +eltran on 25 -ebruary 2006, %hile he %as en
route to #arilao, +ulacan, and detained hi" in Ca"p Cra"e, Mue;on City. +eltran
%as arrested %ithout a %arrant and the arrestin/ officers did not infor" +eltran of the
cri"e for %hich he %as arrested. On that evenin/, +eltran %as sub2ected to an in=uest
at the Mue;on City Fall of 5ustice for 7ncitin/ to 0edition under Article 12 of the
Revised Penal Code based on a speech +eltran alle/edly /ave durin/ a rally in
Mue;on City on 21 -ebruary 2006, on the occasion of the 20
th
anniversary of the
&!0A Revolution. 6he in=uest %as based on the 2oint affidavit of +eltranKs arrestin/
officers %ho clai"ed to have been present at the rally. 6he in=uest prosecutor
1

indicted +eltran and filed the correspondin/ 7nfor"ation %ith the #etropolitan 6rial
Court of Mue;on City (#e6C).
5
6he authorities brou/ht bac* +eltran to Ca"p Cra"e %here, on 2: -ebruary 2006, he
%as sub2ected to a second in=uest, %ith
st
$t. $a%rence 0an 5uan (0an 5uan), this
ti"e for Rebellion. A panel of 0tate prosecutors
6
fro" the !O5 conducted this second
in=uest. 6he in=uest %as based on t%o letters, both dated 2: -ebruary 2006, of
Holanda 6ani/ue (6ani/ue) and of Rodolfo #endo;a (#endo;a). 6ani/ue is the
Actin/ &<ecutive Officer of the Cri"inal 7nvesti/ation and !etection .roup (C7!.),
Philippine >ational Police (P>P), %hile #endo;a is the Actin/ !eputy !irector of
the C7!.. 6he letters referred to the !O5 for appropriate action the results of the
C7!.Ks investi/ation i"plicatin/ +eltran, the petitioners in ..R. >os. :20:1':6, 0an
5uan, and several others as Dleaders and pro"otersD of an alle/ed foiled plot to
overthro% the Arroyo /overn"ent. 6he plot %as supposed to be carried out 2ointly by
"e"bers of the Co""unist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the #a*abayan/
8a%al n/ Pilipinas (#8P), %hich have for"ed a Dtactical alliance.D
On 2: -ebruary 2006, the !O5 panel of prosecutors issued a Resolution findin/
probable cause to indict +eltran and 0an 5uan as DleadersIpro"otersD of Rebellion.
6he panel then filed an 7nfor"ation %ith the R6C #a*ati. 6he 7nfor"ation alle/ed
that +eltran, 0an 5uan, and other individuals Dconspirin/ and confederatin/ %ith each
other, < < <, did then and there %illfully, unla%fully, and feloniously for" a tactical
alliance bet%een the CPPI>PA, rena"ed as Partidon/ 8o"unista n/ Pilipinas (P8P)
and its ar"ed re/ular "e"bers as 8atipunan n/ Ana* n/ +ayan (8A+) %ith the
#a*abayan/ 8a%al n/ Pilipinas (#8P) and thereby rise publicly and ta*e up ar"s
a/ainst the duly constituted /overn"ent, < < <.D
:
6he 7nfor"ation, doc*eted as
Cri"inal Case >o. 06'152, %as raffled to +ranch 3: under Presidin/ 5ud/e 5enny
$ind R. Aldecoa'!elorino (5ud/e !elorino).
+eltran "oved that +ranch 3: "a*e a 2udicial deter"ination of probable cause
a/ainst hi".
9
+efore the "otion could be resolved, 5ud/e !elorino recused herself
fro" the case %hich %as re'raffled to +ranch 16 under 5ud/e &ncarnacion 5a2a'
#oya (5ud/e #oya).
7n its Order dated 3 #ay 2006, +ranch 16 sustained the findin/ of probable cause
a/ainst +eltran.
,
+eltran sou/ht reconsideration but 5ud/e #oya also inhibited herself
fro" the case %ithout resolvin/ +eltranKs "otion. 5ud/e &l"o #. Ala"eda of +ranch
50, to %ho" the case %as re'raffled, issued an Order on 2, Au/ust 2006 denyin/
+eltranKs "otion.
Fence, the petition in ..R. >o. :503 to set aside the Orders dated 3 #ay 2006 and
2, Au/ust 2006 and to en2oin +eltranKs prosecution.
7n his Co""ent to the petition, the 0olicitor .eneral clai"s that +eltranKs in=uest for
Rebellion %as valid and that the R6C #a*ati correctly found probable cause to try
+eltran for such felony.
..R. >os. :20:0':2 and :20:1':6 (6he #a;a and $adlad Petitions)
+ased on 6ani/ue and #endo;aKs letters, the !O5 sent subpoenas to petitioners on 6
#arch 2006 re=uirin/ the" to appear at the !O5 Office on 3 #arch 2006 Dto /et
copies of the co"plaint and its attach"ent.D Prior to their receipt of the subpoenas,
petitioners had =uartered the"selves inside the Fouse of Representatives buildin/ for
fear of bein/ sub2ected to %arrantless arrest.
!urin/ the preli"inary investi/ation on 3 #arch 2006, the counsel for the C7!.
presented a "as*ed "an, later identified as 5ai"e -uentes (-uentes), %ho clai"ed to
be an eye%itness a/ainst petitioners. -uentes subscribed to his affidavit before
respondent prosecutor &""anuel 3elasco %ho then /ave copies of the affidavit to
"edia "e"bers present durin/ the proceedin/s. 6he panel of prosecutors
0
/ave
petitioners 0 days %ithin %hich to file their counter'affidavits. Petitioners %ere
furnished the co"plete copies of docu"ents supportin/ the C7!.Ks letters only on :
#arch 2006.
Petitioners "oved for the inhibition of the "e"bers of the prosecution panel for lac*
of i"partiality and independence, considerin/ the political "ilieu under %hich
petitioners %ere investi/ated, the state"ents that the President and the 0ecretary of
5ustice "ade to the "edia re/ardin/ petitionersK case,

and the "anner in %hich the

prosecution panel conducted the preli"inary investi/ation. 6he !O5 panel of
prosecutors denied petitionersK "otion on 22 #arch 2006. Petitioners sou/ht
reconsideration and additionally prayed for the dis"issal of the cases. Fo%ever, the
panel of prosecutors denied petitionersK "otions on 1 April 2006.
Petitioners no% see* the nullification of the !O5 Orders of 22 #arch 2006 and 1
April 2006.
Actin/ on petitionersK prayer for the issuance of an in2unctive %rit, the Court issued a
status =uo order on 5 5une 2006. Prior to this, ho%ever, the panel of prosecutors, on
2 April 2006, issued a Resolution findin/ probable cause to char/e petitioners and 16
others %ith Rebellion. 6he prosecutors filed the correspondin/ 7nfor"ation %ith
+ranch 5: of the R6C #a*ati, doc*eted as Cri"inal Case >o. 06',11 (later
consolidated %ith Cri"inal Case >o. 06'152 in +ranch 16), char/in/ petitioners and
their co'accused as Dprincipals, "aster"inds, BorC headsD of a Rebellion.
2

Conse=uently, the petitioners in ..R. >os. :20:0':2 filed a supple"ental petition to
en2oin the prosecution of Cri"inal Case >o. 06',11.
7n his separate Co""ent to the #a;a petition, the 0olicitor .eneral sub"its that the
preli"inary investi/ation of petitioners %as not tainted %ith irre/ularities. 6he
0olicitor .eneral also clai"s that the filin/ of Cri"inal Case >o. 06',11 has "ooted
the #a;a petition.
6he 7ssues
6he petitions raise the follo%in/ issues@
. 7n ..R. >o. :503, (a) %hether the in=uest proceedin/ a/ainst +eltran for
Rebellion %as valid and (b) %hether there is probable cause to indict +eltran for
Rebellion4 and
2. 7n ..R. >os. :20:0':2 and :20:1':6, %hether respondent prosecutors should be
en2oined fro" continuin/ %ith the prosecution of Cri"inal Case >o. 06',11.
3
6he Rulin/ of the Court
Ge find the petitions "eritorious. On the +eltran Petition
6he 7n=uest Proceedin/ a/ainst +eltran for Rebellion is 3oid.
7n=uest proceedin/s are proper only %hen the accused has been la%fully arrested
%ithout %arrant.
1
0ection 5, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Cri"inal Procedure
provides the instances %hen such %arrantless arrest "ay be effected, thus@
Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person "ay,
%ithout a %arrant, arrest a person@
(a) Ghen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co""itted, is actually
co""ittin/, or is atte"ptin/ to co""it an offense4
(b) Ghen an offense has 2ust been co""itted and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal *no%led/e of facts or circu"stances that the person to be arrested
has co""itted it4 and
< < < <
7n cases fallin/ under para/raphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested %ithout a
%arrant shall be forth%ith delivered to the nearest police station or 2ail and shall be
proceeded a/ainst in accordance %ith section : of Rule 2.
6he 2oint affidavit of +eltranKs arrestin/ officers
5
states that the officers arrested
+eltran, %ithout a %arrant,
6
for 7ncitin/ to 0edition, and not for Rebellion. 6hus, the
in=uest prosecutor could only have conducted N as he did conduct N an in=uest for
7ncitin/ to 0edition and no other. Conse=uently, %hen another /roup of prosecutors
sub2ected +eltran to a second in=uest proceedin/ for Rebellion, they overstepped their
authority renderin/ the second in=uest void. >one of +eltranKs arrestin/ officers sa%
+eltran co""it, in their presence, the cri"e of Rebellion. >or did they have personal
*no%led/e of facts and circu"stances that +eltran had 2ust co""itted Rebellion,
sufficient to for" probable cause to believe that he had co""itted Rebellion. Ghat
these arrestin/ officers alle/ed in their affidavit is that they sa% and heard +eltran
"a*e an alle/edly seditious speech on 21 -ebruary 2006.
:
7ndeed, under !O5 Circular >o. 6, dated 2 0epte"ber ,,3, the initial duty of the
in=uest officer is to deter"ine if the arrest of the detained person %as "ade Din
accordance %ith the provisions of para/raphs (a) and (b) of 0ection 5, Rule 3.D
9
7f
the arrest %as not properly effected, the in=uest officer should proceed under 0ection
, of Circular >o. 6 %hich provides@
Ghere Arrest >ot Properly &ffected.O 0hould the 7n=uest Officer find that the arrest
%as not "ade in accordance %ith the Rules, he shall@
a) reco""end the release of the person arrested or detained4
b) note do%n the disposition on the referral docu"ent4
c) prepare a brief "e"orandu" indicatin/ the reasons for the action ta*en4 and
d) for%ard the sa"e, to/ether %ith the record of the case, to the City or
Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.
Ghere the reco""endation for the release of the detained person is approved by the
City or Provincial Prosecutor but the evidence on hand %arrant the conduct of a
re/ular preli"inary investi/ation, the order of release shall be served on the officer
havin/ custody of said detainee and shall direct the said officer to serve upon the
detainee the subpoena or notice of preli"inary investi/ation, to/ether %ith the copies
of the char/e sheet or co"plaint, affidavit or s%orn state"ents of the co"plainant and
his %itnesses and other supportin/ evidence. (&"phasis supplied)
-or the failure of +eltranKs panel of in=uest prosecutors to co"ply %ith 0ection :,
Rule 2 in relation to 0ection 5, Rule 3 and !O5 Circular >o. 6, %e declare
+eltranKs in=uest void.
,
+eltran %ould have been entitled to a preli"inary
investi/ation had he not as*ed the trial court to "a*e a 2udicial deter"ination of
probable cause, %hich effectively too* the place of such proceedin/.
6here is >o Probable Cause to 7ndict
+eltran for Rebellion.
Probable cause is the De<istence of such facts and circu"stances as %ould e<cite the
belief in a reasonable "ind, actin/ on the facts %ithin the *no%led/e of the
prosecutor, that the person char/ed %as /uilty of the cri"e for %hich he %as
prosecuted.D
20
6o accord respect to the discretion /ranted to the prosecutor and for
reasons of practicality, this Court, as a rule, does not interfere %ith the prosecutorKs
deter"ination of probable cause for other%ise, courts %ould be s%a"ped %ith
petitions to revie% the prosecutorKs findin/s in such investi/ations.
2
Fo%ever, in the
fe% e<ceptional cases %here the prosecutor abused his discretion by i/norin/ a clear
insufficiency of evidence to support a findin/ of probable cause, thus denyin/ the
accused his ri/ht to substantive and procedural due process, %e have not hesitated to
intervene and e<ercise our revie% po%er under Rule 65 to overturn the prosecutorKs
findin/s.
22
6his e<ception holds true here.
Rebellion under Article 31 of the Revised Penal Code is co""itted N
B+Cy risin/ publicly and ta*in/ ar"s a/ainst the .overn"ent for the purpose of
re"ovin/ fro" the alle/iance to said .overn"ent or its la%s, the territory of the
Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, or any body of land, naval, or other
ar"ed forces or deprivin/ the Chief &<ecutive or the $e/islature, %holly or partially,
of any of their po%ers or prero/atives.
6he ele"ents of the offense are@
. 6hat there be a (a) public uprisin/ and (b) ta*in/ ar"s a/ainst the
.overn"ent4 and
2. 6hat the purpose of the uprisin/ or "ove"ent is either N
(a) to re"ove fro" the alle/iance to said .overn"ent or its la%s@
() the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof4 or
(2) any body of land, naval, or other ar"ed forces4 or
(b) to deprive the Chief &<ecutive or Con/ress, %holly or partially, of
any of their po%ers and prero/atives.
23
6hus, by its nature, rebellion is a cri"e of the "asses or "ultitudes involvin/ cro%d
action done in furtherance of a political end.
21
6he evidence before the panel of prosecutors %ho conducted the in=uest of +eltran
for Rebellion consisted of the affidavits and other docu"ents
25
attached to the C7!.
letters. Ge have /one over these docu"ents and find "erit in +eltranKs contention that
the sa"e are insufficient to sho% probable cause to indict hi" for Rebellion. 6he bul*
of the docu"ents consists of affidavits, so"e of %hich %ere s%orn before a notary
public, e<ecuted by "e"bers of the "ilitary and so"e civilians. &<cept for t%o
affidavits, e<ecuted by a certain Ruel &scala (&scala), dated 20 -ebuary 2006,
26
and
Raul Cachuela (Cachuela), dated 23 -ebruary 2006,
2:
none of the affidavits "entions
+eltran.
29
7n his affidavit, &scala recounted that in the afternoon of 20 -ebruary 2006,
he sa% +eltran, Oca"po, CasiLo, #a;a, #ariano, 3irador, and other individuals on
board a vehicle %hich entered a chic*en far" in +ucal, Padre .arcia, +atan/as and
that after the passen/ers ali/hted, they %ere "et by another individual %ho loo*ed
li*e 0an 5uan. -or his part, Cachuela stated that he %as a for"er "e"ber of the CPP
and that () he attended the CPPKs D0
th
Plenu"D in ,,2 %here he sa% +eltran4 (2) he
too* part in cri"inal activities4 and (3) the ar"s he and the other CPP "e"bers used
%ere purchased partly fro" contributions by Con/ressional "e"bers, li*e +eltran,
%ho represent party'list /roups affiliated %ith the CPP.
6he alle/ations in these affidavits are far fro" the proof needed to indict +eltran for
ta*in/ part in an ar"ed public uprisin/ a/ainst the /overn"ent. Ghat these
docu"ents prove, at best, is that +eltran %as in +ucal, Padre .arcia, +atan/as on 20
-ebruary 2006 and that 1 years earlier, he %as present durin/ the ,,2 CPP Plenu".
>one of the affidavits stated that +eltran co""itted specific acts of pro"otin/,
"aintainin/, or headin/ a rebellion as found in the !O5 Resolution of 2: -ebruary
2006. >one of the affidavits alle/ed that +eltran is a leader of a rebellion. +eltranKs
alle/ed presence durin/ the ,,2 CPP Plenu" does not auto"atically "a*e hi" a
leader of a rebellion.
7n fact, CachuelaKs affidavit stated that +eltran attended the ,,2 CPP Plenu" as
DChair"an, 8ilusan/ #ayo Eno (8#E).D Assu"in/ that +eltran is a "e"ber of the
CPP, %hich +eltran does not ac*no%led/e, "ere "e"bership in the CPP does not
constitute rebellion.
2,
As for the alle/ed fundin/ of the CPPKs "ilitary e=uip"ent fro"
+eltranKs con/ressional funds, CachuelaKs affidavit "erely contained a /eneral
conclusion %ithout any specific act sho%in/ such fundin/. Cachuela "erely alle/ed
that Dan/ "/a iban/ "/a pondo na"in ay /alin/ sa "/a party list na naihalal sa
8on/reso tulad n/ +AHA> #E>A N pi"u"unuan nila 0A6ER OCA#PO at
CR70P7> +&$6RA>, < < <.D
30
0uch a /eneral conclusion does not establish probable
cause.
7n his Co""ent to +eltranKs petition, the 0olicitor .eneral points to -uentesK
affidavit, dated 25 -ebruary 2006,
3
as basis for the findin/ of probable cause a/ainst
+eltran as -uentes provided details in his state"ent re/ardin/ "eetin/s +eltran and
the other petitioners attended in 2005 and 2006 in %hich plans to overthro% violently
the Arroyo /overn"ent %ere alle/edly discussed, a"on/ others.
6he clai" is untenable. -uentesK affidavit %as not part of the attach"ents the C7!.
referred to the !O5 on 2: -ebruary 2006. 6hus, the panel of in=uest prosecutors did
not have -uentesK affidavit in their possession %hen they conducted the Rebellion
in=uest a/ainst +eltran on that day. 7ndeed, althou/h this affidavit is dated 25
-ebruary 2006, the C7!. first presented it only durin/ the preli"inary investi/ation
of the other petitioners on 3 #arch 2006 durin/ %hich -uentes subscribed to his
state"ent before respondent prosecutor 3elasco.
Respondent prosecutors later tried to re"edy this fatal defect by "otu proprio
sub"ittin/ to +ranch 3: of the R6C #a*ati -uentesK affidavit as part of their
Co""ent to +eltranKs "otion for 2udicial deter"ination of probable cause. 0uch
belated sub"ission, a tacit ad"ission of the dearth of evidence a/ainst +eltran durin/
the in=uest, does not i"prove the prosecutionKs case. Assu"in/ the" to be true, %hat
the alle/ations in -uentesK affidavit "a*e out is a case for Conspiracy to Co""it
Rebellion, punishable under Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code, not Rebellion
under Article 31. Attendance in "eetin/s to discuss, a"on/ others, plans to brin/
do%n a /overn"ent is a "ere preparatory step to co""it the acts constitutin/
Rebellion under Article 31. &ven the prosecution ac*no%led/ed this, since the
felony char/ed in the 7nfor"ation a/ainst +eltran and 0an 5uan in Cri"inal Case >o.
06'152 is Conspiracy to Co""it Rebellion and not Rebellion. 6he 7nfor"ation
"erely alle/ed that +eltran, 0an 5uan, and others conspired to for" a Dtactical
allianceD to co""it Rebellion. 6hus, the R6C #a*ati erred %hen it nevertheless
found probable cause to try +eltran for Rebellion based on the evidence before it.
6he "inutes
32
of the 20 -ebruary 2006 alle/ed "eetin/ in +atan/as bet%een "e"bers
of #8P and CPP, includin/ +eltran, also do not detract fro" our
findin/.1a!"phi1.net >o%here in the "inutes %as +eltran i"plicated. Ghile the
"inutes state that a certain DCrisD attended the alle/ed "eetin/, there is no other
evidence on record indicatin/ that DCrisD is +eltran. 0an 5uan, fro" %ho" the Dflash
driveD containin/ the so'called "inutes %as alle/edly ta*en, denies *no%in/ +eltran.
6o repeat, none of the affidavits alle/es that +eltran is pro"otin/, "aintainin/, or
headin/ a Rebellion. 6he 7nfor"ation in Cri"inal Case >o. 06'152 itself does not
"a*e such alle/ation. 6hus, even assu"in/ that the 7nfor"ation validly char/es
+eltran for ta*in/ part in a Rebellion, he is entitled to bail as a "atter of ri/ht since
there is no alle/ation in the 7nfor"ation that he is a leader or pro"oter of the
Rebellion.
33
Fo%ever, the 7nfor"ation in fact "erely char/es +eltran for Dconspirin/
and confederatin/D %ith others in for"in/ a Dtactical allianceD to co""it rebellion. As
%orded, the 7nfor"ation does not char/e +eltran %ith Rebellion but %ith Conspiracy
to Co""it Rebellion, a bailable offense.
31
On the $adlad and #a;a Petitions
6he Preli"inary 7nvesti/ation %as 6ainted
Gith 7rre/ularities.
As in the deter"ination of probable cause, this Court is si"ilarly loath to en2oin the
prosecution of offenses, a practice rooted on public interest as the speedy closure of
cri"inal investi/ations fosters public safety.
35
Fo%ever, such relief in e=uity "ay be
/ranted if, a"on/ others, the sa"e is necessary (a) to prevent the use of the stron/
ar" of the la% in an oppressive and vindictive "anner
36
or (b) to afford ade=uate
protection to constitutional ri/hts.
3:
6he case of the petitioners in ..R. >os. :20:0'
:2 and :20:1':6 falls under these e<ceptions.
6he procedure for preli"inary investi/ation of offenses punishable by at least four
years, t%o "onths and one day is outlined in 0ection 3, Rule 2 of the Revised Rules
of Cri"inal Procedure, thus@
Procedure.O6he preli"inary investi/ation shall be conducted in the follo%in/
"anner@
(a) 6he co"plaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be
acco"panied by the affidavits of the co"plainant and his %itnesses, as %ell as
other supportin/ docu"ents to establish probable cause. 6hey shall be in such
nu"ber of copies as there are respondents, plus t%o (2) copies for the official
file. 6he affidavits shall be subscribed and s%orn to before any prosecutor or
/overn"ent official authori;ed to ad"inister oath, or, in their absence or
unavailability, before a notary public, each of %ho" "ust certify that he
personally e<a"ined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily
e<ecuted and understood their affidavits.
(b) Githin ten (0) days after the filin/ of the co"plaint, the investi/atin/
officer shall either dis"iss it if he finds no /round to continue %ith the
investi/ation, or issue a subpoena to the respondent attachin/ to it a copy of
the co"plaint and its supportin/ affidavits and docu"ents.
6he respondent shall have the ri/ht to e<a"ine the evidence sub"itted by the
co"plainant %hich he "ay not have been furnished and to copy the" at his
e<pense. 7f the evidence is volu"inous, the co"plainant "ay be re=uired to
specify those %hich he intends to present a/ainst the respondent, and these
shall be "ade available for e<a"ination or copyin/ by the respondent at his
e<pense.
Ob2ects as evidence need not be furnished a party but shall be "ade available
for e<a"ination, copyin/, or photo/raphin/ at the e<pense of the re=uestin/
party.
(c) Githin ten (0) days fro" receipt of the subpoena %ith the co"plaint and
supportin/ affidavits and docu"ents, the respondent shall sub"it his counter'
affidavit and that of his %itnesses and other supportin/ docu"ents relied upon
for his defense. 6he counter'affidavits shall be subscribed and s%orn to and
certified as provided in para/raph (a) of this section, %ith copies thereof
furnished by hi" to the co"plainant. 6he respondent shall not be allo%ed to
file a "otion to dis"iss in lieu of a counter'affidavit.
(d) 7f the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not sub"it
counter'affidavits %ithin the ten (0) day period, the investi/atin/ officer shall
resolve the co"plaint based on the evidence presented by the co"plainant.
(e) 6he investi/atin/ officer "ay set a hearin/ if there are facts and issues to
be clarified fro" a party or a %itness. 6he parties can be present at the hearin/
but %ithout the ri/ht to e<a"ine or cross'e<a"ine. 6hey "ay, ho%ever, sub"it
to the investi/atin/ officer =uestions %hich "ay be as*ed to the party or
%itness concerned.
6he hearin/ shall be held %ithin ten (0) days fro" sub"ission of the counter'
affidavits and other docu"ents or fro" the e<piration of the period for their
sub"ission. 7t shall be ter"inated %ithin five (5) days.
(f) Githin ten (0) days after the investi/ation, the investi/atin/ officer shall
deter"ine %hether or not there is sufficient /round to hold the respondent for
trial. (&"phasis supplied)
7nstead of follo%in/ this procedure scrupulously, as %hat this Court had "andated in
an earlier rulin/, Dso that the constitutional ri/ht to liberty of a potential accused can
be protected fro" any "aterial da"a/e,D
39
respondent prosecutors nonchalantly
disre/arded it. Respondent prosecutors failed to co"ply %ith 0ection 3(a) of Rule 2
%hich provides that the co"plaint (%hich, %ith its attach"ent, "ust be of such
nu"ber as there are respondents) be acco"panied by the affidavits of the co"plainant
and his %itnesses, subscribed and s%orn to before any prosecutor or /overn"ent
official authori;ed to ad"inister oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a
notary public. Respondent prosecutors treated the unsubscribed letters of 6ani/ue and
#endo;a of the C7!., P>P as co"plaints
3,
and accepted the affidavits attached to the
letters even thou/h so"e of the" %ere notari;ed by a notary public %ithout any
sho%in/ that a prosecutor or =ualified /overn"ent official %as unavailable as
re=uired by 0ection 3(a) of Rule 2.
-urther, 0ection 3(b) of Rule 2 "andates that the prosecutor, after receivin/ the
co"plaint, "ust deter"ine if there are /rounds to continue %ith the investi/ation. 7f
there is none, he shall dis"iss the case, other%ise he shall Dissue a subpoena to the
respondents.D Fere, after receivin/ the C7!. letters, respondent prosecutors
pere"ptorily issued subpoenas to petitioners re=uirin/ the" to appear at the !O5
office on 3 #arch 2006 Dto secure copies of the co"plaints and its attach"ents.D
!urin/ the investi/ation, respondent prosecutors allo%ed the C7!. to present a
"as*ed -uentes %ho subscribed to an affidavit before respondent prosecutor 3elasco.
3elasco proceeded to distribute copies of -uentesK affidavit not to petitioners or their
counsels but to "e"bers of the "edia %ho covered the proceedin/s. Respondent
prosecutors then re=uired petitioners to sub"it their counter'affidavits in 0 days. 7t
%as only four days later, on : #arch 2006, that petitioners received the co"plete
copy of the attach"ents to the C7!. letters.1a!"phi1.net
6hese uncontroverted facts belie respondent prosecutorsK state"ent in the Order of 22
#arch 2006 that the preli"inary investi/ation D%as done in accordance %ith the
Revised Rules oBfC Cri"inal Procedure.D
10
7ndeed, by pere"ptorily issuin/ the
subpoenas to petitioners, toleratin/ the co"plainantKs antics durin/ the investi/ation,
and distributin/ copies of a %itnessK affidavit to "e"bers of the "edia *no%in/ that
petitioners have not had the opportunity to e<a"ine the char/es a/ainst the",
respondent prosecutors not only triviali;ed the investi/ation but also lent credence to
petitionersK clai" that the entire proceedin/ %as a sha".
A preli"inary investi/ation is the crucial sieve in the cri"inal 2ustice syste" %hich
spells for an individual the difference bet%een "onths if not years of a/oni;in/ trial
and possibly 2ail ter", on the one hand, and peace of "ind and liberty, on the other
hand. 6hus, %e have characteri;ed the ri/ht to a preli"inary investi/ation as not Da
"ere for"al or technical ri/htD but a DsubstantiveD one, for"in/ part of due process in
cri"inal 2ustice.
1
6his especially holds true here %here the offense char/ed is
punishable by reclusion perpetua and "ay be non'bailable for those accused as
principals.
Contrary to the sub"ission of the 0olicitor .eneral, respondent prosecutorsK filin/ of
the 7nfor"ation a/ainst petitioners on 2 April 2006 %ith +ranch 5: of the R6C
#a*ati does not "oot the petitions in ..R. >os. :20:0':2 and :20:1':6. Our
po%er to en2oin prosecutions cannot be frustrated by the si"ple filin/ of the
7nfor"ation %ith the trial court.1a!"phi1.net
On Respondent ProsecutorsK $ac* of 7"partiality
Ge find "erit in petitionersK doubt on respondent prosecutorsK i"partiality.
Respondent 0ecretary of 5ustice, %ho e<ercises supervision and control over the panel
of prosecutors, stated in an intervie% on 3 #arch 2006, the day of the preli"inary
investi/ation, that, DGe Bthe !O5C %ill 2ust declare probable cause, then itKs up to the
BCCourt to decide < < <.D
12
Petitioners raised this issue in their petition,
13
but
respondents never disputed the veracity of this state"ent. 6his clearly sho%s pre'
2ud/"ent, a deter"ination to file the 7nfor"ation even in the absence of probable
cause.
A -inal Gord
6he obvious involve"ent of political considerations in the actuations of respondent
0ecretary of 5ustice and respondent prosecutors brin/s to "ind an observation %e
"ade in another e=ually politically char/ed case. Ge reiterate %hat %e stated then, if
only to e"phasi;e the i"portance of "aintainin/ the inte/rity of cri"inal
prosecutions in /eneral and preli"inary investi/ations in particular, thus@
BGCe cannot e"phasi;e too stron/ly that prosecutors should not allo%, and should
avoid, /ivin/ the i"pression that their noble office is bein/ used or prostituted,
%ittin/ly or un%ittin/ly, for political ends, or other purposes alien to, or subversive
of, the basic and funda"ental ob2ective of observin/ the interest of 2ustice
evenhandedly, %ithout fear or favor to any and all liti/ants ali*e, %hether rich or poor,
%ea* or stron/, po%erless or "i/hty. Only by strict adherence to the established
procedure "ay be publicKs perception of the i"partiality of the prosecutor be
enhanced.
11
1a!"phi1.net
GF&R&-OR&, %e .RA>6 the petitions. 7n ..R. >o. :503, %e 0&6 A07!& the
Order dated 3 #ay 2006 of the Re/ional 6rial Court, #a*ati City, +ranch 16 and
the Order dated 2, Au/ust 2006 of the Re/ional 6rial Court, #a*ati City, +ranch 50.
7n ..R. >os. :20:0':2 and :20:1':6, %e 0&6 A07!& the Orders dated 22 #arch
2006 and 1 April 2006 issued by respondent prosecutors. Ge OR!&R the Re/ional
6rial Court, #a*ati City, +ranch 50 to !70#700 Cri"inal Case >os. 06'152 and 06'
,11.
0O OR!&R&!.
B..R. >os. 361,'5. 0epte"ber ,, 2000C
P&OP$& O- 6F& PF7$7PP7>&0, appellee# vs. GA$PA> $A!5AA$A# y #7FA57$
alias PGARPA>,Q appellant.
! & C 7 0 7 O >
PA>.A>7+A>, $.@
Republic Act >o. 92,1 penali;es si"ple ille/al possession of firear"s, provided that
the person arrested co""itted Pno other cri"e.Q -urther"ore, if the person is held
liable for "urder or ho"icide, ille/al possession of firear"s is an a//ravatin/
circu"stance, but not a separate offense. Fence, %here an accused %as convicted of
direct assault %ith "ultiple atte"pted ho"icide for firin/ an unlicensed #'1 rifle at
several police"en %ho %ere about to serve a search %arrant, he cannot be held /uilty
of the separate offense of ille/al possession of firear"s. >either can such unla%ful act
be considered to have a//ravated the direct assault.
6he Case
Galpan $ad2aala" y #iha2il, also *no%n as PGarpan,Q appeals before us the
0epte"ber :, ,,9 !ecision
i
BC of the Re/ional 6rial Court (R6C) of Ra"boan/a
City (+ranch 6), %hich found hi" /uilty of three out of the four char/es lod/ed
a/ainst hi".
-iled a/ainst appellant %ere four 7nfor"ations,
ii
B2C all si/ned by Assistant Re/ional
0tate Prosecutor Ricardo .. Cabaron and dated 0epte"ber 25, ,,:. 6he first
7nfor"ation
iii
B3C %as for "aintainin/ a den for the use of re/ulated dru/s. 7t reads as
follo%s@
P6hat on or about 0epte"ber 21, ,,:, in the City of Ra"boan/a, Philippines, and
%ithin the 2urisdiction of this Fonorable Court, the above'na"ed accused, Galpan
$ad2aala" bein/ then the o%ner of a residential house located at Rio Fondo,
iv
B1C this
City, conspiring and confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting x x
x his co-accused wife Nur-in Ladjaalam and Ahmad Sailabbi y Hajaraini, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, maintain said house as a
den, where regulated drug was! used in any form"#
v
B5C
6he second 7nfor"ation
vi
B6C char/ed appellant %ith ille/al possession of firear"s and
a""unition. Ge =uote it belo%@
P6hat on or about 0epte"ber 21, ,,:, in the City of Ra"boan/a, Philippines, and
%ithin the 2urisdiction of this Fonorable Court, the above'na"ed accused, conspirin/
and confederatin/ to/ether, "utually aidin/ and assistin/ %ith one another, %ithout
any 2ustifiable reason or purpose other than to use it in the co""ission of cri"e, did
then and there, %ilfully, unla%fully, and feloniously have in their possession and
under their custody and control, the follo%in/ %eapons, to %it@ one () #1 rifle %ith
0> 555225 %ith "a/a;ines and seven (:) rounds of live a""unition4 t%o (2)
"a/a;ines %ith t%enty (20) and t%entyB'oneC (2) rounds of live Ba""unitionC4 one
() ho"e"ade caliber .39 revolver %ith five (5) live a""unition4 one () #':,
(sin/le) rifle %ith pouch and %ith five (5) e"pty shellBsC4 one () ho"e "ade caliber .
39 %ith 0>'30,2 %ith five live a""unition and one e"pty shell of BaC cal. 39 < < <
0"ith and Gesson4 t%o (2) .39 Caliber palti* revolver %ith 0erial >u"ber 30,2
and one defaced #:, /renade launcher palti*, %ithout first havin/ obtained the
necessary license and or per"it therefor fro" authorities concerned, in fla/rant
violation of the afore"entioned la%.Q
vii
B:C
6he third 7nfor"ation,
viii
B9C for "ultiple atte"pted "urder %ith direct assault, %as
%orded thus@
P6hat on or about 0epte"ber 21, ,,:, in the City of Ra"boan/a, Philippines, and
%ithin the 2urisdiction of this Fonorable Court, the above'na"ed accused bein/ then
ar"ed %ith #'1 Ar"alite Rifles, #'6 Ar"alite Rifles and other assorted firear"s
and e<plosives, conspirin/ and confederatin/ to/ether, "utually aidin/ and assistin/ <
< < one another and %ith intent to *ill, did then and there %ilfully, unla%fully and
feloniously try and atte"pt to *ill 0PO G7$$7A# +. 5O>&0, 5R., PO3 &>R7ME&
C. R73&RAB,C 0PO A#A!O A. #7RA0O$, 5R., and 0PO R7CAR!O 5.
$ACA06&0A>6O0, in the follo%in/ "anner, to %it@ by then and there firin/ their
#'1 < < < Ar"alite Rifles, #'6 Ar"alite Rifles and other assorted firear"s and
e<plosives, ai"ed and directed at the fatal parts of the bodies of the above'na"ed
police officers, %ell *no%n to the accused as "e"bers of the Philippine >ational
Police, Ra"boan/a City Police Office, and as such, a/ents of a person in authority,
%ho at the ti"e of the attac* %ere en/a/ed in the perfor"ance of their duties, that is,
on the occasion %hen said officers %ere about to serve the 0earch Garrant le/ally
issued by the Re/ional 6rial Court, this City, to the person of the accused thus
co""encin/ the co""ission of cri"e of "ultiple "urder directly by overt acts, and if
the accused did not acco"plish their unla%ful purpose, that is, to *ill the above'
na"ed Police Officers, it %as not by reason of their o%n voluntary desistance but
rather because of the fact that all the above'na"ed police officers %ere able to see*
cover durin/ the firin/ and %ere not hit by the bullets and e<plosives fired by the
accused and also by the fact said police officers %ere able to %restle %ith t%o (2) of
the accused na"ely@ Galpan $ad2aala" y #iha2il a.*.a. SGarpanK and Ah"ad 0ailabbi
y Fa2airani, %ho %ere subdued and subse=uently placed under arrest4 %hereas
accused PO2 >urha*i" 6. Fad2ula %as able to "a*e /ood his escape and has
re"ained at'lar/e.Q
i<
B,C
7n the fourth 7nfor"ation, appellant %as char/ed %ith ille/al possession of dru/s.
<
B0C
On !ece"ber 2, ,,:, the cases a/ainst >ur'in $ad2aala" and Ah"ad 0ailabbi y
Fa2araini %ere dis"issed upon "otion of the Office of the City Prosecutor, %hich had
conducted a reinvesti/ation of the cases as ordered by the lo%er court. 6he accused
%ere conse=uently released fro" 2ail.
6he arrai/n"ent of appellant on all four (1) char/es too* place on 5anuary 6, ,,9,
durin/ %hich he entered a plea of not /uilty.
<i
BC After pretrial, the assailed !ecision
%as rendered, the dispositive part of %hich reads@
P5HEREFORE, the Court finds accused 5AL/AN LAD7AALAM ! MIHA7IL
a.*.a. SWARPANK '
P. in Cri"inal Case >o. 1636, G1ILT8 ,E8OND REASONA,LE DO1,T
of 3iolation of 0ection 5'A, Article 777, of Republic Act >o. 6125, other%ise *no%n
as the !an/erous !ru/s Act of ,:2, as a"ended, and 0&>6&>C&0 said accused to
the penalty of RECL1SION /ER/ET1A and to pay a fine of FIVE H1NDRED
THO1SAND (P500,000.00) and to pay the costs4
P2. 7n Cri"inal Case >o. 163:, NOT G1ILT8 of 3iolation of 0ection 6,
Article 777, in relation to 0ection 2, Article 73, of Republic Act >o. 6125, other%ise
*no%n as the !an/erous !ru/s Act of ,:2, as a"ended, and ACA1ITS hi" of said
cri"e %ith costs de oficio4
P3. in Cri"inal Case >o. 1639, G1ILT8 ,E8OND REASONA,LE DO1,T
of the cri"e of 7lle/al Possession of -irear" and A""unition penali;ed under
Presidential !ecree >o. 966, as a"ended by Republic Act. >o. 92,1, and
SENTENCES said accused to suffer an indeter"inate penalty of SIB =6> 8EARS of
prision correccional as "ini"u" to EIGHT =8> 8EARS of prision "ayor as
"a<i"u" and to pay a fine BofC THIRT8 THO1SAND =/:0,000.00> and pay the
costs4
P1. in Cri"inal Case >o. 163,, G1ILT8 ,E8OND REASONA,LE DO1,T
of the cri"e of !irect Assault %ith #ultiple Atte"pted Fo"icide and SENTENCES
said accused to an indeter"inate penalty of T5O =2> 8EARS &'$ FO1R =0>
MONTHS of prision correccional as "ini"u" to SIB =6> 8EARS of prision
correccional as "a<i"u" and to pay a fine of ONE THO1SAND =/1,000.00> and to
pay the costs.Q (e"phasis in the ori/inal)
Fence, this appeal.
<ii
B2C
6he -acts
%rosecution&s 'ersion
7n its +rief,
<iii
B3C the Office of the 0olicitor .eneral presents the facts in this %ise@
PAt @15 p.". of 0epte"ber 21, ,,:, PO3 Allan #arcos Obut filed an application for
the issuance of a search %arrant a/ainst appellant, his %ife and so"e 5ohn !oes (&<h.
C). After the search %arrant %as issued about 2@30 p.". of the sa"e day, a briefin/
%as conducted inside the office of the Anti'3iceI>arcotics Enit of the Ra"boan/a
City Police Office in connection %ith the service of the search %arrant. 6he briefin/
%as conducted by 0PO2 -elipe .a/antin/, Chief of the Anti'3iceI>arcotics Enit.
!urin/ the briefin/, PO3 Renato !ela PeLa %as assi/ned as presentor of the %arrant.
0PO Ricardo $acastesantos and PO3 &nri=ue Rivera %ere desi/nated to conduct the
search. Other police"en %ere assi/ned as peri"eter /uards (60>, #arch 3, ,,9, pp.
33'36).
PAfter the briefin/, "ore than thirty (30) police"en headed by Police 0uperintendent
&d%in 0oledad proceeded to the house of appellant and his %ife at Rio Fondo on
board several police vehicles (60>, #arch 1, ,,9, p. 324 April 22, ,,9, p. 51).
+efore they could reach appellantKs house, three (3) persons sittin/ at a nearby store
ran to%ards the house shoutin/, SBPColice, raid, raidK (7bid., #arch 3, ,,9, pp. 1, 13'
114 April 23, ,,9, p. 1). Ghen the police"en %ere about ten (0) "eters fro" the
"ain /ate of the house, they %ere "et by a rapid burst of /unfire co"in/ fro" the
second floor of the house. 6here %as also /unfire at the bac* of the house (7bid.,
#arch 5, ,,9, pp. 1'6).
P0PO #irasol, 0PO2 $acastesantos, PO3 Rivera, and PO3 !ela PeLa %ho %ere %ith
the first /roup of police"en sa% appellant fire an #1 rifle to%ards the". 6hey all
*ne% appellant. Ghen they %ere fired upon, the /roup, to/ether %ith 0PO2
.a/antin/, PO3 Obut and 0uperintendent 0oledad, sou/ht cover at the concrete fence
to observe the "ove"ents at the second floor of the house %hile other police"en
surrounded the house (7bid., #arch 1, ,,9, pp. 50'5).
P7n front of the house %as an e<tension buildin/ connected to the concrete fence
(7bid., pp. 15'16, 5:'5,, :3':6). .a/antin/, #irasol, $acastesantos, .re/orio, and
Obut entered the door of the e<tension buildin/. .a/antin/ opened the "ain (steel)
/ate of the house. 6he other "e"bers of the tea" then entered. $acastesantos and
#irasol entered the house throu/h the "ain door and %ent inside the sala of the
/round floor %hile other police"en surrounded the house. 6%o (2) old %o"en %ere
in the sala to/ether %ith a youn/ /irl and three (3) children. One of the old %o"en
too* the children to the second floor %hile the youn/ /irl re"ained seated at the
corner (7bid., pp. ,'2).
P$acastesantos and #irasol proceeded to the second floor %here they earlier sa%
appellant firin/ an #1 rifle at the" throu/h the %indo%. Ghile they %ere /oin/
upstairs, appellant noticed their presence. Fe %ent inside the bedroo" and, after
brea*in/ and re"ovin/ the 2alousies, 2u"ped fro" the %indo% to the roof of a
nei/hborin/ house. 0eein/ this, #irasol rushed do%nstairs and as*ed help fro" the
other "e"bers of the raidin/ tea" to arrest appellant. $acastesantos %ent to the
second floor and shouted to the police"en outside not to fire in the direction of the
second floor because there %ere children. #irasol and 0PO Cesar Rabuya arrested
appellant at the bac* of his house after a brief chase (7bid., pp. 2'23).
PAt the second floor, $acastesantos sa% an #1 rifle (&<h. +'3) %ith "a/a;ine on
top of the sofa at the sala on the second floor (7bid., P. 2:). 6he rifle bore 0erial >o.
555225. Fe re"oved the "a/a;ine fro" the rifle and the bullet inside the cha"ber
of the rifle. Fe counted seventeen (:) live a""unition inside the "a/a;ine. Fe sa%
t%o (2) "ore #1 rifle "a/a;ines on the sofa, one %ith t%enty (20) live a""unition
(&<h. .'3) and another %ith t%enty'one (2) live a""unition (&<h. .'1). Fe
li*e%ise sa% three (3) #6 rifle "a/a;ines (&<h. .'2) in a corner at the second floor
(60>, #arch 5, ,,9, pp. 23'32, 53'5:).
PAfter $acastesantos and #irasol entered appellantKs house, Rivera, !ela PeLa,
.re/orio and Obut follo%ed and entered the house. After identifyin/ the"selves as
"e"bers of the P>P Anti'3iceI>arcotics Enit, Obut presented to the old %o"en a
copy of the search %arrant. !ela PeLa and Rivera then searched appellantKs roo" on
the /round floor in the presence of Punon/ +aran/ay &lhano (60>, #arch 3, ,,9,
pp. 1'13). On top of a table %as a pencil case (&<h. 5) %ith fifty (50) folded
alu"inu" foils inside (&<hs. 5' to 5'50), each containin/ "etha"pheta"ine
hydrochloride or SshabuK.
POther ite"s %ere found durin/ the search, na"ely, assorted coins in different
deno"inations (&<h. G4 60>, April 29, ,,9, pp. 23'25), one () ho"e"ade .39
caliber revolver (&<h. +'2) %ith five (5) live Ba""unitionC, one () #:, sin/le rifle
%ith BaC pouch containin/ five (5) e"pty shells of an #:, rifle (&<h. +'1), and one
() e"pty shell of an #1 rifle (60>, April 23, ,,9, pp. 30'32).
PRino +artolo"e $ocson %as an infor"er of the Anti'3iceI>arcotics Enit of the
Ra"boan/a Police. BOCn the "ornin/ of 0epte"ber 21, ,,:, he %as instructed by
0PO2 .a/antin/ to /o to appellantKs house to buy Sshabu.K $ocson *ne% appellant as
a seller of SshabuK (60>, April 22, ,,9, p. 5) and had been to appellantKs house about
fifteen (5) ti"es before. Fe %ent to Rio Fondo and arrived at appellantKs house at
3@20 p.". Fe bou/ht P300.00 %orth of SshabuK fro" appellant. 6he latter /ot three (3)
dec*s of shabu fro" his %aist ba/. Appellant instructed $ocson to /o behind the
curtain %here there %as a table. 6here %ere si< (6) persons already s"o*in/. 6here
%as a li/hted *erosene la"p "ade of a "edicine bottle placed on the table. 6hey
as*ed $ocson to s"o*e SshabuK and $ocson obli/ed. Fe placed the three (3) dec*s of
SshabuK he bou/ht on the table (7bid., pp. 9'5).
PGhile they %ere s"o*in/ Sshabu,K $ocson heard /unfire co"in/ fro" appellantKs
house. 6hey all stood and entered appellantKs co"pound but %ere instructed to pass
Bthrou/hC the other side. 6hey "et appellant at the bac* of his house. Appellant told
the" to escape Sbecause the police are already here.K 6hey sca"pered and Sran a%ay
because there %ere already shots.K $ocson 2u"ped over the fence and ran to%ards the
seashore. Epon reachin/ a place near the -isheries 0chool, he too* a tricycle and %ent
ho"e (7bid., pp. :',).
P6he follo%in/ day, 0epte"ber 25, ,,:, he %ent to the police station and e<ecuted
an affidavit (&<h. #) narratin/ %hat transpired at appellantKs house BoCn the afternoon
of 0epte"ber 21, ,,:.
PAfter the search and before returnin/ to the police station, P03 !ela PeLa prepared a
SReceipt for Property 0ei;edK (&<h. P J 3) listin/ the properties sei;ed durin/ the
search. 6he receipt %as si/ned by !ela PeLa as the sei;ure officer, and by Punon/
+aran/ay Fad2i Fussin &lhano and radio reporter 5un Cayona as %itnesses. A copy of
the receipt %as /iven to appellant but he refused to ac*no%led/e the properties sei;ed
(60>, April 23, ,,9, pp. '2).
PAn e<a"ination conducted by Police 7nspector #ercedes !. !iestro, -orensic
Che"ist of the P>P Cri"e $aboratory 0ervice Office ,, on the paraffin casts ta*en
fro" both hands of appellant yielded positive for /unpo%der nitrates (&<h. A'3),
/ivin/ rise to the possibility that appellant had fired a /un before the e<a"ination
(60>, #arch 3, ,,9, p. ). .unpo%der residue e<a"inations conducted on
0epte"ber 26, ,,: sho%ed that the follo%in/ firear"s S%ere firedK (&<h. +'5)@ a .39
caliber revolver (ho"e"ade) %ith 0erial >o. 30,2 (&<h. +'), another .39 caliber
revolver (ho"e"ade) %ithout a serial nu"ber (&<h. +'2), a Cal. :.62 "" #1 E.0.
rifle %ith 0erial >o. 555225 (&<h. +'3), and an #:, rifle %ithout a serial nu"ber
(&<h. +'1). 6hey %ere fired %ithin five (5) days prior to the e<a"ination (60>,
#arch 3, ,,9, pp. 6'2).
PGith respect to the crystalline substances, an e<a"ination conducted by Police
7nspector 0usan #. Cayabyab, li*e%ise a -orensic Che"ist of the P>P Cri"e
$aboratory 0ervice Office ,, on the fifty (50) pieces of folded alu"inu" foils each
containin/ %hite crystalline /ranules %ith a total %ei/ht of .:126 /ra"s (&<h. 5' to
5'50) yielded positive results for the presence of "etha"pheta"ine hydrochloride
(shabu) (&<h. $). Fo%ever, the e<a"ination of one () crystalline stone %ei/hin/
93.26:1 /ra"s (&<h. 8) yielded ne/ative results for the presence of
"etha"pheta"ine hydrochloride (&<h. $).
P6he records of the Re/ional Operation and Plans !ivision of the P>P -irear" and
&<plosive 0ection sho% that appellant Shad not appliedIfiled any application for
license to possess firear" and a""unition or < < < been /iven authority to carry BaC
firear" outside of his residenceK (&<h. ?)Q
<iv
B1C
(efense&s 'ersion
Appellant $ad2aala" a/rees %ith the narration of facts /iven by the lo%er court.
<v
B5C
Fence, %e =uote the pertinent parts of the assailed !ecision@
PAccused Galpan $ad2aala" y #iha2il a.*.a. SGarpanK, 30 years old, "arried, /ave
his occupation as Ss"u//lin/K (tsn, p. 2, #ay 1, ,,9). Fe used to /o to $abuan in
#alaysia and brin/ ci/arettes to the Philippines %ithout payin/ ta<es (tsn, pp. 10'1,
id). Fe said that his true na"e B%asC Abdul >asser Abdura*"an and that Garpan or
Galpan $ad2aala" B%asC only his SaliasK. Fo%ever, he ad"itted that "ore people
*nBeC% hi" as Galpan $ad2aala" rather than Abdul >asser Abdura*"an (tsn. pp. 3,'
104 16'1:, id). Fe testified that BoCn the afternoon of 0epte"ber 21, ,,:, %hen he
%as arrested by the police, he %as sleepin/ in the house of !andao, a relative of his
%ife. Fe %as alone. Fe slept in !andaoKs house and not in his house because they
haBdC Sa sort of a conferenceK as !andaoKs dau/hter %as leavin/ for 0audi Arabia. Fe
noticed the presence of police"en in his nei/hborhood at Aplaya, Rio Fondo %hen he
heard shots. Fe %o*e up and %ent out of the house and that %as the ti"e that he %as
arrested. Fe said he %as arrested S))) *at+ the other side of my house; at the other
side of the fence where , was sleeping. ))). At the bac- of my houseK (tsn, p. :, id.). Fe
does not *no% %ho arrested hi" Sconsidering that the one who arrested me does not
have nameplate.K Fe %as arrested by four (1) persons. >ot one of those %ho arrested
hi" testified in Court. Fe %as handcuffed and placed inside a 2eep par*ed at Rio
Fondo &le"entary 0chool. Accordin/ to hi", he did not fire a /un at the police"en
fro" BtChe second floor of his house. Fe said the SpolicemenK B%ereC Sthe one*s+ who
fire*d+ at usK (tsn, p. 5, id.). 7f he fired a /un at the police"en for sure they B%ouldC
die S*b+ecause the door is very near ) ) ) the vicinity of my houseK. Fe does not o%n
the #1 rifle (&<h. S+'3K) %hich accordin/ to police"en, he used in firin/ at the".
6he /un does not belon/ to hi". Fe does not have a /un li*e that (tsn, p. 5, id.). A
police"an also o%ns an #1 rifle but he does not *no% the police"an (tsn, pp. 6'
:, id). Fe said that the #:, rifle (&<h. S+'1K), the three (3) e"pty #6 rifle
"a/a;ines (&<h. S.K4 S.'K to S.'2K), the t%o (2) #1 "a/a;ines %ith live
a""unition (&<h. S.'3K4 S.'1K)4 the t%o (2) caliber .39 revolvers (&<hs. S+'K4 S+'
2K), the fifty (50) alu"inu" foils each containin/ shabu (&<hs. S5'K to S5'50K) placed
inside a pencil case (&<h. S5K, the assorted coins placed inside a blue ba/ (&<h. SGK)
and the %hite crystalline stone (&<h. S8K) all do not belon/ to hi". Fe said that the
police"en 2ust produced those thin/s as their evidence. 6he firear"s do not belon/ to
hi". 6hey %ere brou/ht by the police"en (tsn, p. 13, #ay 1, ,,9). Re/ardin/ the
blue ba/ containin/ assorted coins, he said@ Sthat is not ours# , thin- this .is/ theirs#
))) they 0ust brought that as their evidenceK (tsn, pp. 5'21, id.)
PGalpan $ad2aala" declared there %ere occupants %ho %ere rentin/ his e<tension
house. Fe affir"ed that he o%ns that house. -our (1) persons %ere stayin/ in the
e<tension house. Fe could only reco/ni;e the husband %hose na"e is #o"oy. 6hey
are fro" 5olo. 6hey left the place already because they %ere afraid %hen the police
raided the place. (tsn, pp. 9'0, #ay 1, ,,9). Fe does not *no% prosecution %itness
Rino $ocson y +artolo"e. Althou/h $ocson reco/ni;ed hi", in his case he does not
*no% $ocson and he does not reco/ni;e hi" (tsn, p., id). Fe did not sell anythin/ to
$ocson and did not entertain hi". Fe is not sellin/ shabu but he *no%s Sfor a fact that
there are plenty of person who are engaged in selling shabu in that placeK, in that area
*no%n as Aplaya, Rio Fondo. One of the" is Fad2i A/bi (tsn, pp.'1, id).
PAfter his arrest Galpan $ad2aala" %as brou/ht to the police station %here he stayed
for one day and one ni/ht before he %as transferred to the City 2ail. Ghile at the
police station, he %as not able to ta*e a bath. Fe s"o*es t%o pac*s of ci/arette a day.
Ghile he %as at the police station, he s"o*ed BaC ci/arette /iven to hi" by his
youn/er sister. Fe li/hted the ci/arettes %ith BaC "atch. -ro" the police station, he
%as brou/ht to the P>P Re/ional Office at R.6. $i" +oulevard %here he %as sub2ect
to paraffin e<a"ination (tsn, pp. 21'26, #ay 1, ,,9).
P!urin/ the raid conducted on his house, his cousin +oy $ad2aala", Atin/ 0apadi,
and 5ecar (Si--al) Es"an, the youn/er brother of his %ife %ere *illed. Galpan
$ad2aala" said that he sa% that Sit was the policeman who shot them*#+ only , do not
-now his name.Q 1hey were -illed at the bac- of his house. Fe said that no char/es
%ere filed a/ainst the one responsible for their death (tsn, pp. 30'33' #ay 1, ,,9).
PAnilha%a Aha"ad, "ore or less 90 years old, a %ido% %as in the house of Galpan
$ad2aala" %ho" he calls S2ad0i ,dK at the ti"e the police raided the house. 0he is the
"other of Ah"a 0ailabbi. 0he %as to/ether %ith +abo !andan, t%o s"all children
and a helper %hen SsoldiersK entered the house. S.3/hen they arrived# they -ept on
firing .their guns/ even inside the houseK (tsn, p.5, #ay 5, ,,9). 6hey %ere ar"ed
%ith short and lon/ firear"s. 6hey searched the house and scattered thin/s and /ot
%hat they %anted. 6hey entered the roo" of Galpan $ad2aala". 6hey tried to open a
ba/ containin/ 2e%elry. Ghen Anilha%a tried to brin/ the ba/ outside the roo", they
/rabbed the ba/ fro" her and po*ed a /un at her. At that ti"e Galpan $ad2aala" %as
not in the house. Aha"ad 0ailabbi %as also not in the house. A 0earch Garrant %as
sho%n to Anilha%a after the search %as conducted and 2ust before the police"en left
the place. Anilha%a Aha"ad said that Sit was already late in the afternoon*;+ before
they left that was the time the Search 3arrant .was/ given to us by ))) 4arangay
Captain 2ussin 5lhanoK (tsn, pp.6'9, #ay 5, ,,9). +aran/ay Chair"an &lhano
arrived Salready late in the afternoon# almost sundownK (tsn, p. ,, id). Anilha%
declared that aside fro" a ba/ containin/ 2e%elry and a ba/ full of "oney, she had not
seen anythin/ else that %as ta*en fro" Galpan $ad2aala"Ks house (tsn, pp. ,'2, id).
PA*"ad (Ah"ad) 0ailabbi, 3: years old, "arried testified that about 1@00 oKcloc*
BoCn the afternoon of 0epte"ber 21, ,,:, ha %as standin/ in front of his house %hen
police"en arrived and i""ediately arrested hi". Fe %as about to /o to the City
Proper to buy articles he %as intendin/ to brin/ to 0abah. Fe had Saround
%67#777.77K placed inside a %aist ba/ tied around his %aist. 6he police"en told hi"
to lie do%n in prone position and a police"an searched his bac*. 6hey pulled his
%aist ba/ and too* his !ia0tar %rist %atch. Fe %as shot three ti"es and %as hit on
the forehead leavin/ a scar. Fis in2ury %as not treated. Fe %as ta*en to the police
station %here he %as detained for one day and one ni/ht. Fe %as detained at the City
5ail for three "onths and five days after %hich he %as released (tsn, pp. 25'2,, #ay 5,
,,9).
P#elba Es"a, 20 years old, a %ido%, testified that BoCn the afternoon of 0epte"ber
21, ,,:, she %as in the house of her parents lyin/ to/ether %ith her husband 0i**al
Es"a. 6here is only one house bet%een her parentsK house and the house of Galpan
$ad2aala". Fer husband 0i**al Es"an is the brother of >ur'in $ad2aala", GalpanKs
%ife. Ghen #elba heard shots, she %ent do%nstairs. A police"an %as loo*in/ for her
husband. 6he police"an called her husband. Ghen her husband %ent do%n, he %as
instructed by the police"an to lie do%n in prone position. 6hen the police"an shot
her husband. 6he police"an had t%o other co"panions %ho also shot her husband
%hile he %as lyin/ do%n in prone position (tsn, pp.2':, #ay 5, ,,9).
P#ur*isa Es"an, 30 years old, "arried, declared that BoCn the afternoon of 0epte"ber
21, ,,:, she %as sittin/ at the door of her house %atchin/ her children playin/ %hen
a "otorcyle, driven by a person, stopped near her house. 6he driver %as .a/antin/
%ho" she called a soldier. Fe %ent do%n fro" his "otorcycle, pulled a /un and
po*ed it at #ur*isa. #ur*isa stood up and raised her hands. 0he /ot her children and
%hen she %as about to enter the roo" of her house, .a/antin/ a/ain po*ed a /un at
her and Sthere was a shot.K As a result of firin/, three persons died, na"ely, 0i**al
Es"an, +oy $ad2aala" and Atip 0apali 0ali (tsn, pp. 9'0, #ay 5, ,,9).
P+aran/ay Captain Fad2i Fussin &lhano, 5 years old, testified that about 1@00 o
Scloc* BoCn the afternoon of 0epte"ber 21, ,,:, he %as fetched by t%o police"en at
Cataban/an %here he %as attendin/ a se"inar. +ecause of traffic alon/ the %ay, they
arrived at the Rio Fondo already late in the afternoon. Fe sa% police"en %ere
already inside the house. Epon enterin/ the /ate, he sa% Galpan at the /ate already
handcuffed. Galpan called hi" but the police advised hi" not to approach Galpan.
6he search %as already over and thin/s %ere already ta*en inside the house. Ghen he
%ent inside the house, he sa% Sthe things that they .policemen/ searched# the firearms
and the shabuS (tsn, p. :. #ay 9, ,,9). Fe did not see the 0earch Garrant. Ghat
%as sho%n to hi" %ere the thin/s recovered durin/ the search %hich %ere bein/
listed. 6hey %ere bein/ counted and placed on a table. S8pon seeing the things that
were recovered during the search# , 0ust signed the receipt .5)h. 9%:; 9%;1:/ of the
things ) ) ) ta-en during the search: .tsn# pp. 1<;1=. May =# 1>>=/. Fe sa% three dead
bodies at the side of the fence %hen he %ent to the other side of the house. 6he three
persons %ere *illed outside the fence of Galpan $ad2aala" (tsn, p. 9, id).Q
<vi
B6C
6he 6rial CourtKs Rulin/
6he trial court observed that the house of appellant %as raided on 0epte"ber 21, ,,:
by virtue of 0earch Garrant >o. 20 issued on the sa"e day. Fo%ever, the lo%er court
nullified the said Garrant because it had been issued for "ore than one specific
offense,
<vii
B:C in violation of 0ection 3, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court.
<viii
B9C 6he
court a ?uo ruled@
P7t should be stated at the outset that 0earch Garrant >o. 20 is totally Snull and voidK
because it %as issued for "ore than one specific offense < < < contrary to 0ection 3,
Rule B2C6 of the Rules of Court %hich provides that SA search warrant shall not
issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense ))) K. 7n
6a"basan vs. People, 216 0CRA 91 (,,5), the 0upre"e Court ruled that a search
%arrant for "ore than one offense ' a Sscatter shot %arrantK ' violates 0ection 3, Rule
26 of the BRCevised Rules of Court and is Stotally null and void.KQ
<i<
B,C (e"phasis in the
ori/inal)
>evertheless, the trial court dee"ed appellantKs arrest as valid. 7t e"phasi;ed that he
had shot at the officers %ho %ere tryin/ to serve the void search %arrant. 6his fact
%as established by the testi"onies of several police officers,
<<
B20C %ho %ere
participants in the raid, and confir"ed by the laboratory report on the paraffin tests
conducted on the firear"s and appellant.
<<i
B2C Additionally, the 2ud/e noted that
Appellant $ad2aala", based on his state"ents in his Counter Affidavit, i"pliedly
contradicted his assertions in open court that there had been no e<chan/e of /unfire
durin/ the raid.
<<ii
B22C 6he trial court concluded that the testi"onies of these officers
"ust prevail over appellantKs narration that he %as not in his house %hen the raid %as
conducted.
Prescindin/ fro" this point, the court a ?uo validated the arrest of appellant,
reasonin/ thus@
PEnder the circu"stances, the police"en Shad authority to pursue and arrest 3alpan
@ad0aalam and confiscate the firearm he used in shooting at the policemen and to
enter his house to effect said arrest and confiscation of the firearm.K Ender Rule 3,
0ection 5 (a), of the Rules of Court, SA peace officer or a private person may# without
a warrant# arrest a person ))) .w/hen in his presence# the person to be arrested has
committed# is actually committing# or is attempting to commit an offense.K An offense
is co""itted in the presence or %ithin the vie% of an officer, %ithin the "eanin/ of
the rule authori;in/ an arrest %ithout a %arrant, %hen the officer sees the offense,
althou/h at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once
to the scene thereof. At the ti"e the police"en entered the house of accused Galpan
$ad2aala" after he had fired shots at the police"en %ho intended to serve the 0earch
Garrant to hi", the accused %as en/a/ed in the co""ission of a cri"e, and %as
pursued and arrested after he co""itted the cri"e of shootin/ at the police"en %ho
%ere about to serve the 0earch Garrant.Q
<<iii
B23C
As a conse=uence of the le/al arrest, the sei;ure of the follo%in/ %as also dee"ed
valid@ the #1 rifle (%ith a "a/a;ine containin/ seventeen live a""unition)
<<iv
B21C
used by appellant a/ainst the police ele"ents, t%o #1 "a/a;ines, and three other
#6 rifle "a/a;ines.
<<v
B25C

6he trial court observed that these ite"s %ere in Pplain
vie%Q of the pursuin/ police officers. #oreover, it added that these sa"e ite"s %ere
Pevidence BofC the co""ission of a cri"e andIor contraband and therefore, sub2ect to
sei;ureQ
<<vi
B26C since appellant Phad not applied for a license to possess firear" and had
not been /iven authority to carry firear" outside his residence.Q
<<vii
B2:C
-or bein/ incredible and unsupported by evidence, appellantKs clai" that the ite"s
that %ere sei;ed by the police officers had been planted %as disbelieved by the trial
court. 7t ruled that if the police officers %anted to plant evidence to incri"inate hi",
they could have done so durin/ the previous raids or those conducted after his arrest.
6o its "ind, it %as unbelievable that they %ould choose to plant evidence, %hen they
%ere acco"panied by the baran/ay chair"an and a radio reporter %ho "i/ht testify
a/ainst the". 7t then dis"issed these alle/ations, sayin/ that fra"e'up, li*e alibi, %as
an inherently %ea* defense.
<<viii
B29C
6he trial court also convicted the accused of the cri"e of "aintainin/ a dru/ den. 7t
reasoned as follo%s@
P6he testi"ony of Rino +artolo"e $ocson, corroborated by 0PO Ricardo
$acastesantos and 0PO A"ado #irasol, 5r. clearly established that Galpan
$ad2aala" operated and "aintained a dru/ den in his e<tension house %here shabu or
"etha"pheta"ine hydrochloride, a re/ulated dru/, %as sold, and %here persons or
custo"ers bou/ht and used shabu or "etha"pheta"ine hydrochloride by burnin/ the
said re/ulated dru/ and sniffin/ its s"o*e %ith the use of an alu"inu" foil tooter. A
dru/ den is a lair or hidea%ay %here prohibited or re/ulated dru/s are used in any
for" or are found. 7ts e<istence B"ay beC proved not only by direct evidence but "ay
also be established by proof of facts and circu"stances, includin/ evidence of the
/eneral reputation of the house, or its /eneral reputation a"on/ police officers. 6he
uncorroborated testi"ony of accused Galpan $ad2aala" a.*.a. 3arpan& that he did
not "aintain an e<tension house or a roo" %here dru/ users %ho alle/edly buy shabu
fro" hi" inhales or s"o*es shabu cannot prevail over the testi"onies of $ocson,
0PO $acastesantos, and 0PO #irasol. Fe ad"itted that he is the o%ner of the
e<tension house but he alle/ed that there %ere four (1) occupants %ho rented that
e<tension house. Fe *ne% the na"e of only one of the four occupants %ho are
alle/edly fro" 5olo, a certain #o"oy, the husband. Aside fro" bein/ uncorroborated,
GalpanKs testi"ony %as not elaborated by evidence as to %hen or for ho% lon/ %as
the e<tension house rented, the a"ount of rental paid, or by any other docu"ent
sho%in/ that the e<tension house %as in fact rented. 6he defense of denial put up by
accused Galpan $ad2aala" a.*.a. A3arpan& is a %ea* defense. !enial is the %ea*est
defense and cannot prevail over the positive and cate/orical testi"onies of the
prosecution %itnesses. !enials, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincin/ evidence,
are ne/ative and self'servin/ evidence %hich deserve no %ei/ht in la% and cannot be
/iven evidentiary %ei/ht over the testi"ony of credible %itnesses %ho testify on
affir"ative "atters. As bet%een the positive declaration of the prosecution %itnesses
and the ne/ative state"ents of the accused, the for"er deserve "ore credence.Q
<<i<
B2,C
7n conclusion, the trial court e<plained appellantKs liability in this "anner@
P< < <. 6he act of the accused in firin/ an #1 rifle to the police"en %ho %ere about
to enter his house to serve a search %arrant constitutes the cri"e of direct assault %ith
"ultiple atte"pted ho"icideB,C not "ultiple atte"pted "urder %ith direct assaultB,C
considerin/ that no police"an %as hit and in2ured by the accused and no circu"stance
%as proved to =ualify the atte"pted *illin/ to atte"pted "urder.
P6he accused Galpan $ad2aala" a.*.a. B3arpan& cannot be held liable BforC the cri"e
of 3iolation of 0ection 6, Article 777, in relation to 0ection 2, Article 73, of Republic
Act 6125 other%ise *no%n as the !an/erous !ru/s Act of ,,2, as a"ended, because
the fifty (50) pieces of folded alu"inu" foils havin/ a total %ei/ht of .:126 /ra"s
all containin/ "etha"pheta"ine hydrochloride or shabu alle/edly found in his house
are inad"issible as evidence a/ainst hi" considerin/ that they %ere sei;ed after BaC
search conducted by virtue of 0earch Garrant >o. 20 %hich is totally null and void as
it %as issued for "ore than one offense, and %ere not found in Bplain view& of the
police officers %ho sei;ed the". >either could the accused be held liable for ille/al
possession of firear"s and a""unition e<cept for the () #1 rifle %ith 0erial
>u"ber 555225 and %ith "a/a;ine containin/ fifteen (5) live a""unition and t%o
"ore #1 rifle "a/a;ines %ith t%enty (20) and t%enty'one (2) live a""unition
respectively considerin/ that the police"en %ho recovered or sei;ed the other
firear"s and a""unition did not testify in court. 6he blue ba/ containin/ assorted
coins cannot be returned to the accused Galpan $ad2aala" a.*.a. B3arpan& because
accordin/ to the accused the blue ba/ and assorted coins do not belon/ to hi"B4C
instead the said assorted coins should be turned over to the >ational 6reasury.Q
<<<
B30C
6he 7ssues
7n his +rief, appellant sub"its the follo%in/ Assi/n"ent of &rrors@
7
P6he trial court erred %hen it concluded that appellant Galpan $ad2aala" y #iha2il
BhadC fired first at the police officers %ho %ent to his house to serve a search %arrant
upon hi" %hich led to an e<chan/e of fire bet%een $ad2aala" and the police officer.
77
P6he trial court erred %hen it denied the appellant the ri/ht and opportunity for an
ocular inspection of the scene of the firefi/ht and %here the house of the appellant
B%asC located.
777
P6he trial court erred %hen it ruled that the presu"ption of re/ularity in the
perfor"ance of their duties Be<cludedC the clai" of the appellant that the firear"s and
"etha"pheta"ine hydrochloride (i.e. shabu) %ere planted by the police.Q
<<<i
B3C
7n the interest of si"plicity, %e shall ta*e up these issues seriatim@ (a) denial of the
re=uest for ocular inspection, (b) credibility of the prosecution %itnesses, and (c) the
defense of fra"e'up. 7n addition, %e shall also discuss the proper cri"es and penalties
to be i"posed on appellant.
6he CourtKs Rulin/
6he appeal has no "erit.
-irst 7ssue@ (enial of Ce?uest for Dcular ,nspection
Appellant insists that the trial court erred in denyin/ his re=uest for an ocular
inspection of the $ad2aala" residence. Fe ar/ues that an ocular inspection %ould have
afforded the lo%er court Pa better perspective and an idea %ith respect to the scene of
the cri"e.Q
<<<ii
B32C Ge do not a/ree.
Ge fail to see the need for an ocular inspection in this case, especially in the li/ht of
the clear testi"onies of the prosecution %itnesses.
<<<iii
B33C Ge note in particular that the
defense had even re=uested 0PO A"ado #irasol 5r. to s*etch the sub2ect pre"ises to
/ive the lo%er court a fairly /ood idea of appellantKs house.
<<<iv
B31C 3ie%in/ the site of
the raid %ould have only delayed the proceedin/s.
<<<v
B35C #oreover, the =uestion
%hether to vie% the settin/ of a relevant event has lon/ been reco/ni;ed to be %ithin
the discretion of the trial 2ud/e.
<<<vi
B36C Fere, there is no reason to disturb the e<ercise
of that discretion.
<<<vii
B3:C
0econd 7ssue@ Credibility of %rosecution 3itnesses
Appellant, in essence, =uestions the credibility of the prosecution %itnesses.
<<<viii
B39C
0uffice it to state that the trial courtKs assess"ent of their credibility is /enerally
accorded respect, even finality.
<<<i<
B3,C After carefully e<a"inin/ the records and
findin/ no "aterial inconsistencies to support appellantKs clai", %e cannot e<e"pt
this case fro" the /eneral rule.
<l
B10C Muite the contrary, the testi"onies of these
%itnesses positively sho%ed that appellant had fired upon the approachin/ police
ele"ents, and that he had subse=uently atte"pted to escape. 0PO A"ado #irasol
5r.
<li
B1C testified thus@
PPRO0&CE6OR >E3A$@
M@ And, this trail is to%ards the front of the house of the accusedT
A@ Hes.
M@ And itKs there %here you %ere "et by a volley of fireT
A@ Hes, Hour Fonor.
COER6@
M@ Fo% far %ere you fro" the concrete fenBcCe %hen you %ere "et by a volley of
fireT ... Hou said you %ere fired uponT
A@ #ore or less, five (5) "eters.
< < < < < < < < <
PRO0&CE6OR >E3A$@
M@ >o%, you said you %ere able to enter the house after the /ate %as opened by
your collea/ue -elipe .a/antin/ ... 7 %ill refor" that =uestion.
M@ Gho opened the /ate #r. GitnessT
A@ 0PO2 -elipe .a/antin/, &fren .re/orio and Allan #arcos Obut.
M@ And, at that ti"e you %ere hidin/ at the concrete fenceT
A@ Hes.
M@ >o%, %hen this /ate %as opened, you said you %ent inside the house, ri/htT
A@ Hes.
M@ Ghat did you see inside the houseT
A@ 7, to/ether %ith 0PO Ricardo $acastesantos, entered the "ain door of the
house of Galfran BsicC $ad2aala" at the /round floor. Ge %ent inside the sala on the
/round floor of his houseB4C 7 sa% t%o old %o"an.
< < < < < < < < <
PRO0&CE6OR >E3A$@
M@ >o%, %hat did you do %ith these t%o old %o"enT
A@ 7 did not "ind those t%o old %o"en because those t%o %o"en %ere sittin/ on
the /round floor. 7 %as concentratin/ on the second floor because $ad2aala" %as
firin/ to%ards our /roup so, 7, to/ether %ith Ricardo $acastesantos, %ent upstairs to
the second floor of the house.
M@ Gere you able to /o to the second floor of the houseT
A@ Hes.
M@ Ghat happened %hen you %ere already on the second floorT
A@ Ghile %e %ere proceedin/ to the second floor, Galfan BsicC $ad2aala",
noticed our presence and i""ediately %ent inside the bedroo" BoCn the second floor
and he %ent i""ediately and 2u"ped fro" the %indo% of his house < < < leadin/ to
the roof of the nei/hborKs house.
< < < < < < < < <
COER6@
Refor". 6hat is leadin/
M@ Ghat happened %hen you entered and he 2u"ped to the roofin/ of the
nei/hborKs houseT
A@ 7""ediately, 7 "yself, %e i""ediately %ent do%nstairs and as*ed the
assistance of the "e"bers of the raidin/ tea" to arrest Galfan $ad2aala".
< < < < < < < < <
PRO0&CE6OR >E3A$@
M@ Gere you able to /o do%nT
A@ Hes.
M@ Ghat happened %hen you %ere thereT
A@ Ge i""ediately %ent out and 7 as*ed the assistance of the "e"bers of the
raidin/ tea" and the investi/ator of the unit especially 0PO Cesar Rabuya. 7 %as
able to "ana/e to arrest Galfan $ad2aala".Q
<lii
B12C
Ghat happened thereafter %as narrated by 0enior Police Officer Ricardo
$acastesantos,
<liii
B13C as follo%s@
PM@ Ghat did you notice BoCn the second floorT
A@ 7 %ent %here the firin/ ca"e fro", so, 7 sa% BanC #1 rifle and 7 shouted fro"
the outside, Sdo not fire at the second floor because there BareC a lot of children here.K
M@ >o%, that rifle you said B%as anC #1, %here did you find thisT
A@ At the sala set.
M@ 6his sala set %here is this locatedT
A@ $ocated BonC the second floor of the house.
M@ 7s there a sala BoCn the second floorT
A@ Hes.
M@ Can you still identify that #1 rifle %hich you said you recovered fro" the
sale setT
A@ Hes.
M@ Ghy can you identify thatT
A@ 6he 0erial >o. of #1 is 555225 and 7 "ar*ed it %ith "y initial.
M@ >o%, 7 have here #1 rifleB4C %ill you please tell us %here is the 0erial >o. of
thisT
A@ 555225 and 7 put "y initial, R5$.
-70CA$ >E3A$@
6his is already "ar*ed as our &<hibit S+'3K %ith "a/a;ine, one "a/a;ine and
seven round Ba""unitionC.
M@ After recoverin/ this, %hat did you do %ith this firear"T
A@ Ghen 7 recovered it 7 re"oved the bullets inside the cha"berB.C 7 re"oved the
"a/a;ine and 7 turned it over to the investi/ator.
M@ Ghere did you turn it overT
A@ At the cri"e scene.
M@ >o%, that "a/a;ine, can you still identify thisT
A@ Hes.
M@ GhyT
A@ 7 put < < < "ar*in/s.
< < < < < < < < <
COER6@
0o, aBsiCde fro" the "a/a;ine attached to the #1 rifle you found si< "ore
"a/a;inesT
A@ Hes, so, all in all si< "a/a;ines, three e"pty #6 rifle "a/a;ines and three
#1.
M@ 6he #6 "a/a;ines B%ereC e"ptyT
A@ &"pty.
M@ Fo% about the #1T
A@ -ound %ith Ba""unitionC.
< < < < < < < < <
M@ 0o, %here are the three #6 "a/a;inesT
A@ 7n the corner.
M@ Ghat did you do %ith BtheseC three "a/a;ines of #6T
A@ 7 turned Bthe"C over to the investi/ator.
M@ Can you identify the"T
A@ Hes, because of "y initialsB.C
M@ Ghere are your initialsT
A@ On the "a/a;ines.
M@ R5$T
A@ R5$.Q
<liv
B11C
6hese %ere confir"ed by the results of the paraffin tests conducted on appellant and
on the %eapons sei;ed durin/ the raid. +oth of his hands as %ell as the %eapons,
particularly the #'1 %hich he had used, %ere positive for /unpo%der nitrate. Police
7nspector #ercedes !elfin'!iestro e<plained in open court@
PM@ O*ay. >o%, %hat %as the result of your e<a"ination, #ada" GitnessT
A@ 6he result of the e<a"ination B%asC that both hands of the sub2ect person,
haBdC presence of /un po%der nitrates.
M@ Ghat do you "ean #ada" Gitness, %hat does that indicateT
A@ 7t indicates there is presence of po%der nitrates.
EF Can we conclude that he fired a gunG
AF , cannot conclude that he fired a gun because there are so many
circumstances *why+ a person *would be+ positive on his hands for gun powder
nitrates.
M@ +ut, "ost li*ely, he fired a /unT
A@ Hes.
< < < < < < < < <
PRO0&CE6OR >E3A$@
M@ Ghat about, #ada" Gitness this &<hibit S+'3K, %hich is the #1 rifle. Ghat
did you do %ith thisT
A@ 0PO3 Abu did the s%abbin/ both in the cha"ber and the barrel %herein 7
observed there B%ereC blac* and traces of bro%n residue on the bolt, cha"ber and in
the barrel.
M@ And, that indicates #ada" Gitness...T
A@ 7t indicates that the /un %as fired.
M@ RecentlyT
A@ +ecause of the traces of bro%n residue, it could be possible that the /un %as
fired before the incident < < <.
COER6@
M@ 6here is also blac* residueT
A@ Hes.
M@ Ghat does it indicateT
A@ 7t indicates that the firear" %as recently fired.
M@ And, %here is this s%ab used at the ti"e of the s%abbin/ of this &<hibitT
A@ 6his one.
PRO0&CE6OR >E3A$@
#ay %e as* that this be "ar*ed as &<hibit S+'3'AK.
COER6@
M@ 6he firin/ there indicates that the /un %as recently fired, durin/ the incidentT
A@ Hes.
M@ And also before the incident it %as fired because of the bro%n residueT
A@ Hes, Hour Fonor.Q
<lv
B15C (e"phasis supplied)
!uly proven fro" the fore/oin/ %ere the t%o ele"ents
<lvi
B16C of the cri"e of ille/al
possession of firear"s. Endoubtedly, the established fact that appellant had fired an
#'1 rifle upon the approachin/ police officers clearly sho%ed the e<istence of the
firear" or %eapon and his possession thereof. 0ufficin/ to satisfy the second ele"ent
%as the prosecutionKs Certification
<lvii
B1:C statin/ that he had not filed any application
for license to possess a firear", and that he had not been /iven authority to carry any
outside his residence.
<lviii
B19C -urther, it should be pointed out that his possession and
use of an #'1 rifle %ere obviously unauthori;ed because this %eapon could not be
licensed in favor of, or carried by, a private individual.
<li<
B1,C
6hird 7ssue@ (efense of Hrame;up
-ro" the convoluted ar/u"ents stre%n before us by appellant, %e /ather that the
"ain defense he raises is fra"e'up. Fe clai"s that the ite"s sei;ed fro" his house
%ere Pplanted,Q and that the entire Ra"boan/a police force %as out to /et hi" at all
cost.
6his Court has invariably held that the defense of fra"e'up is inherently %ea*, since
it is easy to fabricate, but terribly difficult to disprove.
l
B50C Absent any sho%in/ of an
i"proper "otive on the part of the police officers,
li
B5C coupled %ith the presu"ption
of re/ularity in the perfor"ance of their duty, such defense cannot be /iven "uch
credence.
lii
B52C 7ndeed, after e<a"inin/ the records of this case, %e conclude that
appellant has failed to substantiate his clai". On the contrary, his state"ents in his
Counter Affidavit are inconsistent %ith his testi"ony durin/ the trial.
liii
B53C Fe testified
thus@
PM >o%, #r. Gitness, do you re"e"ber havin/ e<ecuted an AffidavitI a Counter'
AffidavitT
A 7 could not re"e"ber.
M 7 have here a Counter'Affidavit and it %as si/ned before this representation on
the 9th day of !ece"ber ,,:B4C tell us %hose si/nature is this appearin/ above the
type%ritten na"e
-70CA$ >E3A$@
M . . . . Galpan $ad2aala", %hose si/nature is thisT
(0ho%in/)
A Hes, 0ir. 6his is "ine.
M >o%, in para/raphBsC ,2,3,1,5,6,: and 94 you stated in this Counter'Affidavit
%hich 7 =uote@ Sthat 7 %as restin/ and sleepin/ %hen 7 heard the /unshots and 7
noticed that the shots %ere directed to%ards our house.. and 7 inspected and < < < %e
%ere attac*ed by ar"ed persons.. and 7 %as apprehended by the persons %ho attac*ed
< < < our houseK4 BtheC house you are referrin/ to BinC this para/raph, %hose house Bare
youC referrin/ to, is this B%hatC you are referrin/ to BasC your house or the house of
your nei/hbors Bfro"C %hich you said you heard /unshotsT
A Our house.
M >o%, in para/raph 6 of your Counter'Affidavit you stated and 7 =uote@ Sthat
BoCn that afternoon of 0epte"ber 21, ,,:, 7 %as at ho"e in "y house Aplaya,
Riohondo, +o. Ca"po #usli", "y co"panions in "y house B%ereC the t%o old
%o"en and "y children, is this correctT
A 6hey %ere not there.
M >o%, in that state"ent #r. Gitness, you said that you %ere at ho"e in ByourC
house at Aplaya, Riohondo, +o. Ca"po #usli"B4C %hich is %hich no%, you %ere in
your house or you %ere in your nei/hborsBSC house at that ti"e %hen you heard
/unshotsT
A 7 %as in the house near "y house.
M 0o, your state"ent particularly para/raph 6 of your Counter'Affidavit that you
%ere at ho"e in ByourC house at Aplaya Riohondo +o. Ca"po #usli", is < < < not
correctT
A Hes, 0ir. 6his is not correct.Q
liv
B51C
Cri"e and Punish"ent
6he trial court convicted appellant of three cri"es@ () "aintenance of a dru/ den, (2)
direct assault %ith atte"pted ho"icide, and (3) ille/al possession of firear"s. Ge %ill
discuss each of these.
Maintenance of a (rug (en
Ge a/ree %ith the trial court that appellant %as /uilty of "aintenance of a dru/ den,
an offense for %hich he %as correctly sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Fis /uilt %as
clearly established by the testi"ony of Prosecution Gitness Rino +artolo"e $ocson,
%ho hi"self had used the e<tension house of appellant as a dru/ den on several
occasions, includin/ the ti"e of the raid. 6he for"erKs testi"ony %as corroborated by
all the raidin/ police officers %ho testified before the court. 6hat appellant did not
deny o%nership of the house and its e<tension lent credence to the prosecutionKs story.
(irect Assault with Multiple Attempted 2omicide
6he trial court %as also correct in convictin/ appellant of direct assault
lv
B55C %ith
"ultiple counts of atte"pted ho"icide. 7t found that PBtChe act of the accused BofC
firin/ an #1 rifle BatC the police"enB,C %ho %ere about to enter his house to serve a
search %arrant < < <Q constituted such co"ple< cri"e.
lvi
B56C
Ge note that direct assault %ith the use of a %eapon carries the penalty of prision
correccional in its "ediu" and "a<i"u" periods, %hile atte"pted ho"icide carries
the penalty of prision correccional.
lvii
B5:C Fence, for the present co"ple< cri"e, the
penalty for direct assault, %hich constitutes the P"ost serious cri"e,Q should be
i"posed and applied in its "a<i"u" period.
lviii
B59C
,llegal %ossession of Hirearms
Aside fro" findin/ appellant /uilty of direct assault %ith "ultiple atte"pted
ho"icide, the trial court convicted hi" also of the separate offense of ille/al
possession of firear"s under P! 966, as a"ended by RA 92,1, and sentenced hi" to
6 years of prision correccional to 9 years of prision mayor.
6he Office of the 0olicitor .eneral (O0.) disa/rees, on the /round that the trial court
should not have applied the ne% la%. 7t contends that under the facts of the case, the
applicable la% should have been P! 966, as %orded prior to its a"end"ent by RA
92,1.
6he trial courtKs rulin/ and the O0.Ks sub"ission e<e"plify the le/al co""unityKs
difficulty in /rapplin/ %ith the chan/es brou/ht about by RA 92,1. Fence, before us
no% are opposin/ vie%s on ho% to interpret 0ection of the ne% la%, %hich provides
as follo%s@
P0&C67O> . 0ection of Presidential !ecree >o. 966, as a"ended, is hereby
further a"ended to read as follo%s@
P0ection . 8nlawful Manufacture# Sale# Ac?uisition# (isposition or %ossession of
Hirearms or Ammunition ,nstruments 8sed or ,ntended to be 8sed in the Manufacture
of Hirearms or Ammunition. '' 6he penalty of prision correccional in its "a<i"u"
period and a fine of not less than -ifteen thousand pesos (P5,000) shall be i"posed
upon any person %ho shall unla%fully "anufacture, deal in, ac=uire, dispose, or
possess any lo% po%ered firear", such as ri"fire hand/un, .390 or .32 and other
firear" of si"ilar firepo%er, part of firear", a""unition, or "achinery, tool or
instru"ent used or intended to be used in the "anufacture of any firear" or
a""unition@ %rovided# 6hat no other cri"e %as co""itted.
P6he penalty of prision mayor in its "ini"u" period and a fine of 6hirty thousand
pesos (P30,000) shall be i"posed if the firear" is classified as hi/h po%ered firear"
%hich includes those %ith bores bi//er in dia"eter than .30 caliber and , "illi"eter
such as caliber .10, .1, .11, .15 and also lesser calibered firear"s but considered
po%erful such as caliber .35: and caliber .22 centerfire "a/nu" and other firear"s
%ith firin/ capability of full auto"atic and by burst of t%o or three@ %rovided#
however# 6hat no other cri"e %as co""itted by the person arrested.
P7f ho"icide or "urder is co""itted %ith the use of an unlicensed firear", such use
of an unlicensed firear" shall be considered as an a//ravatin/ circu"stance.
P7f the violation of this 0ection is in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection
%ith the cri"e of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or atte"pted coup d&etat# such
violation shall be absorbed as an ele"ent of the cri"e of rebellion or insurrection,
sedition, or atte"pted coup d&etat.
P6he sa"e penalty shall be i"posed upon the o%ner, president, "ana/er, director or
other responsible officer of any public or private fir", co"pany, corporation or entity,
%ho shall %illfully or *no%in/ly allo% any of the firear"s o%ned by such fir",
co"pany, corporation or entity to be used by any person or persons found /uilty of
violatin/ the provisions of the precedin/ para/raphs or %illfully or *no%in/ly allo%
any of the" to use unlicensed firear"s or firear"s %ithout any le/al authority to be
carried outside of their residence in the course of their e"ploy"ent.
P6he penalty of arresto mayor shall be i"posed upon any person %ho shall carry any
licensed firear" outside his residence %ithout le/al authority therefor.Q
Citin/ %eople v. $ayson#
li<
B5,C the O0. ar/ues that the fore/oin/ provision does not
cover the specific facts of this case. 0ince another cri"e '' direct assault %ith "ultiple
unla%ful ho"icide '' %as co""itted, appellant cannot be convicted of si"ple ille/al
possession of firear"s under the second para/raph of the aforecited provision.
-urther"ore, since there %as no *illin/ in this case, ille/al possession cannot be
dee"ed as an a//ravatin/ circu"stance under the third para/raph of the provision.
+ased on these pre"ises, the O0. concludes that the applicable la% is not RA 92,1,
but P! 966 %hich, as %orded prior the ne% la%, penali;es si"ple ille/al possession
of firear"s even if another cri"e is co""itted at the sa"e ti"e.
l<
B60C
Applyin/ a different interpretation, the trial court posits that appellant should be
convicted of ille/al possession of firear"s, in addition to direct assault %ith "ultiple
atte"pted ho"icide. 7t did not e<plain its rulin/, ho%ever. Considerin/ that it could
not have been i/norant of the proviso
l<i
B6C in the second para/raph, it see"ed to have
construed Pno other cri"eQ as referrin/ only to ho"icide and "urder, in both of %hich
ille/al possession of firear"s is an a//ravatin/ circu"stance. 7n other %ords, if a
cri"e other than "urder or ho"icide is co""itted, a person "ay still be convicted of
ille/al possession of firear"s. 7n this case, the other cri"e co""itted %as direct
assault %ith "ultiple atte"pted ho"icide4 hence, the trial court found appellant /uilty
of ille/al possession of firear"s.
Ge cannot accept either of these interpretations because they i/nore the plain
lan/ua/e of the statute. A si"ple readin/ thereof sho%s that if an unlicensed firear" is
used in the co""ission of any cri"e, there can be no separate offense of si"ple
ille/al possession of firear"s. Fence, if the Pother cri"eQ is "urder or ho"icide,
ille/al possession of firear"s beco"es "erely an a//ravatin/ circu"stance, not a
separate offense. 0ince direct assault %ith "ultiple atte"pted ho"icide %as
co""itted in this case, appellant can no lon/er be held liable for ille/al possession of
firear"s.
#oreover, penal la%s are construed liberally in favor of the accused.
l<ii
B62C 7n this case,
the plain "eanin/ of RA 92,1Ks si"ple lan/ua/e is "ost favorable to herein appellant.
3erily, no other interpretation is 2ustified, for the lan/ua/e of the ne% la%
de"onstrates the le/islative intent to favor the accused.
l<iii
B63C Accordin/ly, appellant
cannot be convicted of t%o separate offenses of ille/al possession of firear"s and
direct assault %ith atte"pted ho"icide. #oreover, since the cri"e co""itted %as
direct assault and not ho"icide or "urder, ille/al possession of firear"s cannot be
dee"ed an a//ravatin/ circu"stance.
Ge re2ect the O0.Ks contention that P! 966, as %orded prior to its a"end"ent by
RA 92,1, should be applied in this case. Ghen the cri"e %as co""itted on
0epte"ber 21, ,,:, the ori/inal lan/ua/e of P! 966 had already been e<pressly
superseded by RA 92,1 %hich too* effect on 5uly 6, ,,:.
l<iv
B61C 7n other %ords, no
lon/er in e<istence %as the earlier provision of P! 966, %hich 2ustified a conviction
for ille/al possession of firear"s separate fro" any other cri"e. 7t %as replaced by
RA 92,1 %hich, a"on/ other a"end"ents to P! 966, contained the specific proviso
that Pno other cri"e %as co""itted.Q
-urther"ore, the O0.Ks reliance on %eople v. $ayson
l<v
B65C is "isplaced. 6rue, this
Court sustained the conviction of appellant for ille/al possession of firear"s, althou/h
he had also co""itted ho"icide. Ge e<plained, ho%ever, that Pthe cri"inal case for
ho"icide B%asC not before us for consideration.Q
5ust as unacceptable is the interpretation of the trial court. Ge find no 2ustification for
li"itin/ the proviso in the second para/raph to "urder and ho"icide. 6he la% is clear@
the accused can be convicted of si"ple ille/al possession of firear"s, provided that
Pno other cri"e %as co""itted by the person arrested.Q 7f the intention of the la% in
the second para/raph %ere to refer only to ho"icide and "urder, it should have
e<pressly said so, as it did in the third para/raph. 3erily, %here the la% does not
distin/uish, neither should %e.
6he Court is a%are that this rulin/ effectively e<onerates appellant of ille/al
possession of an #'1 rifle, an offense %hich nor"ally carries a penalty heavier than
that for direct assault. Ghile the penalty for the first is prision mayor, for the second it
is only prision correccional. 7ndeed, the accused "ay evade conviction for ille/al
possession of firear"s by usin/ such %eapons in co""ittin/ an even li/hter
offense,
l<vi
B66C li*e alar" and scandal
l<vii
B6:C or sli/ht physical in2uries,
l<viii
B69C both of
%hich are punishable by arresto menor.
l<i<
B6,C 6his conse=uence, ho%ever, necessarily
arises fro" the lan/ua/e of RA 92,1, %hose %isdo" is not sub2ect to the CourtKs
revie%. Any perception that the result reached here appears un%ise should be
addressed to Con/ress. 7ndeed, the Court has no discretion to /ive statutes a ne%
"eanin/ detached fro" the "anifest intend"ent and lan/ua/e of the le/islature. Our
tas* is constitutionally confined only to applyin/ the la% and 2urisprudence
l<<
B:0C to the
proven facts, and %e have done so in this case.
5HEREFORE, the appealed !ecision is hereby AHH,CM5( %ith the
MD(,H,CA1,DI that appellant is found /uilty only of t%o offenses@ () direct assault
and "ultiple atte"pted ho"icide %ith the use of a %eapon, for %hich he is sentenced
to 2 years and 1 "onths to 6 years of prision correccional4 and (2) "aintainin/ a dru/
den, for %hich he %as correctly sentenced by the trial court to reclusion perpetua.
Costs a/ainst appellant.
$et a copy of this !ecision be furnished the Con/ress of the Philippines for a possible
revie%, at its sound discretion, of RA 92,1.
0O OR!&R&!.
SECOND DIVISION

ANGEL CELINO, SR.,
Petitioner,



' versus '



CO1RT OF A//EALS, CE,1
CIT8, HON. DELANO F.
VILLAR13, /re%i$i'. 7u$.e,
,r&'+) 16, Re.io'&l Tri&l Cour,
C&piC, Ro?&% Ci!, &'$ /EO/LE
OF THE /HILI//INES,

Respondents.
G.R. No. 160962

Present@

ME70E#+7>.,
U
$., Chairperson#
CARP7O,
U
U
CARP7O #ORA$&0,
67>.A, and
3&$A0CO, 5R., $$.


Pro"ul/ated@


5une 2,, 200:
<'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
''<

D E C I S I O N

CAR/IO MORALES, J.4

U
U
6his petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
assails the Court of AppealsK !ecision dated April 9, 2005

BC affir"in/
the trial courtKs denial of petitioner An/el Celino, 0r.Ks #otion to Muash4
and Resolution dated 0epte"ber 26, 2005
2
B2C denyin/ petitionerKs #otion
for Reconsideration of the said !ecision.



6he follo%in/ facts are not disputed@

6%o separate infor"ations %ere filed before the Re/ional 6rial
Court of Ro<as City char/in/ petitioner %ith violation of 0ection 2(a) of
CO#&$&C Resolution >o. 6116 (/un ban),
3
B3C and 0ection , Para/raph
2 of Republic Act >o. (R.A.) 92,1
1
B1C (ille/al possession of firear"), as
follo%s@

Criminal Case Io. C;1J<;7K

6hat on or about the 2
th
day of #ay, 2001, in the City of
Ro<as, Philippines, and %ithin the 2urisdiction of this Fonorable Court,
the said accused, did then and there %illfully, unla%fully and
*no%in/ly carry outside of his residence an ar"alite rifle colt #6
%ith serial nu"ber 320606 %ith t%o (2) lon/ "a/a;ines each loaded
%ith thirty (30) live a""unitions of the sa"e caliber durin/ the
election period N !ece"ber 5, 2005 to 5une ,, 2001 N %ithout first

2
3
1
havin/ obtained the proper authority in %ritin/ fro" the Co""ission
on &lections, #anila, Philippines.

CO>6RARH 6O $AG.
5
B5C

Criminal Case Io. C;1J=;7K

6hat on or about the 2
th
day of #ay, 2001, in the City of
Ro<as, Philippines, and %ithin the 2urisdiction of this Fonorable Court,
the said accused, did then and there %illfully, unla%fully and
*no%in/ly have in his possession and control one () ar"alite rifle colt
#6 %ith serial nu"ber 320606 %ith t%o (2) lon/ "a/a;ines each
loaded %ith thirty (30) live a""unitions of the sa"e caliber %ithout
first havin/ obtained the proper license or necessary per"it to possess
the said firear".

CO>6RARH 6O $AG.
6
B6C


Epon arrai/n"ent in Cri"inal Case >o. C'39'01, petitioner
pleaded not /uilty to the /un ban violation char/e.
:
B:C

Prior to his arrai/n"ent in Cri"inal Case >o. C'3:'01, petitioner
filed a #otion to Muash
9
B9C contendin/ that he Pcannot be prosecuted for
ille/al possession of firear"s < < < if he %as also char/ed of havin/
co""itted another cri"e of BsicC violatin/ the Co"elec /un ban under
the sa"e set of facts < < <.Q
,
B,C

5
6
:
9
,
+y Order of 5uly 2,, 2001,
0
B0C the trial court denied the #otion
to Muash on the basis of this CourtKs

BC affir"ation in Margare0o v.
2on. 5scoses
2
B2C of therein respondent 2ud/eKs denial of a si"ilar
"otion to =uash on the /round that Pthe other offense char/ed < < < is not
one of those enu"erated under R.A. 92,1 < < <.Q
3
B3C PetitionerKs #otion
for Reconsideration %as li*e%ise denied by 0epte"ber 22, 2001
Resolution,
1
B1C hence, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari
5
B5C
before the Court of Appeals.

+y !ecision dated April 9, 2005,
6
B6C the appellate court
affir"ed the trial courtKs denial of the #otion to Muash. PetitionerKs #ay
,, 2005 #otion for Reconsideration
:
B:C havin/ been denied by
Resolution of 0epte"ber 26, 2005,
9
B9C petitioner filed the present
petition.

6he petition fails.

PetitionerKs re"edy to challen/e the appellate courtKs decision and
resolution %as to file a petition for revie% on certiorari under Rule 15 on
or before October 20, 2005 or 5 days after he received a copy of the
0

2
3
1
5
6
:
9
appellate courtAs resolution on October 5, 2005
,
B , C denyin/ his
"otion for reconsideration. 7nstead, petitioner chose to file the present
petition under Rule 65 only on !ece"ber 2, 2005,
20
B20C a /ood 59 days
after he received the said resolution.

Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for lost appeal.
Certiorari lies only %hen there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and
ade=uate re"edy in the ordinary course of la%. Ghy the =uestion bein/
raised by petitioner, i.e., %hether the appellate court co""itted /rave
abuse of discretion, could not have been raised on appeal, no reason
therefor has been advanced.
2
B2C

Ghile this Court, in accordance %ith the liberal spirit pervadin/ the
Rules of Court and in the interest of 2ustice, has the discretion to treat a
petition for certiorari as havin/ been filed under Rule 15, especially if
filed %ithin the re/le"entary period under said Rule, it finds nothin/ in
the present case to %arrant a liberal application of the Rules, no
2ustification havin/ been proffered, as 2ust stated, %hy the petition %as
filed beyond the re/le"entary period,
22
B22C especially considerin/ that it
is substantially 2ust a replication of the petition earlier filed before the
appellate court.

6echnicality aside, the petition fails 2ust the sa"e.
,
20
2
22




6he relevant provision of R.A. 92,1 reads@

0&C67O> . 0ection of Presidential !ecree >o. 966, as
a"ended, is hereby further a"ended to read as follo%s@

D0&C67O> . 8nlawful Manufacture# Sale#
Ac?uisition# (isposition or %ossession of Hirearms or
Ammunition or ,nstruments 8sed or ,ntended to be
8sed in the Manufacture of Hirearms or Ammunition.
O < < <.

D6he penalty of prision mayor in its "ini"u"
period and a fine of 6hirty thousand pesos (P30,000)
shall be i"posed if the firear" is classified as hi/h
po%ered firear" %hich includes those %ith bores bi//er
in dia"eter than .39 caliber and , "illi"eter such as
caliber .10, .1, .11, .15 and also lesser calibered
firear"s but considered po%erful such as caliber .35:
and caliber .22 center'fire "a/nu" and other firear"s
%ith firin/ capability of full auto"atic and by burst of
t%o or three@ %rovided# however# 6hat no other cri"e
%as co""itted by the person arrested.

D7f ho"icide or "urder is co""itted %ith the
use of an unlicensed firear", such use of an unlicensed
firear" shall be considered as an a//ravatin/
circu"stance.

D7f the violation of this 0ection is in furtherance
of or incident to, or in connection %ith the cri"e of
rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or atte"pted coup
dAetat, such violation shall be absorbed as an ele"ent of
the cri"e of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or
atte"pted coup dAetat.

< < < <

(Enderscorin/ supplied)
6he cru< of the controversy lies in the interpretation of the
underscored proviso. Petitioner, citin/ Agote v. @orenzo#
23
B23C %eople v.
@ad0aalam#
21
B21C and other si"ilar cases,
25
B25C contends that the "ere
filin/ of an infor"ation for /un ban violation a/ainst hi" necessarily bars
his prosecution for ille/al possession of firear". 6he 0olicitor .eneral
contends other%ise on the basis of Margare0o v. 2on. 5scoses
26
B26C and
%eople v. 'aldez.
2:
B2:C
7n Agote#
29
B29C this Court affir"ed the accusedKs conviction for
/un ban violation but e<onerated hi" of the ille/al possession of firear"
char/e because it Pcannot but set aside petitionerKs conviction in Cri"inal
Case >o. ,6'1,920 for ille/al possession of firear" since another cri"e
%as co""itted at the sa"e ti"e, i.e., violation of CO#&$&C Resolution
>o. 2926 or the .un +an.Q
2,
B2,C Agote is based on @ad0aalam
30
B30C
%here this Court held@

< < < A si"ple readin/ Bof RA 92,1C sho%s that if an unlicensed
firear" is used in the co""ission of any cri"e, there can be no
separate offense of si"ple ille/al possession of firear"s. Fence, if the
Pother cri"eQ is "urder or ho"icide, ille/al possession of firear"s
beco"es "erely an a//ravatin/ circu"stance, not a separate offense.
0ince direct assault %ith "ultiple atte"pted ho"icide %as co""itted
in this case, appellant can no lon/er be held liable for ille/al
possession of firear"s.

23
21
25
26
2:
29
2,
30
#oreover, penal la%s are construed liberally in favor of the
accused. 7n this case, the plain "eanin/ of RA 92,1As si"ple lan/ua/e
is "ost favorable to herein appellant. 3erily, no other interpretation is
2ustified, for the lan/ua/e of the ne% la% de"onstrates the le/islative
intent to favor the accused. Accordin/ly, appellant cannot be convicted
of t%o separate offenses of ille/al possession of firear"s and direct
assault %ith atte"pted ho"icide. < < <

< < < <

< < < 6he la% is clear@ the accused can be convicted of si"ple
ille/al possession of firear"s, provided that Pno other cri"e %as
co""itted by the person arrested.Q 7f the intention of the la% in the
second para/raph %ere to refer only to ho"icide and "urder, it should
have e<pressly said so, as it did in the third para/raph. 3erily, %here
the la% does not distin/uish, neither should %e.
3
B3C
6he la% is indeed clear. 6he accused can be convicted of ille/al
possession of firear"s, provided no other cri"e %as co""itted by the
person arrested. 6he %ord Pco""ittedQ ta*en in its ordinary sense, and
in li/ht of the Constitutional presu"ption of innocence,
32
B32C necessarily
i"plies a prior deter"ination of /uilt by final conviction resultin/ fro"
successful prosecution or voluntary ad"ission.
33
B33C
PetitionerKs reliance on Agote# @ad0aalam# 5vangelista# Larcia#
%angilinan# Almeida# and 4ernal is, therefore, "isplaced. 7n each one of
these cases, the accused %ere e<onerated of ille/al possession of firear"s
because of their co""ission, as sho%n by their conviction, of so"e other
cri"e.
31
B31C 7n the present case, ho%ever, petitioner has only been
accused of co""ittin/ a violation of the CO#&$&C /un ban. As
accusation is not synony"ous %ith /uilt, there is yet no sho%in/ that
petitioner did in fact co""it the other cri"e char/ed.
35
B35C
Conse=uently, the proviso does not yet apply.
3
32
33
31
35

#ore applicable is Margare0o
36
B36C %here, as stated earlier, this
Court affir"ed the denial of a "otion to =uash an infor"ation for ille/al
possession of firear" on the /round that Pthe other offense char/ed Bi.e.,
violation of /un banC < < < is not one of those enu"erated under R.A.
92,1 < < <.Q
3:
B3:C in consonance %ith the earlier pronounce"ent in
'aldez
39
B39C that Pall pendin/ cases involvin/ ille/al possession of
firear" should continue to be prosecuted and tried if no other cri"es
e<pressly indicated in Republic Act >o. 92,1 are involved < < <.Q
3,
B3,C
7n su", %hen the other offense involved is one of those
enu"erated under R.A. 92,1, any infor"ation for ille/al possession of
firear" should be =uashed because the ille/al possession of firear"
%ould have to be tried to/ether %ith such other offense, either considered
as an a//ravatin/ circu"stance in "urder or ho"icide,
10
B10C or absorbed
as an ele"ent of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or atte"pted coup
d&etat.
1
B1C Conversely, %hen the other offense involved is not one of
those enu"erated under R.A. 92,1, then the separate case for ille/al
possession of firear" should continue to be prosecuted.
-inally, as a /eneral rule, the re"edy of an accused fro" the denial
of his "otion to =uash is for hi" to /o to trial on the "erits, and if an
adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefro" in the "anner
authori;ed by la%.
12
B12C Althou/h the special civil action for certiorari
"ay be availed of in case there is a /rave abuse of discretion,
13
B13C the
36
3:
39
3,
10
1
12
13
appellate court correctly dis"issed the petition as that vitiatin/ error is
not attendant in the present case.

5HEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

0O OR!&R&!.


CONCHITA CAR/IO MORALES
Associate Justice

G& CO>CER@

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
i<
<
<i
<ii
<iii
<iv
<v
<vi
<vii
<viii
<i<
<<
<<i
<<ii
<<iii
<<iv
<<v
<<vi
<<vii
<<viii
<<i<
<<<
<<<i
<<<ii
<<<iii
<<<iv
<<<v
<<<vi
<<<vii
<<<viii
<<<i<
<l
<li
<lii
<liii
<liv
<lv
<lvi
<lvii
<lviii
<li<
l
li
lii
liii
liv
lv
lvi
lvii
lviii
li<
l<
l<i
l<ii
l<iii
l<iv
l<v
l<vi
l<vii
l<viii
l<i<
l<<