ALLADO V.

DIOKNO
DIOSDADO JOSE ALLADO and ROBERTO L. MENDOZA, petitioners vs. HON.
ROBERTO C. DIOKNO, Presiding Judge, Br. 62, Regional Trial Court, Makati,
Metro Manila, and PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-CRIME COMMISSION, respondents
Date: May 5, 1994
Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
Doctrine:The Judge does not have to personally examine the complainant and
his witnesses to determine probable cause. The Prosecutor can perform the
same functions as a commissioner for the taking of evidnece. However, there
should be a report and necessary documents supporting the Fiscal's bare
certification... The Judge must go beyond the Prosecutor's certification and
investigation report whenever necessary. He should call for the complainant
and witnbesses themselves when the circumstances of the case so require.
Facts:
Petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza, alumni of UP
College of Law and partners of the Law Firm of Salonga, Hernandez and
Allado, were accused of the heinous crime of kidnapping with murder by the
Presdiential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) on the basis of an alleged
extrajudicial confession of the security guard, Escolastico Umbal, a
dischargee of the Philippine Constabulary. Umbal implicated them as the
brains behind the alleged kidnapping and slaying of one Eugene Alexander
Van Twest, a German national. Umbal claimed that he and his companions
met Allado and Mendoza at the Silahis Hotel where Umbal and company
undertook in exchange for P2.5 M who allegedly had an international warrant
of arrest against him. Umbal claimed that Van Twest's remains were burned
into fine ashes using gasoline and rubber tires.
A day after Umbal's extrajudicial confession, the operatives of PACC, armed
with a search warrant, raided the two dwellings of Santiago, Umbal's cohort in
the abduction. Santiago was put under arrest together with his aide. Umbal's
other cohorts were arrested. Sr. Supt. Panfilo Lacson of PACC Task Force
Habagat referred the case to DOJ for the institution of criminal proceedings
against the above persons arrested, and Atty. Allado and Atty. Mendoza for
illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, carnapping, kidnapping for
ransom with murder and usurpation of authority. Lacson alleged that Allado
and Mendoza conspired with the other suspects to abduct and kill Van Twest
to eliminate him after forcing him to sign several documents transferring
ownership of several properties and that the two caused the withdrawal of
P5M from Van Twest's bank account. The Senior State Prosecutor then issued
a subpoena to petitioners informing them of a complaint filed against them.
Mendoza moved for the production of documents including those indicating
transfer of ownership and records of PACC's investigation, for examination so
that they can prepare for their defense. Mendoza also moved for the
inhibition of the panel of prosecutors which was granted.
Task Force Habagat only submitted copies of request for verification of the
firearms seized from the companions of Umbal and a Philippine Times Journal
article on the case. Before the new panel of prosecutors could resolve the
case, one of the accused SPO2 Bato moved for the admission of his

counteraffidavit confessing participation of Allado and Mendoza. Before the

two petitioners copuld refute the conter-affidavit, Bato moved to supress it on
the ground that it was extracted through intimidation and duress. The new
panel failed to act on the twin motions of SPO2 Bato and issued a resolution
fonding a prima facie case against Allado and Mendoza. The two were able to
secure a copy of the information for kidnapping with murder against them
and the undated resolution under the letterhead of PACC, signed by the panel
of prosecutors and with the Head of the PACC Task Force recommending
approval thereof.
On the same day, the information was filed at RTC Makati Branch 62 presided
by Judge Roberto C. Diokno. Judge Diokno issued the assailed warrant of
arrest against Allado and Mendoza. Hence, the two filed petition for certiorari
and prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order.
Issue/Held: Is there probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
against Allado and Mendoza? NO
Ratio:
Probable cause for an arrest or for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has
been defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been commited by
the person sought to be arrested.
Before issuing a warrant of arrest, the judge must satisfy himself that based
on the evidence submitted, there is sufficient proof that a crime has been
committed and that the perosn to be arrested is probably guilty thereof. In
this case however, the evidence is insufficient for a finding of probable cause
against Allado and Mendoza.
REASONS FOR INSUFFICIENCY:
1. There is serious doubt on the death of Van Twest since the corpus delicti
has not been established, nor have his remains been recovered. It is
impossiblke for a human body to be pulvarized into ashes by just using
gasoline and rubber tires since even crematoria use entirely closed
incinerators where the corpse is subjected to intense heat and the remains
undergo a process where the bones are completely ground to dust.
2. There were no earnest efforts to recover the traces of Van Twest's remains.
3. After Van Twest's reported abduction which led to his decimation by
cremation, his counsel continue to represent him before judicial and quasijudicial proceedings. Counsel himself did not believe that his client was
already dead.
4. The extrajudicial confession of Umbal suffers from material inconsistencies.
In his sworn statement, Umbal said that he and his cohorts met Allado and
Mendoza at Silahis Hotel but during the preliminary investigation, he stated
that he was not part of the meeting. Umbal also claimed that he was part of
the mock interrogation of Van Twest but during the clarificatory questioning,
he said that he was asked to go outside the safehouse at the time Van Twest
was interrogated.
5. While the whole investigation was trigerred by Umbal's confession dated
September 16, 1993, the application of PACC operatives for search warrant

was granted by the RTC of Manila on September 15, 1993, a day before
Umbal executed his sworn statement. SPO2 Bato on the other hand moved to
supress his counteraffidavit on the ground that it was exacted through duress
and intimidation.
6. The PACC operatives who applied for the search warrants never implicated
Allado and Mendoza. They even claimed that it was Santiago who was the
mastermind
Thus, there is no probable cause to incriminate Allado and Mendoza. Judge
Diokno committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed warranbt
of arrest it appearing that he did not personally examine the evidence nor did
he call for the complainant and his witnesses. HE MERELY RELIED ON THE
CERTIFICATION OF THE PROSECUTORS THAT PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTED.
Otherwise, he would have found out that the evidence presented was utterly
insufficent to warrant the arrest of Allado and Mendoza.
The Court noted the difference between preliminary inquiry and preliminary
investigation. Preliminary inquiry is for the determination of probable
cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest made by the judge while
preliminary investigation ascertains whether the offender should be held for
trial or released. Citing Lim v. Felix, the Court held that the Judge does not
have to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. The
Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a commissioner for the taking
of evidnece. However, there should be a report and necessary documents
supporting the Fiscal's bare certification... The Judge must go beyond the
Prosecutor's certification and investigation report whenever necessary. He
should call for the complainant and witnbesses themselves when the
circumstances of the case so require.
In this case, it appears that the prosecutors missapropriated if not abused
their discretion. They should have presented sufficient evidence to
demonstreate existence of probable cause. Umbal's statement was full of
inconsistencies, Allado and Mendoza were not given an opportunity to refute
Bato's counteraffidavit, and PACC appeared to have had a hand in the
determination of probable cause in the preliminary inquiry (PACC's letterhead
and recommendation of approval by PACC Task Force head).