CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%

%
%

!
!
A.#MANEBO#V.#ACOSTA#AND#SAPIANDANTE#(DEL#ROSARIO)#
!
EMERGENCY#RECIT:##
Dimatulac,!the!victim,!and!Bagasan!were!seated!beside!each!other!inside!the!church!when!
Acosta,!accompanied!by!an!unidentified!person,!entered!and!shot!Dimatulac.!Sardia!heard!
gunshots!and!saw!the!two!men!exit!the!chapel!then!enter!a!owner!jeep!that!was!driven!by!
Sapiandante.!Complaint!for!murder!!preliminary!investigation!(approved).!!Information!for!
murder!was!filed!with!the!RTC.!DOJ!Secretary!reversed!the!former!decision!and!directed!the!
withdrawal!of!the!information!based!on!a!lack!of!the!required!quantum!of!proof!sufficient!
to! indict! Acosta! and! Sapiandante! for! the! offense! charged.! Petition! dismissed! a! few! times.!
Hence,!this!petition.!
!
Whether!or!not!there!is!probable!cause!to!charge!the!respondents!for!the!crime!of!murder.!
!THERE!WAS!
(5! paragraphs! on! PRELIM! INV! and! PROBABLE! CAUSE! which! you! should! read! below.! ! Read!
about!it!on!p!144,!145,!150,!151!of!our!book)!
!
In!this!case,!we!find!that!the!DOJ!committed!a!manifest!error!in!finding!no!probable!cause!
to! charge! respondents! with! the! crime! of! murder.! Report! would! not! conclusively! establish!
that! Liza! Gragasan! could! not! have! been! Flordeliza! Bagasan,! the! witness! who! executed! an!
affidavit! four! months! after! the! incident.! The! execution! of! Bagasan's! affidavit! four! months!
after!the!incident!should!not!be!taken!against!her,!as!such!reaction!is!within!the!bounds!of!
expected! human! behavior.! The! DOJ! Secretary's! finding! that! the! description! given! by!
Bagasan! did! not! fit! the! physical! attributes! of! respondent! Acosta! is! not! persuasive,! since!
Bagasan! was! able! to! positively! identify! respondent! Acosta.! Finally,! we! also! do! not! agree!
with!the!DOJ!Secretary's!finding!that!since!Sardia's!affidavit!was!also!belatedly!executed,!the!
same!is!not!credible.!!
!
!
FACTS:!
Petition!for!review!on!certioari!on!the!decision!of!the!CA.!
!
On!May!4,!2000,!at!6:30!p.m.!at!Barangay!San!Mariano,!Nueva!Ecija,!Dimatulac,!the!victim,!
and!Flordeliza!Bagasan!were!seated!beside!each!other!on!a!papag!watching!television!inside!
the!church!of!the!Kaibigan!Foundation,!Inc.!Suddenly,!a!man!later!identified!as!SPO1!Acosta!
with! an! unidentified! male! companion,! both! with! short! firearms,! entered! the! church!
premises.! Respondent! Acosta! approached! the! victim! and! Bagasan! and,! at! an! arm's! length!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
distance,! Acosta! shot! the! victim! several! times! on! the! head! and! body! causing! her!
instantaneous!death.!!
!
Sardia,!who!was!standing!in!front!of!his!house!at!Barangay!San!Mariano,!Sta.!Rosa,!Nueva!
Ecija,!heard!several!gunshots!and!saw!two!men!with!short!firearms!run!out!of!the!chapel.!
The! two! men! immediately! boarded! an! owner`type! jeep! without! a! plate! number! parked!
along! Maharlika! Highway! and! proceeded! to! the! direction! going! to! San! Leonardo! town.!
While!the!driver!of!the!jeep!was!in!the!process!of!backing!up!his!vehicle,!Sardia!recognized!
the! driver! as! Sapiandante,! the! Barangay! Captain! of! Barangay! Tagumpay,! San! Leonardo,!
Nueva!Ecija.!!
!
A!complaint!for!murder!was!filed!by!Nieva!Manebo!(Manebo),!sister!of!the!victim,!against!
respondents! Acosta! and! Sapiandante! before! the! Special! Action! Unit! (SAU)! of! the! National!
Bureau! of! Investigation! (NBI).! SAU! referred! to! the! Office! of! the! Chief! State! Prosecutor!
(OCSP),! Department! of! Justice! (DOJ),! for! preliminary! investigation.! Respondents,! in! turn,!
filed!directly!with!the!DOJ!a!counter`charge!of!perjury,!offering!false!witness!and!violation!of!
Presidential!Decree!(PD)!No.!1829!against!Manebo,!Bagasan,!and!Sardia.!!
!
On!January!22,!2001,!State!Prosecutor!Melvin!J.!Abad!issued!a!Joint!Resolution,!approved!by!
the!Chief!State!Prosecutor,!the!dispositive!portion!of!which!reads:!!
!
WHEREFORE,! it! is! respectfully! recommended! that! the! foregoing! Joint! Resolution! be!
approved! and! the! attached! information! for! murder! against! respondents! SPO1! Roel! D.!
Acosta,!Bgy.!Captain!Numeriano!R.!Sapiandante,!and!a!certain!John!Doe!be!filed!before!the!
proper! court! and! that! the! counter`charge! for! perjury,! offering! false! witness,! and! violation!
for! P.D.! 1829! against! Severino! S.! Sardia,! Flordeliza! Bagasan! and! Nieva! M.! Manebo! be!
dismissed!for!lack!of!merit.!
!
On!the!same!day,!an!Information!for!murder!was!filed!with!the!Regional!Trial!Court!(RTC),!
Branch!27,!Cabanatuan!City!against!respondents!and!a!certain!John!Doe.!
!
LATER!ON,!the!DOJ!Secretary!issued!his!Resolution!reversing!the!appealed!resolution.!The!
Chief! State! Prosecutor! is! directed! to! move! for! the! withdrawal! of! the! information! filed!
against!respondents.!In!so!ruling!the!DOJ!said:!Flordeliza!Bagasan!who!executed!an!affidavit!
after! more! than! four! (4)! months! alleging! that! she! was! seated! beside! the! victim! and!
witnessed! the! actual! shooting! (person! sitting! beside! was! LIZA! GRAGASAN! during!
investigation! immediately! after! crime).! Bagasan! gave! a! description! of! the! assailant! which,!
admittedly,! does! not! fit! the! physical! attributes! of! respondent! Acosta.! Bagasan! and! Sardia!
gave!a!delayed!testimony.!
!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
All! told,! the! evidence! against! respondents! Acosta! and! Sapiandante! lack! the! required!
quantum! of! proof! sufficient! to! indict! them! for! the! offense! charged.! Pursuant! to! the!
resolution!of!the!DOJ!Secretary,!the!prosecutor!filed!a!Motion!to!Withdraw!the!Information.!!
!
Petitioner! filed! an! appeal! with! the! Office! of! the! President! (OP)! which! was! dismissed.! MR!
denied!too.!
!
Aggrieved,!petitioner!filed!a!petition!for!certiorari!under!Rule!43!with!the!CA.!On!August!31,!
2005,!the!CA!rendered!the!assailed!Decision!dismissing!the!petition!for!lack!of!merit.!
!
The!CA!said!that!the!OP!committed!no!error!in!affirming!the!resolution!of!the!DOJ!Secretary;!
that! courts! will! not! interfere! in! the! conduct! of! preliminary! investigations! and! leave! to! the!
investigating! prosecutor! a! sufficient! latitude! of! discretion! in! the! determination! of! what!
constitutes!sufficient!evidence!as!will!establish!probable!cause!for!the!filing!of!information!
against!the!offender.!The!CA!found!that!all!was!not!lost!for!petitioner,!since!the!denial!of!
her!petition!did!not!mean!an!automatic!dismissal!of!the!information!following!the!resolution!
of!the!DOJ!Secretary,!as!the!RTC!was!mandated!to!independently!evaluate!the!merits!of!the!
case;! and! it! may! agree! or! disagree! with! the! recommendation! of! the! DOJ! Secretary,! since!
reliance! on! the! latter! alone! would! be! an! abdication! of! the! RTC's! duty! and! jurisdiction! to!
determine!a!prima&facie&case.!!
!
HENCE,!THIS!PETITION.!
!
ISSUE:!
Whether! or! not! the! Honorable! Court! of! Appeals,! the! Office! of! the! President! and! the!
Secretary! of! Justice! committed! grave! errors! in! the! appreciation! of! facts! and! of! laws! in!
recommending!the!dismissal!of!the!complaint!based!solely!on!the!matters,!which!are!best,!
determined!during!a!full`blown!trial.!!
!
Whether!or!not!there!is!probable!cause!to!charge!the!respondents!for!the!crime!of!murder.!
!
RATIO:#
The!issues!refer!to!the!question!of!whether!the!CA!erred!in!affirming!the!ruling!of!the!Office!
of!the!President,!which!adopted!the!finding!of!the!DOJ!Secretary!that!there!was!no!probable!
cause!to!indict!respondents!for!murder.!!
!
Ordinarily,!the!determination!of!probable!cause!is!not!lodged!with!this!Court.!Its!duty!in!an!
appropriate!case!is!confined!to!the!issue!of!whether!the!executive!or!judicial!determination,!
as!the!case!may!be,!of!probable!cause!was!done!without!or!in!excess!of!jurisdiction!or!with!
abuse!of!discretion!amounting!to!want!of!jurisdiction.!However,!this!Court!may!ultimately!
resolve! the! existence! or! non`existence! of! probable! cause! by! examining! the! records! of! the!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
preliminary!investigation!when!necessary!for!the!orderly!administration!of!justice.!We!find!
that!the!present!case!warrants!the!application!of!the!exception.!!
!
Probable!cause!has!been!defined!as!the!existence!of!such!facts!and!circumstances!as!would!
lead!a!person!of!ordinary!caution!and!prudence!to!entertain!an!honest!and!strong!suspicion!
that! the! person! charged! is! guilty! of! the! crime! subject! of! the! investigation.! Being! based!
merely! on! opinion! and! reasonable! belief,! it! does! not! import! absolute! certainty.! Probable!
cause! need! not! be! based! on! clear! and! convincing! evidence! of! guilt,! as! the! investigating!
officer!acts!upon!reasonable!belief.!Probable!cause!implies!probability!of!guilt!and!requires!
more!than!bare!suspicion!but!less!than!evidence!to!justify!a!conviction.!!
!
To! determine! the! existence! of! probable! cause,! there! is! a! need! to! conduct! a! preliminary!
investigation.! A! preliminary! investigation! constitutes! a! realistic! judicial! appraisal! of! the!
merits!of!a!case.!Its!purpose!is!to!determine!whether!(a)!a!crime!has!been!committed;!and!
(b)! there! is! probable! cause! to! believe! that! the! accused! is! guilty! thereof.! It! is! a! means! of!
discovering!which!person!or!persons!may!be!reasonably!charged!with!a!crime.!!
!
The!conduct!of!a!preliminary!investigation!is!executive!in!nature.!As!we!have!said,!the!Court!
may! not! be! compelled! to! pass! upon! the! correctness! of! the! exercise! of! the! public!
prosecutors! function,! unless! there! is! a! showing! of! grave! abuse! of! discretion! or! manifest!
error!in!his!findings.!Grave!abuse!of!discretion!implies!a!capricious!and!whimsical!exercise!of!
judgment!tantamount!to!lack!or!excess!of!jurisdiction.!!
!
In!this!case,!we!find!that!the!DOJ!committed!a!manifest!error!in!finding!no!probable!cause!
to! charge! respondents! with! the! crime! of! murder.! (REGARDING! REASONS! FOR!
WITHDRAWING!INFORMATION)!
!
Such! report! would! not! conclusively! establish! that! Liza! Gragasan! could! not! have! been!
Flordeliza! Bagasan,! the! witness! who! executed! an! affidavit! four! months! after! the! incident.!
Notably,!Flordeliza's!nickname!is!Liza,!and!her!surname!Bagasan!sounds!similar!to!Gragasan.!
Under!the!rule!of!idem&sonans,&two!names!are!said!to!be!"idem!sonantes"!if!the!attentive!
ear!finds!difficulty!in!distinguishing!them!when!pronounced.!The!question!whether!a!name!
sounds!the!same!as!another!is!not!one!of!spelling!but!of!pronunciation.!While!the!surname!
Bagasan! was! incorrectly! written! as! Gragasan,! when! read,! it! has! a! sound! similar! to! the!
surname! Bagasan.! Thus,! the! presence! of! Bagasan! at! the! crime! scene! was! established,!
contrary!to!the!conclusion!arrived!at!by!the!DOJ!Secretary.!!
!
The! execution! of! Bagasan's! affidavit! four! months! after! the! incident! should! not! be! taken!
against!her,!as!such!reaction!is!within!the!bounds!of!expected!human!behavior.!Notably,!the!
police!report!stated!that!during!the!conduct!of!the!investigation,!Bagasan!was!shocked!after!
the! incident! and! could! not! possibly! be! interviewed.! Initial! reluctance! to! volunteer!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
information! regarding! a! crime! due! to! fear! of! reprisal! is! common! enough! that! it! has! been!
judicially! declared! as! not! affecting! a! witness'! credibility.! Moreover,! a! witness'! delay! in!
reporting!what!she!knows!about!a!crime!does!not!render!her!testimony!false!or!incredible,!
for!the!delay!may!be!explained!by!the!natural!reticence!of!most!people!to!get!involved!in!a!
criminal!case.!!
!
The! DOJ! Secretary's! finding! that! the! description! given! by! Bagasan! did! not! fit! the! physical!
attributes! of! respondent! Acosta! is! not! persuasive,! since! Bagasan! was! able! to! positively!
identify! respondent! Acosta.! She! did! so! when! a! cartographic! sketch! of! respondent! Acosta!
was! shown! to! her! and! later! when! she! was! asked! to! identify! him! from! among! the! three!
pictures!of!men!shown!to!her!during!the!investigation!at!the!NBI.!!
!
The!DOJ!Secretary!did!not!also!find!the!statements!given!by!Sardia!as!credible,!as!the!latter!
was! not! among! those! mentioned! as! a! witness! in! the! police! report.! We! do! not! agree.! The!
failure!of!the!police!report!to!mention!Sardia's!name!as!a!witness!would!not!detract!from!
the! fact! that! he! saw! respondent! Acosta! with! an! unidentified! man! running! away! from! the!
chapel!and!riding!the!waiting!get`!away!vehicle!driven!by!Sapiandante.!!
!
Finally,! we! also! do! not! agree! with! the! DOJ! Secretary's! finding! that! since! Sardia's! affidavit!
was!also!belatedly!executed,!the!same!is!not!credible.!!
!
We! need! not! over`emphasize! that! in! a! preliminary! investigation,! the! public! prosecutor!
merely!determines!whether!there!is!probable!cause!or!sufficient!ground!to!engender!a!well`
founded!belief!that!a!crime!has!been!committed,!and!that!the!respondent!is!probably!guilty!
thereof!and!should!be!held!for!trial.!Considering!the!foregoing,!we!find!that!the!CA!erred!in!
affirming! the! DOJ's! finding! of! the! absence! of! probable! cause! to! indict! respondents! for!
murder.!!
!
WHEREFORE,# premises# considered,# the# instant# Petition# is# GRANTED.# The# Decision# dated#
August# 31,# 2005# of# the# Court# of# Appeals# in# CARG.R.# SP# No.# 83300# is# REVERSED# and# SET#
ASIDE.# The# Secretary# of# Justice# is# hereby# ORDERED# to# direct# the# Office# of# the# City#
Prosecutor# of# Manila# to# withdraw# the# Motion# to# Withdraw# the# Information# for# Murder#
already#filed#in#the#trial#court.##
!
B.#BURGOS#V.#CA##JED#VELASQUEZ#
!
Emergency#Recit:#
Johnny! Co! was! charged! for! 2! counts! of! murder! and! 2! counts! of! frustrated! murder.! He!
surrendered!to!the!police.!He!then!applied!for!and!was!granted!bail.!The!heirs!of!those!he!
murdered!(Burgos),!filed!a!special!civil!action!of!certiorari!to!question!the!grant!of!bail.!The!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
CA!said!that!the!special!civil!action!can!only!be!recognized!the!OSGs!intervention.!The!SC!
agreed!with!the!CA!and!stated!that!the!grant!of!bail!is!an!aspect!of!criminal!action.!As!such,!
it!can!only!be!initiated!by!the!Solicitor!General.!
Facts:#
This&case&is&about&the&offended&party's&legal&standing&in&a&criminal&case&to&seek,&in&
their& personal& capacities& and& without& the& Solicitor& Generals& intervention,& a& reversal& of& the&
trial&courts&order&granting&bail&to&the&accused&on&the&ground&of&absence&of&strong&evidence&
of&guilt.&
In! 1992,! assailants! attacked! Sarah! Burgos'! house! while! all! were! asleep.! They! killed!
Sarah! and! her! uncle! Erasmo! Palma.! ! Another! uncle,! Victor! Palma,! and! a! friend,! Benigno!
Oquendo,!survived!the!attack.!It!was!suspected!that!a!land!transaction!gone!sour!between!
Sarahs!live`in!partner,!David!So,!and!respondent!Johnny!Co!motivated!the!assault.!
4!months!after!the!incident,!Cresencio!Aman!and!Romeo!Martin!were!arrested!and!
confessed! in! the! attack.! ! They! said! that! Artemio! Pong! Bergonia! and! Danilo! Say! helped!
them! while! Johnny! Co! masterminded! the! attack.! ! The! Manila! RTC! tried! the! case! against!
Aman!and!Martin.!!The!three!others!remained!at!large.!!After!trial,!the!RTC!acquitted!them!
both.!
10!years!after!Johnny!Co!(the!bad!Co)!surrendered!to!the!NBI.!!He!was!charged!with!
2!counts!of!murder!and!2!counts!of!frustrated!murder.!He!pleaded!not!guilty.!
Co! then! filed! a! petition! for! admission! to! bail.! This! was! granted! on! the! ground! that!
the!evidence!of!guilt!was!not!strong.!Court!reasoned!that:!
First,!Aman!and!Martins!extrajudicial!confessions!merely!proved!their!participation!in!the!
killing.!!Neither!claimed!conspiracy!with!Co.!!Further,!the!prosecution!did!not!present!Aman!
or! Martin! during! the! bail! hearing,! reportedly! because! Aman! was! already! dead!
(understandable)! and! Martin! could! not! be! located.! ! To! admit! their! sworn! statements! in!
evidence!would!deprive!Co!of!his!constitutional!right!to!cross`examine!them.!!!
Second,! Davids! narrations! were,! to! the! RTC,! contradictory,! uncorroborated,! and! self`
serving,!thus!lacking!in!evidentiary!weight.!
Third,! police! officer! Vasquezs! story! was! likewise! uncorroborated.! ! Besides,! while! flight! is!
often!indicative!of!guilt,!it!requires!a!clear!showing!of!the!identity!of!the!offender!and!his!
evasion!of!arrest.!!Here,!said!the!RTC,!the!prosecution!failed!to!establish!Cos!identity!as!the!
assailant!and!his!reason!for!fleeing!from!the!police.!
Fourth,!the!prosecution!failed!to!prove!that!the!offer!of!settlement!came!from!Co.!
The!Burgos!heirs!moved!for!reconsideration!but!this!was!denied!by!the!RTC.!As!such,!
they!filed!a!special!civil!action!of!certiorari!with!prayer!for!a!temporary!restraining!order!or!
preliminary!injunction!before!the!Court!of!Appeals!(CA).!
The! CA! dismissed! the! petition,! for! not! involving! the! Office! of! the! Solicitor! General!
(OSG)! in! violatin! of! Section! 35,! Chapter! 12,! Title! III,! Book! IV! of! the! Administrative! Code!
which!states!that:!
!!!!!!!!!!!Sec.!35.!Powers!and!Functions.The!Office!of!the!Solicitor!General!shall!represent!the!
Government!of!the!Philippines,!its!agencies!and!instrumentalities!and!its!officials!and!agents!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
in! any! litigation,! proceedings,! investigation! or! matter! requiring! the! services! of! lawyers.!!
When! authorized! by! the! President! or! head! of! the! office! concerned,! it! shall! also! represent!
government`owned! or! controlled! corporations.! The! Office! of! the! Solicitor! General! shall!
constitute! the! law! office! of! the! Government! and,! as! such,! shall! discharge! duties! requiring!
the!services!of!lawyers.!!It!shall!have!the!following!specific!powers!and!functions:!
x!x!x!x!
(1)! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Represent! the! Government! in! the! Supreme! Court! and! the! Court! of! Appeals! in! all!
criminal! proceedings;! represent! the! Government! and! its! officers! in! the! Supreme! Court,!
Court!of!Appeals,!and!all!other!courts!or!tribunals!in!all!civil!actions!and!special!proceedings!
in!which!the!Government!or!any!officer!thereof!in!his!official!capacity!is!a!party.!
Issue:!W/no!a!special!civil!action!of!certiorari!which!questions!the!grant!of!bail!needs!to!be!
filed!with!the!OSGs!intervention.!
Held:!It!does.!
Ratio:#
Generally,! a! criminal! case! has! two! aspects,! the! civil! and! the! criminal.! When! the! state!
succeeds! in! prosecuting! the! offense,! the! offended! party! benefits! and! is! able! to! collect!
damages.!!
The!purpose!of!a!criminal!action,!in!its!purest!sense,!is!to!determine!the!penal!liability!of!the!
accused! for! having! outraged! the! state! with! his! crime! and,! if! he! be! found! guilty,! to! punish!
him!for!it.!!In!this!sense,!the!parties!to!the!action!are!the!People!of!the!Philippines!and!the!
accused.!The!offended!party!is!regarded!merely!as!a!witness!for!the!state.!Only!the!state,!
through! its! appellate! counsel,! the! OSG,! has! the! sole! right! and! authority! to! institute!
proceedings!before!the!CA!or!the!Supreme!Court.!!
Here,! the! question! of! granting! bail! to! the! accused! is! but! an! aspect! of! the! criminal! action,!
preventing!him!from!eluding!punishment!in!the!event!of!conviction.!!The!grant!of!bail!or!its!
denial!has!no!impact!on!the!civil!liability!of!the!accused!that!depends!on!conviction!by!final!
judgment.!!Respondent!Co!has!already!been!arraigned.!!Trial!and!judgment,!with!award!for!
civil!liability!when!warranted,!could!proceed!even!in!his!absence.!
As! a! general! rule,! the! mandate! or! authority! to! represent! the! state! lies! only! in! the! OSG.!!
Thus!
xxx&
Under!Sec.!35!of!the!Administrative!Code!than!that!it!is,!indeed,!mandatory!upon!the!OSG!
to!represent!the!Government!of!the!Philippines,!its!agencies!and!instrumentalities!and!its!
officials! and! agents! in! any! litigation,! proceeding,! investigation! or! matter! requiring! the!
services!of!a!lawyer.!
! xxx&
For!the!above!reason,!actions!essentially!involving!the!interest!of!the!state,!if!not!initiated!
by!the!Solicitor!General,!are,!as!a!rule,!summarily!dismissed.!
!
C.#CRUZ#VS#SANDIGANBAYAN##JECH##
!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
Emergency!Recit!
!The! Special! Presidential! Task! Force! found! that! certain! officials! of! the!One`
Stop!Center!of!the!Department!of!Finance!had!been!issuing!tax!credit!certificates!to!
entities!that!did!not!earn!them!through!tax!overpayments.!
Pacifico# R.# Cruz! (General! Manager! of! Pilipinas! Shells! Treasury! and! Taxation!
Department)! among! others! was! charged! by! the! Office# of# the# Ombudsman# (OMB)!!
for!multiple!violations!Anti`Graft!and!Corrupt!Practices!Act!!
The!Office#of#the#Special#Prosecutor#(OSP)!submitted!a!memorandum!to!the!OMB,!
recommending!the!dropping!of!the!charges!against!Cruz!for!lack!of!evidence!!
!The!OSP!filed!a!motion!with!the!Sandiganbayan,!for!the!dropping!of!Cruz!from!the!
informations.!!The!Sandiganbayan!did!not!act!on!this.!
More!than!five!months!later,!OSP!filed!a!motion!with!the!Sandiganbayan!to!hold!in!
abeyance!action!on!the!OSPs!motion!to!drop!petitioner!Cruz!from!the!charges.!!!
At!the!hearing!of!the!motion,!the!Sandiganbayan!promptly!granted!an!oral!motion!
to!drop!Cruz!from!the!infos.!!
Yet,! the! OSP! still! filed! a! motion! to! withdraw! its! motion! to! drop! Cruz! from! the!
informations.!This!was!granted!by!SB.!!
Cruz!filed!a!motion!for!reconsideration.!Denied.!
o The! court! held! that! Cruz! was! not! entitled! to! notice! since! it! was! the! OSPs!
prerogative!to!withdraw!its!earlier!motion!to!drop!him!from!the!charges.!!!
o It! also! held! that! Cruz! ultimately! had! the! opportunity! to! ventilate! his!
objections! since! he! filed! a! motion! for! reconsideration! of! the! courts! order!
granting!the!withdrawal.!Consequently,!any!defect!in!earlier!proceedings!had!
been!cured.!!.!!!
Cruz! filed! the! present! petition! for! certiorari!! and! a! manifestation! invoking! the!
Courts!ruling!in!Pilipinas!Shell!vs!CIR!(a!tax!case)!as!res&judicata!with!respect!to!his!
alleged!criminal!liabilities!!
!Did! the! Sandiganbayan! gravely! abuse! its! discretion! in! allowing! the! Office# of# the#
Special#Prosecutor#(OSP)!to!withdraw!its!earlier!motion!to!drop!petitioner!Cruz!from!
the! criminal! informations! even! after! the! Office# of# the# Ombudsman# (OMB)# had!
approved!such!withdrawal!on!ground!of!lack!of!probable!cause?!!yes!
Did! the! findings! of! the! Court! in!Pilipinas& Shell& Petroleum& Corporation& v.&
Commissioner&of&Internal&Revenue!that!Pilipinas!Shell!was!a!transferee!in!good!faith!
and! for! value! of! the! TCCs! in! question! bar! the! prosecution! of! Cruz! in! the! criminal!
cases!subject!of!this!petition?!`!yes!
!
o After! reinvestigation,the! OMB! found! no! probable! cause! against! Cruz.!! Based! on! its!
finding,! therefore,! the! State! did! not! have! the! right! to! prosecute! him.!!With! this!
result,!it!was!a!matter!of!duty!for!respondent!OSP!to!apply!with!the!Sandiganbayan!
for!the!withdrawal!of!the!charges!against!Cruz!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
o !Respondent! OSP,! therefore,! acted! in! violation! of! petitioner! Cruzs! right! to! due!
process!of!law!when!it!impulsively!and!arbitrarily!disregarded!its!previous!finding!of!
lack!of!probable!cause!without!hearing.!!!
o The!Sandiganbayan!in!ordering!the!reinvestigation!of!the!charges!against!petitioner!
Cruz,! it! effectively! acknowledged! that! he! had! not! been! accorded! his! full! right! to! a!
preliminary!investigation.!!
o That! the! OMBs! new! findings! entitled! Cruz! to! the! dismissal! of! the! charges! against!
him.!!!
o the!Sandiganbayan!acted!with!GAOD!when!it!ignored!Cruzs!right!to!such!a!dismissal!
!!
o This!Court!resolved!substantially!the!same!issue!in!the!present!case!and!in!Pilipinas&
Shell&Petroleum&Corporation&v.&Commissioner&of&Internal&Revenue.!
o The!parties!in!the!two!cases!(the!tax!case!and!in!the!criminal!cases)!are!substantially!
the!same.!The!parties!in!the!tax!case!and!in!the!criminal!cases!represent!substantially!
identical!interests.!
o !The! principle! of!res& judicata!through! conclusiveness! of! judgment! applies! to! bar! the!
criminal!actions!against!Cruz.!
!
Facts:!
!
Acting!on!reports!of!irregularities,!respondent!Special# Presidential# Task# Force# 156#
(Task# Force)# investigated! the! OneRStop# Shop# InterRAgency# Tax# Credit#
and#Duty#Drawback#Center#(the#OneRStop#Center)! of! the! Department! of! Finance!
(DOF).!!
!The!Task!Force!found!that!certain!officials!of!the!One`Stop!Center!had!been!issuing!
tax! credit! certificates! (TCCs)! to! entities! that! did! not! earn! them! through! tax!
overpayments.!
o According! to! the! Task! Force,! the! Diamond! Knitting! Corporation! (DKC),! a!
Board!of!Investments`registered!textile!manufacturer,!completely!shut!down!
its! operations! in! 1993! yet! the! DOFs! One`Stop! Center! issued! to! it! TCCs!
totaling!P131,205,391.00!from!1994!to!1997.!!
o DKC! in! turn! sold! a! number! of! these! TCCs! to! Pilipinas! Shell! Petroleum!
Corporation! (Pilipinas! Shell)! with! the! approval! of! the!One`
Stop!Center.!Pilipinas! Shell! then! used! these! TCCs! to! pay! off! its! excise! tax!
obligations!to!the!Bureau!of!Internal!Revenue!(BIR).!!!
Believing! that! petitioner! Pacifico# R.# Cruz! (the! General! Manager! of! Pilipinas! Shells!
Treasury!and!Taxation!Department)!was!a!party!to!the!fraud,!respondent!Task!Force!
included! him! in! its! complaint! for! plunder! before! respondent! Office# of# the#
Ombudsman#(OMB)!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
OMB!dismissed!the!plunder!charge!but!caused!the!filing!of!separate!information!or!
multiple!violations!of!Section!3(e)!of!the!Anti`Graft!and!Corrupt!Practices!Act!against!
Cruz!and!the!others!with!him!
Before!being!arraigned,!Cruz!sought!the!reinvestigation!of!the!cases.!
o !He!claimed!that!he!had!been!unable!to!seek!reconsideration!because!of!the!
hasty!filing!of!the!informations.!!!
!Respondent! Office# of# the# Special# Prosecutor# (OSP)! submitted! a! memorandum! to!
the! OMB,! recommending! the! dropping! of! the! charges! against! Cruz! for! lack! of!
evidence!that!he!supplied!the!false!documents!used!for!processing!the!transfers!to!
Pilipinas!Shell!of!the!subject!fraudulently!issued!TCCs.!!!
Respondent!Task!Force!sought!the!reconsideration!of!respondent!OSPs!new!stand!
on!the!case,!which!Cruz!opposed.!
!The!OSP!did!not!resolve!the!motion!but!it!filed!a!motion!with!the!Sandiganbayan,!
for!the!dropping!of!Cruz!from!the!informations.!!The!Sandiganbayan!did!not!act!on!
this.!
More!than!five!months!later,!respondent!OSP,!acting!through!Prosecutor!Warlito!F.!
Galisanao,!filed!a!motion!with!the!Sandiganbayan!to!hold!in!abeyance!action!on!the!
OSPs!motion!to!drop!petitioner!Cruz!from!the!charges.!!!
At! the! hearing! of! the! motion,! the! Sandiganbayan! promptly! granted! Prosecutor!
Monterosos! oral! motion! to! drop! Cruz! from! the! infos.! Yet,! the! OSP! still! filed! a!
motion!to!withdraw!its!motion!to!drop!Cruz!from!the!informations.!!
Meanwhile,! unaware! of! the! Sandiganbayans! order,! petitioner! Cruz! opposed!
Galisanaos! now! abandoned! motion! to! defer! action! on! the! withdrawal! of! the!
criminal!charges.!!
!Only!subsequently!did!Cruz!receive!the!Sandiganbayans!order!that!already!allowed!
the!withdrawal!of!respondent!OSPs!dropping!of!Cruz!from!the!informations.!!!
Cruz! filed! a! motion! for! reconsideration! of! the! Sandiganbayans! order! on! the!
following!grounds:!!
o !he!had!no!notice!of!the!hearing!set!on!that!date.!
o lack!of!notice!respecting!the!formal!withdrawal!motion!
o Galisanao! and! Monterosos! lack! of! authority! to! countermand! the! OMBs!
approval!of!the!dropping!of!the!charges!against!him.!!!
The!Sandiganbayan!resolved!to!deny!petitioner!Cruzs!motion!for!reconsideration.!
o The! court! held! that! Cruz! was! not! entitled! to! notice! since! it! was! the! OSPs!
prerogative!to!withdraw!its!earlier!motion!to!drop!him!from!the!charges.!!!
o The! Sandiganbayan! also! pointed! out! that! Cruz! ultimately! had! the!
opportunity! to! ventilate! his! objections! since! he! filed! a! motion! for!
reconsideration!of!the!courts!order!granting!the!withdrawal.!Consequently,!
any!defect!in!earlier!proceedings!had!been!cured.!!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
o As! to! Galisanao! and! Monterosos! lack! of! authority! to! act! the! way! they! did,!
the!court!ruled!that!the!Special!Prosecutor!eventually!affirmed!their!acts.!!!
!Cruz!filed!the!present!petition!for!certiorari!under!Rule!65.!!
Meanwhile,!this!Court!rendered!judgment!in!Pilipinas&Shell&Petroleum&Corporation&v.&
Commissioner&of&Internal&Revenue.!!
o The!BIR!assessed!deficiency!income!taxes!against!Pilipinas!Shell,!given!that!it!
used!for!payment!the!fraudulently!issued!TCCs!subject!of!this!case.!!!
o This! Court! nullified! the! assessment,! finding! that! Pilipinas! Shell! was! a!
transferee! in! good! faith! and! for! value! and! may! thus! not! be! unjustly!
prejudiced!by!the!transferors!fraud!committed!in!procuring!the!transfer!of!
those!TCCs.!
!Petitioner! Cruz! filed! a! manifestation! invoking! the! Courts! ruling! in! the! above! tax!
case! as!res& judicata!with! respect! to! his! alleged! criminal! liabilities! relating! to! the!
subject!TCCs.!
!!
Issues:#
#
1.!!!!!!!Whether! or! not! the! Sandiganbayan! gravely! abused! its! discretion! in! allowing!
respondent! Office# of# the# Special# Prosecutor# (OSP)! to! withdraw! its! earlier! motion! to! drop!
petitioner! Cruz! from! the! criminal! informations! even! after! the! Office# of# the# Ombudsman#
(OMB)#had!approved!such!withdrawal!on!ground!of!lack!of!probable!cause!
!!
2.!!!!!!!Whether! or! not! the! findings! of! the! Court! in!Pilipinas& Shell& Petroleum& Corporation& v.&
Commissioner&of&Internal&Revenue!that!Pilipinas!Shell!was!a!transferee!in!good!faith!and!for!
value!of!the!TCCs!in!question!bar!the!prosecution!of!Cruz!in!the!criminal!cases!subject!of!this!
petition.!
!!
Held:!In!favor!of!Cruz.!!
!
WHEREFORE,!the! Court!! GRANTS!the! petition! and!DIRECTS# !the! Sandiganbayan! Fourth!
Division!to!DISMISS#the!!Criminal!Cases!against!petitioner!Pacifico!R.!Cruz.!
#
Ratio:!
!!
1.!The!Sandiganbayan!gravely!abused!its!discretion!in!allowing!respondent!OSP!to!withdraw!
its!earlier!motion!to!drop!petitioner!Cruz!from!the!criminal!informations!even!after!the!OMB!
had!approved!such!withdrawal!on!ground!of!lack!of!probable!cause!
!!
o A! reinvestigation! is! a! continuation! of! the! OMBs! duty! to! conduct! a! preliminary!
investigation! for! the! purpose! of! determining! probable! cause! against! a! person!
charged!with!an!offense!falling!under!its!jurisdiction.!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
o After!respondent!OSP!considered!the!evidence!anew!at!reinvestigation,!it!ruled!that!
such!evidence!did!not!establish!probable!cause!against!petitioner!Cruz.!!Respondent!
OSP!recommended!the!dropping!of!petitioner!Cruzs!name!from!the!charges!already!
filed!in!court.!!And!the!OMB!approved!this!recommendation.!!!!
o The! necessary! implication! of! this! is! that! the! OMB! had! found! no! probable!
cause!against!Cruz!after!reinvestigation!
o !Thus,!the!State!did!not!have!the!right!to!prosecute!him.!!
o !It!was!a!matter!of!duty!for!respondent!OSP!to!apply!with!the!Sandiganbayan!
for!the!withdrawal!of!the!charges!against!Cruz.!!!
o !Respondent! OSP,! therefore,! acted! in! violation! of! petitioner! Cruzs! right! to! due!
process!of!law!when!it!impulsively!and!arbitrarily!disregarded!its!previous!finding!of!
lack!of!probable!cause!without!hearing.!!!
o The!Sandiganbayan!did!not!bother!to!require!the!OSP!to!present!a!new!finding!with!
the! OMBs! approval! that! overruled,! after! appropriate! hearing,! the! previous!
determination!of!lack!of!probable!cause!that!they!made.!!
o In! ordering! the! reinvestigation! of! the! charges! against! petitioner! Cruz,! the!
Sandiganbayan! ! effectively! acknowledged! that! he! had! not! been! accorded! his! full!
right!to!a!preliminary!investigation.!!
o !The!Sandiganbayan!had,!after!the!informations!were!filed!with!it,!the!discretion!to!
assess!the!evidence!on!its!own!and!determine!what!to!do!with!the!case!before!it.!But!
the!fact!is!that!it!opted!to!let!the!OMB!conduct!a!reinvestigation,!a!power!that!the!
latter!had.!!
o That! the! OMB! found! that! no! probable! cause! existed! against! Cruz! after!
reinvestigation!entitled!Cruz!to!the!dismissal!of!the!charges!against!him.!!!
o Acting!with!grave!abuse!of!discretion,!the!Sandiganbayan!ignored!Cruzs!right!to!such!
a!dismissal.!!It!simply!allowed!respondent!OSP!to!withdraw!its!motion!to!drop!Cruz!
from! those! charges! even! if! the! OSP! made! no! claim! that! the! state! of! evidence! had!
changed!after!it!submitted!its!memorandum.!!
!!
2.# The! findings! of! the! Court! in!Pilipinas& Shell& Petroleum& Corporation& v.& Commissioner& of&
Internal&Revenue!that!Pilipinas!Shell!was!a!transferee!in!good!faith!and!for!value!of!the!TCCs!
in!question!bars!the!prosecution!of!Cruz!in!the!criminal!cases!subject!of!this!petition.##
#
o In!Pilipinas&Shell&Petroleum&Corporation&v.&Commissioner&of&Internal&Revenue,!it!was!
ruled!that!Pilipinas!Shell,!of!which!petitioner!Cruz!was!the!responsible!officer,!was!a!
transferee!in!good!faith!and!for!value!of!the!same!TCCs!subject!of!the!criminal!cases.!
This!raises!the!issue!of!whether!or!not!such!ruling!bars!the!prosecution!of!Cruz!in!the!
criminal!cases!subject!of!this!petition.!
o The!res& judicata!rule! bars! the! re`litigation! of! facts! or! issues! that! have! once! been!
settled!by!a!court!of!law!upon!a!final!judgment!on!the!merits.!!!
o Section!47!(b)!and!(c)!of!Rule!39!of!the!Rules!of!Court!establishes!two!rules:!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
!!
(a)!!!!!a!!judgment! on! the! merits! by! a! court! of! competent! jurisdiction!
bars!the!parties!and!their!privies!from!bringing!a!new!action!or!suit!involving!
the!same!cause!of!action!before!either!the!same!or!any!other!tribunal;!(Bar!
by!Former!Judgment)!
!!
(b)#####any# right,# fact# or# matter# directly# adjudged# or# necessarily#
involved# in# the# determination# of# an# action# before# a# competent# court# that#
renders# judgment# on# the# merits# is# conclusively# settled# and# cannot# be#
litigated#again#between#the#parties#and#their#privies,#regardless#of#whether#
the# claims,# purposes# or# subject# matters# of# the# two# suits# are# the# same.#
(Conclusiveness#of#judgment)#
#
o !It!is!the!second!(Conclusiveness!of!judgment)!that!is!relevant!to!this!case.!!
o Conclusiveness! of! judgment! or!auter& action& pendent!ordains! that! issues!
actually! and! directly! resolved! in! a! former! suit! cannot! be! raised! anew! in! any!
future!case!involving!the!same!parties!although!for!a!different!cause!of!action.!!
o Where! the! rule! applies,! there! must! be! identity! of! issues! but! not! necessarily!
identity!in!causes!of!action!!
o This!Court!resolved!substantially!the!same!issue!in!the!present!case!and!in!Pilipinas&
Shell&Petroleum&Corporation&v.&Commissioner&of&Internal&Revenue.!
o !In! the! present! case,! the! OMB! charged! petitioner! Cruz,! acting! in! conspiracy!
with!others,!of!violating!Section!3(e)!of!Republic!Act!3019!in!connection!with!
the! transfer! of! fraudulently! issued! TCCs! to! Pilipinas! Shell.! The! main! issue! in!
this!case!is!whether!or!not!Cruz,!Pilipinas!Shells!Treasury!head,!connived!with!
the! officials! of! the!One`Stop!Center!and! others! in! unlawfully! giving,! through!
manifest!partiality!and!bad!faith,!unwarranted!benefits!to!DKC!by!processing!
and! approving! such! transfers! to! Pilipinas! Shell,! knowing! that! DKC,! the!
transferee,!had!been!a!dormant!company.!
o In!Pilipinas&Shell&Petroleum&Corporation&v.&Commissioner&of&Internal&Revenue,!
the!Court!categorically!found!that!Pilipinas!Shell,!represented!in!its!acquisition!
of!the!TCCs!in!question!by!petitioner!Cruz,!was!a!transferee!in!good!faith!and!
for!value!of!those!TCCs.!!This!means!that!neither!Pilipinas!Shell!nor!Cruz!was!a!
party! to! the! fraudulent! issuance! and! transfer! of! the! TCCs.!!Indeed,! there!
existed,! said! the! Court,! no! evidence! that! Pilipinas! Shell! was! involved! in! the!
processing!of!the!One`Stop!Centers!approval!of!the!transfer!of!those!TCCs!to!
Pilipinas!Shell.!
o The!parties!in!the!two!cases!(the!tax!case!and!in!the!criminal!cases)!are!substantially!
the!same.!!!
o Although! it! was! respondent! Task! Force! that! investigated! the! irregularities! in!
the! issuance! and! transfers! of! the! TCCs,! the! ultimate! complainant! in! the!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
criminal! casethe! party! that! suffered! the! injurywas! the! government,!
represented! by! the! Commissioner! of! Internal! Revenue.!!The! latter! also!
represented!the!government!in!the!tax!case!against!Pilipinas!Shell.!!Petitioner!
Cruz,!on!the!other!hand,!represented!Pilipinas!Shell!in!all!the!transactions!in!
question.!!
o !In! short,! the! parties! in! the! tax! case! and! in! the! criminal! cases! represent!
substantially!identical!interests.!
o !!The!principle!of!res&judicata!through!conclusiveness!of!judgment!applies!to!bar!the!
criminal!actions!against!Cruz.!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!
D.#PEOPLE#V.#TAN#R#LAGOS#
The!case!is!long!because!of!the!facts.!So!I!!summarized!them!here!kasi!in!the!ratio,!you'll!find!
out! the! facts! aren't! so! important.! Haha.! But! just! in! case! you! think! sir! will! ask! about!
particulars,!you!can!refer!to!the!whole!facts!below!:)!But!I!think!this!is!enough.!
!
Emergency!Recit!!
Archie!and!Jan!Michael!Jan`Jan!Tan!are!accused!of!parricide!and!double!murder!for!
killing!their!biological!father,!stepmom,!and!stepsister!!
Bobby!Tan!and!Cindy!are!husband!and!wife!with!6!children!namely,!Raffy,!Kristine,!
Katrina,!Karen,!Katherine,!and!Kathleen!
Archie! and! Jan! Michael! are! Bobby's! illegitimate! sons! who! Cindy! treated! as! her!
stepsons.!!
They!all!live!in!a!big!household!compound!with!other!extended!family!members!in!
Iloilo!City.!
One!day,!Bobby!and!Raffy!went!out!to!see!a!cockfight!while!the!whole!family!went!to!
mass! and! then! came! home! for! dinner.! When! Bobby! and! Raffy! came! home,! they!
didn't!join!their!family!dinner!as!they've!already!eaten!out.!!!
After!dinner,!they!retired!to!their!own!bedrooms.!
A!blind!masseur!arrived!for!Bobby.!
The! regular! masseuse! came! for! Shirley! and! Sheryl! (cousin! of! Bobby! and! the!
daughter)!
Around!10:30!pm,!Archie!went!to!the!garage!to!get!2!pairs!of!gloves!from!his!car!and!
a!pack!of!cigarettes!from!the!security!guard.!
10:45!p.m.,!Archie!and!Jan`Jan!joined!Raffy,!and!their!driver,!Geronda!in!watching!a!
DVD!movie!on!Raffys!laptop!at!the!carport.!
Jan`Jan!went!back!to!his!room!first!followed!by!Archie!who!still!finished!his!cigarette.!
Before!midnight,!Raffy!also!retired!to!his!room.!
12:17am,!while!the!guard,!Lobreza!was!making!his!rounds,!he!noticed!the!lights!were!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
still!on!in!the!rooms!of!Archie!and!Jan`Jan.!
The!following!events!that!happened!are!now!according!to!Archie!and!Jan`Jan.!
That! around! 12:45! am,! they! snuck! out! of! the! house! to! go! bar! hopping! and!
returned!around!3:30!am!
Jan`Jan! was! the! first! to! enter! the! house! and! saw! Katherine! dead,! in! a! pool! of!
blood,! outside! the! master's! bedroom.! In! the! master's! bedroom,! he! also! saw!
Bobby!dead,!his!chest!drenched!in!blood.!!
When!Archie!entered!his!room,!he!saw!Cindy!lying!dead!in!her!own!blood,!below!
his!air`conditioner!
Archie! phoned! police! officer! Nelson! Alacre,! and! requested! him! to! come!
immediately.!!!
Officer! Alacre! arrived! after! a! few! minutes! with! some! other! officers.! ! They!
questioned! Archie! and! Jan`Jan! and! took! urine! samples! from! them.! ! The! tests!
showed!them!negative!for!illegal!drug!use.!
After! the! remains! of! the! victims! were! brought! home! for! the! wake,! Atty.!
Leonardo!E.!Jiz!supposedly!asked!Archie!and!Jan`Jan,!Cindys!stepsons,!to!sign!a!
statement!that!the!police!prepared.!!!
The! lawyer! did! not! let! them! read! the! document! or! explain! to! them! its!
contents.!!!
They! signed! it! on! Atty.! Jizs! assurance! that! they! would! have! the! chance! to!
read! the! statement! later! at! the! public! prosecutors! office! and! correct! any!
mistakes!before!swearing!to!the!same.!!!
The! complainants! did! not! present! this! statement! during! the! preliminary!
investigation! nor! did! Archie! and! Jan`Jan! swear! to! it! before! a! public!
prosecutor!
(I!gues!this!will!be!the!end!of!their!version!of!the!story)!
Criminal! Investigation! and! Detection! Group! (CIDG)! submitted! their! investigation!
report!pointing!to!Archie!and!Jan`Jan!as!principal!suspects!
City! Prosecutors! Office! filed! separate! informations! for! two! murders! and! parricide!
against!respondents!
Archie!and!Jan`Jan!filed!a!motion!for!judicial!determination!of!probable!cause!with!a!
prayer!to!suspend!the!issuance!of!warrants!of!arrest!against!them!in!the!meantime!
and! asked! the! RTC! to! defer! further! proceedings! in! order! to! give! them! the!
opportunity! to! question! the! public! prosecutors! resolution! in! the! case! before! the!
Secretary!of!Justice.!
Rosalinda! Garcia`Zayco,! Cindys! mother! and! court`appointed! guardian! ad! litem! of!
her! minor! grandchildren,! opposed! respondents! Archie! and! Jan`Jans! petition! for!
review!before!the!DOJ.!
She!pointed!out!that!the!two!had!sufficient!motive!to!commit!the!crimes!since!
they! showed! disrespect! towards! Bobby! and! always! had! arguments! with! him.!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
They!also!had!ill!feelings!towards!Cindy.!Also,!that!they!never!accepted!the!fact!
that!Bobby!married!Cindy!rather!than!their!mother.!!!
It!was!found!that!there!was!an!absence!of!Archies!and!Jan`Jans!fingerprints!in!any!
part!of!their!own!rooms,!particularly!the!light!switches!and!the!doorknobs.!
9! days! after! the! victims! burial,! Archie! filed! a! petition! for! the! settlement! of! Bobby!
and! Cindys! estate,! nominating! Conchita! (aunt! of! Bobby)! as! administratrix! of! the!
estate.!The!estate!court!granted!the!motion.!!Archie!reportedly!continued!with!his!
nightly!bar!hopping!even!during!the!wake!of!his!father.!
Archie!and!Jan`Jans!defense!is!alibi.!!!
They!claimed!that!they!were!away!when!the!crimes!took!place!at!the!house.!!!
Based! on! Dr.! Lebaquins! forensic! computation,! however,! the! victims! probably!
died! at! about! midnight,! more! or! less.! ! The! two! were! still! at! home! when! the!
killings!happened.!
RTC:#
found#no#probable#cause!against!respondents!Archie!and!Jan`Jan.!!
granted!their!motion!to!suspend!the!issuance!of!warrants!for!their!arrest!and!to!
defer!the!proceedings.!
After! a! few! months,! issued! an! order,! directing! the! City! Prosecutors! Office! to!
submit!additional!evidence!in!the!case!but!the!latter!office!asked!for!more!time!
to!comply.!
Meanwhile,!the!DOJ!issued!a!resolution!dismissing!respondents!Archie!and!Jan`Jans!
petition!for!review.!
!
After,!a!new!presiding!judge,!Judge!Globert!Justalero,!took!over!the!RTC,!he!issued!
an!order!granting!the!prosecutions!request!for!additional!time!!
the!prosecutors!office!filed!its!compliance!and!submitted!its!amended!resolution!in!
the!case.!
The! petitioners! assailed! this! amended! resolution! and! pointed! out! that! the! public!
prosecutor!did!not!submit!any!additional!evidence.!
!
Judge! Justalero! found# probable# cause! against! respondents! Archie! and! Jan`Jan! this!
time!and!ordered!the!issuance!of!warrants!for!their!arrest.!!!
Archie!and!Jan`Jan!filed!the!present!petition!for!certiorari!with!the!Court!of!Appeals!
(CA)!of!Cebu!City!
!
CA:!
granted!the!petition,!set!aside!the!RTC!order!of!April!23,!2007,!and!annulled!the!
warrants!of!arrest!that!Judge!Justalero!issued.!!!
dismissed!the!criminal!cases!against!the!respondents.!
The!public!prosecutor!filed!a!motion!for!reconsideration!of!the!CAs!decision.!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
Hence!this!petition.!
!
Issues:!
1.!WON!Judge!Justalero!gravely!abused!his!discretion!when!he!re`examined!the!case!finding!
no!probable!cause!despite!absence!of!new!evidence!
No.!Record!shows!that,!although!Judge!Aguilar,!the!former!presiding!judge,!found!no!
probable!cause!against!respondents!Archie!and!Jan`Jan,!he!did!not!altogether!close!
the!issue.!In!fact,!he!ignored!their!motion!to!dismiss!the!case!and!even!directed!the!
City! Prosecutors! Office! to! submit! additional! evidence.! After! Judge! Justalero! took!
over,! he! gave! the! prosecution! the! additional! time! it! asked! for! complying! with! the!
courts!order!and!the!latter!filed!its!compliance!together!with!its!amended!resolution!
in!the!case.!
Grave!abuse!of!discretion!implies!an!irrational!behavior.!!Surely,!this!cannot!be!said!
of! Judge! Justalero! who! re`examined! in! the! light! of! the! new! developments! what! in!
the!first!place!appeared!to!be!an!unsettled!position!taken!by!his!predecessor.!
The!new!judge!still!had!full!control!of!the!interlocutory!orders!that!his!predecessor!
had!issued!in!the!case,!including!the!order!finding!not!enough!evidence!to!justify!the!
issuance! of! warrants! of! arrest! against! them.! ! The! new! judge! could! reconsider! and!
recall! such! order! either! motu! propio! or! on! motion! when! the! circumstances!
warranted.!!!
!
2.!WON!Judge!Justalero!gravely!abused!his!discretion!when!he!made!a!finding!that!there!is!
probable!cause!to!warrant!the!arrest!of!Archie!and!Jan`Jan.#
No.# Probable# cause# assumes# the# existence# of# facts# that# would# lead# a# reasonably#
discreet#and#prudent#man#to#believe#that#a#crime#has#been#committed#and#that#it#
was#likely#committed#by#the#person#sought#to#be#arrested.#
It#requires#neither#absolute#certainty#nor#clear#and#convincing#evidence#of#guilt.!!#
The# test# for# issuing# a# warrant# of# arrest# is# less# stringent# than# that# used# for#
establishing#the#guilt#of#the#accused.##
As# long# as# the# evidence# shows# a# prima# facie# case# against# the# accused,# the# trial#
court#has#sufficient#ground#to#issue#a#warrant#for#his#arrest.!
Here,! admittedly,! the! evidence! against! respondents! Archie! and! Jan`Jan! is! merely!
circumstantial.!!!
The!prosecution!evidence!shows!that!they!had!motive!in!that!they!had!been!at!
odds!with!their!father!and!stepmother.!!!
They!had!opportunity!in!that!they!were!still!probably!home!when!the!crime!took!
place.!!Archie!took!two!pairs!of!new!gloves!from!his!car!late!that!evening.!!!
Cindy!was!apparently!executed!inside!Archies!room.!!The!separate!rooms!of!the!
two! accused! had,! quite! curiously,! been! wiped! clean! even! of! their! own!
fingerprints.!!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
A!trial,!unlike!preliminary!investigations,!could!yield!more!evidence!favorable!to!
either!side!after!the!interrogations!of!the!witnesses!either!on!direct!examination!
or!on!cross`examination.!!!
What! is! important! is! that! there! is! some! rational! basis! for! going! ahead! with!
judicial!inquiry!into!the!case.!!!!
This! Court! does! not! subscribe! to! the! CAs! position! that! the! prosecution! had!
nothing!to!go!on!with.#
#
#
Facts:!
Francisco!Bobby!Tan!(Bobby),!businessman!
lived! with! his! family! and! a! big! household! in! a! compound! on! M.H.! del! Pilar! St.,!
Molo,!Iloilo!City.!!!
His!immediate!family:!!
Cynthia!Cindy!Marie!(wife)!
Raffy,!Kristine,!Katrina,!Karen,!Katherine,!and!Kathleen!(children)!
Respondents!Archie!and!Jan!Michael!(Bobby's!illegitimate!sons)!were!treated!
as!stepsons!by!Cindy!!
others!in!Bobbys!house:!!
Conchita!Tan!(aunt),!!
Shirley!Young!(cousin)!!
Sheryl!(Shirleys!daughter)!!
eight!servants!!
Vini!Gulmatico!(former!family!security!guard!)!
Mike!Zayco!(frequent!guest)!!
Cindys!brother,!and!his!sidekick!Miguel!Sola!
!
Jan.!8,!2006,!6!pm!!Bobby!and!Raffy!left!the!house!for!a!cockfight!
Archie! drove! the! family! to! mass! and! after,! they! went! home! for! dinner.! They! were!
joined! by! Conchita,! Shirley! and! Sheryl.! Around! 7:45,! Bobby! and! Raffy! returned! not!
joining! for! dinner! as! they! already! ate! somewhere.! Bobby! went! straight! to! the!
master's!bedroom.!
!
After!dinner,!all!the!members!of!the!family!went!to!their!respective!rooms.!!
Cindy!joined!her!husband!with!Katherine,!and!her!nanny.!!!
Katrina,!one!of!the!daughters,!went!to!the!girls!bedroom!to!study.!!!
Sheryl! went! to! the! masters! bedroom! at! around! 8:10! p.m.! to! let! Cindy! try! the!
new!pair!of!jeans!given!to!her!by!another!cousin.!!!
Sheryl!left!afterwards!to!go!to!her!bedroom.!
!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
8:35! pm,! ! Borj,! a! blind! masseur,! and! an! escort! arrived! at! the! house! for! Bobbys!
massage!in!his!room!
8:55!p.m.,!Emelita!Giray,!the!regular!masseuse!of!Shirley!and!Sheryl,!arrived!with!her!
husband.!
!!
9:30! p.m.,! Kristine,! went! to! her! parents! room! to! get! a! bottle! of! shampoo! and! say!
goodnight.!
Borj! and! his! escort! left! Bobbys! residence! at! around! 9:53! p.m.,! followed! about! an!
hour!later!by!Emelita!and!her!husband.!
!
10:30! p.m.,! Cindys! stepson,! respondent! Archie,! went! to! the! garage! and! took! two!
pairs!of!gloves,!still!wrapped!in!plastic,!from!his!car.!!Archie!also!picked!up!a!pack!of!
cigarettes!that!he!left!earlier!with!their!security!guard,!Ramel!Lobreza,!before!going!
back!upstairs.!
!
10:45! p.m.,! Archie! and! Jan`Jan! joined! Raffy,! and! their! driver! Julito! Geronda! in!
watching! a! DVD! movie! on! Raffys! laptop! at! the! carport.! ! Jan`Jan! went! back! to! his!
room!at!around!11:00!p.m.!but!Archie!remained!to!finish!his!cigarette.!!He,!too,!left!
afterwards!for!his!room!to!change.!!By!11:55!p.m.!Raffy!turned!off!the!video.!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
12:17! a.m.,! while! security! guard! Lobreza! was! making! his! inspection! rounds! of! the!
compound,!he!noticed!that!the!lights!were!still!on!in!the!rooms!of!Archie!and!Jan`
Jan.!!!
!
According#to#respondents#Archie#and#JanRJan,!they!climbed!down!the!high!concrete!
fence!of!the!compound!at!about!12:45!a.m!to!go!out.!!They!took!a!cab!to!Calzada!
Bar,!Camp!Jefferson!Club,!and!Caltex!Starmart.!They!returned!home!at!around!3:30!
a.m.!!!
!
Jan`Jan!entered!the!house!ahead!of!his!brother.!!On!reaching!the!door!of!his!room!at!
the! end! of! the! hallway,! he! noticed! his! stepsister! Katherine,! the! second! to! the!
youngest,!lying!on!the!floor!near!the!masters!bedroom.!!As!Jan`Jan!switched!on!the!
light!in!his!room,!he!beheld!her!lying!on!a!pool!of!blood.!!He!quickly!stepped!into!the!
masters!bedroom!and!there!saw!his!father,!Bobby,!lying!on!the!bed!with!his!chest!
drenched!in!blood.!
!
Archie!came!into!the!house!after!Jan`Jan!and!noticed!that!the!door!of!his!room!was!
partly!open.!!As!he!went!in,!he!saw!his!stepmother!Cindy,!lying!in!her!blood!near!the!
wall! below! the! air! conditioner.! ! He! then! heard! Jan`Jan! shouting! to! him! that! their!
father!was!dead.!!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
!
Archie! immediately! called! Lobreza! while! his! brother! Jan`Jan! went! around! and!
awakened!the!rest!of!the!family.!!Because!Lobreza!did!not!respond!to!shouts,!Archie!
ran!to!his!room!to!rouse!him!up.!!He!told!him!what!he!discovered!then!awakened!
the!other!house`helpers.!
!
Archie!phoned!police!officer!Nelson!Alacre,!and!requested!him!to!come!immediately.!!
Officer!Alacre!arrived!after!a!few!minutes!with!some!other!officers.!!They!questioned!
Archie! and! Jan`Jan! and! took! urine! samples! from! them.! ! The! tests! showed! them!
negative!for!illegal!drug!use.!
!
4:20!a.m.,!Officer!Alacre!rode!with!Archie!on!his!Toyota!Rav4!and!they!drove!to!the!
house!of!Col.!John!Tarrosa,!a!family!friend.!!They!then!went!to!the!house!of!Manolo!
Natal,! Bobbys! cockfight! llamador,! to! pick! him! up! before! driving! back! to! Bobbys!
residence.! ! Meanwhile,! on! hearing! about! the! crime,! the! Criminal! Investigation! and!
Detection!Group!(CIDG)!Regional!Chief!directed!his!own!men!to!investigate!the!crime!
scene.!
!
January!11,!2006,!the!remains!of!the!victims!were!brought!home!for!the!wake,!Atty.!
Leonardo!E.!Jiz!supposedly!asked!respondents!Archie!and!Jan`Jan,!Cindys!stepsons,!
to!sign!a!statement!that!the!police!prepared.!!!
The!lawyer!did!not!let!them!read!the!document!or!explain!to!them!its!contents.!!!
They!signed!it!on!Atty.!Jizs!assurance!that!they!would!have!the!chance!to!read!
the! statement! later! at! the! public! prosecutors! office! and! correct! any! mistakes!
before!swearing!to!the!same.!!#
The# complainants# did# not# present# this# statement# during# the# preliminary#
investigation#nor#did#Archie#and#JanRJan#swear#to#it#before#a#public#prosecutor#
#
January!13,!2006,!CIDG!submitted!their!investigation!report!to!the!City!Prosecutors!
Office!of!Iloilo!City.!!!
pointed! to! Archie! and! Jan`Jan! as! principal! suspects! in! the! brutal! killing! of! their!
parents!and!a!young!stepsister.!
January!18,!2006!police!officer!Eldy!Bebit!of!the!CIDG!filed!a!complaint`affidavit!with!
the! City! Prosecutors! Office,! accusing! the! two! brothers! of! parricide! and! double!
murder.!
!
September!29,!2006!the!City!Prosecutors!Office!filed!separate!informations#for#two#
murders# and# parricide!against!respondents!Archie!and!Jan`Jan!before!the!Regional!
Trial!Court!(RTC)!of!Iloilo!City!
!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
October! 3,! 2006! Archie! and! Jan`Jan! filed# a# motion# for# judicial# determination# of#
probable#cause#with#a#prayer#to#suspend#the#issuance#of#warrants#of#arrest#against!
them!in!the!meantime!and!asked!the!RTC!to!defer#further#proceedings#in#order#to#
give# them# the# opportunity# to# question# the# public# prosecutors# resolution# in# the#
case#before#the#Secretary#of#Justice.!
!
RTC,!directing!the!prosecution!to!correct!certain!deficiencies!in!its!evidence!against!
respondents.!!!
City! Prosecutor! of! Iloilo! City! filed! a! manifestation,! informing! the! RTC! of! his! partial!
compliance!with!its!order.!!He!also!filed!an!urgent!ex!parte!motion!for!clarificatory!
exception.!
!
Rosalinda! Garcia`Zayco,! Cindys! mother! and! court`appointed! guardian! ad! litem! of!
her! minor! grandchildren,! opposed! respondents! Archie! and! Jan`Jans! petition! for!
review!before!the!Department!of!Justice!(DOJ).!
She!pointed!out!that!the!two!had!sufficient!motive!to!commit!the!crimes!!!
They! openly! showed! disrespect! towards! their! father,! Bobby! and! constantly!
had!heated!arguments!with!him.!!!
They! also! nurtured! ill! feelings! and! resentment! towards! Cindy,! their!
stepmother,!they!being!illegitimate!children.!!!
They! never! accepted! the! fact! that! Bobby! married! Cindy! rather! than! their!
mother.!!The!National!Bureau!of!Investigation!report!classified!the!crimes!as!
motivated!by!hatred.!
!
Cindys!mother!made!capital!of!the!absence!of!Archies!and!Jan`Jans!fingerprints!in!
any!part!of!their!own!rooms,!particularly!the!light!switches!and!the!doorknobs.!!She!
cited!the!Investigating!Prosecutors!theory!that!either!of!the!accused!used!the!wet!
red!shirt!hanging!in!Jan`Jans!bathroom!to!erase!all!fingerprints!at!the!crime!scene,!
something!that!forensic!science!can!justify.!
!
9!days!after!the!victims!burial,!respondent!Archie!filed!a!petition!for!the!settlement!
of!Bobby!and!Cindys!estate,!nominating!Conchita!as!administratrix!of!the!estate.!He!
filed! an! ex! parte! motion! for! her! appointment! as! special! administrator! for! the!
meantime!without!consulting!his!half`siblings.!!The!estate!court!granted!the!motion.!!
Archie!reportedly!continued!with!his!nightly!bar!hopping!even!during!the!wake!of!his!
father.!
!
Archie! and! Jan`Jans! defense! is! alibi.! ! They! claimed! that! they! were! away! when! the!
crimes! took! place! at! the! house.! ! Based! on! Dr.! Lebaquins! forensic! computation,!
however,!the!victims!probably!died!at!about!midnight,!more!or!less.!!The!two!were!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
still!at!home!when!the!killings!happened.!
!
RTC:!
found!no!probable!cause!against!respondents!Archie!and!Jan`Jan.!!
granted!their!motion!to!suspend!the!issuance!of!warrants!for!their!arrest!and!to!
defer!the!proceedings.!
The!two!respondents!then!filed!a!motion!to!dismiss!the!case.!
After! a! few! months,! issued! an! order,! directing! the! City! Prosecutors! Office! to!
submit!additional!evidence!in!the!case!but!the!latter!office!asked!for!more!time!
to!comply.!
Meanwhile,!the!DOJ!issued!a!resolution!dismissing!respondents!Archie!and!Jan`Jans!
petition!for!review.!
!
After!a!new!presiding!judge,!Judge!Globert!Justalero,!took!over!the!RTC,!he!issued!an!
order!granting!the!prosecutions!request!for!additional!time!!
the!prosecutors!office!filed!its!compliance!and!submitted!its!amended!resolution!in!
the!case.!
The! petitioners! assailed! this! amended! resolution! and! pointed! out! that! the! public!
prosecutor!did!not!submit!any!additional!evidence.!
!
Judge! Justalero! found! probable! cause! against! respondents! Archie! and! Jan`Jan! this!
time!and!ordered!the!issuance!of!warrants!for!their!arrest.!!!
Archie!and!Jan`Jan!filed!the!present!petition!for!certiorari!with!the!Court!of!Appeals!
(CA)!of!Cebu!City!
!
CA:!
granted!the!petition,!set!aside!the!RTC!order!of!April!23,!2007,!and!annulled!the!
warrants!of!arrest!that!Judge!Justalero!issued.!!!
dismissed!the!criminal!cases!against!the!respondents.!
!
The!public!prosecutor!filed!a!motion!for!reconsideration!of!the!CAs!decision.!!
Hence!this!petition.!
!
Issue:!
1. Whether!or!not!the!CA!committed!error!in!ruling!that!Judge!Justalero!gravely!abused!
his! discretion! when! he! re`examined! his! predecessors! previous! finding! that! no!
probable!cause!existed!against!respondents!Archie!and!Jan`Jan!despite!the!absence!
of!new!evidence!in!the!case;!NOPE!
2. Whether!or!not!the!CA!committed!error!in!ruling!that!Judge!Justalero!gravely!abused!
his!discretion!when!he!made!a!finding!that!there!is!probable!cause!to!issue!a!warrant!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
for!the!arrest!of!the!two.!NOPE!
!
Held:!WHEREFORE,!the!Court!REVERSES!and!SETS!ASIDE!the!Court!of!Appeals!decision!and!
resolution!and!AFFIRMS!and!REINSTATES!the!Regional!Trial!Courts!order!(finding!probable!
cause!and!issuance!of!warrants!or!arrest)!
!
1. WON& Judge& Justalero& gravely& abused& his& discretion& when& he& reKexamined& the& case&
finding&no&probable&cause&despite&absence&of&new&evidence!
!
The! CA! pointed! out! that! since! the! prosecution! did! not! submit! additional! evidence!
before!the!RTC,!Judge!Justalero!gravely!abused!his!discretion!when!he!re`examined!
and!reversed!his!predecessors!finding!of!lack!of!probable!cause!against!respondents!
Archie!and!Jan`Jan.!
!
But!the!record!shows!that,!although!Judge!Aguilar,!the!former!presiding!judge,!found!
no! probable! cause! against! respondents! Archie! and! Jan`Jan,! he! did! not! altogether!
close!the!issue.!!!
In! fact,! he! ignored! their! motion! to! dismiss! the! case! and! even! directed! the! City!
Prosecutors!Office!to!submit!additional!evidence.!!!
This!indicates!that!he!still!had!doubts!about!his!finding.!!!
Meanwhile,! the! DOJ,! looking! at! the! evidence,! affirmed! the! City! Prosecutors!
decision!to!file!charges!against!Archie!and!Jan`Jan.!!!
After! Judge! Justalero! took! over,! he! gave! the! prosecution! the! additional! time! it!
asked!for!complying!with!the!courts!order.!!!
On!April!2,!2007!the!prosecution!filed!its!compliance!together!with!its!amended!
resolution!in!the!case.!!!
!
Actually,!therefore,!two!new!developments!were!before!Judge!Justalero:!!
first,! the! DOJs! denial! of! the! appeal! of! the! two! accused! and! its! finding! that!
probable!cause!existed!against!them!!!
second,! the! local! prosecutors! submittal,! if! not! of! some! new! evidence,! of!
additional!arguments!respecting!the!issue!of!probable!cause.!!!
!
Grave!abuse!of!discretion!implies!an!irrational!behavior.!!Surely,!this!cannot!be!said!
of! Judge! Justalero! who! re`examined! in! the! light! of! the! new! developments! what! in!
the!first!place!appeared!to!be!an!unsettled!position!taken!by!his!predecessor.!
!
What! is! more,! the! previous! judge! did! not! yet! act! on! respondents! Archie! and! Jan`
Jans!motion!to!dismiss!the!criminal!case!against!them.!!Consequently,!the!new!judge!
still!had!full!control!of!the!interlocutory!orders!that!his!predecessor!had!issued!in!the!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
case,! including! the! order! finding! not! enough! evidence! to! justify! the! issuance! of!
warrants! of! arrest! against! them.! ! The! new! judge! could! reconsider! and! recall! such!
order!either!motu!propio!or!on!motion!when!the!circumstances!warranted.!!!
!!
2.!WON&Judge&Justalero&gravely&abused&his&discretion&when&he&made&a&finding&that&there&is&
probable&cause&to&warrant&the&arrest&of&Archie&and&JanKJan.&!
!#
Probable# cause# assumes# the# existence# of# facts# that# would# lead# a# reasonably#
discreet#and#prudent#man#to#believe#that#a#crime#has#been#committed#and#that#it#
was#likely#committed#by#the#person#sought#to#be#arrested.###
It#requires#neither#absolute#certainty#nor#clear#and#convincing#evidence#of#guilt.!!#
The# test# for# issuing# a# warrant# of# arrest# is# less# stringent# than# that# used# for#
establishing#the#guilt#of#the#accused.##
As# long# as# the# evidence# shows# a# prima# facie# case# against# the# accused,# the# trial#
court#has#sufficient#ground#to#issue#a#warrant#for#his#arrest.#
#
Here,! admittedly,! the! evidence! against! respondents! Archie! and! Jan`Jan! is! merely!
circumstantial.!!!
The!prosecution!evidence!shows!that!they!had!motive!in!that!they!had!been!at!
odds!with!their!father!and!stepmother.!!!
They!had!opportunity!in!that!they!were!still!probably!home!when!the!crime!took!
place.!!Archie!took!two!pairs!of!new!gloves!from!his!car!late!that!evening.!!!
Cindy!was!apparently!executed!inside!Archies!room.!!The!separate!rooms!of!the!
two! accused! had,! quite! curiously,! been! wiped! clean! even! of! their! own!
fingerprints.!!!
A!trial,!unlike!preliminary!investigations,!could!yield!more!evidence!favorable!to!
either!side!after!the!interrogations!of!the!witnesses!either!on!direct!examination!
or!on!cross`examination.!!!
What! is! important! is! that! there! is! some! rational! basis! for! going! ahead! with!
judicial!inquiry!into!the!case.!!!!
This! Court! does! not! subscribe! to! the! CAs! position! that! the! prosecution! had!
nothing!to!go!on!with.!
!
E.#Chua#v.#Ang#(this#digest#may#seem#long#but#its#not#really#because#they#just#made#a#lot#
of#enumerations#and#I#just#included#them,#so#its#short)##R#DONDON#
!
Emergency#Recit:#
Chua! (as! buyer)entered! into! a! contract! to! sell! a! condominium! unit! with! FEPI!
(developer).!!
3!years!passed!and!FEPI!failed!to!construct!and!deliver!the!condo!unit!to!Chua.!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
Chua! thus! filed! a! criminal! complaint! with! public! prosecutor! of! Pasig! (Ang)! alleging!
the!violation!of!FEPI!of!PD!No.!957!(for!not!completing!the!project).!
Prosecutor! Ang! dismissed! the! complaint! because! the! Housing! and! Land! Use!
Regulatory!Board!(HLURB)!has!jurisdiction.!!
Chua! filed! petition! with! SC! (directly)! alleging! that! Ang! committed! GADLEJ! in!
dismissing!the!complaint!!
ISSUE:!W/N!Ang!committed!GADLEJ!in!dismissing!
SC! said! that! this! case! falls! under! the! exception! when! petitioner! can! bypass! the!
hierarchy!of!the!courts!because:!!
o There!is!a!pure&question&of&law!involving!jurisdiction!over!criminal!complaints!
for!violation!of!P.D.!No.!957!
o Public! interest! and! welfare! are! involved! in! subdivision! and! condominium!
development!
o Considering!that!this!case!has!been!pending!for!nearly!seven!(7)!years!(since!
the!filing!of!the!Complaint`Affidavit!on!September!3,!2002),!the!interests!of!
justice! now! demand! the! direct! resolution! of! the! jurisdictional! issue! this!
proceeding!poses!
o Petition# is# meritorious.##The# public# respondents# committed# grave# abuse# of#
discretion#in#dismissing#the#criminal#complaints#
Violations!of!PD!No.!957!give!way!to!2!remedies:!administrative!action!(HLURB)!and!
criminal!action!!
The! law! is! silent! on! the! procedure! for! the! criminal! action! and! therefore! it!
automatically! falls! under! the! Rules! of! Court! !! Sec! 2! of! Rule! 112! will! apply! in! that!
preliminary!investigation!will!be!done!by!the!public!prosecutor!!
Prosecutor!was!wrong!in!saying!that!prior!administrative!determination!is!necessary!
before!criminal!action.!Such!is!only!the!case!when!the!law!explicitly!says!so.!General!
rule:!admin!cases!are!independent!of!criminal!cases!
HELD:!Yes,!there!was!GADLEJ!
Final!note!in!case!he!asks:!This!case!should!not!set!precedent!(see&super&last&part&of&
ratio&below)!
!
BRION,!J.:!
!
FACTS:!
Feb.!11,!1999!!Leonardo!and!Milagros!Chua!(as!buyers)!entered!into!a!contract!to!
sell!a!Condominium!unit!with!Fil`Estate!Properties!Inc.!(FEPI,!as!developers)!
3!years!after,!FEPI!still!failed!to!construct!and!deliver!the!unit!to!Chuas!
Chua!filed!a!complaint`affidavit!to!City!Prosecutor!of!Pasig!accusing!FEPI!of!violation!
of!PD!N.!957!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
1) Violated! Section! 17! by! not! registering! the! contract! to! sell! in! the! Register! of!
Deeds!
2) Violated!Section!20!by!not!completing!the!unit!on!time,!within!one!year!from!
the! date! of! the! issuance! of! the! license! for! the! subdivision! or! condominium!
project!or!such!other!period!of!time!as!may!be!fixed!by!the!Authority!
Private!Respondent!Alice!Odchique`Bondoc!filed!a!Counter`Affidavit.!!
1) She!countered!that!the!City!Prosecutor!has!no!jurisdiction!over!the!case!since!
it! falls! under! the! exclusive! jurisdiction! of! the!Housing! and! Land! Use!
Regulatory!Board!(HLURB).!
!
Nov.!4,!2002!`!Assistant!City!Prosecutor!Dennis!R.!Pastrana!and!Pasig!City!Prosecutor!Jacinto!
G.!Ang!(public&respondents)!dismissed!the!complaint!for!being!premature!!
Basis:!the!HLURB!has!jurisdiction!to!conduct!the!preliminary!investigation!!
!
December!12,!2002!!Chua!filed!petition!alleging!that!Prosecutor!Ang!committed!GADLEJ!in!
dismissing!their!complaint!!
!
Chua!argues:!
Jurisdiction! to! entertain! criminal! complaints! is! lodged! with! the! city! prosecutor! and!
that!the!jurisdiction!of!the!HLURB!under!P.D.!No.!957!is!limited!to!the!enforcement!
of!contractual!rights,!not!the!investigation!of!criminal!complaints!
!
FEPI!argues:!!
petition!should!be!dismissed!outright!because!the!petitioners!failed!to!avail!of!other!
remedies!provided!by!law!
such!as!(a)!the!filing!of!a!motion!for!reconsideration!with!the!City!Prosecutor!of!Pasig!
City,!(b)!the!filing!of!a!petition!for!review!with!the!Secretary!of!the!Department!of!
Justice!(DOJ),!(c)!the!filing!of!a!motion!for!reconsideration!of!any!judgment!rendered!
by!the!DOJ,!or!(d)!the!filing!of!an!appeal!or!a!petition!for!certiorari!with!the!Court!of!
Appeals!(CA);!!
that! even! if!certiorari!is! a! proper! remedy,! the! petition! was! filed! in! violation! of! the!
hierarchy!of!courts;!!
and! that! even! on! the! merits,! the! petition! must! fail! since! the! public! respondents!
correctly! dismissed! the! complaint! as! a! reasonable! interpretation! of! P.D.! No.! 957!
which!requires!a!prior!determination!by!the!HLURB!that!a!corporation!violated!P.D.!
No.!957!before!criminal!charges!may!be!filed!against!its!corporate!officers!
!
ISSUE:! W/N! prosecutors! committed! GADLEJ! in! dismissing! the! criminal! complaint! for!
violation!of!PD!No.!957!
HELD:!Yes!they!committed!GADLEJ!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
!
RATIO!
!
Note:!!
Chua!indeed!filed!the!present!petition!for!certiorari!without!prior!recourse!to!other!
available!remedies!provided!by!law!and!the!observance!of!the!judicial!hierarchy!of!
courts.!!
However,! there! are! exceptions! wherein! this! is! permitted! in! order! to! achieve! a! fair!
and!speedy!disposition!of!justice!!
!
!A!prior!motion!for!reconsideration!is!unnecessary!(jurisprudence):!!
a) Where!the!order!is!a!patent!nullity,!as!where!the!court!a&quo!has!no!jurisdiction;!!
b) Where!the!questions!raised!in!the!certiorari!proceedings!have!been!duly!raised!and!
passed!upon!by!the!lower!court,!or!are!the!same!as!those!raised!and!passed!upon!in!
the!lower!court!
c) Where# there# is# an# urgent# necessity# for# the# resolution# of# the# question# and# any#
further#delay#would#prejudice#the#interests#of#the#Government#or#of#the#petitioner!
d) Where,!under!the!circumstances,!a!motion!for!reconsideration!would!be!useless!
e) Where!petitioner!was!deprived!of!due!process!and!there#is#an#extreme#urgency#for#
relief!
f) Where,! in! a! criminal! case,! relief! from! an! order! of! arrest! is! urgent! and! the! grant! of!
such!relief!by!the!trial!court!is!improbable!
g) Where!the!proceedings!in!the!lower!court!are!a!nullity!for!lack!of!due!process!
h) Where!the!proceedings!were!ex&parte!or!in!which!the!petitioner!had!no!opportunity!
to!object!
i) Where#the#issue#raised#is#one#purely#of#law#or#where#public#interest#is#involved!
!
Prior!exhaustion!of!administrative!remedies!may!be!dispensed!with!and!judicial!action!may!
be!validly!resorted!to!immediately!(jurisprudence):!!
a) when!there!is!a!violation!of!due!process;!!
b) when#the#issue#involved#is#purely#a#legal#question!
c) when! the! administrative! action! is! patently! illegal! amounting! to! lack! or! excess! of!
jurisdiction!!
d) when!there!is!estoppel!on!the!part!of!the!administrative!agency!concerned!
e) when!there!is!irreparable!injury!
f) when! the! respondent! is! a! department! secretary! whose! acts! as! an! alter! ego! of! the!
President!bear!the!implied!and!assumed!approval!of!the!latter!
g) when#to#require#exhaustion#of#administrative#remedies#would#be#unreasonable!
h) when!it!would!amount!to!a!nullification!of!a!claim!
i) when!the!subject!matter!is!a!private!land!in!land!case!proceedings!
j) when!the!rule!does!not!provide!a!plain,!speedy!and!adequate!remedy!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
k) when#there#are#circumstances#indicating#the#urgency#of#judicial#intervention!
!
Note:!!
On! the! non`observance! of! the! principle! of! hierarchy! of! courts,! it! must! be!
remembered! that! this! rule! generally! applies! to! cases! involving! conflicting! factual!
allegations.!!
Cases!which!depend!on!disputed!facts!for!decision!cannot!be!brought!immediately!
before!us!as!we!are!not!triers!of!facts!
!
In!the!present!petition!for!certiorari,!we!find!that!there!are!four!(4)!compelling!reasons!to!
allow!the!petitioners'!invocation!of!our!jurisdiction!in!the!first!instance,!even!without!prior!
recourse!to!a!motion!for!reconsideration!or!to!the!exhaustion!of!administrative!remedies,!
and!even!in!disregard!of!the!principle!of!hierarchy!of!courts!
1) There! is! a!pure& question& of& law!involving! jurisdiction! over! criminal! complaints! for!
violation!of!P.D.!No.!957!
2) The! present! case! requires! prompt! action!because! public! interest! and! welfare! are!
involved!in!subdivision!and!condominium!development!
3) Considering! that! this! case! has! been! pending! for! nearly! seven! (7)! years! (since! the!
filing!of!the!Complaint`Affidavit!on!September!3,!2002)!to!the!prejudice!not!only!of!
the!parties!involved,!but!also!of!the!subdivision!and!condominium!regulatory!system!
and!its!need!for!the!prompt!determination!of!controversies,!the!interests!of!justice!
now!demand!the!direct!resolution!of!the!jurisdictional!issue!this!proceeding!poses!
4) Petition# is# meritorious.##The# public# respondents# committed# grave# abuse# of#
discretion#in#dismissing#the#criminal#complaints#
!
PD!No.!1344!clarifies!the!quasi`judicial!dimensions!of!the!jurisdiction!of!the!HLURB!
Generally:!empowered!to!interpret!and!apply!contracts,!and!determine!the!rights!of!
private!parties!under!these!contracts!
Nothing! in! P.D.! No.! 957! vests! the! HLURB! with! jurisdiction! to! impose! the! Section!
39!criminal!penalties.!!!
What! the! Decree! provides! is! the! authority! of! the! HLURB! to! impose!administrative&
fines!under!Section!38,!as!implemented!by!the!Rules!Implementing!the!Subdivision!
and!Condominium!Buyers!Protective!Decree!
!
Rules!Implementing!the!Subdivision!and!Condominium!Buyers!Protective!Decree!expressly!
acknowledge!that!two!separate!remedies!with!differing!consequences!may!be!sought!under!
the!Decree,!specifically,!the!
Administrative!remedy!and!!
Criminal#prosecution#
!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
Unless! the! contrary! appears! under! other! provisions! of! law! (and! in! this! case! no! such!
provision!applies),!the!determination!of!the!criminal!liability!lies!within!the!realm!of!criminal!
procedure!as!embodied!in!the!Rules!of!Court.!!!
!
Section#2,#Rule#112!of!these!Rules!provide!that!the!prerogative!to!determine!the!existence!
or!non`existence!of!probable!cause!lies!with!the!persons!duly!authorized!by!law;!as!provided!
in!this!Rule,!they!are!(a)!Provincial!or!City!Prosecutors!and!their!assistants;!(b)!Judges!of!the!
Municipal! Trial! Courts! and! Municipal! Circuit! Trial! Courts;! (c)! National! and! Regional! State!
Prosecutors;!and!(d)!other!officers!as!may!be!authorized!by!law.!
!
In! the! present! case,! the! petitioners! have! expressly! chosen! to! pursue! the! criminal!
prosecution!as!their!remedy!but!the!prosecutor!dismissed!their!complaint.!!
!
Prosecutors&mistake:&
The! prosecutors! dismissal! for! prematurity! was! apparently! on! the! view! that! an!
administrative! finding! of! violation! must! first! be! obtained! before! recourse! can! be! made! to!
criminal!prosecution.!!!
This!view!is!not!without!its!model!in!other!laws;!one!such!law!is!in!the!prosecution!of!unfair!
labor!practice!under!the!Labor!Code!where!no!criminal!prosecution!for!unfair!labor!practice!
can!be!instituted!without!a!final!judgment!in!a!previous!administrative!proceeding.!!
The!need!for!a!final!administrative!determination!in!unfair!labor!practice!cases,!however,!is!
a!matter!expressly!required!by!law.!!!
Where! the! law! is! silent! on! this! matter,! as! in! this! case,! the! fundamental! principle! ! that!
administrative! cases! are! independent! from! criminal! actions!! fully! applies,! subject! only! to!
the!rules!on!forum!shopping!under!Section!5,!Rule!7!of!the!Rules!of!Court!
!
Thus,! we! see! no! bar! to! their! immediate! recourse! to! criminal! prosecution! by! filing! the!
appropriate!complaint!before!the!prosecutors!office.!
In!light!of!these!legal!realities,!we!hold!that!the!public!respondent!prosecutors!committed!
GADLEJ!in!dismissing!
!
FINAL!NOTE:!
As!a!final!word,!we!stress!that!the!immediate&recourse&to&this&Court!that!this!Decision!allows!
should!NOT!serve!as!a!precedent!in!other!cases!where!the!prosecutor!dismisses!a!criminal!
complaint,!whether!under!P.D.!No.!957!or!any!other!law.!!
Recourse!to!(a)!the!filing!a!motion!for!reconsideration!with!the!City!or!Provincial!Prosecutor,!
(b)!the!filing!a!petition!for!review!with!the!Secretary!of!the!DOJ,!(c)!the!filing!a!motion!for!
reconsideration!of!any!judgment!rendered!by!the!DOJ,!and!(d)!intermediate!recourse!to!the!
CA,! are! remedies! that! the! dictates! of! orderly! procedure! and! the! hierarchy! of! authorities!
cannot!dispense!with.!!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
Only!the!extremely!peculiar!circumstances!of!the!present!case!compelled!us!to!rule!as!we!
did;!thus!our!ruling!in!this!regard!is!a!rare!one!that!should!be!considered!pro&hac&vice.!
!
!
!
!
F.#Dela#Cruz#v#Sandiganbayan##Karl##
ER:!
` A! complaint! was! filed! against! Dela! Cruz! et! al! with! regards! the! construction! of!
barangay!chapels!in!the!city!of!Tarlac.!
` Initially,! it! was! dismissed! by! the! Ombudsman.! However,! upon! the! review! of! the!
OCLC,!an!information!was!filed!with!the!Sandiganbayan.!
` Prosecution!filed!for!the!suspension!pendete!lite!of!Dela!Cruz!et!al.!The!latter!filed!
for! a! petition! for! certiorari! against! the! Ombudsman! for! filing! the! information! and!
upholding!the!validity!of!the!same!despite!of!the!violation!of!the!right!of!the!accused!
to!due!process!and!lack!f!probable!cause.!
` WON!the!accused!can!be!suspended!pendete!lite!
` It! becomes! mandatory! for! the! court! to! immediately! issue! the! suspension! order! upon! a!
proper!determination!of!the!validity!of!the!information.!!The!court!possesses!no!discretion!
to!determine!whether!a!preventive!suspension!is!necessary!to!forestall!the!possibility!that!
the! accused! may! use! his! office! to! intimidate! witnesses,! or! frustrate! his! prosecution,! or!
continue! committing! malfeasance.! ! The! presumption! is! that! unless! the! accused! is!
suspended,!he!may!frustrate!his!prosecution!or!commit!further!acts!of!malfeasance!or!do!
both.!
FACTS:!
Petition!for!certiorari!and!prohibition!against!the!Sandiganbayans!resolution!ordering!Lynn!
Paz! Dela! Cruzs! (amongst! others)! suspension! pendete! lite! and! a! subsequent! resolution!
denying!her!motion!for!reconsideration.!
` Criminal! complaint! arose! from! the! construction! and/or! renovation! project!
involving!several!multi`purpose!halls!in!various!barangays!in!Tarlac.!
` Upon! post`audit,! the! Provincial! Auditor! of! the! COA! issued! a! notice! of!
disallowance!on!the!ground!that!there!were!constructed!and/or!renovated!were!
barangay!chapels!in!violation!of!Sec.!29!Art!VI!of!the!Constitution!and!Sec.!335!of!
the!Local!Government!Code!prohibiting!expenditure!for!religious!purposes.!
` Private! respondents! Jesus! David! and! Ana! Aguas! filed! a! complaint! with! the!
Ombudsman! in! connection! with! the! approval! and! implementation! of! the!
aforesaid!projects!against!several!local!officials!of!Tarlac!in!violation!of!the!Anti`
Graft!and!Corrupt!Practices!Act.!
o Gelacio!R.!Manalang`!Mayor!!
o Alfredo!D.!Baquing`!Engineer!
o Nathaniel!B.!Lugtu`!Accountant!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
o Lynn!Paz!T.!Dela!Cruz`!Assistant!Accountant!
o Fernando!L.!Serrano`!Budget!Officer!
o Janet!S.!Pineda`!Planning!&!Development!Officer!
` Ombudsman! dismissed! the! complaint! for! insufficiency! of! evidence! and!
prematurity.!
` David!and!Aguas!filed!a!motion!for!reconsideration.!
o !Ombudsman! referred! the! case! to! the! Office! of! the! Chief! Legal! Counsel!
(OCLC)! for! review! and! recommendation.! OCLC! recommended! that! an!
information!be!filed!against!the!Sandiganbayan!against!the!local!officials!
for!possible!violation!of!the!Anti`Graft!and!Corrupt!Practices!Act!
o Acted!upon!favourably!by!the!Ombudsman!!issued!an!Order!directing!the!
Office!of!the!Special!Prosecutor!to!file!the!necessary!information!with!the!
Sandiganbayan.!
` The!accused!filed!separate!motions!to!quash!the!information!and/or!to!dismiss!
the!case.!
o Sandiganbayan! issued! a! resolution! denying! all! aforesaid! motions! and!
upheld!the!validity!of!the!information.!
o Accused! moved! for! a! reconsideration! which! was! also! denied! by! the!
Sandiganbayan.!
` Accused! were! arraigned! and! pleaded! not! guilty.! Prosecution! moved! for! the!
suspension!of!the!accused!pendete!lite.!
` !Accused!filed!a!petition!for!certiorari!ascribing!grave!abuse!of!discretion!on!the!
Ombudsman! for! filing! the! information! and! upholding! the! validity! of! the! same!
despite! of! the! violation! of! the! right! of! the! accused! to! due! process! and! lack! f!
probable!cause.!
` Ruling! of! Sandiganbayan:! granted! preventive! suspension! of! the! accused! for! a!
period!of!90!days.!It!ruled!on!the!validity!of!the!information.!!
o Preventive! suspension! became! mandatory.! As! such,! accused! filed! for! a!
motion!for!reconsideration!which!was!denied!by!the!Sandiganbayan.!
` Dela!Cruz!et!al!filed!this!petition!for!certiorari!and!prohibition!under!Rule!65!of!
the!Rules!of!Court.!
ISSUE:!
WON! the! subject! criminal! case! was! prematurely! instituted! considering! the! pendency! of!
petitioners!appeals!before!the!COA!En&Banc!
WON!the!Ombudsman!may!still!reconsider!his!Resolution!dated!July!13,!1999,!dismissing!
the!complaint,!after!the!same!has!already!become!final!and!executor.!
WON!the!subject!information!is!fatally!defective.!
WON!on!the!basis!of!the!admitted!or!undisputed!facts,!there!is!probable!cause!to!prosecute!
petitioners!and!their!co`accused!for!violation!of!Section!3(e)!of!RA!No.!3019.!
RATIO:!
Petitioners!Arguments!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
` Dela!Cruz!et!al!claim!that!they!have!been!exonerated!by!the!COA!En&Banc,!thus,!there!is!
no! more! basis! to! prosecute! them! for! violation! of! the! anti`graft! law.! The! filing! of! the!
subject!criminal!case!against!them!was!based!on!the!results!of!a!post`audit!showing!the!
alleged!illegal!disbursement!of!public!funds!for!religious!purposes.!!
o Lugtu,! Dela! Cruz! and! Serrano! were! exonerated! by! the! COA! En& Banc! on! the!
common!ground!that!as!Accountant,!Assistant!Accountant!and!Budget!Officer,!
respectively,!they!did!not!take!part!in!the!review!of!the!plans!and!specifications!
as! well! as! in! the! implementation,! prosecution! and! supervision! of! the! subject!
construction!and/or!renovation!project.!Thus,!with!more!reason!subject!criminal!
case! should! be! dismissed! in! order! to! save! petitioners! from! an! expensive! and!
vexatious!trial.!
` Dela!Cruz!et!al!contend!that!the!subject!information!is!fatally!defective!because!of!the!
irregularities!and!due!process!violations!committed!during!the!preliminary!investigation!
of! this! case.! ! The! Ombudsman! acted! without! jurisdiction! when! he! reversed! his!
Resolution,!which!dismissed!the!criminal!complaint,!considering!that!this!resolution!had!
long!become!final!and!executory.!!Assuming!that!private!complainants!timely!moved!for!
reconsideration,!the!same!was!defective!for!failure!to!furnish!all!the!accused!with!copies!
of!said!motion.!!The!information!should,!thus,!have!been!quashed.!!
` Dela!Cruz!et!al!argue!that!the!allegations!in!the!subject!information!do!not!constitute!
an!offense!because!the!alleged!specific!group!that!was!benefited!by!the!construction!
and/or! renovation! of! the! barangay! chapels! as! well! as! the! alleged! private! purposes!
served! thereby! were! sufficiently! identified! and! described.! ! Hence,! the! right! of! the!
accused!to!be!informed!of!the!nature!and!cause!of!the!accusation!against!them!was!
violated.!
Respondents!Arguments:!
` The! COA! En& Bancs! exclusion! of! petitioners! from! liability! under! the! notices! of!
disallowance! only! relates! to! the! administrative! aspect! of! their! accountability.! ! This,!
however,!does!not!foreclose!the!Ombudsmans!authority!to!investigate!and!determine!
whether!there!is!a!crime!to!be!prosecuted.!
` They!aver!that!there!was!no!denial!of!due!process!during!the!preliminary!investigation!
stage.! Private! complainants! timely! moved! for! reconsideration! from! the! Resolution! of!
the! Ombudsman.! They! received! a! copy! of! the! aforesaid! Resolution! and! filed! a! letter!
seeking! reconsideration! within! the! 15`day! reglementary! period! under! the! Rules! of!
Procedure!of!the!Ombudsman.!!The!Sandiganbayan!also!found!that!there!was!no!due!
process! violation! as! borne! out! by! the! records! forwarded! to! said! court! by! the!
Ombudsman.!
` They!also!assert!that!the!identity!of!the!specific!group!and!the!private!purposes!served!
by! the! subject! construction! and/or! renovation! project! are! evidentiary! matters! that!
should!be!threshed!out!during!the!trial!on!the!merits!of!this!case.!
Ruling:!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
` The!petition!lacks!merit.!The!preventive!suspension!of!the!accused!is!mandatory!
upon!a!finding!that!the!information!is!valid.!
` Section!13!of!RA!No.!3019:!
Suspension& and& loss& of& benefits! `! Any! public! officer! against! whom! any! criminal!
prosecution!under!a!valid!information!under!this!Act!or!under!the!provisions!of!the!
Revised!Penal!Code!on!bribery!is!pending!in!court,!shall!be!suspended!from!office.!
Should! he! be! convicted! by! final! judgment,! he! shall! lose! all! retirement! or! gratuity!
benefits!under!any!law,!but!if!he!is!acquitted,!he!shall!be!entitled!to!reinstatement!
and!to!the!salaries!and!benefits!which!he!failed!to!receive!during!suspension,!unless!
in!the!meantime!administrative!proceedings!have!been!filed!against!him.!!!!!
` It!becomes!mandatory!for!the!court!to!immediately!issue!the!suspension!order!upon!a!
proper! determination! of! the! validity! of! the! information.! ! The! court! possesses! no!
discretion!to!determine!whether!a!preventive!suspension!is!necessary!to!forestall!the!
possibility!that!the!accused!may!use!his!office!to!intimidate!witnesses,!or!frustrate!his!
prosecution,!or!continue!committing!malfeasance.!!The!presumption!is!that!unless!the!
accused! is! suspended,! he! may! frustrate! his! prosecution! or! commit! further! acts! of!
malfeasance!or!do!both.!
` The! issues! proper! for! a! pre`suspension! hearing! are,! thus,! limited! to! ascertaining!
whether:!(1)!the!accused!had!been!afforded!due!preliminary!investigation!prior!to!the!
filing!of!the!information!against!him,!(2)!the!acts!for!which!he!was!charged!constitute!a!
violation!of!the!provisions!of!RA!No.!3019!or!of!the!provisions!of!Title!7,!Book!II!of!the!
Revised!Penal!Code,!or!(3)!the!information!against!him!can!be!quashed!under!any!of!the!
grounds!provided!in!Section!2,!Rule!117!of!the!Rules!of!Court.!
` The& validity& of& the& subject& information& has& been& raised& and& resolved& in& a& prior& case&
already&ruled&upon&by&the&Sandiganbayan.&Under&the&principle&of&the&law&of&the&case,&this&
issue&can&no&longer&be&reKlitigated.!
o The! Sandiganbayan! had! earlier! ruled,! among! others,! that! the! subject!
information!contains!sufficient!allegations!to!charge!the!accused!with!violation!
of! the! anti`graft! law;! that! there! was! no! denial! of! due! process! during! the!
preliminary! investigation! stage;! that! there! exists! probable! cause! to! indict! the!
accused;! and! that! the! accuseds! other! arguments,! including! the! pendency! of!
petitioners!separate!appeals!before!the!COA!En&Banc,!lacked!merit.!
o Under!the!principle!of!the!law!of!the!case,!when!a!question!is!passed!upon!by!an!
appellate!court!and!the!case!is!subsequently!remanded!to!the!lower!court!for!
further! proceedings,! the! question! becomes! settled! upon! a! subsequent!
appeal.!!Whatever!is!once!irrevocably!established!as!the!controlling!legal!rule!or!
decision!between!the!same!parties!in!the!same!case!continues!to!be!the!law!of!
the!case,!whether!correct!on!general!principles!or!not,!so!long!as!the!facts!on!
which!such!decision!was!predicated!continue!to!be!the!facts!of!the!case!before!
the!court.!Thus,!considering!that!the!validity!of!the!information!has!long!been!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
settled,! the! Sandiganbayan! properly! granted! the! motion! to! suspend! the!
accused!pendente&lite.!
WHEREFORE,!the!petition!is!DISMISSED.!The!Sandiganbayans!December!8,!2003!Resolution,!which!
ordered! petitioners! suspension! pendente& lite& and! February! 5,! 2004! Resolution,! which! denied!
petitioners! motion! for! reconsideration,! are! AFFIRMED.! This! case! is! REMANDED# to! the!
Sandiganbayan!for!further!proceedings.!
!
!

G.# BIENVENIDO# DIO# and# RENATO# COMPARATIVO,! Petitioners,! !vs.!PABLO# OLIVAREZ,!

Respondent.!
`!Perez!de!Tagle!
!
Emergency#Recit#
DIO!filed!a!complaint!against!OLIVAREZ!for!vote!buying!(using!Uniwide!certificates)!in!the!
election! race! for! Paraaque! Mayor.! Assistant! City! Prosecutor,! with! approval! of! City!
Prosecutor,!found!probable!cause!and!filed!two!informations!for!vote!buying!in!the!RTC!of!
Paraaque.! Meanwhile,! the! COMELEC! was! in! the! middle! of! its! own! investigation! of! the!
alleged!vote!buying.!In!the!RTC,!a!series!of!motions!from!both!sides!ensued.!The!COMELEC!
informed! the! Prosecutor! to! furnish! it! with! the! records! of! the! case! and! to! refrain! from!
moving!forward!with!the!criminal!cases.!The!Prosecutor,!prompted!by!OLIVAREZ!motion!to!
quash!the!informations!for!having!more!than!1!offense,!moved!to!amend!the!informations.!
Motion! for! amendment! granted.! OLIVAREZ! appeals! to! CA;! rules! that! motion! was! illegal.!
DIO! appeals! to! SC;! rules! that! amendments! were! made! pursuant! to! both! the! authority!
granted! to! the! Prosecutor! by! the! COMELEC! and! the! Rules! of! Court.! Reasons! that! the!
amendments! were! made! in! order! to! ensure! that! the! case! is! not! dismissed! before! the!
COMELEC!can!reach!its!decision!in!its!own!case.!As!such,!it!did!not!violate!the!terms!of!the!
letter!sent.!
!
I. FACTS!
Petitioners#Bienvenido#Dio#and#Renato#Comparativo#(DIO)!assail!the!Decision!of!
the! CA,! nullifying! the! orders! Judge! Fortunito! L.! Madrona! of! the! RTC! of! Paraaque!
City,!in!two!Criminal!Cases.!
#
ANTECEDENT#FACTS#
RTC#
DIO!instituted!a!complaint!for!vote!buying!against!respondent!OLIVAREZ.!!
Based! on! the! finding! of! probable! cause! in! the! Joint# Resolution! issued! by! Assistant!
City!Prosecutor!Antonietta!Pablo`Medina,!with!the!approval!of!the!city!prosecutor!of!
Paraaque,! 2! Informations! were! filed! before! the! RTC! on! 29! September! 2004!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
charging! OLIVAREZ! with! Violation! of! Section! 261,! paragraphs! a,! b! and! k! of! Article!
XXII!of!the!Omnibus!Election!Code.!
o It!was!alleged!in!both!Informations!that!OLIVAREZ!was!distributing!or!giving!
Uniwide! gift! certificates,! a! thing! of! value,! as! consideration! to! induce! or!
influence! the! voters! to! vote! for! him,! a! candidate! for! the! City! Mayor! of!
Paraaque.!
Arraignment!was!initially!set!on!18!October!2004!
7! October! 2004,! OLIVAREZ! filed! before! the! Law! Department! of! (COMELEC)! an!
"[a]ppeal! of! [the]! Joint! Resolution! of! the! City! Prosecutor! of! Paraaque! City! with!
Motion!to!Revoke!Continuing!Authority"!pursuant!to!Section!10,!Rule!34!of!the!1993!
COMELEC!Rules!of!Procedure.!!
o OLIVAREZ! argued! that! the! pendency! of! the! appeal! of! the! Joint! Resolution!
before!the!COMELEC!should!prevent!the!filing!of!the!Informations!before!the!
RTC!as!there!could!be!no!final!finding!of!probable!cause!until!the!COMELEC!
had!resolved!the!appeal.!!
o Moreover,!he!argued!that!the!charges!made!against!him!were!groundless.!
In!a!letter!dated!11!October!2004,!the!Law!Department!of!the!COMELEC!directed!the!
city!prosecutor:!!
1) To!transmit!or!elevate!the!entire!records!of!the!case;!and!!
2) To! suspend! further! implementation! of! the! Joint! Resolution! dated! 20!
September!2004!until!final!resolution!of!the!said!appeal!before!the!COMELEC!
en!banc.!
11!October!2004,!OLIVAREZ!filed!a!Motion!to!Quash!the!2!criminal!informations!on!
the!ground!that!more!than!one!offense!was!charged!therein,!in!violation!of!Section!
3(f),!Rule!117!of!the!Rules!of!Court,!in!relation!to!Section!13,!Rule!110!of!the!Rules!of!
Court.!
o This!caused!the!resetting!of!the!scheduled!arraignment!on!18!October!2004!
to!13!December!2004.!
Before!Judge!Madrona!could!act!on!the!motion!to!quash,!Assistant!Prosecutor!Pablo`
Medina,! with! the! approval! of! the! city! prosecutor,! filed! on! 28! October! 2004! its!
"Opposition!to!the!Motion!to!Quash!and!Motion!to!Admit!Amended!Informations."!!
o The!Amended!Informations!sought!to!be!admitted!charged!respondent!with!
violation! of! only! paragraph! a,! in! relation! to! paragraph! b,! of! Section! 261,!
Article!XXII!of!the!Omnibus!Election!Code!
1!December!2004,!Judge!Madrona!issued!an!Order!resetting!the!hearing!scheduled!
on! 13! December! 2004! to! 1! February! 2005! on! account! of! the! pending! Motion! to!
Quash!of!the!respondent!and!the!Amended!Informations!of!the!public!prosecutor.!
On! 14! December! 2004,! OLIVAREZ! filed! an! "Opposition! to! the! Admission! of! the!
Amended!Informations,"!arguing!that:!!
1) No! resolution! was! issued! to! explain! the! changes! therein,! particularly! the!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
deletion! of! paragraph! k,! Section! 261,! Article! XXII! of! the! Omnibus! Election!
Code.!!
2) Moreover,!he!averred!that!the!city!prosecutor!was!no!longer!empowered!to!
amend! the! informations,! since! the! COMELEC! had! already! directed! it! to!
transmit!the!entire!records!of!the!case!and!suspend!the!hearing!of!the!cases!
before! the! RTC! until! the! resolution! of! the! appeal! before! the! COMELEC! en!
banc.!
On!12!January!2005,!Judge!Madrona!issued!an!order!denying!respondents!Motion!
to!Quash!dated!11!October!2004,!and!admitted!the!Amended!Informations!dated!25!
October!2004.!!
OLIVAREZ! filed! an! Urgent! Motion! for! Reconsideration! dated! 20! January! 2005!
thereon.!
On!1!February!2005,!Judge!Madrona!reset!the!arraignment!to!9!March!2005,!with!a!
warning! that! the! arraignment! would! proceed! without! any! more! delay,! unless! the!
Supreme!Court!would!issue!an!injunctive!writ.!
On!9!March!2005,!OLIVAREZ!failed!to!appear!before!the!RTC.!!
o Thereupon,! Judge! Madrona,! in! open! court,! denied! the! Motion! for!
Reconsideration!of!the!Order!denying!the!Motion!to!Quash!and!admitting!the!
Amended! Informations,! and! ordered! the! arrest! of! respondent! and! the!
confiscation!of!the!cash!bond.!
On!11!March!2005,!OLIVAREZ!filed!an!"Urgent!Motion!for!Reconsideration!and/or!to!
Lift!the!Order!of!Arrest!of!Accused!Dr.!Pablo!Olivarez,"!which!was!denied!in!an!Order!
dated!31!March!2005.!!
o The! Order! directed! that! a! bench! warrant! be! issued! for! the! arrest! of!
respondent!to!ensure!his!presence!at!his!arraignment.!
On! 5! April! 2005,! the! Law! Department! of! the! COMELEC! filed! before! the! RTC! a!
Manifestation! and! Motion! wherein! it! alleged! that! pursuant! to! the! COMELECs!
powers! to! investigate! and! prosecute! election! offense! cases,! it! had! the! power! to!
revoke!the!delegation!of!its!authority!to!the!city!prosecutor.!!
o Pursuant! to! these! powers,! the! COMELEC! promulgated! Resolution! No.! 7457!
dated!4!April!2005.!
" Resolution! 7457! essentially! revoked! the! deputation! of! the! city!
prosecutor!of!Paranaque!insofar!as!the!case!at!bar!is!concerned!and!
decreed! that! it! shall! be! the! COMELECs! Law! Departments! duty! to!
prosecute!the!current!case.!
Thus,!the!Law!Department!of!the!COMELEC!moved!!
1) That!the!RTC!hold!in!abeyance!further!proceedings!in!the!Criminal!Cases!until!
the!COMELEC!has!acted!on!OLIVAREZ!appeal;!and!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
2) To!revoke!the!authority!of!the!city!prosecutor!of!Paraaque!to!prosecute!the!
case,! designating! therein! the! lawyers! from! the! Law! Department! of! the!
COMELEC!to!prosecute!the!Criminal!Cases!!
!

COURT#OF#APPEALS#
On! 8! April! 2005,! OLIVAREZ! filed! a! Special! Civil! Action! for! Certiorari! before! the! CA,!
assailing!the!Orders,!dated!12!January!2005,!9!March!2005!and!31!March!2005!of!the!
RTC.!!
The! appellate! court! granted! the! appeal! in! a! Decision! dated! 28! September! 2005!
declaring! that! the! COMELEC! had! the! authority! to! conduct! the! preliminary!
investigation!of!election!offenses!and!to!prosecute!the!same.!!
o As! such,! the! COMELEC! may! delegate! such! authority! to! the! Chief! State!
Prosecutor,!provincial!prosecutors,!and!city!prosecutors.!!
The!COMELEC,!however,!has!the!corresponding!power,!too,!to!revoke!such!authority!
to!delegate.!!
o Thus,! the! categorical! order! of! the! COMELEC! to! suspend! the! prosecution! of!
the! case! before! the! RTC! effectively! deprived! the! city! prosecutor! of! the!
authority!to!amend!the!two!informations.!!
The! appellate! court! also! pronounced! that! Judge! Madrona! erred! in! admitting! the!
amended!informations,!since!they!were!made!in!excess!of!the!delegated!authority!of!
the!public!prosecutor,!and!his!orders!to!arrest!the!respondent!and!to!confiscate!the!
latters!cash!bond!were!devoid!of!legal!basis.!!
!
II. ISSUES!
1) W/N! the! Office! of! the! City! Prosecutor! of! Paraaque! had! acted! in! excess! of! its!
jurisdiction!when!it!filed!the!Amended!Informations.![NAY]!
2) W/N! Judge! Madrona! had! acted! in! excess! of! his! jurisdiction! when! he! admitted! the!
said!Amended!Informations!and!denied!the!respondents!motion!to!quash;!
3) W/N!Judge!Madrona!had!acted!in!accordance!with!law!when!he!issued!the!warrant!
for! the! arrest! of! respondent! and! ordered! the! confiscation! of! his! cash! bond! due! to!
the!latters!failure!to!appear!for!arraignment.!
!
III. HELD!
WHEREFORE,!the!instant!appeal!is!GRANTED.!The!Decision!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!
dated! 28! September! 2005! in! CA`G.R.! SP! No.! 89230! is! REVERSED.! This! Court! orders!
the!continuation!of!the!proceedings!in!Criminal!Cases!No.!04`1104!and!No.!04`1105!
before! the! RTC,! the! prosecution! of! which! shall! be! under! the! direction! of! the! Law!
Department!of!the!COMELEC.!
!
IV. RATIO!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
!
PERTINENT#LAWS#AND#RULES#
1) COMELEC! is! empowered! to! investigate! and! prosecute! election! offenses,! and! the!
Chief!State!Prosecutor,!the!provincial!prosecutors!and!city!prosecutors,!acting!on!its!
behalf,!must!proceed!within!the!lawful!scope!of!their!delegated!authority.![Section#
265#of#the#Omnibus#Election#Code]!
2) [Section#2,#Rule#34#of#the#COMELEC#Rules#of#Procedure]!provides!for!the!continuing!
delegation!of!authority!to!other!prosecuting!arms!of!the!government,!an!authority!
that!the!COMELEC!may!revoke!or!withdraw!in!the!proper!exercise!of!its!judgment.!
3) [Section# 10# of# the# COMELEC# Rules# of# Procedure]! provides! that! the! COMELEC! is!
empowered! to! revise,! modify! and! reverse! the! resolution! of! the! Chief! State!
Prosecutor!and/or!provincial/city!prosecutors.!
4) #!CRIMPRO![Section#14,#Rule#110#of#the#Rules#on#Criminal#Procedure]:!Amendment&
or& substitution.! A! complaint! or! information! may! be! amended,! in! form! or! in!
substance,! without! leave! of! court,! at! any! time! before! the! accused! enters! his! plea.!
After! the! plea! and! during! the! trial,! a! formal! amendment! may! only! be! made! with!
leave!of!court!and!when!it!can!be!done!without!causing!prejudice!to!the!rights!of!the!
accused.!x!x!x.!(Emphasis!provided.)!
5) CRIMPRO!FOR!ADVANCED!STUDENTS![Section#11,#Rule#116#of#the#Rules#of#Criminal#
Procedure]! enumerates! the! instances! that! can! suspend! the! arraignment! of! the!
accused:!
!
APPLIED#TO#THE#FACTS#
#
THE# PUBLIC# PROSECUTORS,# IN# FILING# THE# AMENDED# INFORMATIONS,# DID# NOT#
EXCEED#THE#AUTHORITY#DELEGATED#BY#THE#COMELEC#
Resolution! No.! 7457,! which! effectively! revoked! the! deputation! of! the! Office! of! the!
City! Prosecutor! of! Paraaque,! was! issued! on! 4! April! 2005,! after! the! Amended!
Informations!were!filed!on!28!October!2004.!!
The! letter! dated! 11! October! 2004,! written! by! Director! Alioden! D.! Dalaig! of! the!
COMELEC!Law!Department,!did!not!revoke!the!continuing!authority!granted!to!the!
City!Prosecutor!of!Paraaque![SEE!FACTS;!OCTOBER!11,!2004]!
The! filing! of! the! Amended! Informations! was! not! made! in! defiance! of! these!
instructions!by!the!COMELEC;!rather!it!was!an!act!necessitated!by!the!developments!
of!the!case.!!
OLIVAREZ! filed! a! Motion! to! Quash! on! 11! October! 2004! on! the! ground! that! more!
than!one!offense!was!charged!therein!
o Since! the! Rules! of! Court! (PERTINENT! LAWS! [4])! provided! for! a! remedy! that!
would! avert! the! dismissal! of! the! complaints! on! the! ground! that! more! than!
one! offense! was! charged,! the! public! prosecutor! filed! the! Amended!
Informations.!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
The!instructions!of!the!COMELEC,!in!the!letter!dated!11!October!2004,!were!clearly!
intended! to! allow! sufficient! time! to! reconsider! the! merit! of! the! Joint! Resolution,!
AND# NOT! to! have! the! public! prosecutor! abandon! the! prosecution! of! the! case! and!
negligently!allow!its!dismissal!by!not!filing!the!Amended!Informations!which!would!
leave!the!COMELEC!in!a!quandary!should!it!later!dismiss!the!appeal!before!it!
!

ARRAIGNMENT# OF# THE# ACCUSED# IS# NOT# INDEFINITELY# SUSPENDED# [GWAPOGSTER#

POINTS]#
While!it!is!true!that!the!fiscal!has!the!quasi`judicial!discretion!to!determine!whether!
or! not! a! criminal! case! should! be! filed! in! court,! once! the! case! has! been! brought! to!
court,! whatever! disposition! the! fiscal! may! feel! is! proper! in! the! case! should! be!
addressed!to!the!consideration!of!the!trial!court.!
o Arraignment!in!this!case!would!be!a!matter!of!course!
o It!can!only!be!suspended!in!cases!enumerated!in!(PERTINENT!LAWS![5])!
It!is!clear!that!the!arraignment!of!the!accused!is!not!indefinitely!suspended!by!the!
pendency! of! an! appeal! before! the! Department! of! Justice! or,! in! this! case,! Law!
Department! of! the! COMELEC;! rather,! the! reviewing! authority! is! allowed! 60! days!
within!which!to!decide!the!appeal.!
o Five! months,! which! far! exceeded! the! sixty! days! provided! by! the! rules,! was!
ample! time! for! the! respondent! to! obtain! from! COMELEC! a! reversal! of! the!
Joint!Resolution!
!
JUDGE# MADRONA# DID# NOT# ACT# IN# GADLEJ# WHEN# HE# FAILED# TO# DEFER# THE#
ARRAIGNMENT#OF#OLIVAREZ#[GWAPOGI#POINTS]#
In! pronouncing! that! Judge! Madrona! acted! in! grave! abuse! of! discretion! when! he!
failed! to! defer! the! arraignment! of! the! OLIVAREZ,! the! Court! of! Appeals! cited! Solar!
Team! Entertainment,! Inc.! v.! Judge! How,! wherein! this! Court! cautioned! judges! to!
refrain!from!precipitately!arraigning!the!accused!to!avoid!any!miscarriage!of!justice.!!
However,! the! abovementioned! case! was! decided! before! the! Rules! of! Criminal!
Procedure!were!revised!on!1!December!2000;!and!the!rule!setting!the!60`day!period!
for!the!suspension!of!the!arraignment!of!the!accused!pending!an!appeal!or!a!petition!
for!review!before!a!reviewing!authority!was!not!yet!applicable.!!
Nevertheless,! it! should! be! noted! that! even! in! Solar,! this! Court! did! not! sanction! an!
indefinite!suspension!of!the!proceedings!in!the!trial!court.!!
o Its! reliance! on! the! reviewing! authority,! the! Justice! Secretary,! to! decide! the!
appeal!at!the!soonest!possible!time!was!anchored!on!the!rule!provided!under!
Department!Memorandum!Order!No.!12,!dated!3!July!2000,!which!mandates!
that!the!period!for!the!disposition!of!appeals!or!petitions!for!review!shall!be!
75!days.!
!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
H.#Hilario#Soriano#vs.#People,#BSP,#PDIC,#et#al.#(Geraldez)#

Emergency#Recit:##

2!informations!were!filed!against!Hilario!SORIANO!!1!for!violation!of!DOSRI!rules,!another!for!Estafa!
for!falsification!of!commercial!docs.!He!assails!this!by!saying!1)!court!did!not!acquire!jurisdiction,!2)!
no!crime!is!charged.!Anent!the!first,!he!says!that!when!the!Office!of!Special!Investigation!of!the!BSP!
transmitted!a!letter!to!the!Prosecutors!of!the!DOJ,!with!which!were!attached!5!affidavits,!it!did!not!
comply!with!sec.!3a!of!Rule!112,!which!talks!about!the!complaint!affidavit!of!witnesses,!etc.!He!says!
the!letter!was!not!subscribed!to.!Court!ruled!that!the!letter!was!only!a!cover!letter,!and!it!was!the!
affidavits!that!were!important,!hence,!sufficient!compliance.!As!to!the!second,!there!is!no!problem!
charging!a!person!with!those!2!crimes!and!they!are!not!incompatible.!The!test!is!whether!or!not!the!
facts!in!the!allegations,!if!hypothetically!admitted,!would!constitute!an!offense.!SC!held!they!would.!
! !

Factual1Antecedents!

1. Sometime!in!2000,!the!Office!of!Special!Investigation!(OSI)!of!the!Bangko&Sentral&ng&Pilipinas,!
through!its!officers,!transmitted#a#letter!dated!March!27,!2000!to!Jovencito!Zuo,!Chief!State!
Prosecutor!of!the!DOJ.!!The#letter#attached#as#annexes#five#affidavits,#which#would#allegedly#
serve# as# bases# for# filing# criminal# charges# for# Estafa# thru# Falsification# of# Commercial#
Documents,!against,!inter&alia,&petitioner!herein!Hilario!P.!Soriano.!!!
a. These! five# affidavits,! along! with! other! documents,! stated! that! spouses! Enrico! and!
Amalia!Carlos!appeared!to!have!an!outstanding!loan!of!P8!million!with!the!Rural!Bank!of!
San!Miguel!(Bulacan),!Inc.!(RBSM),!but!had!never!applied!for!nor!received!such!loan;!
that!it!was!Soriano,!who!was!then!president!of!RBSM,!who!had!ordered,!facilitated,!and!
received! the! proceeds! of! the! loan;! and! that! the! P8! million! loan! had! never! been!
authorized! by! RBSM's! Board! of! Directors! and! no! report! thereof! had! ever! been!
submitted!to!the!Department!of!Rural!Banks,!Supervision!and!Examination!Sector!of!the!
BSP.!!!
b. The!letter#of#the#OSI,!which!was!not!subscribed!under!oath,!ended!with!a!request!that!a!
preliminary!investigation!be!conducted!and!the!corresponding!criminal!charges!be!filed!
against!Soriano!at!his!last!known!address.!
2. Acting!on!the!letter`request!and!its!annexes,!State!Prosecutor!Albert!R.!Fonacier!proceeded!with!
the!preliminary!investigation.!In!due!course,!the!investigating!officer!issued!a!Resolution!finding!
probable!cause!and!correspondingly!filed!two!separate!informations!against!Soriano!before!the!
Regional!Trial!Court!(RTC)!of!Malolos,!Bulacan.!
3. 2#informations!filed!were!filed.!!
a. One! against! SORIANO! and! ILAGAN,! for! estafa# through# falsification# of# commercial#
documents,! under! Article! 315,! paragraph! 1(b),! of! the! Revised! Penal! Code! (RPC),! in!
relation!to!Article!172!of!the!RPC!and!PD!1689.!It!basically!alleged!elements!of!estafa.!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
b. Another! against! SORIANO,! for! violation! of! Section! 83! of! RA! 337,! as! amended! by! PD!
1795.!!The!said!provision!refers!to!the!prohibition#against#the#soRcalled#DOSRI#loans.!
The!information!alleged!elements!of!violation!of!DOSRI!rules.!
4. Both!cases!were!raffled!to!Branch!79!of!the!RTC!of!Malolos,!Bulacan.!
5. On!June!8,!2001,!Soriano!moved!to!quash!these!informations!on!two!grounds:!that!the!court!
had!no#jurisdiction!over#the#offense#charged,!and!that!the!facts!charged!do!not!constitute!an!
offense.!!!
a. On!the!first#ground,!Soriano!argued!that!the!letter!transmitted!by!the!BSP!to!the!DOJ!
constituted! the! complaint! and! hence! was! defective! for! failure! to! comply! with! the!
mandatory! requirements! of! Section! 3(a),! Rule! 112! of! the! Rules! of! Court,! such! as! the!
statement!of!address!of!Soriano!and!oath!and!subscription.!Moreover,!Soriano!argued!
that!the!officers!of!OSI,&who!were!the!signatories!to!the!letter`complaint,&were!not!
authorized! by! the! BSP! Governor,! much! less! by! the! Monetary! Board,! to! file! the!
complaint.!!According!to!Soriano,!this!alleged!fatal!oversight!violated!Section!18,!pars.!(c)!
and!(d)!of!the!New!Central!Bank!Act!(RA!7653).!
b. On! the! second! ground,! Soriano! theorized! that! the! characterization! of! possession! is!
different! in! the! two! offenses.! ! If! Soriano! acquired! the! loan! as! DOSRI,! he! owned! the!
loaned!money!and!therefore,!cannot!misappropriate!or!convert!it!as!contemplated!in!
the!offense!of!estafa.!!Conversely,!if!Soriano!committed!estafa,!then!he!merely!held!the!
money!in!trust!for!someone!else!and!therefore,!did!not!acquire!a!loan!in!violation!of!
DOSRI!rules.!
6. Ruling&of&the1Regional1Trial1Court11Denied&Motion&to&Quash&for&Lack&of&Merit.!
In!an!Order!dated!August!8,!2001,!the!trial!court!denied!Soriano's!Motion!to!Quash!for!
lack!of!merit.!!The!lower!court!agreed!with!the!prosecution!that!the!assailed!OSI#letter#
was#not#the#complaintRaffidavit!itself;!thus,!it!need!not!comply!with!the!requirements!
under!the!Rules!of!Court.!!The!trial!court!held!that!the#affidavits,#which#were#attached#
to#the#OSI#letter,#comprised#the#complaintRaffidavit#in#the#case.!!Since!these!affidavits!
were! duly! subscribed! and! sworn! to! before! a! notary! public,! there! was! adequate!
compliance! with! the! Rules.! ! The! trial! court! further! held! that! the! two! offenses! were!
separate!and!distinct!violations,!hence!the!prosecution!of!one!did!not!pose!a!bar!to!the!
other.!
7. MR!denied.!Certiorari!with!the!CA,!wherein!he!reiterated!his!arguments!before!trial!court.!
8. Ruling&of&the1Court1of1Appeals11Denied.&MR&also&denied&for&lack&of&merit.!
On!the!first!issue,!the!CA!determined!that!the!BSP!letter,!which!Soriano!characterized!
to!be!a!fatally!infirm!complaint,!was!not!actually!a!complaint,!but!a!transmittal!or!cover!
letter! only.! ! This! transmittal# letter# merely# contained# a# summary# of# the# affidavits#
which#were#attached!to!it.!!It!did!not!contain!any!averment!of!personal!knowledge!of!
the! events! and! transactions! that! constitute! the! elements! of! the! offenses! charged.!!
Being!a!mere!transmittal!letter,!it!need!not!comply!with!the!requirements!of!Section!
3(a)!of!Rule!112!of!the!Rules!of!Court.!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
!The!CA!further!determined!that!the!five#affidavits#attached#to#the#transmittal#letter#
should#be#considered#as#the#complaintRaffidavits!that!charged!Soriano!with!violation!of!
Section!83!of!RA!337!and!for!Estafa!thru!Falsification!of!Commercial!Documents.!!These!
complaint`affidavits!complied!with!the!mandatory!requirements!set!out!in!the!Rules!of!
Court!!they!were!subscribed!and!sworn!to!before!a!notary!public!and!subsequently!
certified!by!State!Prosecutor!Fonacier,!who!personally!examined!the!affiants!and!was!
convinced!that!the!affiants!fully!understood!their!sworn!statements.!

Anent! the! second! ground,! the! CA! found! no! merit! in! Soriano's! argument! that! the!
violation!of!the!DOSRI!law!and!the!commission!of!estafa!thru!falsification!of!commercial!
documents!are!inherently!inconsistent!with!each!other.!

ISSUES:!

Whether#the#complaint#complied#with#the#mandatory#requirements#provided#under#
Section#3(a),#Rule#112#of#the#Rules#of#Court#and#Section#18,#paragraphs#(c)#and#(d)#of#
RA#7653.##Complied.#
Whether!a!loan!transaction!within!the!ambit!of!the!DOSRI!law!(violation!of!Section!83!of!
RA!337,!as!amended)!could!also!be!the!subject!of!Estafa!under!Article!315!(1)!(b)!of!the!
Revised!Penal!Code.!!Yes.!
Is! certiorari! under! Rule! 65! the! proper! remedy! against! an! Order! denying! a! Motion! to!
Quash?!!No.!
Whether!Soriano!is!entitled!to!a!writ!of!injunction.!!No.!
!!
RATIO:#

First#Issue:!

For#reference:#Sec.#3(a),#Rule#112##of#ROC:##

Sec.!3.!Procedure.!!The!preliminary!investigation!will!be!conducted!in!the!following!manner:!

(a)!The!complaint!shall!state!the!address!of!the!respondent!and!shall!be!accompanied!by!the!
affidavits!of!the!complainant!and!his!witnesses,!as!well!as!other!supporting!documents!to!
establish!probable!cause.!They!shall!be!in!such!number!of!copies!as!there!are!respondents,!
plus!two!(2)!copies!for!the!official!file.!The!affidavits!shall!be!subscribed!and!sworn!to!before!
any!prosecutor!or!government!official!authorized!to!administer!oath,!or,!in!their!absence!or!
unavailability,! before! a! notary! public,! each! of! whom! must! certify! that! he! personally!
examined!the!affiants!and!that!he!is!satisfied!that!they!voluntarily!executed!and!understood!
their!affidavits.!!

Soriano&moved&to&withdraw&the&first&issue&from&the&instant&petition!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
On!March!5,!2007,!the!Court!noted!Soriano's!Manifestation!and!Motion!for!Partial!Withdrawal!
of!the!Petition!dated!February!7,!2007.!!In!the!said!motion,!Soriano!informed!the!Court!of!the!
promulgation!of!a!Decision!entitled!Soriano&v.&Hon.&Casanova,&which!also!involved!Soriano!and!
similar!BSP!letters!to!the!DOJ.!!According!to!Soriano,!the!said!Decision!allegedly!ruled!squarely!
on!the!nature!of!the!BSP!letters!and!the!validity!of!the!sworn!affidavits!attached!thereto.!!For!
this! reason,! Soriano! moved! for! the! partial! withdrawal! of! the! instant! petition! insofar! as! it!
involved!the!issue!of!whether!or!not!a!court!can!legally!acquire!jurisdiction!over!a!complaint!
which!failed!to!comply!with!the!mandatory!requirements!provided!under!Section!3(a),!Rule!112!
of!the!Rules!of!Court!and!Section!18,!paragraphs!(c)!and!(d)!of!RA!7653.!!
Given!that!the!case!had!already!been!submitted!for!resolution!of!the!Court!when!Soriano!filed!
his!latest!motion,!and!that!all!respondents!had!presented!their!positions!and!arguments!on!the!
first!issue,!the!Court!deems!it!proper!to!rule!on!the!same.!

!In&Soriano&v.&Hon.&Casanova,&the&Court&held&that&the&affidavits&attached&to&the&BSP&transmittal&letter&
complied&with&the&mandatory&requirements&under&the&Rules&of&Court.#!

To!be!sure,!the!BSP!letters!involved!in!Soriano&v.&Hon.&Casanova&are!not#the!same!as!the!BSP!
letter!involved!in!the!instant!case.!!However,!the!BSP!letters!in!Soriano&v.&Hon.&Casanova!and!the!
BSP!letter!subject!of!this!case!are!similar!in!the!sense!that!they!are!all!signed!by!the!OSI!officers!
of!the!BSP,!they!were!not!sworn!to!by!the!said!officers,!they!all!contained!summaries!of!their!
attached!affidavits,!and!they!all!requested!the!conduct!of!a!preliminary!investigation!and!the!
filing! of! corresponding! criminal! charges! against! Soriano.! ! Thus,! the! principle! of! stare& decisis!
dictates! that! the! ruling! in! Soriano& v.& Hon.& Casanova! be! applied! in! the! instant! case! ! once! a!
question!of!law!has!been!examined!and!decided,!it!should!be!deemed!settled!and!closed!to!
further!argument.!
We#held#in#Soriano1v.1Hon.1Casanova,#after#a#close#scrutiny#of#the#letters#transmitted#by#the#
BSP#to#the#DOJ,#that#these#were#not#intended#to#be#the#complaint,#as#envisioned#under#the#
Rules.##They#did#not#contain#averments#of#personal#knowledge#of#the#events#and#transactions#
constitutive#of#any#offense.##The#letters#merely#transmitted#for#preliminary#investigation#the#
affidavits# of# people# who# had# personal# knowledge# of# the# acts# of# petitioner.# # We# ruled# that#
these# affidavits,# not# the# letters# transmitting# them,# initiated# the# preliminary# investigation.##
Since# these# affidavits# were# subscribed# under# oath# by# the# witnesses# who# executed# them#
before#a#notary#public,#then#there#was#substantial#compliance#with#Section#3(a),#Rule#112#of#
the#Rules#of#Court.#
Anent! the! contention! that! there! was! no! authority! from! the! BSP! Governor! or! the! Monetary!
Board! to! file! a! criminal! case! against! Soriano,! we! held! that! the! requirements! of! Section! 18,!
paragraphs!(c)!and!(d)!of!RA!7653!did!not!apply!because!the!BSP!did!not!institute!the!complaint!
but!merely!transmitted!the!affidavits!of!the!complainants!to!the!DOJ.!!!
We!further!held!that!since!the!offenses# for# which# Soriano# was# charged# were# public# crimes,#
authority#holds#that#it#can#be#initiated#by#any#competent#person!with!personal!knowledge!of!
the!acts!committed!by!the!offender.!!Thus,!the!witnesses#who#executed#the#affidavits#clearly#
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
fell# within# the# purview# of# any# competent# person! who! may! institute! the! complaint! for! a!
public!crime.!!!
The!ruling!in!Soriano&v.&Hon.&Casanova&has!been!adopted!and!elaborated!upon!in!the!recent!
case!of!SantosKConcio&v.&Department&of&Justice.&Instead!of!a!transmittal!letter!from!the!BSP,!the!
Court!in!SantosKConcio&was!faced!with!an!NBIRNCR#Report,!likewise!with!affidavits!of!witnesses!
as! attachments.! ! Ruling! on! the! validity! of! the! witnesses! sworn! affidavits! as! bases! for! a!
preliminary!investigation,!we!held:!!

The!Court!is!not!unaware!of!the!practice!of!incorporating!all!allegations!in!
one!document!denominated!as!complaint`affidavit.!It!does!not!pronounce!strict!
adherence!to!only!one!approach,!however,!for!there!are!cases!where!the!extent!of!
ones!personal!knowledge!may!not!cover!the!entire!gamut!of!details!material!to!the!
alleged! offense.!! The! private! offended! party! or! relative! of! the! deceased! may! not!
even!have!witnessed!the!fatality,!in!which!case!the!peace!officer!or!law!enforcer!has!
to! rely! chiefly! on! affidavits! of! witnesses.!! The! Rules! do! not! in! fact! preclude! the!
attachment!of!a!referral!or!transmittal!letter!similar!to!that!of!the!NBI`NCR.!!Thus,!in!
Soriano&v.&Casanova,!the!Court!held:!!xxx!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!! A! preliminary! investigation! can! thus! validly! proceed! on! the! basis! of! an!
affidavit!of!any#competent!person,!without!the!referral!document,!like!the!NBI`NCR!
Report,!having!been!sworn!to!by!the!law!enforcer!as!the!nominal!complainant.!!To!
require! otherwise! is! a! needless! exercise.!! The! cited! case! of! Oporto,& Jr.& v.& Judge&
Monserate!does!not!appear!to!dent!this!proposition.!!After!all,!what!is!required!is!to!
reduce# the# evidence# into# affidavits,! for! while! reports! and! even! raw! information!
may!justify!the!initiation!of!an!investigation,!the!preliminary!investigation!stage!can!
be!held!only!after!sufficient!evidence!has!been!gathered!and!evaluated!which!may!
warrant!the!eventual!prosecution!of!the!case!in!court.!

Following!the!foregoing!rulings!in!Soriano&v.&Hon.&Casanova!and!SantosKConcio&v.&Department&of&
Justice,& we# hold# that# the# BSP# letter,# taken# together# with# the# affidavits# attached# thereto,#
comply#with#the#requirements#provided#under#Section#3(a),#Rule#112#of#the#Rules#of#Court#and#
Section#18,#paragraphs#(c)#and#(d)#of#RA#7653.#

Second#Issue:#!

The!second!issue!was!raised!by!Soriano!in!the!context!of!his!Motion!to!Quash!Information!on!
the!ground!that!the!facts!charged!do!not!constitute!an!offense.!!It!is!settled!that!in!considering!a!
motion! to! quash! on! such! ground,! the# test# is# whether# the# facts# alleged,# if# hypothetically#
admitted,#would#establish#the#essential#elements#of#the#offense#charged#as#defined#by#law.!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
We! have! examined! the! two# informations! against! Soriano! and! we! find! that! they! contain!
allegations! which,! if! hypothetically! admitted,! would! establish! the! essential! elements! of! the!
crime!of!DOSRI!violation!and!estafa!thru!falsification!of!commercial!documents.!
In!Soriano&v.&People,!involving!the!same!Soriano!in!this!case!(but!different!transactions!!we!took!
this! case! up! under! Rule! 110),! we! also! reviewed! the! sufficiency! of! informations! for! DOSRI!
violation!and!estafa!thru!falsification!of!commercial!documents,!which!were!almost!identical,!
mutatis&mutandis,!with!the!subject!informations!herein.!!We!held!in!Soriano&v.&People!that!there!
is!no!basis!for!the!quashal!of!the!informations!as!they!contain!material!allegations!charging!
Soriano!with!violation!of!DOSRI!rules!and!estafa!thru!falsification!of!commercial!documents.!
Soriano!raises!the!theory!that!he!could!not!possibly!be!held!liable!for!estafa!in!concurrence!with!
the! charge! for! DOSRI! violation.! ! According! to! him,! the! DOSRI! charge! presupposes! that! he!
acquired! a! loan,! which! would! make! the! loan! proceeds! his! own# money! and! which! he! could!
neither! possibly! misappropriate! nor! convert! to! the! prejudice! of! another,! as! required! by! the!
statutory!definition!of!estafa.!!On!the!other!hand,!if!Soriano!did!not!acquire!any!loan,!there!can!
be!no!DOSRI!violation!to!speak!of.!!Thus,!Soriano!posits!that!the!two!offenses!cannot!co`exist.!!
This!theory!does!not!persuade!us.!
Sorianos!theory!is!based!on!the!false!premises!that!the!loan!was!extended!to!him!by!the!bank!in!
his!own!name,!and!that!he!became!the!owner!of!the!loan!proceeds.!!Both!premises!are!wrong.!
The!bank!money!(amounting!to!P8!million)!which!came!to!the!possession!of!Soriano!was!money!
held!in!trust!!or!administration!by!him!for!the!bank,!!in!his!fiduciary!capacity!as!the!President!of!
said!bank.!It!is!not!accurate!to!say!that!Soriano!became!the!owner!of!the!P8!million!because!it!
was!the!proceeds!of!a!loan.!Thus,!Soriano!remained!the!banks!fiduciary!with!respect!to!that!
money,!which!makes!it!capable!of!misappropriation!or!conversion!in!his!hands.!!
The!next!question!is!whether!there!can!also!be,!at!the!same!time,!a!charge!for!DOSRI!violation!in!
such!a!situation!wherein!the!accused!bank!officer!did!not!secure!a!loan!in!his!own!name,!but!
was!alleged!to!have!used!the!name!of!another!person!in!order!to!indirectly!secure!a!loan!from!
the!bank.!!We!answer!this!in!the!affirmative.!!Section!83!of!RA!337!reads:!!

Section& 83.! ! No! director! or! officer! of! any! banking! institution! shall,! either#
directly#or1indirectly,!for!himself!or!as!the!representative!or!agent!of!others,!borrow!
any! of! the! deposits! of! funds! of! such! bank,! nor1 shall1 he1 become1 a1 guarantor,1
indorser,1 or1 surety1 for1 loans1 from1 such1 bank1 to1 others,! or! in! any! manner! be! an!
obligor!for!moneys!borrowed!from!the!bank!or!loaned!by!it,!except!with!the!written!
approval! of! the! majority! of! the! directors! of! the! bank,! excluding! the! director!
concerned.!x!x!x!

A!direct!borrowing!is!obviously!one!that!is!made!in!the!name!of!the!DOSRI!himself!or!where!the!
DOSRI!is!a!named!party,!while!an#indirect#borrowing!includes!one!that!is!made!by!a!third!party,!
but!the!DOSRI!has!a!stake!in!the!transaction.!The!latter!type!!indirect!borrowing!!applies!here.!
The!information!in!Criminal!Case!238`M`2001!alleges!that!Soriano!in&his&capacity&as&President&
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
of&Rural&Bank&of&San&Miguel&&San&Ildefonso&branch&x&x&x&indirectly!borrow[ed]!or!secure[d]!a!loan!
with![RBSM]!!x!x!x!.!!
The!foregoing!information!describes!the!manner!of!securing!the!loan!as!indirect;!names!Soriano!
as!the!benefactor!of!the!indirect!loan;!and!states!that!the!requirements!of!the!law!were!not!
complied!with.!It!contains!all!the!required!elements!for!a!violation!of!Section!83,!even!if!Soriano!
did!not!secure!the!loan!in!his!own!name.!!!
The! broad! interpretation! of! the! prohibition! in! Section! 83! is! justified! by! the! fact! that! it! even!
expressly!covers!loans!to!third!parties!where!the!third!parties!are!aware!of!the!transaction!(such!
as!principals!represented!by!the!DOSRI),!and!where!the!DOSRIs!interest!does!not!appear!to!be!
beneficial!but!even!burdensome!(such!as!in!cases!when!the!DOSRI!acts!as!a!mere!guarantor!or!
surety).! ! If! the! law! finds! it! necessary! to! protect! the! bank! and! the! banking! system! in! such!
situations,!it!will!surely!be!illogical!for!it!to!exclude!a!case!like!this!where!the!DOSRI!acted!for!his&
own& benefit,! using! the! name& of& an& unsuspecting& person.! ! A! contrary! interpretation! will!
effectively!allow!a!DOSRI!to!use!dummies!to!circumvent!the!requirements!of!the!law.!
In!sum,!the!informations!filed!against!Soriano!do!not!negate!each!other.!!!!

Third#Issue:!

This!issue!may!be!speedily!resolved!by!adopting!our!ruling!in!Soriano&v.&People,&!where!we!held:!
!!
In!fine,!the!Court!has!consistently!held!that!a!special!civil!action!for!certiorari!
is!not!the!proper!remedy!to!assail!the!denial!of!a!motion!to!quash!an!information.!
The!proper!procedure!in!such!a!case!is!for!the!accused!to!enter!a!plea,!go!to!trial!
without!prejudice!on!his!part!to!present!the!special!defenses!he!had!invoked!in!his!
motion!to!quash!and!if!after!trial!on!the!merits,!an!adverse!decision!is!rendered,!to!
appeal!therefrom!in!the!manner!authorized!by!law.!!

#Fourth#Issue:!

The! requisites! to! justify! an! injunctive! relief! are:! (1)! the! right! of! the! complainant! is! clear! and!
unmistakable;!(2)!the!invasion!of!the!right!sought!to!be!protected!is!material!and!substantial;!
and!(3)!there!is!an!urgent!and!paramount!necessity!for!the!writ!to!prevent!serious!damage.!!A!
clear!legal!right!means!one!clearly!founded!in!or!granted!by!law!or!is!enforceable!as!a!matter!of!
law.!!
Given!this!Court's!findings!in!the!earlier!issues!of!the!instant!case,!we!find!no!compelling!reason!
to!grant!the!injunctive!relief!sought!by!Soriano.!

I.!Lee!v.!KBC!Bank!!NARVASA!
Emergency#Recit:#
Lee!and!Lim!were!charged!by!KBC!bank!w/!estafa.!
City!prosecutor!found!probable!cause,!and!filed!it!w/!RTC!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
Petitioners! asked! for! reconsideration! from! Sec! of! Justicewho! said! informations!
should!be!withdrawn!
RTC!judge!agreed!to!have!the!informations!withdrawn!
CA!set!aside!the!RTCs!dismissal!and!ruled!to!have!the!case!heard!
Crimpro!issue!on!Rule!112:!QUESTION!IS!NOT!ONE!OF!ADMISSIBILITY!OF!EVIDENCE!
BUT! THE! NEED! IN! PRELIMINARY! INVESTIGATION! FOR! EVIDENCE! OF! VALUE! TO!
ESTABLISH!PROBABLE!CAUSE!(RULE!112)!
Whether!the!facsimile!message!is!admissible!in!evidence!and!whether!the!element!
of!deceit!in!the!crime!of!estafa!is!present!are!matters!best!ventilated!in!a!full`blown!
trial,!not!in!the!preliminary!investigation.!!
[A!preliminary!investigation]!is!not!the!occasion!for!the!full!and!exhaustive!display!of!
[the!prosecutions]!evidence.!The!presence!or!absence!of!the!elements!of!the!crime!
is!evidentiary!in!nature!and!is!a!matter!of!defense!that!may!be!passed!upon!after!a!
full`blown!trial!on!the!merits.!
In! fine,! the! validity! and! merits! of! a! partys! defense! or! accusation,! as! well! as! the!
admissibility! of! testimonies! and! evidence,! are! better! ventilated! during! trial! proper!
than!at!the!preliminary!investigation!level.!
!
I.#FACTS!
Midas!Diversified!Export!Corporation!(MDEC)!obtained!a!$1,400,000!loan!from!KBC!
Bank!N.V.!(KBC!Bank).!!
o Samuel! U.! Lee! (Lee),! assistant! treasurer! and! director! of! MDEC,! executed! a!
promissory!note!in!favor!of!KBC!Bank!and!a!deed!of!assignment!transferring!
all! of! MDECs! rights! over! Confirmed! Purchase! Order! #1! (my! numbering)! to!
KBC!Bank.!!
o Confirmed!Purchase!Order!was!allegedly!issued!by!Otto!Versand,!a!company!
based! in! Germany,! and! covered! a! shipment! of! girls! basic! denim! jeans!
amounting!to!$1,863,050.!
MDEC!obtained!another!loan,!amounting!to!$65,000,!from!KBC!Bank.!!
o Maybelle!L.!Lim!(Lim),!treasurer!and!assistant!secretary!of!MDEC,!executed!a!
promissory!note!in!favor!of!KBC!Bank!and!a!deed!of!assignment!transferring!
all!of!MDECs!rights!over!Confirmed!Purchase!Order!#2!to!KBC!Bank.!!
o Confirmed!Purchase!Order!#2!issued!by!Otto!Versand,!covered!a!shipment!of!
boys!bermuda!jeans!amounting!to!$841,500.!
Lim! renewed! the! promissory! note! and! issued! a! notice! of! renewal! and! drawdown!
certificate!to!KBC!Bank.!!
Lim!executed!an!amended!deed!of!assignment!transferring!all!of!MDECs!rights!over!
Confirmed!Purchase!Order!#1!to!KBC!Bank.!
MDEC!was!considered!in!default!in!paying!the!$65,000!loan!on!30!January!1998.!!
Under!a!facility!agreement!between!KBC!Bank!and!MDEC,!any!default!in!payment!of!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
any! obligation! under! the! agreement! would! render! MDEC! in! default! with! regard! to!
the!$65,000!loan!!
o MDEC!defaulted!in!paying!two!other!obligations!under!the!agreement.!!
o MDEC! also! failed! to! pay! the! $1,400,000! loan! when! it! became! due! on! 9!
February!1998.!
KBC!Bank!sent!a!letter!to!Otto!Versand!verifying!the!validity!of!Confirmed!Purchase!
Order!Nos.!1!&!2.!!!
Versand! sent! a! facsimile! message! to! KBC! Bank! stating! that! (1)! it! did! not! issue! the!
purchase! orders,! (2)! it! did! not! order! or! receive! the! items! covered! by! the! purchase!
orders,!and!(3)!it!would!not!pay!MDEC!any!amount.!
KBC!Bank!charged!Lee!and!Lim!of!estafa.!And!Prosecutor!Sabia!found!the!existence!
of!probable!cause!and!recommended!that!two!counts!of!estafa!be!filed!against!Lee!
and!Lim.!!
Accordingly,!two!informations!for!estafa!against!Lee!and!Lim!were!filed!with!the!RTC.!
After!finding!probable!cause,!(Judge!Dumayas)!of!the!RTC!issued!warrants!of!arrest!
against!Lee!and!Lim.!
Lee!and!Lim!filed!a!petition!for!review!with!the!DOJ.!!
o DOJ!Secretary!Perez!directed!the!withdrawal!of!the!informations!filed!against!
Lee! and! Lim.! Secretary! Perez! held! that! the! facsimile! message! constituted!
hearsay!evidence:!
o The! twin! charges! of! estafa! are! primarily! anchored! on! respondents! alleged!
fraudulent!representations!to![KBC!Bank]!that!the!two!purchase!orders!were!
fake!or!sham.!!
" There! was! no! sworn! statement! from! a! responsible! officer! of! Otto!
Versand! presented! to! attest! to! the! allegation! that! the! subject!
purchase!orders!were!fake.!Since!Ms.!Pajarillo!did!not!have!personal!
knowledge! of! the! fact! that! the! subject! purchase! orders! were! in! fact!
fake,! her! testimony! cannot! be! the! basis! for! finding! probable! cause!
against!respondents.!Ms.!Pajarillo!can!testify!only!to!those!facts!that!
she!knew!of!her!personal!knowledge.!!
" Admittedly,! she! derived! knowledge! of! the! supposed! spurious!
character!of!the!purchase!orders!from!a!mere!fax!copy!of!a!message!
that! [KBC! Bank]! received! from! a! certain! representative! of! Otto!
Versand! in! Germany,! someone! who! she! did! not! even! know!
personally.! Unfortunately,! this! fax! copy! is! hearsay! evidence! and!
therefore,!inadmissible!to!prove!the!truth!of!what!it!contains!!
Prosecution!moved!for!the!withdrawal!of!the!information.!
The#RTCs#Ruling!
Judge!Dumayas!granted!Assistant!City!Prosecutor!Sibucaos!motion!to!withdraw!the!
informations!against!Lee!and!Lim.!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
This!Court,!after!an!in`depth!scrutiny!of!the!arguments!raised!by!the!prosecution!and!
private! complainant,! finds! the! contentions! of! the! prosecution! to! be! sufficient! and!
meritorious.!
The#Court#of#Appeals#Ruling!
The!CA!set!aside!Judge!Dumayas!Order.!!
It! has! long! been! established! that! the! filing! of! a! complaint! or! information! in! Court!
initiates! a! criminal! action.! The! Court! thereby! acquires! jurisdiction! over! the! case,!
which!is!the!authority!to!hear!and!determine!the!case.!!
When!after!the!filing!of!the!complaint!or!information,!a!warrant!for!the!arrest!of!the!
accused! is! issued! by! the! trial! court! and! the! accused! either! voluntarily! submitted!
himself! to! the! Court! or! was! duly! arrested,! the! Court! thereby! acquired! jurisdiction!
over!the!person!of!the!accused.!
The!trial!judge!practically!concurred!with!the!findings!of!the!Secretary!of!Justice!that!
the!"fax!copy!is!hearsay!evidence!and!therefore,!inadmissible!to!prove!the!truth!that!
it!contains",!contrary!to!the!well`reasoned!findings!of!the!investigating!prosecutor.!!
It!is!emphasized!that!a!preliminary!investigation!is!not!the!occasion!for!the!full!and!
exhaustive! display! of! the! parties! evidence;! it! is! for! the! presentation! of! such!
evidence! only! as! may! engender! a! well`grounded! belief! that! an! offense! has! been!
committed!and!that!the!accused!is!probably!guilty!thereof.!
The!issue!of!admissibility!or!inadmissibility!of!evidence!is!a!matter!of!defense!that!is!
best!ventilated!in!a!full`blown!trial;!preliminary!investigation!is!not!the!occasion!for!
the!exhaustive!display!of!presentation!of!evidence.!
Issue:!!
I!
THE!COURT!EXCEEDED!ITS!AUTHORITY!IN!PASSING!UPON!THE!ISSUE!OF!WHETHER!OR!NOT!
THERE!WAS!PRIMA!FACIE!EVIDENCE!OF!ESTAFA!AGAINST!THE!PETITIONERS,!AN!ISSUE!THAT!
WAS!PENDING!BEFORE!THE!SECRETARY!OF!JUSTICE!
II!
QUESTION! IS! NOT! ONE! OF! ADMISSIBILITY! OF! EVIDENCE! BUT! THE! NEED! IN! PRELIMINARY!
INVESTIGATION! FOR! EVIDENCE! OF! VALUE! TO! ESTABLISH! PROBABLE! CAUSE! (RULE! 112!
crimpro)!
III!
W/N!JUDGE!MADE!HIS!OWN!DISCERNMENT!OF!PROBABLE!CAUSE!
THE#TRIAL#COURT#DID#NOT#ABDICATE#ITS#DUTY#TO#DETERMINE#THE#SUFFICIENCY#OF#THE#
PROSECUTIONS#REASON#FOR#WITHDRAWING#THE#INFORMATIONS!
#
Ratio:!
1st#ISSUE##
The!petition!is!unmeritorious.!
Lee!and!Lim!claim!that!the!Court!of!Appeals!erred!when!it!reviewed!the!findings!of!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
Secretary!Perez.!They!stated!that:!
But!the!Court!of!Appeals!ignored!the!fact!that!the!case!before!it!is!not!one!for!the!
review!of!the!final!order!of!the!Secretary!of!Justice,!acting!as!a!quasi`judicial!officer,!
which!is!governed!by!Rule!43!of!the!Rules!of!Court.!The!actual!case!filed!with!it!was!
rather! a! petition! for! review! on! certiorari! of! the! dismissal! order! of! the! trial! court!
under!Rule!45.!
The!Court!is!not!impressed.!CA!was!reviewing!the!RTCs!actions,!not!DOJs.!!
"A!judge!acts!with!grave!abuse!of!discretion!when!he!grants!a!prosecutors!motion!to!
dismiss! the! criminal! charges! against! an! accused! on! the! basis! solely! of! the!
recommendation! of! the! Secretary! of! Justice! ! his! reliance! on! the! prosecutors!
averment!that!the!Secretary!of!Justice!had!recommended!the!dismissal!of!the!case!
against! the! petitioner! is! an! abdication! of! the! trial! courts! duty! and! jurisdiction! to!
determine! a! prima! facie! case! in! blatant! violation! of! the! Courts! pronouncement! in!
Crespo!vs.!Mogul."!
When! the! trial! judge! issued! its! Order! directing! the! issuance! of! warrants! of! arrest!
against! the! respondents,! he! clearly! found! probable! cause! to! sustain! the! filing! of!
criminal! complaints! against! the! latter.! The! issuance! of! a! warrant! of! arrest! is! not! a!
ministerial! function! of! the! court! ! it! calls! for! the! exercise! of! judicial! discretion! on!
the!part!of!the!issuing!magistrate.!
If! the! trial! court! judge! finds! it! appropriate! to! dismiss! the! Informations,! the! same!
should! be! based! upon! his! own! personal! individual! conviction! that! there! is! no! case!
against!the!accused/respondents.!!
o To!rely!solely!on!the!recommendation!of!the!Secretary!of!Justice,!to!say!the!
least,! is! an! abdication! of! the! judge[]s! duty! and! jurisdiction! to! determine! a!
prima!facie!case.!
o !What!was!imperatively!required!was!the!trial!judges!own!assessment!of!just!
evidence,! it! not! being! sufficient! for! the! valid! and! proper! exercise! of! judicial!
discretion! merely! to! accept! the! prosecutions! word! for! its! supposed!
insufficiency.!
nd
2 #Issue#RULE#112#
The!Court!is!not!impressed.!Whether!the!facsimile!message!is!admissible!in!evidence!
and!whether!the!element!of!deceit!in!the!crime!of!estafa!is!present!are!matters!best!
ventilated!in!a!full`blown!trial,!not!in!the!preliminary!investigation.!!
[A!preliminary!investigation]!is!not!the!occasion!for!the!full!and!exhaustive!display!of!
[the!prosecutions]!evidence.!The!presence!or!absence!of!the!elements!of!the!crime!
is!evidentiary!in!nature!and!is!a!matter!of!defense!that!may!be!passed!upon!after!a!
full`blown!trial!on!the!merits.!
In! fine,! the! validity! and! merits! of! a! partys! defense! or! accusation,! as! well! as! the!
admissibility! of! testimonies! and! evidence,! are! better! ventilated! during! trial! proper!
than!at!the!preliminary!investigation!level.!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
3rd#ISSUE#
Judge! Dumayas! failed! to! make! his! own! evaluation! in! granting! the! motion! to!
withdraw!the!informations.!Judge!!
In!Co!v.!Lim,!the!Court!held!that:!
o Once! a! case! is! filed! with! the! court,! any! disposition! of! it! rests! on! the! sound!
discretion!of!the!court.!The!trial!court!is!not!bound!to!adopt!the!resolution!of!
the!Secretary!of!Justice.!
o It!is!mandated!to!independently!evaluate!or!assess!the!merits!of!the!case.!!
o Reliance! on! the! resolution! of! the! Secretary! of! Justice! alone! would! be! an!
abdication!of!its!duty!and!jurisdiction!to!determine!a!prima!facie!case.!!
The!dismissal!of!the!case!was!based!upon!considerations!other!than!the!judges!own!
personal!individual!conviction!that!there!was!no!case!against!the!respondents.!Thus,!
the!trial!judge!improperly!relinquished!the!discretion!that!he!was!bound!to!exercise,!
and!the!Orders!are!invalid!for!having!been!issued!in!grave!abuse!of!discretion.!
The!trial!courts!order!is!inconsistent!with!our!repetitive!calls!for!an!independent!and!
competent!assessment!of!the!issue(s)!presented!in!the!motion!to!dismiss.!!
Applied#to#this#case:#
Judge!Dumayas!did!not!(1)!positively!state!that!the!evidence!against!Lee!and!Lim!is!
insufficient,! (2)! include! a! discussion! of! the! merits! of! the! case,! (3)! assess! whether!
Secretary! Perezs! conclusion! is! supported! by! evidence,! (4)! look! at! the! basis! of!
Secretary!Perezs!recommendation,!(5)!embody!his!assessment!in!the!order,!and!(6)!
state!his!reasons!for!granting!the!motion!to!withdraw!the!informations.!
Judge!Dumayas!failure!to!make!his!own!evaluation!of!the!merits!of!the!case!violates!
KBC! Banks! right! to! due! process! and! constitutes! grave! abuse! of! discretion.! Judge!
Dumayas!26!March!2003!Order!granting!the!motion!to!withdraw!the!informations!is!
void.!
WHEREFORE,! the! petition! is!DENIED.! The! Court!AFFIRMS!the! CA.! The! case!
is!REMANDED!to!the!RTC.!
!
!
J.#VIUDEZ#V.#CA##R##RIO#DEL#ROSARIO#SANTOS##
ER:!Petion!for!Review!in!the!DOJ!may!suspend!Arraignment!but!not!issuance!of!a!Warrant!of!
Arrest!
` Honorato!Galvez!and!his!driver!were!shot!in!Bulacan.!
` Complaint!for!murder!was!filed!and!informations!were!also!filed!against!Viudez!and!
several!persons.!
` Viudez!filed!a!motion!to!suspend!proceedings!and!to!suspend!the!implementation!of!
the! Warrant! of! Arrest,! pursuant! to! Dept.! Circular! No.! 70! of! the! DOJ! that! the!
proceedings!should!be!held!in!abeyance/suspended!
` RTC!denied!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
` Filed!with!CA!certiorari!and!TRO.!
` CA!granted!the!TRO!and!enjoined!respondent!RTC!judge!
` OSG!AND!respondent!RTC!judge!in!their!comment!and!motion!to!lift!the!TRO!
` CA!dismissed!the!petition!for!certiorari!and!stated!that!there!was!no!GADALEJ!on!the!
part!of!respondent!judge!
` Issue!is!WON!a!pending!resolution!of!a!petition!for!review!filed!with!the!Secretary!of!
Justice! concerning! a! finding! of! probable! cause! will! suspend! the! proceedings! in! the!
trial!court,!including!the!implementation!of!a!warrant!of!arrest.!!NO!it!will!not!
` Petitioner's!contention!is!wrong.!
` It! is! well! to! remember! that! there! is! a! distinction! between! the! preliminary! inquiry,!
which! determines!probable!cause! for! the! issuance! of! a!warrant!of!arrest;! and! the!
preliminary! investigation! proper,! which! ascertains! whether! the! offender! should! be!
held!for!trial!or!be!released.!The!determination# of#probable#cause# for# purposes# of#
issuing# a#warrant#of#arrest# is# made# by# the# judge.!!!The# preliminary# investigation#
proper##whether#or#not#there#is#reasonable#ground#to#believe#that#the#accused#is#
guilty#of#the#offense#charged##is#the#function#of#the#investigating#prosecutor.#
- HOWEVER,!nowhere! in! the! said! provision! does! it! state! that! the! court! must!
hold!the!proceedings!in!abeyance.!!!
` Therefore,!the!discretion!of!the!court!whether!or!not!to!suspend!the!proceedings!or!
the! implementation! of! the! warrant! of! arrest,! upon! the! motion! of! the! appellant! or!
the! trial! prosecutor,! remains! unhindered.!!!This! is! in! consonance! with! the! earlier!
ruling! of! this! Court! that! once! a! complaint! or! information! is! filed! in! court,! any!
disposition! of! the! case! as! to! its! dismissal,! or! the! conviction! or! acquittal! of! the!
accused,! rests! on! the! sound! discretion! of! the! said! court,! as! it! is! the! best! and! sole!
judge!of!what!to!do!with!the!case!before!it.!#
#
Facts:!This!is!a!petition!for!review!on!certiorari!under!Section!1,!Rule!45!of!the!1997!Rules!of!
Civil!Procedure,!with!prayer!for!the!issuance!of!a!temporary!restraining!order!and/or!writ!of!
preliminary!injunction!of!the!Decision!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!(CA)!dismissing!the!petition!
for!certiorari!filed! by! VIUDEZ! against! Judge! Basilio! R.! Gabo,! Jr.,! in! his! capacity! as! Presiding!
Judge!of!Branch!11,!Regional!Trial!Court!(RTC)!of!Malolos,!Bulacan.!
- Honorato! Galvez! and! his! driver! were! fatally! shot! in!Barangay!San! Juan,! San!
Ildefonso,!Bulacan.!!!
- A! complaint! for! the! alleged! murder! of! the! said! victims! was! filed! by! the!Philippine!
National!Police!Criminal!Investigation!Division!(PNP!CID)!!Team!with!the!Office!of!the!
Provincial!Prosecutor!against!several!persons!!!
- A!complaint!was!also!filed!for!murder!against!petitioner!Enrique!VIUDEZ!II!was!filed!
by!Estrella!Galvez,!widow!of!Mayor!Honorato!Galvez,!for!the!killing!of!the!latter!and!
his!driver.!!
- A!!Resolution! was! issued!!by! the! Investigating! State! Prosecutor! finding! probable!
cause!to!indict!VIUDEZ!and!others!for!the!crime!of!murder.!!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
- Two!(2)!Informations!for!murder!were!filed!with!the!RTC!of!Malolos,!Bulacan,!!which!
then!issued!warrants!of!arrest.!
- VIUDEZ! II! filed! a! Motion! to! Suspend! Proceedings!!and! to! Suspend! the!
Implementation!of!!the!!Warrant!!of!!Arrest,!Pursuant!to!Department!Circular!No.!70!
of!the!Department!of!Justice!(DOJ)!arguing!that!all!the!accused!in!the!said!criminal!
cases! had! filed! a! timely! petition! for! review! with! the! Secretary! of! Justice! and,!
pursuant! to! Section! 9!of! Department! Circular! No.! 70,! the! implementation! of! the!
warrant! of! arrest! against! petitioner! should! be! suspended! and/or! recalled! pending!
resolution!of!the!said!petition!for!review.!
- The!RTC!denied!petitioners!!Motion.!
- Thereafter,!petitioner!filed!with!the!CA,!a!petition!!for!!certiorari&!with!prayer!for!the!
issuance! of!!a! temporary! restraining! order! (TRO)! and/or!!writ!
of!!preliminary!!injuction,!claiming!the!following:!
o That!ORDER!by!RTC!denying!the!Motion!for!Reconsideration!were!issued!with!
GADALEJi!
- CA! granted! a! TRO,! commanding! respondent! RTC! Judge! Gabo! to! enjoin! the!
implementation!of!the!said!warrants!of!arrest!(done!through!a!resolution)!!
o Found!that!the!verified!petition!of!VIUDEZ!sufficiently!showed!that!unless!the!
implementation! of! the! warrants! of! arrest! in! the! Criminal! Cases! were!
temporarily! enjoined! before! the! application! for! a! writ! of! preliminary!
injunction! could! be! heard! on! notice,! great! or! irreparable! injury! would! be!
visited! upon! the! petitioner,! as! he! could! momentarily! be! arrested! and!
detained!upon!non`bailable!charges.!!!
- Respondents! RTC! Judge! Basilio! R.! Gabo,! Jr.,! and! the! OSG! CONTENDS! (in! his!
COMMENT! with! motion! to! lift! temporary! restraining!!order!!and!!opposition! to!
the!!application!for!the!!issuance!!!of!a!!writ!of!!preliminary!injunction)!
o That!the!determination!of!whether!to!issue!a!warrant!of!arrest!after!the!filing!
of! an! information! was! a! function! that! was! exclusively! vested! in! respondent!
Judge.!!
o Respondent! Judge,! therefore,! was! in! no! way! obligated! to! defer! the!
implementation! of! the! service! of! the! warrant! of! arrest! simply! because! a!
petition!for!review!was!filed!by!petitioner!before!the!Secretary!of!Justice!to!
question!the!filing!of!the!information!against!the!same!petitioner.!!
- CA! promulgated! its! Decision! dismissing! the! petition! for!certiorari&for! lack! of! merit!
and!found!no!GADALEJ!in!the!exercise!of!the!respondent!Judge's!discretion!in!issuing!
the!challenged!Orders.!!
o The! court! added! that,! since! the! premise! of! VIUDEZs! conclusion! was!
erroneous!!for!said!circular!and!the!cases!cited!did!not!make!it!obligatory!for!
respondent!Judge!to!grant!petitioner's!motion!!petitioner's!cause!was!lost.!!!!
o It!also!stated!that!nowhere!in!the!Revised!Rules!of!Criminal!Procedure,!or!in!
any!circular!of!this!Court,!even!in!any!of!its!decision!was!it!ever!pronounced!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
that! when! a! petition! for! review! of! the! resolution! of! the! investigating!
prosecutor!``!finding!probable!cause!to!indict!a!respondent!``!is!filed!with!the!
Office!of!the!Secretary!of!Justice,!the!court!which!earlier!issued!warrants!of!
arrest,!should!suspend!their!enforcement.!
- In!an!Order!dated!January!9,!2002,!respondent!Judge!GABO!ordered!the!issuance!of!
an!alias!warrant!of!arrest!for!the!apprehension!of!VIUDEZ!by!virtue!of!the!expiration!
of!the!effectivity!of!the!TRO!issued!by!the!CA.!
- VIUDEZ! filed! with! the! CA! a! Motion! for! Reconsideration! of! the!!Decision! dated!
December!19,!2001,!which!was!eventually!DENIED!!
- Hence,!the!instant!petition.!
- VIUDEZ!claimed,!among!others,!that!the!Decision!of!the!CA!was!issued!with!GADALEJ!
when! it! ruled! that! Department! Circular! No.! 70! of! the! Department! of! Justice!
promulgated!on!July!3,!2000!was!plainly!a!directive!of!the!Secretary!of!Justice!to!the!
accused! and! the! trial! prosecutor! to! ask! the! Court! to! suspend! the! proceedings!
thereon!during!the!pendency!of!the!appeal.!
o According!to!petitioner,!the!said!department!circular!had!the!force!and!effect!
of!law.!!
o He! cited! cases! wherein! this! Court! ruled! that! administrative! regulations!
adopted!pursuant!to!law!had!the!force!and!effect!of!law.!!!With!regard!to!the!
TRO,! petitioner! argued! that! unless! a! TRO! was! issued! enjoining! the!
implementation!of!the!warrant!of!arrest!dated!and!the!alias!warrant!of!arrest!
issued! by! virtue! of! the! Order! of,! he! stood! to! suffer! great! and! irreparable!
injury,!as!he!would!be!deprived!of!his!liberty!without!due!process!of!law.!
- OSG!ARGUES!
o stated! that! the! determination! of! whether! to! issue! a! warrant! of! arrest! after!
the! filing! of! an! information! was! a! function! that! was! exclusively! vested! in!
respondent!Judge.!!!
o Respondent! Judge,! therefore,! was! in! no! way! obliged! to! defer! the!
implementation! of! the! service! of! the! warrant! simply! because! a! petition! for!
review!was!filed!by!petitioner!before!the!Secretary!of!Justice!to!question!the!
filing!of!the!information!against!him.!
- Before!this!Court!shall!delve!into!its!disquisition!of!the!issue,!it!is!worth!noting!that!in!
his! Memorandum,! Viudez! reiterated! that! the! Secretary! of! Justice! had! already!
resolved!the!petition!for!review!and!ordered!the!withdrawal!of!the!informations!for!
murder!filed!against!Viudez!with!the!RTC!of!Malolos,!Bulacan,!ruling!that!there!was!
no!probable!cause!for!the!filing!of!the!said!informations.!!Accordingly,!as!contained!
in! the! same! Memorandum,! the! Office! of! the! State! Prosecutor! filed! a! Motion!!to!
Withdraw! the! Informations,! which! the! RTC! granted.!Furthermore,! in! a! Resolution,!
this! Court! already! resolved! to! issue! a! TRO! as! prayed! for! by! Viudez.!!These!
developments! would! necessarily! render! the! instant! petition! moot! and! academic;!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
however,!as!implored!by!petitioner,!this!Court!will!render!its!decision!on!the!merits!
of!the!case!in!the!interest!of!justice.!
ISSUE:!WON!a!pending!resolution!of!a!petition!for!review!filed!with!the!Secretary!of!Justice!
concerning! a! finding! of! probable! cause! will! suspend! the! proceedings! in! the! trial! court,!
including!the!implementation!of!a!warrant!of!arrest.!!NO!it!will!not!
HELD:# WHEREFORE,! the! petition! for! review! on!certiorari&with! prayer! for! the! issuance! of! a!
temporary! restraining! order! and/or! writ! of! preliminary! injunction! dated! is!DENIED!``! the!
petition! for! review,!for! lack! of! merit;! and! the! issuance! of! TRO! and/or! preliminary!
injunction,#for! being! moot! and! academic.!
RATIO:#!
VIUDEZ!cites!DOJ!Department!Circular!No.!70,!specifically!paragraph!2!of!Section!9!thereof,!
which! provides! that! the! appellant! and! the! trial! prosecutor! shall! see! to! it! that,! pending!
resolution!of!the!appeal,!the!proceedings!in!court!are!held!in!abeyance.!!Somehow,!VIUDEZ!
is!of!the!opinion!that!the!suspension!of!proceedings!in!court,!as!provided!in!the!said!circular,!
includes!the!suspension!of!the!implementation!of!warrants!of!arrest!issued!by!the!court.!
- Petitioner's!contention!is!wrong.!
- It! is! well! to! remember! that! there! is! a! distinction! between! the! preliminary! inquiry,!
which! determines!probable!cause! for! the! issuance! of! a!warrant!of!arrest;! and! the!
preliminary! investigation! proper,! which! ascertains! whether! the! offender! should! be!
held!for!trial!or!be!released.!The!determination# of#probable#cause# for# purposes# of#
issuing# a#warrant#of#arrest# is# made# by# the# judge.!!!The# preliminary# investigation#
proper##whether#or#not#there#is#reasonable#ground#to#believe#that#the#accused#is#
guilty#of#the#offense#charged##is#the#function#of#the#investigating#prosecutor.#
- As!enunciated!in!another!case&!the!task!of!the!presiding!judge!when!the!Information!
is! filed! with! the! court! is! first! and! foremost! to! determine! the! existence! or! non`
existence!of!probable!cause!for!the!arrest!of!the!accused.!!!#
o Probable! cause! is! such! set! of! facts! and! circumstances! as! would! lead! a!
reasonably!discreet!and!prudent!man!to!believe!that!the!offense!charged!in!
the!Information!or!any!offense!included!therein!has!been!committed!by!the!
person!sought!to!be!arrested.!!!#
o In! determining! probable! cause,! the! average! man! weighs! the! facts! and!
circumstances!without!resorting!to!the!calibrations!of!the!rules!of!evidence!of!
which!he!has!no!technical!knowledge.!!!#
o He!relies!on!common!sense.!!!A!finding!of!probable!cause!needs!only!to!rest!
on!evidence!showing!that,!more!likely!than!not,!a!crime!has!been!committed!
and! that! it! was! committed! by! the! accused.!!!Probable! cause! demands! more!
than!suspicion;!it!requires!less!than!evidence!that!would!justify!conviction.!##
- The!purpose!of!the!mandate!of!the!judge!to!first!determine!probable!cause!for!the!
arrest! of! the! accused! is! to! insulate! from! the! very! start! those! falsely! charged! with!
crimes!from!the!tribulations,!expenses!and!anxiety!of!a!public!trial.!#
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
- The! function! of! the! judge! to! issue! a! warrant! of! arrest! upon! the! determination! of!
probable! cause! is! exclusive;! thus,! the! consequent! implementation! of! a! warrant! of!
arrest! cannot! be! deferred! pending! the! resolution! of! a! petition! for! review! by! the!
Secretary!of!Justice!as!to!the!finding!of!probable!cause,!a!function!that!is!executive!in!
nature.!!!To# defer# the# implementation# of# the# warrant# of# arrest# would# be# an#
encroachment#on#the#exclusive#prerogative#of#the#judge.!!#
- It!must!be!emphasized!that!petitioner!filed!with!the!trial!court!a!motion!to!suspend!
proceedings! and! to! suspend! the! implementation! of! the! warrant! of! arrest! in!
pursuance! of! a! DOJ! circular,! and! not! a! motion! to! quash! ! the! warrant! of! arrest!
questioning!the!issuance!thereof.!#
- Thus,! there! is! no! contest! as! to! the! validity! or! regularity! of! the! issuance! of! the!
warrant! of! arrest.!!Petitioner! merely! wanted! the! trial! court! to! defer! the!
implementation!of!the!warrant!of!arrest!pending!the!resolution!by!the!Secretary!of!
Justice!of!the!petition!for!review!that!he!filed!citing!the!following!directive!contained!
in!Section!9!of!DOJ!Department!Circular:#
xxxx!The!appellant!and!the!trial!prosecutor!shall!see!to!it!that,!pending!
resolution!of!the!appeal,!the!proceedings!in!court!are!held!in!abeyance.!xxxx!
- The!above!provision!of!the!Department!Circular!is!directed!specifically!at!the!
appellant!and!the!trial!prosecutor,!giving!them!latitude!in!choosing!a!remedy!
to!ensure!that!the!proceedings!in!court!are!held!in!abeyance.!!!
- HOWEVER,!nowhere! in! the! said! provision! does! it! state! that! the! court! must!
hold!the!proceedings!in!abeyance.!!!
- Therefore,! the! discretion! of! the! court! whether! or! not! to! suspend! the!
proceedings!or!the!implementation!of!the!warrant!of!arrest,!upon!the!motion!
of! the! appellant! or! the! trial! prosecutor,! remains! unhindered.!!!This! is! in!
consonance! with! the! earlier! ruling! of! this! Court! that! once! a! complaint! or!
information!is!filed!in!court,!any!disposition!of!the!case!as!to!its!dismissal,!or!
the! conviction! or! acquittal! of! the! accused,! rests! on! the! sound! discretion! of!
the! said! court,! as! it! is! the! best! and! sole! judge! of! what! to! do! with! the! case!
before!it.!!!In!the!instant!case,!the!judge!of!the!trial!court!merely!exercised!his!
judicial! discretion! when! he! denied! Viudez! motion! to! suspend! the!
implementation!of!the!warrant!of!arrest.!!
- Consequently,! the! CA! was! correct! when! it! found! no! whimsicality! or!
oppressiveness! in! the! exercise! of! the! trial! judge's! discretion! in! issuing! the!
challenged!orders.!
POGI#POINTS:!#
- Neither!does!this!Court!find!any!applicability!of!the!cases!cited!by!the!petitioner!to!
the!instant!case.!
- VIUDEZ!has!put!emphasis!on!his!argument!that!the!suspension!of!the!proceedings!in!
court,!including!the!suspension!of!the!implementation!of!a!warrant!of!arrest!pending!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
a! resolution! of! an! appeal! by! the! Secretary! of! Justice,! is! in! consonance! with!
jurisprudence!laid!down!by!this!Court!in!several!cases.!
- A!close!reading!of!the!factual!antecedents!in!those!cases&clearly!show!that!a!common!
issue! among! them! is! whether! the!arraignment!of! an! accused! may! be! deferred!
pending!resolution!by!the!Secretary!of!Justice!of!a!petition!for!review!on!the!finding!
of!probable!cause,!to!which!this!Court!ruled!in!the!affirmative.!!Nowhere!in!the!said!
decisions! did! it! state! that! the! implementation! or! enforcement! of! the! warrant! of!
arrest!was!also!deferred!or!suspended,!as!herein!petitioner!prays!for.!!!Thus,!as!ruled!
in!Ledesma:!!
o Where! the! secretary! of! justice! exercises! his! power! of! review! only! after! an!
information! has! been! filed,! trial! courts! should! defer! or!
suspend!arraignment!and! further! proceedings! until! the! appeal! is!
resolved.!!Such!deferment!or!suspension,!however,!does!not!signify!that!the!
trial! court! is!ipso& facto!bound! by! the! resolution! of! the! secretary! of!
justice.!!Jurisdiction,! once! acquired! by! the! trial! court,! is! not! lost! despite! a!
resolution! by! the! secretary! of! justice! to! withdraw! the! information! or! to!
dismiss!the!case.!!
- Moreover,!procedurally!speaking,!after!the!filing!of!the!information,!the!court!
is!in!complete!control!of!the!case!and!any!disposition!therein!is!subject!to!its!
sound! discretion.! The! decision! to! suspend!arraignment!to! await! the!
resolution! of! an! appeal! with! the! Secretary! of! Justice! is! an! exercise! of! such!
discretion.!!
- LASTLY,!in!another!case!was!the!respondent!judge's!denial!of!the!motions!to!
suspend!proceedings!and!to!defer!arraignment!on!the!ground!that!the!case!
was!already!in!his!court!for!trial!and!to!follow!whatever!opinion!the!Secretary!
of!Justice!may!have!on!the!matter!would!undermine!the!independence!and!
integrity! of! his! court,! which! was! still! capable! of! administering! justice.! In!
dispelling! the! ground! relied! upon! by! the! respondent! judge,! this! Court! ruled!
that!the!filing!of!a!motion!to!dismiss!or!to!withdraw!the!information,!on!the!
basis! of! a! resolution! of! the! petition! for! review! reversing! the! finding! of! the!
investigating!prosecutor,!was!the!real!and!ultimate!test!of!the!independence!
and!integrity!of!his!court.!!!
- Therefore,! what! was! disapproved! by! this! Court! was! not! the! denial!per& se!of!
the!motions,!but!the!reasoning!behind!it.!!!It!was!from!that!premise!that!this!
Court!ordered!in!the!dispositive!portion!of!its!decision!to!defer!the!issuance!
of!the!warrants!of!arrest.!Of!more!importance!still!was!the!fact!that,!whereas!
the!questioned!motions!in!last!case!were!for!the!suspension!of!proceedings!
and!deferment!of!arraignment,!the!issue!in!the!instant!case!is!the!suspension!
of! the! implementation! of! a! warrant! of! arrest,! which! this! Court! did! not! rule!
upon!in!the!former!case.!
!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
!
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
i
!POGI!POINTS!DIN!Viudez!claims!that!RTC!committed!GADALEJ!because:!
!Viudez!has!prayed!for!the!suspension!of!the!implementation!of!the!warrant!of!arrest!because!if!he!is!
arrested!or!voluntarily!surrenders!to!the!Court,!the!issues!on!the!suspension!of!the!implementation!
of!the!warrant!of!arrest!would!become!moot!and!academic.!It!is!for!this!reason!that!the!petitioner!
has! prayed! for! the! suspension! of! the! implementation! of! the! warrant! of! arrest.! The! petitioner! is!
merely!availing!of!his!rights!under!the!law.!There!would!be!a!waiver!on!the!part!of!the!petitioner!if!
he!surrenders!to!the!lower!court.!!
The!authority!of!the!Secretary!of!Justice!to!entertain!the!petition!for!review!even!after!the!filing!of!
the! informations! is! settled,! the! authority! of! the! Secretary! of! Justice! to! review! resolutions! of! his!
subordinates! even! after! an! information! has! already! been! filed! in! court! does! not! present! an!
irreconcilable!conflict!with!the!30`day!period!prescribed!by!Section!7!of!the!Speedy!Trial!Act.!
Moreover,! the! authority! of! the! Secretary! of! Justice! to! review! resolutions! of! the! Chief! State!
Prosecutor,!Provincial!or!City!Prosecutors!is!recognized!by!Sec.!4!of!Rule!112!of!the!Revised!Rules!of!
Criminal!Procedure.!
Sec.!4,!Rule!112!of!the!Revised!Rules!of!Criminal!Procedure!expressly!recognizes!the!authority!and!
power!of!the!Department!of!Justice!to!prescribe!the!rules!to!be!followed!in!cases!of!a!petition!for!
review!of!a!resolution!of!the!Chief!State!Prosecutor,!Provincial!or!City!Prosecutors.!
Pursuant! to! the! rule`making! power! of! the! Secretary! of! Justice,! Department! Circular! No.! 70! was!
promulgated!by!the!Secretary!of!Justice!providing!that!the!appellant!and!the!trial!prosecutor!shall!
see!to!it!that,!pending!resolution!of!the!appeal,!the!proceedings!in!court!are!held!in!abeyance.!
!The! implementation! of! the! warrant! of! arrest! issued! against! VIUDEZ! is! part! of! the! proceedings! in!
court.!Since!the!circular!unequivocally!provides!that!the!proceedings!in!court!are!held!in!abeyance!
pending! resolution! of! the! petition! for! review! or! appeal,! it! follows! that! the! lower! court! committed!
GADALEJ.!
!
K.#ASETRE#V.#ASETRE#R#LOPA#
!
Emergency#Recit:#This!is!a!common!case!of!he!said,!she!said.!Hanz!Asetre!was!found!dead!in!his!
residence!which!was!also!his!printing!press.!One!side!claims!suicide,!the!other!side!claims!
murder/parricide.!Accused!are!his!wife!named!April,!his!first!cousins!Galinzchel!and!Buenaventura!
Gamboa!and!a!printing!press!worker!Benjie!Ebcas.!They!were!all!within!the!vicinity!before!during!
and!after!the!crime.!Prosecutor!found!probably!cause!to!file!cases!for!murder!and!parricide!and!filed!
a!case!with!the!RTC!of!Bacolod.!DOJ!Sec!Mercedita!Gutierrez!reversed!this!finding!and!ordered!the!
prosecutors!to!withdraw!the!case.!A!case!was!filed!in!CA!to!reverse!the!resolution!of!Gutierrez,!CA!
reversed.!!
!
Main!issue:!W/N!CA!erred!in!reversing!the!ruling!of!the!DOJ!Sec!and!finding!probable!cause!to!indict!
petitioners!for!murder!and!parricide?!YES!!!
!
Ratio/Doctrines:!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
o A!preliminary!investigation!falls!under!the!authority!of!the!state!prosecutor!who!is!given!by!
law!the!power!to!direct!and!control!criminal!actions.!He!is,!however,!subject!to!the!control!
of!the!Secretary!of!Justice.!(Section!4,!Rule!112!of!the!Revised!Rules!of!Criminal!Procedure)!!
o While!it!is!the!duty!of!the!fiscal!to!prosecute!persons!who,!according!to!evidence!received!
from!the!complainant,!are!shown!to!be!guilty!of!a!crime,!the!Secretary!of!Justice!is!likewise!
bound!by!his!oath!of!office!to!protect!innocent!persons!from!groundless,!false!or!serious!
prosecutions.!The!Secretary!is!empowered!to!order!or!perform!the!very!acts!questioned!in!
this!case.!
o Medical!doctors!said!suicide!theory!was!improbable!but!did!not!categorically!state!foul!play!
as!cause!of!death.!!
o No!evidence!of!conspiracy.!No!direct!evidence!of!murder/parricide.!No!GADALEJ.!!
o Judicial!review!of!the!resolution!of!the!DOJ!Sec!is!limited!to!a!determination!whether!there!
has!been!GADALEJ.!Courts!cannot!substitute!the!executive!branchs!judgment.!
!
QUISUMBING,#J.:#
o Petition!for!review!on!certiorari!assailing!the!CA!decision!that!reversed!the!Resolution!of!the!
DOJ!
o DOJ!Resolution!!ordered!withdrawal!of!an!information!for!parricide!against!April!Joy!Asetre!
and!for!murder!against!Benjie!Ebcas,!Galinzchel!Gamboa!and!Buenaventura!Gamboa!
#
FACTS:#
Background#Facts:#
o Hanz!Dietrich!Asetre!(26!yrs!old)!was!found!dead!in!his!residence!which!also!housed!his!
printing!press!
o Petitioner!Asetre!(wife)!alleges!that!her!husband!committed!suicide!by!hanging!himself!using!
bedcovers!
o Says!Hanz!was!depressed,!suicidal,!drug!dependent,!alcoholic!and!violent.!Claims!
that!Hanz!breaks!things!when!hes!drunk/high.!
o When!Hanzs!mother!got!cancer,!he!became!despondent,!losing!concentration!in!
work!and!lacked!sleep.!!
o When!Hanzs!mother!died,!he!wrote!letters!expressing!desire!to!follow!his!mother!
o Also!depressed!because!he!was!left!with!huge!debts.!!
o Recommended!that!he!would!go!to!rehab!but!he!only!stayed!there!for!2!weeks.!
o April!burned!the!bedsheets!allegedly!used!to!hang!Hanz!and!also!burned!the!alleged!suicide!
note.!
o Buried!the!body!right!away.!April!refused!to!have!the!body!exhumed/autopsied.!
o All!the!petitioners!were!present!at!the!scene!shortly!before,!during,!and!after!the!victim!died!
and!they!were!the!last!persons!seen!with!the!victim!
o Junel!Asetre!(Hanzs!brother)!claimed:!!
o that!the!marks!on!Hanzs!neck!were!from!a!rope,!not!bedspread.!!
o Buenaventura!Gamboa!knew!who!killed!Hanz!but!was!reluctant!to!divulge!it!or!else!
Aprils!father!would!hurt!him!
o Charity!Asetre`Alagban!(Hanzs!sister)!claimed:!!
o Hanz!confided!in!her!that!April!issued!checks!without!his!knowledge!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
o Hanz!died!without!fixing!things!with!April!
!
Findings#of#the#investigating#prosecutor:##
o Found!probable!cause!against!the!ff:!
o April!
o Hanzs!first!cousins!Galinzchel!and!Buenaventura!Gamboa!!
o printing!press!worker!Benjie!Ebcas!
o petitioners!were!physically!and!actively!interacting!with!Hanz!shortly!before!he!was!
found!dead!
o They!connived!in!killing!Hanz!and!later!tried!to!cover!up!the!crime.!!
o Rejected!petitioners!"suicide!theory"!because!it!is!inconsistent!with!the!medico`
legal!findings!that!the!circumstances!of!his!death!proved!he!could!not!have!done!it!
himself.!!
" Murder!possible!even!without!injury!or!wounds,!since!he!had!been!drinking!
before!his!death,!which!could!have!rendered!him!too!drunk!to!be!aware!that!
he!was!being!strangled.!!
o Prosecutor!recommended!that!the!ff!should!be!filed:!!
" murder!under!Article!248!of!the!Revised!Penal!Code!against!Ebcas!and!the!
Gamboas!!
" parricide!under!Article!2467!of!the!Revised!Penal!Code!against!April.!!
o The!cases!were!filed!with!the!Regional!Trial!Court!(RTC)!of!Negros!Occidental,!Branch!50.!
o Subsequently,!the!accused!asked!the!DOJ!for!a!review!of!the!prosecutors!findings.!
!
DOJ#finding#through#Acting#Secretary#Merceditas#Gutierrez:##
o Absolved!petitioners!and!reversed!the!investigating!prosecutors!resolution!because!
while!there!is!overwhelming!proof!that!Hanz!might!not!have!committed!suicide,!
there!is!no!direct!or!circumstantial!evidence!that!could!link!petitioners!as!the!
authors!of!the!crime.!!
o Reasons:!!
(1) prosecution!failed!to!establish!petitioners!motive!to!kill!Hanz!
(2) alleged!"quarrel!incident"!of!the!spouses!was!not!substantiated!
(3) Aprils!actuations!during!the!incident!should!not!be!taken!against!her.!There!
is!no!standard!human!behavioral!response!when!one!is!confronted!with!a!
strange!or!frightful!experience!
(4) even!her!actuations!after!the!incident!(burned!bedsheets!and!suicide!letter,!
opposed!exhumation/autopsy)!could!not!cast!doubt!on!Aprils!innocent!
intentions.!She!couldve!thought!that!the!police!investigation!done!at!the!time!
of!the!incident!and!initial!post`mortem!examination!were!enough!to!close!the!
investigation.!
(5) Apparent!inconsistent!testimonies!of!the!other!petitioners!on!their!
participation!during!the!incident!could!not!be!taken!against!them!because!
witnesses!to!a!stirring!incident!could!see!differently!some!details!thereof!due!
in!large!part!to!excitement!and!confusion!that!such!an!incident!usually!brings.!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In!a!Resolution,!DOJ!ordered!the!prosecutor!to!withdraw!the!information!against!the!
o
petitioners!in!the!criminal!case.!Prosecutor!filed!a!Motion!to!Withdraw!Information!in!
the!Criminal!Case.!Granted!by!RTC.!!
o RTC!recalled!warrant!of!arrest!against!accused!
o RTC!Denied!respondents!motion!for!reconsideration!so!Asetres!filed!a!petition!
for!certiorari!and!mandamus!before!the!CA.!Claimed!that!DOJ!Secretary!acted!
with!grave!abuse!of!discretion!in!issuing!their!Resolution!despite!circumstantial!
evidence!against!petitioners.!!
Findings#of#the#CA:##
o DOJ!Sec!committed!GADALEJ!in!reversing!the!investigating!prosecutors!finding!of!probable!
cause!
o congruence!of!facts!and!circumstances!of!the!case!strongly!shows!a!reasonable!ground!of!
suspicion!that!crimes!of!murder!and!parricide!had!been!committed!by!the!petitioners!
o agreed!with!prosecutor!that!evidence!negates!suicide!theory!
o held!that!when!an!information!has!already!been!filed!in!court,!the!latter!acquires!jurisdiction!
over!the!case!until!its!termination,!and!any!relief!desired!by!any!party!should!be!addressed!
to!the!trial!court!
o CA!denied!petitioners!motion!for!reconsideration.!!
ISSUES:#
MAIN#ISSUE:#
1. W/N!CA!erred!in!reversing!the!ruling!of!the!DOJ!Sec!and!finding!probable!cause!to!indict!
petitioners!for!murder!and!parricide?!YES!!!
Sub#Issues:#(Not#super#relevant,#more#CRIM#than#CRIMPRO#but#sir#might#ask#anyway)#
2. W/N!the!opinions!of!the!medical!doctors!that!Hanz!did!not!commit!suicide!have!sufficient!
weight,!as!compared!to!the!direct!testimonies!of!the!petitioners,!their!witnesses!and!
circumstantial!evidence!showing!that!indeed!Hanz!committed!suicide?!NO!SUFFICIENT!
WEIGHT.!
3. W/N!the!probable!cause!to!charge!petitioners!for!parricide/murder!is!supported!by!evidence!
and!in!accord!with!jurisprudence!and!law?!NO.!!
RATIO:##
o A!preliminary!investigation!falls!under!the!authority!of!the!state!prosecutor!who!is!given!by!
law!the!power!to!direct!and!control!criminal!actions.!He!is,!however,!subject!to!the!control!
of!the!Secretary!of!Justice.!(Section!4,!Rule!112!of!the!Revised!Rules!of!Criminal!Procedure)!!
o The!full!discretionary!authority!to!determine!probable!cause!in!a!preliminary!investigation!to!
ascertain!sufficient!ground!for!the!filing!of!information!rests!with!the!executive!branch.!!
o Judicial!review!of!the!resolution!of!the!DOJ!Sec!is!limited!to!a!determination!whether!there!
has!been!GADALEJ.!Courts!cannot!substitute!the!executive!branchs!judgment.!
o Grave!abuse!of!discretion!`!"such!capricious!and!whimsical!exercise!of!judgment!as!is!
equivalent!to!lack!of!jurisdiction.!The!abuse!of!discretion!must!be!grave!as!where!the!
power!is!exercised!in!an!arbitrary!or!despotic!manner!by!reason!of!passion!or!
personal!hostility!and!must!be!so!patent!and!gross!as!to!amount!to!an!evasion!of!
positive!duty!or!to!a!virtual!refusal!to!perform!the!duty!enjoined!by!or!to!act!at!all!in!
contemplation!of!law."!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
o As!department!head,!the!DOJ!Sec!has!the!power!to!alter,!modify,!nullify!or!set!aside!what!a!
subordinate!officer!had!done!in!the!performance!of!his!duties!and!to!substitute!the!
judgment!of!the!former!for!that!of!the!latter.!!
o While!it!is!the!duty!of!the!fiscal!to!prosecute!persons!who,!according!to!evidence!received!
from!the!complainant,!are!shown!to!be!guilty!of!a!crime,!the!Secretary!of!Justice!is!likewise!
bound!by!his!oath!of!office!to!protect!innocent!persons!from!groundless,!false!or!serious!
prosecutions.!The!Secretary!is!empowered!to!order!or!perform!the!very!acts!questioned!in!
this!case.!
o Joaquin,!Jr.!v.!Drilon,30!this!Court!affirmed!the!DOJ!Secretarys!power!of!control!over!the!
authority!of!a!state!prosecutor!to!conduct!preliminary!investigations!on!criminal!actions.!
o DOJ!Sec!is!not!precluded!from!considering!errors,!although!unassigned,!for!the!
purpose!of!determining!whether!there!is!probable!cause!for!filing!cases!in!court.!!
o He!must!make!his!own!finding!of!probable!cause!and!is!not!confined!to!the!issues!
raised!by!the!parties!during!preliminary!investigation.!!
o His!findings!are!not!subject!to!review!unless!shown!to!have!been!made!with!grave!
abuse.!
o Remedy!if!DOJ!Sec!committed!GADALEJ:!CA!may!take!cognizance!of!the!case!in!a!petition!for!
certiorari!(Rule!65,!Revised!Rules!of!Civil!Procedure).!CA!decision!may!also!be!appealed!to!SC!
by!way!of!petition!for!review!on!certiorari.!
o In!this!case!DOJ!Sec!committed!no!grave!abuse!of!discretion.!Based!on!the!totality!of!the!
evidence!presented!by!both!parties,!it!is!clear!that!there!is!a!dearth!of!proof!to!hold!
petitioners!for!trial.!
!
W/N!the!opinions!of!the!medical!doctors!that!Hanz!did!not!commit!suicide!have!sufficient!weight,!as!
compared!to!the!direct!testimonies!of!the!petitioners,!their!witnesses!and!circumstantial!evidence!
showing!that!indeed!Hanz!committed!suicide?!
!
o Medical!doctors!involved!in!the!case!are!not!expert!witnesses,!nor!were!they!offered!to!
testify!as!medico`legal!experts.!!
o The!medico`legal!officer!who!prepared!the!exhumation!report!is!also!not!a!forensic!expert.!!
o They!never!opined!that!it!was!improbable!for!the!deceased!to!have!committed!suicide.!!
o The!death!certificate!signed!by!Dr.!Gonzaga!indicated!"asphyxia!secondary!to!strangulation"!
as!the!cause!of!death,!without!explaining!whether!it!was!suicide!or!not.!!
o CA!lacks!sufficient!basis!to!conclude!that!it!was!"improbable"!for!Hanz!to!commit!suicide!
based!on!the!opinions!of!the!three!doctors.!
o Dr.!Gamboas!post`mortem!findings!did!not!categorically!state!foul!play!as!the!cause!of!
death!
!
W/N!the!probable!cause!to!charge!petitioners!for!paricide/homicide!is!supported!by!evidence!and!in!
accord!with!jurisprudence!and!law?!
o While!there!is!physical!evidence!to!buttress!private!respondents!assertion!that!there!was!
foul!play,!that!evidence!is!inconclusive.!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
o The!ligature!that!was!seen!on!December!27!or!28,!2000!was!no!longer!the!same!ligature!
seen!on!March!1,!2001.!Since!Hanz!was!obese,!the!entire!ligature!will!not!be!very!
conspicuous.!!
o Absence!of!an!upward!direction!ligature!did!not!necessarily!mean!that!Hanz!was!strangled.!!
o Finding!that!there!was!conspiracy!to!kill!Hanz!is!not!supported!by!any!evidence!on!record!
and!hence!must!be!discarded.!
o Conspiracy!exists!if!2!or!more!agree!to!commit!a!felony!and!decide!to!commit!it.!(Art!
8,!RPC)!
o Must!be!proven!during!trial!with!same!quantum!of!evidence!as!the!felony!subject!of!
the!agreement.!
o DOJ!Secretary!correctly!held!that!the!circumstantial!evidence!presented!by!private!
respondents!to!prove!probable!cause!against!petitioners,!does!not!support!the!
theory!of!conspiracy!to!commit!murder.!!
o Petitioners!mere!presence!at!the!death!scene,!without!more,!does!not!suffice!to!
establish!probable!cause!against!them.!!
o Petitioners!were!not!the!only!people!in!the!house.!Anyone!else!could!have!also!
entered!and!committed!the!crime.!!
o No!grave!abuse!of!discretion!in!the!ruling!of!the!DOJ!that!an!ordinary!person!like!
April!could!have!believed!that!the!police!investigation!made!at!the!death!scene!and!
the!post`mortem!examination!conducted!on!the!body!of!the!victim!were!already!
more!than!enough!to!conclude!and!close!the!investigation.!!
!
Relevant#Provision:#Sec#4#Rule#112,#Revised#Rules#of#Criminal#Procedure#
!
xxx!
!
If#upon#petition#by#a#proper#party#under#such#rules#as#the#Department#of#Justice#may#prescribe#or#
motu#proprio,#the#Secretary#of#Justice#reverses#or#modifies#the#resolution#of#the#provincial#or#city#
prosecutor#or#chief#state#prosecutor,#he#shall#direct#the#prosecutor#concerned#either#to#file#the#
corresponding#information#without#conducting#another#preliminary#investigation,#or#to#dismiss#or#
move#for#dismissal#of#the#complaint#or#information#with#notice#to#the#parties.#The#same#rule#shall#
apply#in#preliminary#investigations#conducted#by#the#officers#of#the#Office#of#the#Ombudsman.#(4a)#
!
L.TAMARGO,%Petitioner,%vs.%
ROMULO+ AWINGAN,+ LLOYD+ ANTIPORDA+ and+ LICERIO+ ANTIPORDA,+
JR.,%Respondents.%%%
<Keith%
a%lot%of%facts.%Use%ER%as%outline.%%
%
Emergency%Recit:%%
Atty.%Franklin%V.%Tamargo%and%his%eight<year<old%daughter,%Gail%Franzielle,%were%
shot%and%killed%%
Reynaldo%Geron%executed%an%affidavit%that%
o Columna%said%to%him%that%Atty.%Tamargo%was%ordered%killed%
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
o That%he%(Columna)%was%one%of%those%who%killed%Tamargo%
Colummna%was%arrested%in%Cagayan%province%and%brought%to%Manila%for%detention%%
Columnas%affidavit:%
o he% admitted% his% participation% as% "look% out"% during% the% shooting% and% implicated%
respondent% Romulo% Awingan% (alias% "Mumoy")% as% the% gunman% and% one% Richard%
Mecate.%%
o He% also% tagged% as% masterminds% respondent% Licerio% Antiporda,% Jr.% and% his% son,%
respondent%Lloyd%Antiporda.%
Respondents%denied%allegations:%
o They%stated%that%they%were%political%rivals%with%Atty.%Tamargo%and%Tamargo%lost%
to%them%
o During% the% preliminary% investigation,% they% presented% unsolicited% letter% of%
Columna%
" Columna%stated%respondents%had%no%participation%in%the%crime.%
" And%that%he%was%tortured%to%give%his%extrajudicial%confession.%
o Columna% categorically% admitted% the% statement% of% those% facts% upon% clarificatory%
hearing%
the% investigating% prosecutor% recommended% the% dismissal% of% the% charges% against% the%
Respondents.%This%was%approved%by%the%city%prosecutor.%
Meanwhile,% in% another% handwritten% letter% addressed% to% City% Prosecutor% Ramon% Garcia%
dated% October% 29,% 2004,% Columna% said% that% he% was% only% forced% to% withdraw% all% his%
statements% against% respondents% during% the% October% 22,% 2004% clarificatory% hearing%
because%of%the%threats%to%his%life%inside%the%jail.%
Petitioner% also% in% the% meantime% filed% an% appeal% to% the% Department% of% Justice% (DOJ).%On%
May%30,%2005,%the%DOJ,%through%then%Secretary%Raul%M.%Gonzalez,%reversed%the%dismissal%
and%ordered%the%filing%of%the%Informations%for%murder.%
However,% on% August% 12,% 2005,% on% MR,% Secretary% Gonzales% granted% the% Respondent%
Antipordas% motion% for% reconsideration% (MR)% and% directed% the% withdrawal% of% the%
Informations.%Ruled:%
o Columnas%evidence%was%inadmissible%against%the%respondents.%
In%a%related%case,%separate%civil%action,%CA%Ruled%that:%
o the% RTC% judge% gravely% abused% her% discretion% because% she% arbitrarily% left% out% of%
her% assessment% and% evaluation% the% substantial% matters% that% the% DOJ% Secretary%
had% fully% taken% into% account% in% concluding% that% there% was% no% probable% cause%
against%all%the%accused.%%
o It% also% held% that% Columnas% extrajudicial% confession% was% not% admissible% against%
the%respondents%because,%aside%from%the%recanted%confession,%there%was%no%other%
piece%of%evidence%presented%to%establish%the%existence%of%the%conspiracy.%%
o Additionally,%the%confession%was%made%only%after%Columna%was%arrested%and%not%
while%the%conspirators%were%engaged%in%carrying%out%the%conspiracy.%
ISSUE:%whether%or%not%the%CA%erred%in%finding%that%Judge%Daguna%had%committed%grave%
abuse% of% discretion% in% denying% the% withdrawal% of% the% Informations% for% murder% against%
respondents.%
%

Petitioner% argues% that,% based% on% the% independent% assessment% of% Judge% Daguna,%
there% was% probable% cause% based% on% the% earlier% affidavit% of% Columna.% She%
considered% all% the% pieces% of% evidence% but% did% not% give% credit% to% Columnas%
repudiation.%

%
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Respondents%counter%that%Judge%Daguna%committed%grave%abuse%of%discretion%by%
limiting%her%evaluation%and%assessment%only%to%evidence%that%supported%probable%
cause% while% completely% disregarding% contradicting% evidence.% They% also% contend%
that% Columnas% extrajudicial% confession% was% inadmissible% against% respondents%
because%of%the%rule%on%res$inter$alios$acta.%

%
HELD:%%%
We% hold% that% the% CA% committed% no% reversible% error% in% granting% the% petitions% for%
certiorari%(the%withdrawal%of%information)%of%respondents.%
The%court%must%itself%be%convinced%that%there%is%indeed%no%sufficient%evidence%against%the%
accused%
The+judge+or+fiscal,+therefore,+should+not+go+on+with+the+prosecution+in+the+hope+
that+ some+ credible+ evidence+ might+ later+ turn+ up+ during+ trial+ for+ this+ would+ be+ a+
flagrant+violation+of+a+basic+right+which+the+courts+are+created+to+uphold.%
The%selectivity%of%respondent%RTC%Judge%Daguna%for%purposes%of%resolving%the%motion$to$
withdraw$ the$ informations$ effectively% sidetracked% the% guidelines% for% an% independent%
assessment% and% evaluation% of% the% merits% of% the% case.% Respondent% RTC% Judge% thus%
impaired% the% substantial% rights% of% the% accused.% Instead,% she% should% have% made% a%
circumspect%evaluation%by%looking%at%everything%made%available%to%her%at%that%point%of%
the%cases.%No%less%than%that%was%expected%and%required%of%her%as%a%judicial%officer.%
%
Indeed,% at% that% stage% of% the% proceedings,% the% duty% of% Judge% Daguna% was% only% to% satisfy%
herself%whether%there%was%probable%cause%or%sufficient%ground%to%hold%respondents%for%
trial%as%co<conspirators.%Given%that%she%had%no%sufficient%basis%for%a%finding%of%probable%
cause%against%respondents,%her%orders%denying%the%withdrawal%of%the%Informations%for%
murder%against%them%were%issued%with%grave%abuse%of%discretion.%
%
Judge%Daguna%failed%to%consider%that%Columnas%extrajudicial%confession%in%his%March%8,%
2004% affidavit% was% not% admissible% as% evidence% against% respondents% in% view% of% the% rule%
on%res$inter$alios$acta.%
The%rule%on%res$inter$alios$acta%provides%that%the%rights%of%a%party%cannot%be%prejudiced%
by%an%act,%declaration,%or%omission%of%another.%(Exception:%when%an%admission%is%made%
by%a%conspirator;%there%was%none%proven%in%this%case)%
%
%
Facts:%
Atty.%Franklin%V.%Tamargo%and%his%eight<year<old%daughter,%Gail%Franzielle,%were%
shot%and%killed%%
at%around%5:15%p.m.%of%August%15,%2003%along%Nueva%Street%corner%Escolta%Street,%
Binondo,%Manila.%%
The%police%had%no%leads%on%the%perpetrators%of%the%crime%until%a%certain%Reynaldo%
Geron%surfaced%and%executed%an%affidavit%dated%September%12,%2003.%%
He%stated%that%a%certain%Lucio%Columna%(sumbungero)%told%him%during%a%drinking%
spree%that%Atty.%Tamargo%was%ordered%killed%by%respondent%Lloyd%Antiporda%and%
that%he%(Columna)%was%one%of%those%who%killed%Atty.%Tamargo.%%
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Geron%(witness)%added%that%he%told%the%Tamargo%family%what%he%knew%and%that%
the%sketch%of%the%suspect%closely%resembled%Columna.4%
After% conducting% a% preliminary% investigation% and% on% the% strength% of% Gerons%
affidavit,% the% investigating% prosecutor5%issued% a% resolution% dated% December% 5,%
2003%finding%probable%cause%against%Columna%and%three%John%Does.6%%
On% February% 2,% 2004,% the% corresponding% Informations% for% murder% were% filed%
against%them%in%the%Regional%Trial%Court%(RTC)%of%Manila,%%
o one%assigned%to%Branch%27%for%the%death%of%Atty.%Franklin%Tamargo,%%
o and%the%other%to%Branch%29%for%the%death%of%the%minor%Gail%Franzielle.7%%
Columna%(sumbungero)%was%arrested%in%the%province%of%Cagayan%on%February%17,%
2004%and%brought%to%Manila%for%detention%and%trial.%
On% March% 8,% 2004,% Columna% (whose% real% name% was% Manuel,% Jr.)% executed% an% affidavit%
wherein%he%admitted%his%participation%as%"look%out"%during%the%shooting%and%implicated%
respondent%Romulo%Awingan%(alias%"Mumoy")%as%the%gunman%and%one%Richard%Mecate.%%
%
He% also% tagged% as% masterminds% respondent% Licerio% Antiporda,% Jr.% and% his% son,%
respondent%Lloyd%Antiporda.9%The%former%was%the%ex<mayor%and%the%latter%the%mayor%of%
Buguey,%Cagayan%at%that%time.%%
%
When%the%killing%took%place,%Licerio%Antiporda%was%in%detention%for%a%kidnapping%case%in%
which%Atty.%Tamargo%was%acting%as%private%prosecutor.%
%
Pursuant%to%this%affidavit,%petitioner%Harold%V.%Tamargo%(brother%of%Atty.%Tamargo)%filed%
a%complaint%against%Awingan%and%Licerio%Antiporda%(respondents).%
Respondents%denied%any%involvement%in%the%killings.%%
o They%alleged%that%Licerio%was%a%candidate%for%mayor%in%Buguey,%Cagayan%
during% the% May% 2004% elections% and% that% the% case% was% instituted% by% his%
political%opponents%in%order%to%derail%his%candidacy.%%
o The% Antipordas% admitted% that% Atty.% Tamargo% was% their% political% rival% for%
the%mayoralty%post%of%Buguey.%%
o Atty.% Tamargo% had% been% defeated% twice% by% Lloyd% and% once% by% Licerio.%
Before%the%killing,%Atty.%Tamargo%filed%an%election%case%against%Lloyd%and%a%
kidnapping%case%in%the%Sandiganbayan%against%Licerio.%%
o However,%they%claimed%that%both%cases%were%dismissed%as%Lloyd%emerged%
as% the% winner% in% the% elections% and% Licerio% was% acquitted% by% the%
Sandiganbayan.%%
During% the% preliminary% investigation,% respondent% Licerio% presented% Columnas%
unsolicited%handwritten%letter%dated%May%3,%2004%to%respondent%Lloyd,%sent%from%
Columnas%jail%cell%in%Manila.%%
o He%stated%that%those%he%implicated%had%no%participation%in%the%killings.%%
o In% the% letter,% Columna% disowned% the% contents% of% his% March% 8,% 2004%
affidavit%
o And%narrated%how%he%had%been%tortured%until%he%signed%the%extrajudicial%
confession.%
Respondent%Licerio%also%submitted%an%affidavit%of%Columna%dated%May%25,%2004%
wherein%the%latter%essentially%repeated%the%statements%in%his%handwritten%letter.%
Due%to%the%submission%of%Columnas%letter%and%affidavit,%the%investigating%prosecutor%set%
a%clarificatory%hearing,%to%enable%Columna%to%clarify%his%contradictory%affidavits%and%his%
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
unsolicited% letter.% During% the% hearing% held% on% October% 22,% 2004,% Columna% categorically%
admitted%the%authorship%and%voluntariness%of%the%unsolicited%letter.%He%affirmed%the%May%
25,%2004%affidavit%and%denied%that%any%violence%had%been%employed%to%obtain%or%extract%
the%affidavit$from%him.%
Thus,%on%November%10,%2004,%the%investigating%prosecutor%recommended%the%dismissal%
of%the%charges%against%the%Respondents.%This%was%approved%by%the%city%prosecutor.%
Meanwhile,% in% another% handwritten% letter% addressed% to% City% Prosecutor% Ramon% Garcia%
dated% October% 29,% 2004,% Columna% said% that% he% was% only% forced% to% withdraw% all% his%
statements% against% respondents% during% the% October% 22,% 2004% clarificatory% hearing%
because% of% the% threats% to% his% life% inside% the% jail.% He% requested% that% he% be% transferred% to%
another%detention%center.%
Aggrieved%by%the%dismissal%of%the%charges,%petitioner%filed%an%appeal%to%the%Department%
of% Justice% (DOJ).%On% May% 30,% 2005,% the% DOJ,% through% then% Secretary% Raul% M.% Gonzalez,%
reversed%the%dismissal%and%ordered%the%filing%of%the%Informations%for%murder.%He%opined%
that% the% March% 8,% 2004% extrajudicial% confession% was% not% effectively% impeached% by% the%
subsequent%recantation%and%that%there%was%enough%evidence%to%prove%the%probable%guilt%
of% respondents.% Accordingly,% the% Informations% were% filed% and% the% cases% were%
consolidated%and%assigned%to%the%RTC%of%Manila,%Branch%29.%
However,% on% August% 12,% 2005,% Secretary% Gonzales% granted% the% Antipordas% motion% for%
reconsideration% (MR)% and% directed% the% withdrawal% of% the% Informations.21%This% time,% he%
declared% that% the% extrajudicial% confession% of% Columna% was% inadmissible% against%
respondents% and% that,% even% if% it% was% admissible,% it% was% not% corroborated% by% other%
evidence.%As%a%result,%on%August%22,%2005,%the%trial%prosecutor%filed%a%motion%to%withdraw%
the%Informations.%On%October%4,%2005,%Secretary%Gonzalez%denied%petitioners%MR.%
In%a%decision%dated%November%10,%2006%in%CA<G.R.%SP%No.%93610,%%
o the% CA% ruled% that% the% RTC% judge% gravely% abused% her% discretion% because% she%
arbitrarily%left%out%of%her%assessment%and%evaluation%the%substantial%matters%that%
the% DOJ% Secretary% had% fully% taken% into% account% in% concluding% that% there% was% no%
probable%cause%against%all%the%accused.%It%also%held%that%Columnas%extrajudicial%
confession%was%not%admissible%against%the%respondents%because,%aside%from%the%
recanted%confession,%there%was%no%other%piece%of%evidence%presented%to%establish%
the%existence%of%the%conspiracy.%Additionally,%the%confession%was%made%only%after%
Columna%was%arrested%and%not%while%the%conspirators%were%engaged%in%carrying%
out%the%conspiracy.%
%
ISSUE:%The%main%issue%for%our%resolution%is%whether%or%not%the%CA%erred%in%finding%that%
Judge%Daguna%had%committed%grave%abuse%of%discretion%in%denying%the%withdrawal%of%the%
Informations%for%murder%against%respondents.%
%
HELD:%we%hold%that%the%CA%committed%no%reversible%error%in%granting%the%petitions%for%
certiorari%(the%withdrawal%of%information)%of%respondents.%

Petitioner% argues% that,% based% on% the% independent% assessment% of% Judge% Daguna,%
there% was% probable% cause% based% on% the% earlier% affidavit% of% Columna.% She%
considered% all% the% pieces% of% evidence% but% did% not% give% credit% to% Columnas%
repudiation.%

%
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Respondents%counter%that%Judge%Daguna%committed%grave%abuse%of%discretion%by%
limiting%her%evaluation%and%assessment%only%to%evidence%that%supported%probable%
cause% while% completely% disregarding% contradicting% evidence.% They% also% contend%
that% Columnas% extrajudicial% confession% was% inadmissible% against% respondents%
because%of%the%rule%on%res$inter$alios$acta.%

%
WE%FIND%NO%MERIT%IN%THE%PETITION%
It% is% settled% that,% when% confronted% with% a% motion% to% withdraw% an% Information% (on% the%
ground%of%lack%of%probable%cause%to%hold%the%accused%for%trial%based%on%a%resolution%of%
the%DOJ%Secretary),%the%trial%court%has%the%duty%to%make%an%independent%assessment%of%
the% merits% of% the% motion.%It% may% either% agree% or% disagree% with% the% recommendation% of%
the%Secretary.%Reliance%alone%on%the%resolution%of%the%Secretary%would%be%an%abdication%
of% the% trial% courts% duty% and% jurisdiction% to% determine% a%prima$ facie%case.26%The% court%
must% itself% be% convinced% that% there% is% indeed% no% sufficient% evidence% against% the%
accused.27%
%
We% agree% with% the% CA% that% Judge% Daguna% limited% herself% only% to% the% following:% (1)%
Columnas%affidavit%dated%March%8,%2004%wherein%he%implicated%the%respondents%in%the%
murders;% (2)% his% affirmation% of% this% affidavit% during% the% April% 19,% 2004% clarificatory%
hearing;%(3)%his%letter%dated%October%29,%2004%and%(4)%the%May%30,%2005%DOJ%resolution%
upholding%the%prosecutors%recommendation%to%file%the%murder%charges.%
%
We%declared%in%Jimenez$v.$Jimenez%that:%
[although]% there% is% no% general% formula% or% fixed% rule% for% the% determination% of% probable%
cause%since%the%same%must%be%decided%in%the%light%of%the%conditions%obtaining%in%given%
situations%and%its%existence%depends%to%a%large%degree%upon%the%finding%or%opinion%of%the%
judge% conducting% the% examination,such+ a+ finding+ should+ not+ disregard+ the+ facts+
before+ the+ judge+ nor+ run+ counter+ to+ the+ clear+ dictates+ of+ reason.+ The+ judge+ or+
fiscal,+ therefore,+ should+ not+ go+ on+ with+ the+ prosecution+ in+ the+ hope+ that+ some+
credible+ evidence+ might+ later+ turn+ up+ during+ trial+ for+ this+ would+ be+ a+ flagrant+
violation+of+a+basic+right+which+the+courts+are+created+to+uphold.%
The% selectivity% of% respondent% RTC% Judge% for% purposes% of% resolving% the%motion$ to$
withdraw$ the$ informationseffectively% sidetracked% the% guidelines% for% an% independent%
assessment% and% evaluation% of% the% merits% of% the% case.% Respondent% RTC% Judge% thus%
impaired% the% substantial% rights% of% the% accused.% Instead,% she% should% have% made% a%
circumspect%evaluation%by%looking%at%everything%made%available%to%her%at%that%point%of%
the%cases.%No%less%than%that%was%expected%and%required%of%her%as%a%judicial%officer.%
%
Moreover,%Judge%Daguna%failed%to%consider%that%Columnas%extrajudicial%confession%in%his%
March%8,%2004%affidavit%was%not%admissible%as%evidence%against%respondents%in%view%of%
the%rule%on%res$inter$alios$acta.%
The%rule%on%res$inter$alios$acta%provides%that%the%rights%of%a%party%cannot%be%prejudiced%
by%an%act,%declaration,%or%omission%of%another.%Consequently,%an%extrajudicial%confession%
is%binding%only%on%the%confessant,%is%not%admissible%against%his%or%her%co<accused%and%is%
considered%as%hearsay%against%them.%The%reason%for%this%rule%is%that:%
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
On%a%principle%of%good%faith%and%mutual%convenience,%a%mans%own%acts%are%binding%upon%
himself,%and%are%evidence%against%him.%So%are%his%conduct%and%declarations.%Yet%it%would%
not%only%be%rightly%inconvenient,%but%also%manifestly%unjust,%that%a%man%should%be%bound%
by%the%acts%of%mere%unauthorized%strangers;%and%if%a%party%ought%not%to%be%bound%by%the%
acts%of%strangers,%neither%ought%their%acts%or%conduct%be%used%as%evidence%against%him.%
An%exception%to%the%res$inter$alios$acta%rule%is%an%admission%made%by%a%conspirator%under%
Section%30,%Rule%130%of%the%Rules%of%Court:%
Admission% by% conspirator.% % The% act% or% declaration% of% a% conspirator% relating% to% the%
conspiracy%and%during%its%existence,%may%be%given%in%evidence%against%the%co<conspirator%
after%the%conspiracy%is%shown%by%evidence%other%than%such%act%or%declaration.1avvphi1%
This% rule% prescribes% that% the% act% or% declaration% of% the% conspirator% relating% to% the%
conspiracy% and% during% its% existence% may% be% given% in% evidence% against% co<conspirators%
provided% that% the% conspiracy% is% shown% by% independent% evidence% aside% from% the%
extrajudicial% confession.% Thus,% in% order% that% the% admission% of% a% conspirator% may% be%
received% against% his% or% her% co<conspirators,% it% is% necessary% that% (a)% the% conspiracy% be%
first%proved%by%evidence%other%than%the%admission%itself%(b)%the%admission%relates%to%the%
common%object%and%(c)%it%has%been%made%while%the%declarant%was%engaged%in%carrying%
out% the% conspiracy.% Otherwise,% it% cannot% be% used% against% the% alleged% co<conspirators%
without%violating%their%constitutional%right%to%be%confronted%with%the%witnesses%against%
them%and%to%cross<examine%them.%%
Here,% aside% from% the% extrajudicial% confession,% which% was% later% on% recanted,% no% other%
piece% of% evidence% was% presented% to% prove% the% alleged% conspiracy.% There% was% no% other%
prosecution%evidence,%direct%or%circumstantial,%which%the%extrajudicial%confession%could%
corroborate.% Therefore,% the% recanted% confession% of% Columna,% which% was% the% sole%
evidence%against%respondents,%had%no%probative%value%and%was%inadmissible%as%evidence%
against%them.%
Considering% the% paucity% and% inadmissibility% of% the% evidence% presented% against% the%
respondents,% it% would% be% unfair% to% hold% them% for% trial.% Once% it% is% ascertained% that% no%
probable% cause% exists% to% form% a% sufficient% belief% as% to% the% guilt% of% the% accused,% they%
should%be%relieved%from%the%pain%of%going%through%a%full%blown%court%case.%
%
When,% at% the% outset,% the% evidence% offered% during% the% preliminary% investigation% is%
nothing%more%than%an%uncorroborated%extrajudicial%confession%of%an%alleged%conspirator,%
the%criminal%complaint%should%not%prosper%so%that%the%system%would%be%spared%from%the%
unnecessary%expense%of%such%useless%and%expensive%litigation.%
%
Indeed,%at%that%stage%of%the%proceedings,%the%duty%of%Judge%Daguna%was%only%to%satisfy%
herself%whether%there%was%probable%cause%or%sufficient%ground%to%hold%respondents%for%
trial%as%co<conspirators.%Given%that%she%had%no%sufficient%basis%for%a%finding%of%probable%
cause%against%respondents,%her%orders%denying%the%withdrawal%of%the%Informations%for%
murder%against%them%were%issued%with%grave%abuse%of%discretion.%
%
!
!
M.#PEOPLE#OF#THE#PHILIPPINES,#appellee,1vs.1SANTIAGO#PERALTA#y#POLIDARIO#(at#large),#
ARMANDO#DATUIN#JR.#y1GRANADOS#(at#large),#ULYSSES#GARCIA#y#TUPAS,#MIGUELITO#
DE#LEON#y#LUCIANO,#LIBRANDO#FLORES#y#CRUZ#AND#ANTONIO#LOYOLA#y#SALISI,#
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
accused,1ULYSSES#GARCIA#Y#TUPAS,#MIGUELITO#DE#LEON#y#LUCIANO,#LIBRANDO#FLORES#
y#CRUZ#AND#ANTONIO#LOYOLA#y#SALISI,#appellants.#R#(by!AQUINO)#

(This!case!seems!long!but!its!easy!lang.!I!just!included!the!defenses!side!just!in!case!Sir!asks!for!
details.!You!will!be!needing!your!Consti!2!knowledge!for!this!case.!Particularly!unlawful!arrest,!
search!and!seizure,!extra`judicial!confession!and!right!to!counsel)!
#
Emergency#Recit:#
The!accused!were!convicted!of!qualified!theft.!They!allegedly!stole!currency!notes!from!BSP.!Case!
was!appealed.!According!to!the!defense,!Garcia!(an!accused)!was!tortured!by!the!police!to!get!an!
extra`judicial!confession.!It!was!also!found!out!that!his!counsel!was!not!present!when!Garcia!made!
his!admission!of!guilt.!SC:!The!right!to!counsel!has!been!written!into!our!Constitution!in!order!to!
prevent!the!use!of!duress!and!other!undue!influence!in!extracting!confessions!from!a!suspect!in!a!
crime.!!The!basic!law!specifically!requires!that!any!waiver!of!this!right!must!be!made!in!writing!and!
executed!in!the!presence!of!a!counsel.!!In!such!case,!counsel!must!not!only!ascertain!that!the!
confession!is!voluntarily!made!and!that!the!accused!understands!its!nature!and!consequences,!but!
also!advise!and!assist!the!accused!continuously!from!the!time!the!first!question!is!asked!by!the!
investigating!officer!until!the!signing!of!the!confession.!The!right!of!the!accused!to!counsel!demands!
effective,!vigilant!and!independent!representation.!!The!lawyers!role!cannot!be!reduced!to!being!
that!of!a!mere!witness!to!the!signing!of!an!extra`judicial!confession.!

!
PANGANIBAN,1J.:#

I.#FACTS!
#

Doctrine:!The!right!of!the!accused!to!counsel!demands!effective,!vigilant!and!independent!
representation.!!The!lawyers!role!cannot!be!reduced!to!being!that!of!a!mere!witness!to!the!signing!
of!an!extra`judicial!confession.!

Appellants!were!convicted!of!qualified!theft.!

In!an!Information,!appellants!and!their!co`accused!were!charged!as!follows:!

o Accused!stole!currency!notes!in!the!total!amount!of!P194,190.00,!belonging!to!the!
Central!Bank.!Accused!were!employed!as!Currency!Reviewers,!Driver,!Currency!
Assistant!I!and!Money!Counter!of!the!offended!party.!

Appellant,!assisted!by!their!respective!counsels,!pleaded!not!guilty.!After!trial!in!due!course,!
they!were!all!found!guilty!and!convicted!of!qualified!theft!in!the!appealed!Decision.!

Version1of1the1Prosecution#
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Pedro!Labita!of!BSP!submitted!punctured!currency!notes.!The!punctured!bills!were!rejected!
by!the!BSP!money!counter!machine!and!were!later!submitted!to!the!investigation!staff!of!
the!BSP!Cash!Department.!!As!a!result!of!the!investigation,!it!was!determined!that!said!
rejected!currency!bills!were!actually!punctured!notes!already!due!for!shredding.!!These!
currency!bills!were!punctured!because!they!were!no!longer!intended!for!circulation.!!Before!
these!notes!could!be!shredded,!they!were!stolen!from!the!BSP!by!the!above`named!accused.#

While!in!the!custody!of!the!police!officers,!Garcia!gave!three!separate!statements!admitting!
his!guilt!and!participation!in!the!crime!charged.!!He!also!identified!the!other!named!accused!
as!his!cohorts!and!accomplices!and!narrated!the!participation!of!each!and!everyone!of!them.#

Version1of1the1Defense#

Garcia!served!as!a!driver!of!the!armored!car!of!BSP!

A!man!who!had!identified!himself!as!a!police!officer!arrested!Garcia!without!any!warrant!for!
his!arrest.!!The!police!officer!who!had!arrested!accused`appellant!Garcia!dragged!the!latter!
across!the!street!and!forced!him!to!ride!x!x!x!a!car.!

While!inside!the!car,!he!was!blindfolded,!his!hands!were!handcuffed!behind!his!back,!and!
he!was!made!to!bend!with!his!chest!touching!his!knees.!!Somebody!from!behind!hit!him!and!
he!heard!some!of!the!occupants!of!the!car!say!that!he!would!be!salvaged!if!he!would!not!tell!
the!truth.!!When!the!occupants!of!the!car!mentioned!perforated!notes,!he!told!them!that!he!
does!not!know!anything!about!those!notes.!

After!the!car!had!stopped,!he!was!dragged!out!of!the!car!and!x!x!x!up!and!down!x!x!x!the!
stairs.!!While!being!dragged!out!of!the!car,!he!felt!somebody!frisk!his!pocket.!

At!a!safe!house,!somebody!mentioned!to!him!the!names!of!his!co`accused!and!he!told!
them!that!he!does!not!know!his!co`accused!x!x!x.!!Whenever!he!would!deny!knowing!his!co`
accused,!somebody!would!box!him!on!his!chest.!!Somebody!poured!water!on!accused`
appellant!Garcias!nose!while!lying!on!the!bench.!!He!was!able!to!spit!out!the!water!that!had!
been!poured!on!his!nose![at!first],!but!somebody!covered!his!mouth.!!As!a!result,!he!could!
not!breath[e].!

When!accused`appellant!Garcia!realized!that!he!could!not!bear!the!torture!anymore,!he!
decided!to!cooperate!with!the!police,!and!they!stopped!the!water!pouring!and!allowed!him!
to!sit!down.!

Accused`appellant!Garcia!heard!people!talking!and!he!heard!somebody!utter,!may!
nakikinig.!!Suddenly!his!two!ears!were!hit!with!open!palm[s]!x!x!x.!!As!he!was!being!brought!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
down,!he!felt!somebody!return!his!personal!belongings!to!his!pocket.!!Accused`appellant!
Garcias!personal!belongings!consisted!of![his]!drivers!license,!important!papers!and!coin!
purse.!

He!was!forced!to!ride!x!x!x!the!car!still!with!blindfold.!!His!blindfold!and!handcuffs!were!
removed!when!he!was!at!the!office!of!police!officer!Dante!Dimagmaliw!at!the!Western!
Police!District,!U.N.!Avenue,!Manila.!

SPO4!Cielito!Coronel!asked!accused`appellant!Garcia!about!the!latters!name,!age!and!
address.!!The!arrival!of!Mr.!Pedro!Labita!of!the!Cash!Department,!Central!Bank!of!the!
Philippines,!interrupted!the!interview,!and!Mr.!Labita!instructed!SPO4!Coronel!to!get!
accused`appellant!Garcias!wallet!and!examine!the!contents!thereof.!!SPO4!Coronel!
supposedly!found!three!pieces!of!P100!perforated!bill!in!accused`appellant!Garcias!wallet!
and!the!former!insisted!that!they!recovered!the!said!perforated!notes!from!accused`
appellants!wallet.!!SPO4!Coronel!took!down!the!statement!of!Mr.!Labita.!

It!was!actually!Mr.!Labita,!and!not!accused`appellant!Garcia,!who!gave!the!answers!
appearing!in!accused`appellant!Garcias!alleged!three!sworn!statements!dated!November!4,!
1992,!November!5,!1992!and!x!x!x!!November!6,!1992.!

At!or!about!6:00!p.m.!on!November!5,!1992,!accused`appellant!Garcia!was!brought!to!the!
cell!of!the!Theft!and!Robbery!Section!of!the!WPD.!!At!or!about!8:00!p.m.,!he!was!brought!to!
the!office!of!Col.!Alladin!Dimagmaliw!where!his!co`accused!were!also!inside.!!He!did!not!
identify!his!co`accused,!but!he!merely!placed!his!hands!on!the!shoulders!of!each!of!his!co`
accused,!upon!being!requested,!and!Mr.!Labita!took!x!x!x!!pictures!while!he!was!doing!the!
said!act.!

Accused`appellant!Garcia!came!to!know!Atty.!Francisco!Sanchez!of!the!Public!Attorneys!
Office!on!November!4,!1992,!at!the!office!of!police!officer!Dante!Dimagmaliw,!when!SPO4!
Coronel!introduced!Atty.!Sanchez!to!accused`appellant!Garcia!and!told!him!that!Atty.!
Sanchez!would!be!his!lawyer.!!However,!accused`appellant!Garcia!did!not!agree!to!have!
Atty.!Sanchez!to!be!his!lawyer.!!Atty.!Sanchez!left!after!talking!to!SPO4!Coronel,!and!!Garcia!
had!not!met!Atty.!Sanchez!anymore!since!then.!!He!was!not!present!when!Atty.!Sanchez!
allegedly!signed!x!x!x!the!alleged!three!(3)!sworn!statements.!

During!the!hearing!of!the!case!on!April!6,!2000,!Atty.!Sanchez!manifested!in!open!court!that!
he!did!not!assist!accused`appellant!Garcia!when!the!police!investigated!accused`appellant!
Garcia,!and!that!he!signed!x!x!x!the!three!(3)!sworn!statements!only!as!a!witness!thereto.!

Accused`appellant!Garcia!signed!the!alleged!three!sworn!statements!due!to!SPO4!Coronels!
warning!that!if!he!would!not!do!so,!he!would!again!be!tortured!by!water!cure.!

SPO[4]!Coronel!caused!the!arrest!without!any!warrant!of!accused!appellants!De!Leon,!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Loyola,![Flores]!on!the!basis!of!the!complaint!of!Mr.!Pedro!Labita,!and!which!arrest!was!
effected!on!November!5,!1992,!by!SPO1!Alfredo!Silva!and!SPO1!Redelico.!

Ruling#of#the#Trial#Court:#The!RTC!rejected!the!disclaimer!by!Garcia!of!his!own!confessions,!as!such!
disclaimer!was!an!eleventh!hour!concoction!to!exculpate!himself!and!his!co`accused.!The!trial!
court!found!his!allegations!of!torture!and!coerced!confessions!unsupported!by!evidence.!!Moreover,!
it!held!that!the!recovery!of!three!pieces!of!perforated!P100!bills!from!Garcias!wallet!and!the!flight!of!
Peralta!and!Datuin!Jr.!were!indicative!of!the!guilt!of!the!accused.#

Hence,!this!appeal.#

Issue!

1. The#sufficiency#of#the#evidence#against#appellants,#including#the#admissibility#of#Garcias#
confessions#and#of#the#three#perforated#P100#currency#notes;#

2. The!propriety!of!the!denial!of!their!demurrer!to!evidence.!(minor)!

Held:!!

WHEREFORE,!the!assailed!Decision!is!REVERSED&and!SET&ASIDE.&&Appellants!are!hereby!
ACQUITTED!and!ordered!immediately!RELEASED,!!

!
Ratio:#
#

The!appeal!has!merit.!

First#Issue:#
Sufficiency1of1Evidence#

The!trial!court!convicted!appellants!mainly!on!the!strength!of!the!three!confessions!given!by!
Garcia!and!the!three!perforated!P100!currency!notes!confiscated!from!him!upon!his!
arrest.!!Appellants,!however,!contend!that!these!pieces!of!evidence!are!inadmissible.#

Extrajudicial#Confessions#

o Appellants!aver!that!the!alleged!three!Sworn!Statements!of!Garcia!were!obtained!without!
the!assistance!of!counsel!in!violation!of!his!rights!under!Article!III,!Section!12!(1)!and!(2)!of!
the!1987!Constitution,!which!provides!thus:!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
o Sec.!12.!(1)!!Any!person!under!investigation!for!the!commission!of!an!offense!shall!
have!the!right!to!be!informed!of!his!right!to!remain!silent!and!to!have!competent!
and!independent!counsel,!preferably!of!his!own!choice.!!If!the!person!cannot!afford!
the!services!of!counsel,!he!must!be!provided!with!one.!!These!rights!cannot!be!
waived!except!in!writing!and!in!the!presence!of!counsel.!

o (2)!No!torture,!force,!violence,!threat,!intimidation,!or!any!other!means!which!
vitiate!the!free!will!shall!be!used!against!him.!!Secret!detention!places,!solitary,!
incomunicado,!or!other!similar!forms!of!detention!are!prohibited.!

o It!is!clear!from!a!plain!reading!of!the!three!extrajudicial!confessions!that!Garcia!was!not!
assisted!by!Atty.!Sanchez!

o The!written!confessions,!however,!were!still!admitted!in!evidence!by!the!RTC!on!the!ground!
that!Garcia!had!expressed!in!writing!his!willingness!and!readiness!to!give!the!Sworn!
Statements!without!the!assistance!of!counsel.!!The!lower!courts!action!is!manifest!error.!

o The#right#to#counsel#has#been#written#into#our#Constitution#in#order#to#prevent#the#use#of#
duress#and#other#undue#influence#in#extracting#confessions#from#a#suspect#in#a#crime.##The#
basic#law#specifically#requires#that#any#waiver#of#this#right#must#be#made#in#writing#and#
executed#in#the#presence#of#a#counsel.##In#such#case,#counsel#must#not#only#ascertain#that#
the#confession#is#voluntarily#made#and#that#the#accused#understands#its#nature#and#
consequences,#but#also#advise#and#assist#the#accused#continuously#from#the#time#the#first#
question#is#asked#by#the#investigating#officer#until#the#signing#of#the#confession.##

o Hence,!the!lawyers!role!cannot!be!reduced!to!being!that!of!a!mere!witness!to!the!signing!of!
a!pre`prepared!confession,!even!if!it!indicated!compliance!with!the!constitutional!rights!of!
the!accused.[15]!The!accused!is!entitled!to!effective,!vigilant!and!independent!counsel.[16]!

o A!waiver!in!writing,!like!that!which!the!trial!court!relied!upon!in!the!present!case,!is!not!
enough.!!Without!the!assistance!of!a!counsel,!the!waiver!has!no!evidentiary!relevance.!The!
Constitution!states!that![a]ny!confession!or!admission!obtained!in!violation!of![the!
aforecited!Section!12]!shall!be!inadmissible!in!evidence!x!x!x.!!Hence,!the!trial!court!was!in!
error!when!it!admitted!in!evidence!the!uncounseled!confessions!of!Garcia!and!convicted!
appellants!on!the!basis!thereof.!!!

Perforated#Currency#Notes#

Appellants!contend!that!the!three!P100!perforated!currency!notes!(Exhibits!N!to!N`2)!
allegedly!confiscated!from!Garcia!after!his!arrest!were!fruits!of!the!poisonous!tree!and,!
hence,!inadmissible!in!evidence.!

The!police!arrested!Garcia!without!a!warrant,!while!he!had!merely!been!waiting!for!a!
passenger!bus!after!being!pointed!out!by!the!Cash!Department!personnel!of!the!BSP.!!At!the!
time!of!his!arrest,!he!had!not!committed,!was!not!committing,!and!was!not!about!to!commit!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
any!crime.!!Neither!was!he!acting!in!a!manner!that!would!engender!a!reasonable!ground!to!
suspect!that!he!was!committing!a!crime.!!None!of!the!circumstances!justifying!an!arrest!
without!a!warrant!under!Section!5!of!Rule!113!of!the!Rules!of!Court!was!present.!!

Hence,!Garcia!was!not!lawfully!arrested.!!Nonetheless,!not!having!raised!the!matter!before!
entering!his!plea,!he!is!deemed!to!have!waived!the!illegality!of!his!arrest.!!!

The!Constitution!proscribes!unreasonable!searches!and!seizures[18]!of!whatever!
nature.!!Without!a!judicial!warrant,!these!are!allowed!only!under!the!following!exceptional!
circumstances:!(1)!a!search!incident!to!a!lawful!arrest,!(2)!seizure!of!evidence!in!plain!view,!
(3)!search!of!a!moving!motor!vehicle,!(4)!customs!search,!(5)!stop!and!frisk!situations,!and!
(6)!consented!search.[19]!

Where!the!arrest!was!incipiently!illegal,!it!follows!that!the!subsequent!search!was!similarly!
illegal.[20]!Any!evidence!obtained!in!violation!of!the!constitutional!provision!is!legally!
inadmissible!in!evidence!under!the!exclusionary!rule.[21]!In!the!present!case,!the!perforated!
P100!currency!notes!were!obtained!as!a!result!of!a!search!made!without!a!warrant!
subsequent!to!an!unlawful!arrest;!hence,!they!are!inadmissible!in!evidence.!

Without!the!extrajudicial!confession!and!the!perforated!currency!notes,!the!remaining!
evidence!would!be!utterly!inadequate!to!overturn!the!constitutional!presumption!of!
innocence.!

Second#Issue:#
Demurrer1to1Evidence#

On!the!exercise!of!sound!judicial!discretion!rests!the!trial!judges!determination!of!the!
sufficiency!or!the!insufficiency!of!the!evidence!presented!by!the!prosecution!to!establish!a!prima!
facie!case!against!the!accused.!!Unless!there!is!a!grave!abuse!of!discretion!amounting!to!lack!of!
jurisdiction,!the!trial!courts!denial!of!a!motion!to!dismiss!may!not!be!disturbed.[24]!

As!discussed!earlier,!the!inadmissibility!of!the!confessions!of!Garcia!did!not!become!apparent!
until!after!Atty.!Francisco!had!testified!in!court.!!Even!if!the!confiscated!perforated!notes!from!the!
person!of!the!former!were!held!to!be!inadmissible,!the!confessions!would!still!have!constituted!
prima!facie!evidence!of!the!guilt!of!appellants.!!On!that!basis,!the!trial!court!did!not!abuse!its!
discretion!in!denying!their!demurrer!to!evidence.!

N.#People#vs#Lapitaje!(Del!Rosario)!
!
EMERGENCY#RECIT:##
RTC!decision!review.!Trial!court!found!Lapitaje,!Reyes,!Arellano,!and!Baluyos!guilty!of!Robbery!with!Homicide!
by!entering!the!store!of!Domingo!Colonia,!and!once!inside!held!up!the!owner!at!gun!point!and!thereafter!take,!
steal!and!carry!away!cash!money!worth!P2,000.00!belonging!to!the!said!Domingo!Colonia!against!his!will,!to!
the!damage!and!prejudice!of!said!owner!in!the!sum!of!P1,210.00!(as!the!amount!of!P790.00!was!recovered)!
and! shot! one! NELSON! SAAVEDRA! in! their! escape,! thereby! inflicting! wounds! and! despite! timely! medical!
intervention!the!said!wounds!caused!his!death.!A!warrantless!search!and!seizure!subsequently!happened!after!
the!crime.!THIS!PETITION.!Whether&or&not&the&trial&court&erred&in&not&finding&that&the&arrest&of&all&appellants&
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
were&illegal&and&the&subsequent&alleged&recovery&of&incriminatory&evidence&presented&against&the&latter&was&a&
product&of&a&poisonous&tree,&hence&inadmissible&in&evidence.&&Arellano!and!Baluyos!judgement!was!reversed!
for!their!guilt!not!being!proven!by!reasonable!doubt.!The!warrantless!arrest!of!appellant!Lapitaje!together!with!
Arellano! and! Baluyos! was! not! lawful.! Rule! 113! of! the! Rules! on! Criminal! Procedure! provides:! Sec.& 5.& Arrest&
without& warrant;& when& lawful.& None! of! the! aforesaid! circumstances! were! attendant! in! the! case! at! bar.!
Nevertheless,!considering!that!appellant!Lapitaje,!had!entered!his!plea!and!actively!participated!in!the!trial!of!
the!case,!he!submitted!to!the!jurisdiction!of!the!trial!court!thereby!curing!any!defect!in!his!arrest.!A!waiver!of!
an! illegal! warrantless! arrest! does! not! also! mean! a! waiver! of! the! inadmissibility! of! evidence! seized! during! an!
illegal!warrantless!arrest.!Thus,!the!search!cannot!be!justified!on!the!ground!that!it!involves!search!of!a!moving!
vehicle.! When! a! vehicle! is! stopped! and! subjected! to! an! extensive! search,! such! warrantless! search! has! been!
held! to! be! valid! as! long! as! the! officers! conducting! the! search! have! reasonable! or! probable! cause! to! believe!
before! search! that! they! will! find! the! instrumentality! or! evidence! pertaining! to! a! crime,! in! the! vehicle! to! be!
searched.!Lapitaje!and!Reyes!guilty!for!Robbery.!Arellano!and!Baluyos!acquitted.!
!
FACTS:#
Automatic! review! of! a! decision! of! the! RTC! of! Danao! City! finding! accused! accused! Arnold! B.! Lapitaje,! Mario!
Reyes,!Wendel!Arellano,!and!Romy!Baluyos!GUILTY!beyond!reasonable!doubt!of!the!special!complex!crime!of!
Robbery!with!Homicide.!
!
On! January! 13,! 1994,! an! Information! was! filed! before! the! trial! court! against! Arnold! Lapitaje,! Mario! Reyes,!
Wendell! Arellano! and! Romy! Baluyos! y! Pingki`an! for! Robbery! with! Frustrated! Homicide! to! which! they! all!
pleaded! not! guilty.! Despite! timely! medical! attention,! victim! Nelson! Saavedra! died! by! reason! of! which! the!
Information!was!amended!to!Robbery!with!Homicide.!The!Amended!Information!reads!as!follows:!!
!
"That& on& or& about& October& 31,& 1993& at& around& 7:30& oclock& in& the& evening,& at& Barangay& Catmondaan,&
Municipality&of&Catmon,&Province&of&Cebu,&Philippines&and&within&the&jurisdiction&of&this&Honorable&Court,&the&
said&accused,&conspiring&and&confederating&together&with&others&whose&real&names&and&present&whereabouts&
are&still&unknown&and&helping&one&another&did&then&and&there&willfully,&unlawfully&and&feloniously,&with&intent&
of&gain&and&by&means&of&force,&violence&and&intimidation,&to&wit:&by&entering&the&store&of&Domingo&Colonia,&and&
once& inside& held& up& the& owner& at& gun& point& and& thereafter& take,& steal& and& carry& away& cash& money& worth&
P2,000.00&belonging&to&the&said&Domingo&Colonia&against&his&will,&to&the&damage&and&prejudice&of&said&owner&in&
the& sum& of& P1,210.00& (as& the& amount& of& P790.00& was& recovered)& and& shot& one& NELSON& SAAVEDRA& in& their&
escape,&thereby&inflicting&wounds&and&despite&timely&medical&intervention&the&said&wounds&caused&his&death&at&
the&Chong&Hua&Hospital&in&Cebu&City&on&February&8,&1994&where&he&was&medically&treated&for&several&months.&!
!
The!prosecution!presented!oral,!documentary,!and!real!evidences!composed!of!several!testimonies.!
!
The!accused!refuted!the!evidence!of!the!prosecution!through!the!testimonies!of!their!witnesses.!
!
The!trial!court!held:!!
"By! the! evidence! so! presented! by! the! prosecution,! the! Court! finds! that! all! accused! acted! in! concert! in!
committing!the!act.!The!Court!is!convinced!that!Arnold!B.!Lapitaje!who!is!familiar!with!complainant!Domingo!
Colonia!at!Catmon!Daan,!Cebu,!was!the!lead!man.!The!Court!portrays!a!situation!that!it!was!the!two!accused!
Mario! Reyes! and! Arnold! Lapitaje! who! barged! into! the! house! and! pointed! the! gun! to! complainant! and! wife.!
That!the!two!accused!Wendel!Arellano!and!Romy!Baluyos!were!watchmen!outside!and!that!after!the!robbery!
and!upon!fear!of!reprisals!from!neighbors!who!responded!to!the!shout!for!help!of!the!wife!of!complainant,!the!
four!accused!went!hurriedly!to!the!waiting!taxi!on!the!highway.!Such!fact!of!the!four!running!towards!the!taxi!
was! duly! testified! by! prosecution! witness! Col.! Oarga! who,! seeing! the! four! rushing! to! the! waiting! taxi! in!
suspicious! manner,! caused! their! Hi`Ace! Van! to! block! the! taxi.! Thus,! the! arrest! of! the! four! accused! and! the!
search!on!the!taxi.!
!
"Both!evidence!considered,!the!Court!finds!overwhelmingly!that!the!four!accused!acted!in!concert!to!commit!
the!act!of!robbery!with!homicide,!and!should!be!responsible!therefore!(sic).!
!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"The! Court! finds! no! merit! the! defense! of! alibi! and! general! denials! of! accused.! The! positive! identification! by!
prosecution! witnesses! upon! the! persons! of! the! accused! as! perpetrator! of! the! crime! negates! all! allegations!
"that! accused! were! at! some! other! place! at! the! time! of! the! commission! of! the! offense! or! that! they! did! not!
commit!the!!
offense!as!charged."!
!
ISSUE:#
Whether! or! not! the! trial! court! erred! in! not! finding! that! the! arrest! of! all! appellants! were! illegal! and! the!
subsequent! alleged! recovery! of! incriminatory! evidence! presented! against! the! latter! was! a! product! of! a!
poisonous!tree,!hence!inadmissible!in!evidence.!!!
!
RATIO:#
The!Solicitor!General!filed!the!Brief!for!Plaintiff`Appellee!with!Manifestation!and!Motion!recommending!that!
the!judgment!convicting!Wendel!Arellano!and!Romy!Baluyos!be!reversed!and!set!aside,!their!guilt!not!having!
been!proven!beyond!reasonable!doubt;!and,!that!the!judgment!convicting!Arnold!Lapitaje!and!Mario!Reyes!be!
affirmed! with! the! modification! that! the! penalty! of! reclusion! perpetua! should! be! imposed! upon! them! in! the!
absence!of!any!aggravating!circumstance!in!the!commission!of!the!crime!charged.!!
!
We! uphold! appellees! recommendations! insofar! as! appellants! Wendel! Arellano! and! Romy! Baluyos! are!
concerned,! the! same! being! in! accordance! with! the! evidence! presented! by! the! prosecution! and! the! defense.!
Both!should!be!absolved!from!liability.!!
!
With%respect%to%appellant%Arnold:%By%the%testimonies%of%prosecution%witnesses%Fred%Ares%and%SPO2%Nueza,%it%
is! established! that! Arnold! was! arrested! by! Lt.! Col.! Oarga.! However,! it! must! be! stated! that! the! warrantless!
arrest!of!appellant!Arnold!together!with!Wendel!and!Romy!was!not!lawful.!Oarga!testified!that!he!caused!the!
arrest! of! "four! men"! running! towards! the! taxi! since! they! were! acting! suspiciously.! However,! Oarga! did! not!
elaborate!why!he!thought!said!men!were!acting!suspiciously.!!
!
Rule!113!of!the!Rules!on!Criminal!Procedure!provides:!!
"Sec.& 5.& Arrest& without& warrant;& when& lawful& KKK& A& peace& office& or& a& private& person& may,& without& a& warrant,&
arrest&a&person:&!
"A)&When&in&his&presence,&the&person&to&be&arrested&has&committed,&is&actually&committing,&or&is&attempting&to&
commit&an&offense.&!
"B)&When&an&offense&has&in&fact&just&been&committed,&and&he&has&personal&knowledge&of&the&facts&indicating&
that&the&person&to&be&arrested&has&committed&it;&and&!
"C)&When&the&person&to&be&arrested&is&a&prisoner&who&has&escaped&from&a&penal&establishment&or&a&place&where&
he& is& serving& final& judgment& or& temporarily& confined& while& his& case& is& pending& or& has& escaped& while& being&
transferred&from&one&confinement&to&another."&&
!
None! of! the! aforesaid! circumstances! were! attendant! in! the! case! at! bar.! The! "four! men"! were! not! prisoners!
who! had! just! escaped! from! a! penal! establishment.! Oarga! did! not! testify! that! the! "four! men"! he! had! seen!
running! towards! the! taxi! have! earlier! committed! or! were! actually! committing! or! attempting! to! commit! an!
offense!in!his!presence.!!
!
Nevertheless,!considering!that!appellant!Arnold,!had!entered!his!plea!and!actively!participated!in!the!trial!of!
the!case,!he!submitted!to!the!jurisdiction!of!the!trial!court!thereby!curing!any!defect!in!his!arrest.!Legality!of!an!
arrest!affects!only!the!jurisdiction!of!the!court!over!his!person.!
!
In! spite! of! said! waiver,! the! firearm! and! live! ammunition! taken! from! the! taxi! during! the! search,! cannot! be!
admitted!in!evidence!against!appellants!because!they!were!seized!during!a!warrantless!search!which!was!not!
lawful.!
!!
A!waiver!of!an!illegal!warrantless!arrest!does!not!also!mean!a!waiver!of!the!inadmissibility!of!evidence!seized!
during! an! illegal! warrantless! arrest.! The! following! searches! and! seizures! are! deemed! permissible! by!
jurisprudence:! (1)! search! of! moving! vehicles! (2)! seizure! in! plain! view! (3)! customs! searches! (4)! waiver! or!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
consent!searches!(5)!stop!and!frisk!situations!(Terry!Search)!and!(6)!search!incidental!to!a!lawful!arrest.!The!
last!includes!a!valid!warrantless!search!and!seizure!pursuant!to!an!equally!valid!warrantless!arrest,!for,!while!
as! a! rule,! an! arrest! is! considered! legitimate! if! effected! with! a! valid! warrant! of! arrest,! the! Rules! of! Court!
recognize! permissible! warrantless! arrests,! to! wit:! (1)! arrests! in! flagrante! delicto,! (2)! arrests! effected! in! hot!
pursuit,!and,!(3)!arrests!of!escaped!prisoners.!!
!
Thus,! the! search! cannot! be! justified! on! the! ground! that! it! involves! search! of! a! moving! vehicle.! Warrantless!
search!of!a!moving!vehicle!is!allowed!only!when!it!is!not!practicable!to!secure!a!warrant!because!the!vehicle!
carrying!the!prohibited!drugs!can!be!quickly!moved!out!of!the!area!or!jurisdiction!in!which!the!warrant!must!
be!sought.!When!a!vehicle!is!stopped!and!subjected!to!an!extensive!search,!such!warrantless!search!has!been!
held! to! be! valid! as! long! as! the! officers! conducting! the! search! have! reasonable! or! probable! cause! to! believe!
before! search! that! they! will! find! the! instrumentality! or! evidence! pertaining! to! a! crime,! in! the! vehicle! to! be!
searched.!!
!
As!we!have!earlier!found,!Oarga!and!his!men!did!not!have!personal!knowledge!of!the!crime!that!had!just!been!
committed! and! therefore! had! no! probable! cause! to! believe! that! they! will! find! the! instruments! or! evidence!
pertaining! to! the! crime.! Consequently,! the! firearms,! empty! shell! and! live! ammunitions! as! well! as! the! hand!
grenade!allegedly!found!during!the!search!cannot!be!admitted!as!evidence.!!
!
The! above! notwithstanding,! the! trial! court! did! not! err! in! finding! both! appellants! Arnold! Lapitaje! and! Mario!
Reyes!to!be!the!perpetrators!of!the!crime!of!robbery.!Despite!the!inadmissibility!of!the!guns!and!ammunitions,!
both!appellants!were!positively!identified!by!the!prosecution!witnesses.!At!the!time!of!the!incident,!Domingo!
instantly! recognized! Arnold! who! pointed! a! firearm! at! his! wife.! He! recognized! Arnold! although! the! robbery!
happened! at! nighttime! because! the! place! was! lit! by! a! fluorescent! bulb! and! all! three! men! who! entered! the!
store! were! not! wearing! masks.! Aside! from! Domingo! Colonia,! Cesar! Roldan! positively! identified! appellants!
Arnold! and! Mario! as! two! of! the! three! men,! armed! with! pistols,! who! he! saw! fleeing! from! the! store.! This! is!
corroborated!by!the!result!of!the!Chemistry!Report!conducted!on!appellant!Mario!which!showed!the!presence!
of!gunpowder!residue!on!both!of!his!hands.!!
!
However,!although!appellant!Mario!may!have!fired!the!gun!he!was!holding!at!the!time!of!robbery,!there!is!no!
direct! or! sufficient! circumstantial! evidence! to! prove! that! he! or! anyone! of! the! appellants! had! shot! deceased!
Nelson!Saavedra!or!that!the!latter!was!shot!on!the!occasion!of!the!robbery.!!
!
While!Saavedra!was!indeed!shot!on!the!date!of!the!incident,!the!only!evidence!connecting!appellants!Arnold!
and! Mario! to! the! gunshot! wound! sustained! by! Saavedra! were! the! facts! that! they! were! seen! by! prosecution!
witnesses!Rizalina!Ares!and!Cesar!Roldan!running!away!from!Domingos!store!with!guns;!that!gunshots!were!
heard!and!right!after!that,!Rizalina!Ares!saw!a!wounded!Saavedra.!Rizalina!did!not!actually!see!the!shooting.!
There!was!no!proof!that!the!gunshot!wound!which!caused!the!subsequent!death!of!Saavedra!came!from!any!
of!the!guns!used!by!the!robbers.!The!prosecution!failed!to!connect!the!results!of!the!ballistic!examination!of!
the!guns!confiscated!by!Lt.!Col.!Oarga!to!the!gunshot!wound!sustained!by!the!victim.!Also,!the!guns!were!not!
admissible! in! evidence.! Thus,! there! is! not! enough! circumstantial! evidence! to! support! the! finding! that!
appellants!Arnold!and!Mario!should!be!held!responsible!for!the!death!of!Saavedra.!The!prosecution!evidence!
failed!to!prove!circumstances!that!constitute!an!unbroken!chain!that!led!to!one!fair!and!reasonable!conclusion!
that!points!to!said!appellants,!to!the!exclusion!of!all!others,!as!the!persons!guilty!of!homicide!perpetuated!on!
the!occasion!of,!before,!during,!or!after!the!commission!of!the!crime!of!robbery.!
!!
Consequently,!appellants!Arnold!Lapitaje!and!Mario!Reyes!should!have!been!found!guilty!only!of!the!simple!
crime! of! Robbery! under! paragraph! 5,! Article! 294! of! the! Revised! Penal! Code! which! prescribes! a! penalty! of!
prision!correccional!in!its!maximum!period!to!prision!mayor!in!its!medium!period!ranging!from!four!years,!two!
months! and! 1! day! up! to! ten! years! ``! the! Amended! Information! did! not! specifically! allege! said! aggravating!
circumstance.!
!
In! People! vs.! Costales,! the! Court! held! that! aggravating! or! qualifying! circumstance! must! be! expressly! and!
specifically!alleged!in!the!complaint!or!information;!otherwise,!it!cannot!be!considered!by!the!trial!court,!even!
if!proved!during!the!trial.!!
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
!
Furthermore,! appellant! Arnold! Bacla`an! Lapitaje! and! Mario! Reyes! should! be! ordered! to! pay! jointly! and!
severally,!to!Domingo!Colonia,!the!amount!of!P1,210.00,!representing!the!unrecovered!stolen!money.!!
!
WHEREFORE,# the# decision# of# the# Regional# Trial# Court# of# Danao# City# (Branch# 25)# is# AFFIRMED# WITH#
MODIFICATIONS:##
#
AccusedRappellants#Arnold#BaclaRan#Lapitaje#and#Mario#Reyes#are#found#guilty#beyond#reasonable#doubt#of#
the# simple# crime# of# Robbery# and# applying# the# Indeterminate# Sentence# Law,# without# any# mitigating# or#
aggravating#circumstance,#they#are#sentenced#to#suffer#the#penalty#of#two#(2)#years#and#ten#(10)#months#of#
prision# correccional,# as# the# minimum# to# eight# (8)# years# and# twenty# (20)# days# of# prision# mayor,# as# the#
maximum.#They#are#also#held#jointly#and#severally#liable#to#pay#the#sum#of#P1,210.00#to#Domingo#Colonia.##
#
AccusedRappellants#Romy#Baluyos#and#Wendel#Arellano#are#ACQUITTED,#their#guilt#not#having#been#proven#
beyond#reasonable#doubt.#The#Director#of#the#Bureau#of#Corrections#is#ORDERED#to#implement#this#Decision#
forthwith#and#to#INFORM#the#Court#within#five#(5)#days#from#receipt#hereof,#the#date#when#appellants#were#
actually#released#from#confinement.##

!
!

O. PEOPLE V HUANG ZHEN HUA - JED

For rule 113 (arrest) ata to.

Sec. 11. Right of officer to break into building or enclosure. An officer, in order to make an arrest either by
virtue of a warrant, or without a warrant as provided in section 5, may break into any building or enclosure where
the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is refused admittance thereto, after announcing
his authority and purpose.

EMERGENCY RECIT:

Based on the tip from a confidential informant that Chan, Lao, Lee, and Huang Zhen were engaged in illegal drug
trafficking, PARAC conducted surveillance operations and found out the residence of Chan and Lao. Police were
able to secure warrants. They enforced the warrants along with a cantonese interpreter, no persons were found
inside. However, the police found shabu and other paraphernalia.
Thereafter, the police received information that Chan and Lao would be delivering shabu somewhere in Manila.
When the police found them shooting ensued and Chan and Lao were shot to death. The police found two bags
of shabu in their car.
The police then proceeded to Pacific Ground Villa in Paranaque (Lao and Lee's residence) to enforce the
warrant. They coordinated with Pangan, the person in charge of security of the place. They knocked repeatedly
but no one answered. Lee peeped through the window beside the door. Pangan communicated with Lee through
sign language since the latter could not understand english. Inside, the police found shabu and other
paraphernalia.
Issue: WON implementation of the warrantwas irregular-NO
"KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE" Principle
-officers implementing a search warrant must announce their presence, identify themselves to the accused and
to the persons who rightfully have possession of the premises to be searched, and show to them the search
warrant to be implemented by them and explain to them said warrant in a language or dialect known to and
understood by them.
In the case at bar, Lee admitted, when she testified, that the police officers were accompanied by Chuang, a
Cantonese interpreter, who informed her that his companions were police officers and had a search warrant for
the premises, and also explained to her that the officers were going to search the condominium unit.
As for Huang Zhen, he was acquitted since the prosecution failed to muster the requisite quantum of evidence to
prove his guilt.

FACTS:
This is an appeal from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paraaque City, Metro Manila, Branch
259, convicting HUANG ZHEN HUA and LEE of violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended (DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT)

Police operatives of the Public Assistance and Reaction Against Crime (PARAC) under the Department of
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Interior and Local Government received word from their confidential informant that Peter Chan and Henry Lao,
and appellants Jogy Lee and Huang Zhen Hua were engaged in illegal drug trafficking.

PO3 Belliardo Anciro, Jr. and other police operatives conducted surveillance operations and verified that Chan
and Lao resided at Room Nos. 1245 and 1247, Cityland Condominium, De la Rosa Street, Makati City, and in a
two-storey condominium unit at No. 19 Atlantic Drive, Pacific Grand Villa, Sto. Nio, Paraaque, Metro Manila

On October 25, 1996, PARAC secured Search Warrants.

On October 29, 1996. The police enforced the warrant, along with a Cantonese interpreter by the name of
Chuang. While no persons were found inside, the policemen found two kilos of methamphetamine hydrochloride,
popularly known as shabu, paraphernalia for its production, and machines and tools apparently used for the
production of fake credit cards.

Thereafter, the police operatives received information that Lao and Chan would be delivering shabu at the
Furama Laser Karaoke Restaurant at the corner of Dasmarias and Mancha Streets, Manila.

2:00 a.m. of October 26, 1996. The policemen saw Chan and Lao on board the latters Honda Civic car. As the
two men alighted, one of the men approached them and introduced himself, but Chan and Lao fired shots.

-Chan and Lao were shot to death during the encounter. The policemen found two plastic bags, each
containing one kilo of shabu, in Laos car.

The policemen then proceeded to No. 19 Atlantic Drive, Pacific Grand Villa, to enforce Search Warrant. When
the policemen arrived at the place, they coordinated with Antonio Pangan, the officer in charge of security in the
building.

The policemen, Pangan and two security guards of the Villa proceeded to the condominium unit. Anciro, Jr.
knocked repeatedly on the front door (for 3-5 minutes) but no one responded. Pangan, likewise, knocked on the
door.

Appellant Lee peeped through the window beside the front door. The men introduced themselves as policemen,
but Lee could not understand them as she could not speak English. The policemen allowed Pangan to
communicate with Lee by sign language and pointed their uniforms to her to show that they were policemen. Lee
then opened the door and allowed the policemen, Pangan and the security guards into the condominium unit.

The policemen brought Lee to the second floor where there were three bedrooms a masters bedroom and
two other rooms. When asked where she and Lao slept, appellant Lee pointed to the masters bedroom. Anciro,
Jr., Margallo and PO3 Wilhelm Castillo then searched the masters bedroom, while Ferias and Pangan went to
the other bedroom where appellant Zhen Hua was sleeping. Ferias awakened Zhen Hua and identified himself as
a policeman. Zhen Hua was surprised.

Anciro, Jr. saw a small cabinet inside the masters bedroom about six feet high. He stood on a chair, opened
the cabinet and found two transparent plastic bags each containing shabu, a feeding bottle, a plastic canister and
assorted paraphernalia. Inside the drawer of the beds headboard, he also found assorted documents, pictures,
bank passbooks issued by the Allied Banking Corporation, credit cards, passports and identification cards of Lao
and Lee.

Anciro, Jr. asked Lee who was the owner of the crystalline substance, but the latter did not respond because
she did not know English.

The police executed an affidavit of arrest. Pangan and the two security guards signed a certification stating that
nothing was destroyed in the condominium unit and that the search was orderly and peaceful. The policemen
also accomplished an inventory of the articles seized during the search.

RTC found both Huang Zhen and Lee guilty

Lee denied the charge. She testified that she was a resident of Kwantong, China, a college graduate who could
not speak nor understand English. She met Henry Lao in China sometime in 1995, and he brought her to
Belgium that same year. In the process, he and Lao fell in love and became lovers.

-Upon Laos invitation, Lee visited the Philippines as a tourist for the first time in April 1996.

-In June 1996, she invited her friend, appellant Huang Zhen Hua to visit the Philippines to enjoy the
tourist
CRIM%PRO%BATCH%6%
%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
spots.

Lee avers that the policemen conducted the search with certain irregularities (gaining entry by force) and
therefore concludes that the articles procured by the policemen are inadmissible in evidence.

Lee, likewise, contends that she was a victim of a frame-up because the policemen planted the regulated drug
on her bed even before they searched the bedroom. (common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions
for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law)

On Appellant Zhen Hua, the OSG contends that the prosecution failed to muster the requisite quantum of
evidence to prove appellant Zhen Huas guilt beyond reasonable doubt (no regulated drug was found in his
person, his room, or in his other belongings such as suitcases, etc.)

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS IRREGULAR NO

RATIO:

Lee failed to prove that the policemen broke open the door to gain entry into the condominium unit. She could
have asked the court for an ocular inspection to show the door which was allegedly broken into by the policemen,
or at least adduce in evidence pictures showing the said breakage. The testimony of the appellant is even belied
by Pangan, who was a witness for the appellant, who certified, along with three other security guards, that
nothing was destroyed and that the search was conducted in a peaceful and orderly manner

She also failed to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, her contention that Anciro, Jr. placed the shabu on
her bed before he continued his search in the bedroom, and that she was a victim of frame-up by the policemen.

"KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE" Principle

Generally, officers implementing a search warrant must announce their presence, identify themselves to the
accused and to the persons who rightfully have possession of the premises to be searched, and show to them
the search warrant to be implemented by them and explain to them said warrant in a language or dialect known
to and understood by them.

Unannounced intrusion into the premises is permissible when (a) a party whose premises or is entitled to the
possession thereof refuses, upon demand, to open it; (b) when such person in the premises already knew of the
identity of the officers and of their authority and persons; (c) when the officers are justified in the honest belief
that there is an imminent peril to life or limb; and (d) when those in the premises, aware of the presence of
someone outside (because, for example, there has been a knock at the door), are then engaged in activity which
justifies the officers to believe that an escape or the destruction of evidence is being attempted. (exceptions
above are not exclusive or conclusive daw)

In determining the lawfulness of an unallowed entry and the existence of probable cause, the courts are
concerned only with what the officers had reason to believe and the time of the entry.

In this case, SC ruled that the policemen complied with the above before entering the condominium unit. Lee
admitted, when she testified, that the police officers were accompanied by Chuang, a Cantonese interpreter, who
informed her that his companions were police officers and had a search warrant for the premises, and also
explained to her that the officers were going to search the condominium unit. She was sufficiently aware of the
authority of the policemen, who wore PARAC uniforms, to conduct the search and their purpose.

Contrary to the claim of appellant Lee, the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt of her guilt of the
crime charged. She and Lao, her lover, had joint possession of the shabu which the policemen found and
confiscated from her bedroom.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appeal of appellant Huang Zhen Hua is GRANTED. The Decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City, convicting him of the crime charged, is REVERSED AND SET
ASIDE. The said appellant is ACQUITTED of said charge. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby
directed to release the said appellant from detention unless he is detained for another cause or charge, and to
submit to the Court, within five (5) days from notice hereof, a report of his compliance with the directive of the
Court.

The appeal of appellant Jogy Lee is DENIED. The Decision dated January 10, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court
of Paraaque City, convicting her of violation of Section 16, Rep. Act No. 6425 is AFFIRMED. No costs.
!