CRIMPRO DIGESTS
ATTY. ARNO SANIDAD
133) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. MA. THERESA L. DELA
TORRE-YADAO, in her capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 81, Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, HON. MA. NATIVIDAD M. DIZON, in her capacity as
Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, PANFILO M.
LACSON, JEWEL F. CANSON, ROMEO M. ACOP, FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA, JR.,
MICHAEL RAY B. AQUINO, CEZAR O. MANCAO II, ZOROBABEL S. LAURELES,
GLENN G. DUMLAO, ALMARIO A. HILARIO, JOSE ERWIN T. VILLACORTE, GIL
C. MENESES, ROLANDO ANDUYAN, JOSELITO T. ESQUIVEL, RICARDO G.
DANDAN, CEASAR TANNAGAN, VICENTE P. ARNADO, ROBERTO T.
LANGCAUON, ANGELITO N. CAISIP, ANTONIO FRIAS, CICERO S. BACOLOD,
WILLY NUAS, JUANITO B. MANAOIS, VIRGILIO V. PARAGAS, ROLANDO R.
JIMENEZ, CECILIO T. MORITO, REYNALDO C. LAS PIÑAS, WILFREDO G.
CUARTERO, ROBERTO O. AGBALOG, OSMUNDO B. CARIÑO, NORBERTO
LASAGA, LEONARDO GLORIA, ALEJANDRO G. LIWANAG, ELMER FERRER
and ROMY CRUZ, respondents.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Yadao is correct in dismissing the criminal cases against the
respondents based on the records and evidence presented in court? YES.
FACTS:
This case involves the matters in the alleged summary execution in the Kuratong
Baleleng case.
• Early morning of May 18, 1995 – the combined forces of the PNP Anti-Bank
Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (PNP ABRITG) composed of:
(a) Task Force Habagat headed by then Chief Superintendent Panfilo
Lacson;
(b) Traffic Mgt. Command (TMC) headed by Police Superintendent
Francisco Zubia, Jr.
(c) Criminal Investigation Command (CIC) led by P/S Romeo Acop; and
(d) NCR Command heade by Police Chief Jewel Canson
• PNP ABRITG killed 11 suspected members of the Kuratong Baleleng case
Gang along Commonwelath Avenue in QC.
• SPO2 Delos Reyes of the CIC tolf the press that it was a summary execution
not a shoot out between the police and those persons whoe were slain in the
incident.
• After the investigation OMB for Military Affrais absolved all the police officers
involved including respondents: Lacson, Canson, Acop, Zubia, Jr., Aquino,
Mancao and 28 others.
• On review, Office of OMB reversed the finding and filed murder charges
against the respondent officers before the Sanidganbayan except that of
Lacson, Zubia, Acop which penalties were downgraded to accessory. On
arraignment, Lacson pleaded not guilty.
• Upon, respondents’ motion, Sandiganbayan ordered the transfer of their
cases to the RTC of QC on the ground that none of the principal accused
has the rank of Chief Superintendent or higher.
• Pending resolution of the transfer order, Congress passed RA 8249 which
expended Sanidganbayan’s jursidcition by deleting the word “principal” from
the phrase “principal accused: to apply to ALL PENDING CASES where trial
TOPIC: ARRESTS—WHEN AND HOW WARRANT IS ISSUED
AUTHOR: WENCESLAO
had not begun. Thus, SB opted to retain and try the Kuratong Baleleng
murder cases.
• Lacson challenged the constitutionality of RA 8249 however SC upheld the
validity of the said law. Nonetheless, SC ordered the transfer of the trial of
the cases to RTC QC since the amended information contained no
allegations that respondents committed the offenses in relation to their
official functions under RA 8249.
• In RTC qC Branch 81 which is then presided by Judge Wenceslao Agnir,
before arraignment, the prosecution witnesses recanted their affidavits. This
prompted the respondents to file separate motions for the determination of
probable cause before the issuance of warrants of arrest.
• March 29,1999—RTC QC order the provisional dismissal of the cases for
lack of probable cause.
• 2 year later—PNP director sought to revive the cases against respondents
by requesting DOJ to conduct another preliminary investigation in their cases
to which DOJ did.
• Lacson then filed and invoked their right against double jeopardy via a
petition for prohibition with TRO application and writ of preliminary injunction
before RTC Manila. Court denied the plea for TRO.
• June 6, 2001—DOJ Panel of Prosecutors found probable cause to hold
LAcson and his accused liable for 11 counts of murder resulting in the filing
of separate information before RTC QC which was now presided by Judge
Yadao.
• On the same day—respondent Lacson filed a petition for certiorari before the
CA assailing the RTC Manila’s order allowing a new preliminary investigation
of the murder charges against them. ⇒ Lacson then filed a motion for
judicial determination of probable cause before the RTC QC and sought for
the suspension of the proceedings in such court.
• Aug 24, 2001—CA issued a TRO enjoining RTC QC from issuing warrants of
arrest and granted Lacson’s petition on the ground of double jeopardy since
the dismissal in (March 29, 1999) became permanent 2 years after when
they were not revived.
• Upon appeal of the prosecution, SC ruled that Lacson failed to prove
compliance with the requirements on provisional dismissals under Section 8,
Rule 117.
→ SC thus set aside the CA decision and directed RTC QC to try the
cases.
→ SC ordered a re-raffle but the case still went to Yadao’s sala.
• Oct 12, 2003—parents of 2 victims submitted birth certificates showing they
were minors. Thus, requests that case be re-raffled to a family court under
RA 8369. Judge Yadao denied such motion because the law applied only to
living minors—the minor victims were already dead.
• Nov 12, 2003—Judge Yadao granted the motions for determination of
probable cause and dismissed the cases against the respondents since the
affidavits of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent with those
submitted in the preliminary investigations before the OMB for the crime of
robbery.
• Nov 23, 2003—prosecution filed the ff. verified motion:
(a) to disqualify Judge Yadao and
CRIMPRO DIGESTS
ATTY. ARNO SANIDAD
(b) an administrative complaint was also filed for her dishonesty and
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment.
(c) Also, prosecution filed a motion for compulsory disqualification with
motion for cancellation of the hearing.
• Judge Yadao denied these motions and dismissed the action against the
respondent. MR was filed but was still denied.
HELD/RATIO:
1. Raffle to the Family Courts
Judge Yadao did not err in denying the raffle to the family courts pursuant to RA
8369 which vests family courts jurisdiction over violations of RA 7610 because
the 2 minor victims were already dead. There is no living minor in the murder
cases that require the special attention and protection of a family court.
2. Inhibition of Judge Yadao—Judge Yadao did not commit GADALEJ in failing to
inhbit herself in hearing the cases.
a. Under the Canon 3 Rule 3.12 which provides compulsory disqualification
⇒ Court ruled that it will not disqualify a judge based in speculation and
surmises or the adverse nature of the judge’s rulings towards those who
seek to inhibit him.
b. Under the Rule 137 Sec 1 which provides for voluntary inhibition – is a
matter of conscience and sound discretion on the part of the judge since
he is in a better position to determine whether a given situation would
unfairly affect his attitude towards the parties in the case.
Here, the prosecution contends that Judge Yadao should have inhibited herself for
improperly submitting to a public interview on the day following her dismissal of the
criminal cases against the respondents. But the Court finds nothing basically
reprehensible in such interview. Judge YadaoÊs dismissal of the multiple murder
cases aroused natural public interest and stirred the media into frenzy for correct
information. Judge Yadao simply accommodated, not sought, the requests for such
an interview to clarify the basis of her order.
3. CRIMPRO ISSUE: DISMISSAL OF THE CRIMINAL CASES
General Rule: Juge is not required to conduct a de novo hearing when
determining probable cause. The judge only needs to personally review the initial
determination of the prosecutor finding probable cause to see if it is supported by
substantial evidence.
In fact—the public prosecutor submitted the following affidavits and documents
which enable Judge Yadao in determining the presence of probable cause
against the respondents:
(a) Police Insp. Yu’s affidavit: Respondent Canson (NCR Command Head)
ordered him to form 2 teams that would go after the Kuratong Baleleng Gang
at the Superville Subdivision in Paranaque. The following day, YU just
learned that the men and 3 others were killed in a shoot-out with the police in
Commonwealth Ave.
(b) P/S Insp. Ramos’ affidavit (most significant piece of evidence presented)
who admitted that he was part of the defense during the Superville
Operations and assault team who apprehended the 8 male suspects and
brought them to Camp. He admitted that the 8 suspects were killed and
TOPIC: ARRESTS—WHEN AND HOW WARRANT IS ISSUED
AUTHOR: WENCESLAO
pinned down Lacson approving the said killings.
(c) SPO1 Medes’ affidavit which corroborated Ramos’ affidavit. He drove the L-
300 van in going to Commonwealth.
(d) Enad’s affidavit in which he claimed that he served as TMC civilian agent
who was present in the supposed shoot-out and was told to stay at the van.
(e) SPO2 Seno’s affidavit which also corroborated Ramos and was also part of
the party in Supervill Subdivision and witnessed the killings.
(f) PNP ABRITG After Operations Report of May 31, 1995 which narrated that
events took place on May 17 and 18.
(g) PNP Medico-Legal Reports which stated that suspected members of the
Kuratong Baleleng Gang were negative for gunpowder nitrates.
SC agrees with Judge Yadao that the above affidavits and reports taken together
FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST THE REPONDENTS.
These are the ff. reasons why the court agreed with Judge Yadao:
1. Testimonies of Ramos, as corroborated by Medes, Enad and Seno—also
Yu’s testimony—were limited in hearing the commanders and to the capture
of the gang members ⇒ they did not see them KILLED.
2. PNP ABRITG report shows that these men took no part in the operations
against the Kuratong Baleleng members—this report submitted a
comprehensive list of police personnel (Lacson, Acop, Zubia, and Canson
were involved)
3. Ramos claimed that he was neither in Superville Subd nor Commonwealth
Ave during the Kuratong Balelng operations since he was in Bulacan on May
17 and 18.
4. OMB dismissed the robbery case and excluded Ramos from the group of
officers charged with murder.
5. PNP Medico-legal reports showed that the Kuratong Baleleng Gang
members tested negative for gunpowder nitrates.
Furthermore, the justification of Yadao’s dismissal of the case is provided under Sec 6
Rule 112 which gives the trial court 3 options upon the filing of the criminal
information:
(1) Dismiss the case if the evidence on record failed to establish probable
cause;
(2) Issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause; and
(3) Order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within 5 days fro notice
in case of the doubt as to the existence of the PC.
st
In this case, the 1 option is the contemplated situation ⇒ the evidence on record
rd
failed to establish probable cause against the respondents. The 3 option is not the
case here because nothing in the record present some doubtful probability that
respondents committed the crime. Mpreover, PNP Director Leandro Mendoza sought
the revival of the cases in 2001 which is 6 years after the Kuraotng Baleleng
operations happened. It would have been ridiculous to entertain the belief that the
police could produce new witnesses in 5 days as required by the Rules.
Court DISMISSES the petition and AFFIRMS Judge Yadao’s orders.
CRIMPRO DIGESTS TOPIC: ARRESTS—WHEN AND HOW WARRANT IS ISSUED
ATTY. ARNO SANIDAD AUTHOR: WENCESLAO