Arrest Cases Fulltext

8/11/2019 Arrest Cases Fulltext

1/75

G.R. Nos. 111771-77 November 9, 1993

ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, petitioner,vs.The Honorabe HARRIET O. !E"ETRIO# $%n her &a'a&%() as *res%+%n +e o/ Re%ona Tr%aCor(, NCR, 0ran&h 7, *as%2, The Honorabe RAN4LIN !RILON $%n h%s &a'a&%() as

Se&re(ar) o/ s(%&e2, O5ENCITO R. Z#6O, LEONAR!O C. G#IA0, CARLOS L. !E LEON,RA"ONCITO C. "ISON, RENAL!O . L#GT#, an+ RO!RIGO *. LORENZO, (he as( s%8res'on+en(s %n (he%r o//%&%a &a'a&%(%es as members o/ (he S(a(e *rose&(orsO//%&e2, respondents.

Mario E. Ongkiko and Marciano P. Brion, Jr. for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

CR#Z, J.:

There is probably no more notorious person in the country today than Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez ofCalauan, Laguna, who stands accused of an unspeaable crime. !n him, the verdict has alreadybeen rendered by many outraged persons who would immediately impose on him an angrysentence. "et, for all the pre#udgments against him, he is under our Constitution presumed innocentas long as the contrary has not been proved. Lie any other person accused of an offense, he isentitled to the full and vigilant protection of the $ill of %ights.

Sanchez has brought this petition to challenge the order of the respondent #udge denying his motionto &uash the informations for rape with homicide filed against him and si' other persons. (e shalltreat it as we would any other suit filed by any litigant hoping to obtain a #ust and impartial #udgmentfrom this Court.

The pertinent facts are as follows)

!n *uly +, -/, the 0residential Anti1Crime Commission re&uested the filing of appropriatecharges against several persons, including the petitioner, in connection with the rape1slay of Mary2ileen Sarmenta and the illing of Allan 3omez.

Acting on this re&uest, the 0anel of State 0rosecutors of the 4epartment of *ustice conducted apreliminary investigation on August , -/. 0etitioner Sanchez was not present but wasrepresented by his counsel, Atty. Marciano $rion, *r.

!n August -+, -/, 050 Commander %e' 0iad issued an 6invitation6 to the petitioner re&uesting

him to appear for investigation at Camp 7icente Lim in Canlubang, Laguna. 8t was served onSanchez in the morning of August -/,-/, and he was immediately taen to the said camp.

At a confrontation that same day, Sanchez was positively identified by Aurelio Centeno, and S0! 8887ivencio Malabanan, who both e'ecuted confessions implicating him as a principal in the rape1slayof Sarmenta and the illing of 3omez. The petitioner was then placed on 6arrest status6 and taen tothe 4epartment of *ustice in Manila.


2/75

The respondent prosecutors immediately conducted an in&uest upon his arrival, with Atty. Salvador0anelo as his counsel.

After the hearing, a warrant of arrest was served on Sanchez. This warrant was issued on August-/, -/, by *udge 2nrico A. Lanzanas of the %egional Trial Court of Manila, $ranch 9, inconnection with Criminal Cases 5os. /1-+:;/: to /1-+:;/9 for violation of Section , in relation to

Section -, of %.A. 5o. ;9-/. Sanchez was forthwith taen to the C8S 4etention Center, CampCrame, where he remains confined.

!n August -;, -/, the respondent prosecutors filed with the %egional Trial Court of Calamba,Laguna, seven informations charging Antonio L. Sanchez, Luis Corcolon, %ogelio Corcolon, 0epito


3/75

4uring the preliminary investigation on August , -/, the petitionerDs counsel, Atty. Marciano $rion,manifested that his client was waiving the presentation of a counter1affidavit, thus)

Atty. $rion, *r.)

E(Fe manifest that after reviewing them there is nothing to rebut or countermand all

these statements as far as Mayor Sanchez is concerned, (e are not going to submitany counter1affidavit.

ACS0 =uGo to Atty. $rion)

''' ''' '''

H. So far, there are no other statements.

A. 8f there is none then, we will not submit any counter1affidavitbecause we believe there is nothing to rebut or countermand with allthese statements.

H. So, you are waiving your submission of counter1affidavitI

A. "es, your honor, unless there are other witnesses who will comeup soon.3

5onetheless, the head of the 0anel of 0rosecutors, respondent *ovencito =uGo, told Atty. $rion thathe could still file a counter1affidavit up to August +9, -/. 5o such counter1affidavit was filed.

4uring the hearing on August -D/, -/, respondent =uGo furnished the petitionerDs counsel, thistime Atty. Salvador 0anelo, with copies of the sworn statements of Centeno and Malabanan, and toldhim he could submit counter1affidavits on or before August +9, -/. The following e'change

ensued)

ACS0 =uGo)

Jor the record, we are furnishing to you the sworn statement ofwitness Aurelio Centeno y %o'as and the sworn statement of S0!/7ivencio Malabanan y Angeles.

4o 8 understand from you that you are again waiving the submissionof counter1affidavitI

Atty. 0anelo)

"es.

ACS0 =uGo)

So, insofar as the respondent, Mayor Antonio Sanchez is concerned,this case is submitted for resolution. ;


4/75

!n the other hand, there is no support for the petitionerDs subse&uent manifestation that his counsel,Atty. $rion, was not notified of the in&uest held on August -/, -/, and that he was not furnishedwith the affidavits sworn to on that date by 7ivencio Malabanan and Aurelio Centeno, or with theirsupplemental affidavits dated August -, -/. Moreover, the above1&uoted e'cerpt shows that thepetitionerDs counsel at the hearing held on August -/, -/, was not Atty. $rion but Atty. 0anelo.

The petitioner was present at that hearing and he never disowned Atty. 0anelo as his counsel.4uring the entire proceedings, he remained &uiet and let this counsel spea and argue on his behalf.8t was only in his tardy %eply that he has suddenly bestirred himself and would now &uestion hisrepresentation by this lawyer as unauthorized and inofficious.

Section /, 0aragraph Kd, %ule --+ of the %ules of Court, provides that if the respondent cannot besubpoenaed or, if subpoenaed, does not submit counter1affidavits, the investigating officer shall basehis resolution on the evidence presented by the complainant.

*ust as the accused may renounce the right to be present at the preliminary investigation


5/75

8n fact, other investigatory agencies, of the government such as the 4epartment of *ustice, in

connection with the charge of sedition, 1and the 0residential Commission on 3ood 3overnment, in ill1gotten wealth cases,11may conduct the investigation,

The $rrest

(as petitioner Sanchez arrested on August -/, -/I

6Arrest6 is defined under Section -, %ule --/ of the %ules of Court as the taing of a person intocustody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. nder Section +of the same %ule, an arrest is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by hisvoluntary submission to the custody of the person maing the arrest.

Application of actual force, manual touching of the body, physical restraint or a formal declaration ofarrest is not, re&uired. 8t is enough that there be an intent on the part of one of the parties to arrestthe other and an intent onthe part of the other to submit, under the belief and impression thatsubmission is necessary. 1:

The petitioner was taen to Camp 7icente Lim, Canlubang, Laguna, by virtue of a letter1invitationissued by 050 Commander %e' 0iad re&uesting him to appear at the said camp for investigation.

8n Ba"st . &ational Intelligence Board13this Court declared)

$e that as it may, it is not idle to note that ordinarily, an invitation to attend a hearingand answer some &uestions, which the person invited may heed or refuse at hispleasure, is not illegal or constitutionally ob#ectionable. nder certain circumstances,however, such an invitation can easily assume a different appearance. Thus, 'herethe initation comes from a po'erf!l gro!p composed predominantly of rankingmilitary officersissued at a time when the country has #ust emerged from martial ruleand when the suspension of the privilege of the writ of ha"eas corp!shas not

entirely been lifted, and the designated interrogation site is a military camp, the samecan be easily taen, not as a strictly ol!ntary initationwhich it purports to be,butas an a!thoritatie commandwhich one can only defy at his peril. . . . K2mphasissupplied

8n the case at bar, the invitation came from a high1raning military official and the investigation ofSanchez was to be made at a military camp. Although in the guise of a re&uest, it was obviously acommand or an order of arrest that the petitioner could hardly he e'pected to defy. 8n fact,apparently cowed by the 6invitation,6 he went without protest Kand in informal clothes and slippersonly with the officers who had come to fetch him.

8t may not be amiss to observe that under %.A. 5o. 9:/, the re&uisites of a 6custodial investigation6

are applicable even to a person not formally arrested but merely 6invited6 for &uestioning.

8t should liewise be noted that at Camp 7icente Lim, the petitioner was placed on 6arrest status6after he was pointed to by Centeno and Malabanan as the person who first raped Mary 2ileenSarmenta. %espondent =uGo himself acnowledged during the August -/, -/ hearing that, on thebasis of the sworn statements of the two state witnesses, petitioner had been 6arrested.6

(e agree with the petitioner that his arrest did not come under Section , %ule --/ of the %ules ofCourt, providing as follows)


6/75

Sec. .$rrest 'itho!t 'arrant( 'hen la'f!l. A peace officer or a private personmay, without a warrant, arrest a person)

Ka (hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actuallycommitting, or is attempting to commit an offenseB

Kb (hen an offense has in fact #ust been committed and he has personal nowledgeof facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed itB and

Kc (hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escapes from a penalestablishment or place where he is serving final #udgment or temporarily confinedwhile his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from oneconfinement to another.

8t is not denied that the arresting officers were not present when the petitioner allegedly participatedin the illing of Allan 3omez and the rape1slay of Mary 2ileen Sarmenta. 5either did they have anypersonal nowledge that the petitioner was responsible therefor because the basis of the arrest wasthe sworn statements of Centeno and Malabanan. Moreover, as the rape and illing of Sarmenta

allegedly too place on *une +1*une +, -/, or forty1si' days before the date of the arrest, itcannot be said that the offense had 6in fact #ust been committed6 when the petitioner was arrested.

The original warrantless arrest of the petitioner was doubtless illegal. 5evertheless, the %egionalTrial Court lawfully ac&uired #urisdiction over the person of the petitioner by virtue of the warrant ofarrest it issued on August +;, -/ against him and the other accused in connection with the rape1slay cases. 8t was belated, to be sure, but it was nonetheless legal.

2ven on the assumption that no warrant was issued at all, we find that the trial court still lawfullyac&uired #urisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The rule is that if the accused ob#ects to the

#urisdiction of the court over his person, he may move to &uash the information, but only on thatground. 8f, as in this case, the accused raises other grounds in the motion to &uash, he is deemed to

have waived that ob#ection and to have submitted his person to the #urisdiction of that court.

1;

The Court notes that on August -/, -/, after the petitioner was unlawfully arrested, *udgeLanzanas issued a warrant of arrest against Antonio L. Sanchez in connection with Criminal Cases

5os. /1-+:;/: to /1-+:;/9 for violation of %.A 5o. ;9-/. 1


7/75

8n one case, 1=the petitioner, sued onha"eas corp!son the ground that she had been arrested by virtueof a *ohn 4oe warrant. 8n their return, the respondents declared that a new warrant specifically namingher had been issued, thus validating her detention. (hile frowning at the tactics of the respondents, theCourt said)

The, case has, indeed, become moot and academic inasmuch as the new warrant of

arrest complies with the re&uirements of the Constitution and the %ules of Courtregarding the particular description of the person to be arrested. (hile the firstwarrant was un&uestionably void, being a general warrant, release of the petitionerfor that reason will be a futile act as it will be followed by her immediate re1arrestpursuant to the new and valid warrant, returning her to the same prison she will #usthave left. This Court will not participate in such a meaningless charade.

The same doctrine has been consistently followed by the Court, 17more recently in the+milcase.1>

The Informations

The petitioner submits that the seven informations charging seven separate homicides are absurd

because the two victims in these cases could not have died seven times.

This argument was correctly refuted by the Solicitor 3eneral in this wise)

Thus, where there are two or more offenders who commit rape, the homicidecommitted on the occasion or by reason of each rape, must be deemed as aconstituent of the special comple' crime of rape with homicide. Therefore, there willbe as many crimes of rape with homicide as there are rapes committed.

8n effect, the presence of homicide &ualifies the crime of rape, thereby raising itspenalty to the highest degree. Thus, homicide committed on the occasion or byreason of rape, loses its character as an independent offense, but assumes a new

character, and functions lie a &ualifying circumstance. >owever,by fiction of law, itmerged with rape to constitute an constituent element of a special comple' crime ofrape with homicide with a specific penalty which is in the highest degree, i.e. deathKreduced to recl!sion perpet!awith the suspension of the application of the deathpenalty by the Constitution.

8t is clearly provided in %ule --? of the %ules of Court that)

Sec. -/. #!plicity of offense. A complaint or information must charge but one offense,e'cept only in those cases in which e'isting laws prescribe a simple punishment forvarious offenses.

%ape with homicide comes within the e'ception under %.A. +;/+ and %.A. :---, amending the%evised 0enal Code.

The petitioner and his si' co1accused are not charged with only one rape committed by him inconspiracy with the other si'. 2ach one of the seven accused is charged with having himself rapedSarmenta instead of simply helping Sanchez in committing only one rape. 8n other words, theallegation of the prosecution is that the girl was raped seven times, with each of the seven accusedtaing turns in abusing her with the assistance of the other si'. Afterwards, their lust satisfied, allseven of them decided to ill and thus silence Sarmenta.


8/75

2very one of the seven accused is being charged separately for actually raping Sarmenta and laterilling her instead of merely assisting the petitioner in raping and then slaying her. The separateinformations filed against each of them allege that each of the seven successive rapes is comple'edby the subse&uent slaying of Sarmenta and aggravated by the illing of Allan 3omez by her sevenattacers. The separate rapes were committed in succession by the seven accused, culminating inthe slaying of Sarmenta.

8t is of course absurd to suggest that Mary 2ileen Sarmenta and Allan 3omez were illed seventimes, but the informations do not mae such a suggestion. 8t is the petitioner who does so and isthus hoist by his own petard.

The $lleged #iscrimination

The charge of discrimination against the petitioner because of the non1inclusion of Teofilo Al&uezaand 2dgardo Lavadia in the informations must also be dismissed.

(hile the prosecuting officer is re&uired by law to charge all those who in his opinion, appear to beguilty, he nevertheless cannot be compelled to include in the information a person against whom he

believes no sufficient evidence of guilt e'ists. 19The appreciation of the evidence involves the use ofdiscretion on the part of the prosecutor, and we do not find in the case at bar a clear showing by thepetitioner of a grave abuse of such discretion.:

The decision of the prosecutor may be reversed or modified by the Secretary of *ustice or in special

cases by the 0resident of the 0hilippines. :1$ut even this Court cannot order the prosecution of aperson against whom the prosecutor does not find sufficient evidence to support at least aprimafaciecase. The courts try and absolve or convict the accused but as a rule have no part in the initialdecision to prosecute him.

The possible e'ception is where there is an unmistaable showing of a grave abuse of discretionthat will #ustify #udicial intrusion into the precincts of the e'ecutive. $ut in such a case the proper

remedy to call for such e'ception is a petition for mandam!s, notcertiorarior prohibition.::Moreover,before resorting to this relief, the party seeing the inclusion of another person as a co1accused in thesame case must first avail itself of other ade&uate remedies such as the filing of a motion for suchinclusion.:3

At any rate, it is a preposterous contention that because no charges have been filed against Al&uezaand Lavadia, the charges against the petitioner and his co1accused should also be dropped.

J!risdiction of the Sandigan"ayan

The petitioner argued earlier that since most of the accused were incumbent public officials oremployees at the time of the alleged commission of the crimes, the cases against them should come

under the #urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and not of the regular courts. This contention waswithdrawn in his %eply but we shall discuss it #ust the same for the guidance of all those concerned.

Section :, paragraph Ka of 0.4. 5o, -;?;, as amended by 0.4. 5o.-;-, provides)

Sec. :. J!risdiction. The Sandiganbayan shall e'ercise)

a 2'clusive original #urisdiction in all cases involving)


9/75


10/75

8t is apparent from these allegations that, although public office is not an element ofthe crime of murder in abstract, as committed by the main respondents herein,according to the amended information, the offense therein charged is intimatelyconnectedwith their respective offices and was perpetrated while they were in theperformance, though improper or irregular, of their official functions. 8ndeed they hadno personal motive to commit the crime and they would not have committed it had

they not held their aforesaid offices. The co1defendants of respondent Leroy S.$rown, obeyed his instructions because he was their superior officer, as Mayor of$asilan City. K2mphasis supplied.

(e have read the informations in the case at bar and find no allegation therein that the crime of rapewith homicide imputed to the petitioner was connected with the discharge of his functions asmunicipal mayor or that there is an 6intimate connection6 between the offense and his office. 8tfollows that the said crime, being an ordinary offense, is triable by the regular courts and not theSandiganbayan.

oncl!sion

As above demonstrated, all of the grounds invoed by the petitioner are not supported by the factsand the applicable law and #urisprudence. They must, therefore, all be re#ected. 8n conse&uence, therespondent #udge, who has started the trial of the criminal cases against the petitioner and his co1accused, may proceed therewith without further hindrance.

8t remains to stress that the decision we mae today is not a decision on the merits of the criminalcases being tried below. These will have to be decided by the respondent #udge in accordance withthe evidence that is still being received. At this time, there is yet no basis for #udgment, onlyuninformed con#ecture. The Court will caution against such irrelevant public speculations as they canbe based only on imperfect nowledge if not officious ignorance.

(>2%2J!%2, the petition is 48SM8SS24. The respondent #udge is 48%2CT24 to continue with thetrial of Criminal Cases 5os. -?--:-, -?--:+, -?--:/, -?--::, -?--:, -?--:; and -?--:9 and todecide them with deliberate dispatch.

S! !%42%24.

/eliciano, Padilla, Bidin, 0egalado, #aide, Jr., 0omero, &ocon, Melo, 1!iason, P!no and 2it!g,JJ., conc!r.

&arasa, .J., took no part.

Bellosillo, J., is on leae.


11/75

*EO*LE O THE *HILI**INES,plaintiff-appellee, vs.ER"ELIN!ASE@#I6O, 5ICENTE T#"ANGAN, an+ NENITO"EL5I!A, accused-appellants.

! E C I S I O N

!A5I!E, R., J.

Accused1appellants 2rmelito Se&uiGo, 7icente Tumangan and 5enitoMelvida appeal from the decisionE-Fof +: Jebruary -: Kpromulgated on -March -: of the %egional Trial Court K%TC of Cebu City, $ranch +-, inCriminal Case 5o. C$1++:;, finding them guilty of the crime of robbery withhomicide as charged in an informationE+Fwhose accusatory portion reads)

That on or about 24th day of April, 1991 at 12:00 oclock noon, more or less at the

Public i!h"ay, #itio $ahu!, %aran!ay Antipolo, &unicipality of &edellin, Pro'inceof (ebu, Philippines, and "ithin the )urisdiction of this onorable (ourt, the abo'e*named accused, conspirin! and confederatin! and helpin! one another, did then andthere "illfully, unla"fully and feloniously "ith deliberate intent and intent to !ain, didthen and there "illfully, unla"fully and feloniously take, steal and carry a"ay thepayroll money in the amount of ++T- T./#A +3 /3 ++T-#33 P3#.# A 156100 7P80,85515, Philippine (urrency, belon!in! to ad;ose Anca)as A!ricultural (orporation to the dama!e and pre)udice of said corporationin the amount aforestated, and on the occasion thereof, did then and there "illfully,unla"fully and feloniously takin! ad'anta!e of their superior number and stren!th

and "ith intent to kill, attack, assault and shoot Pedro %roniola "ho "as backridin!


12/75

8n Criminal Case 5o. C$1++:;, the witnesses presented by theprosecution in its evidence in chief were 2ugenio 3odinez, *immy Serafin,police officers 2lpidio Luna, Alfredo Mondigo and Mario %emulta, 4r. ArturoSormillon, lt. Myrna Areola, 2milio 4aclan, Atty. 0erpetua Socorro $elarmino,and 0resentacion vda. de $roniola, while !lympio Lozano was presented asrebuttal witness.

!nly the accused testified in their defense.

The 0eopleNs version of the facts as testified to by its witnesses is asfollows)

At around noon of +: April --, 2ugenio 3odinez, overseer since -+ of>acienda *ose Anca#as in Medellin, Cebu, and 0edro $roniola, the haciendaNsbooeeper, went to the Medellin %ural $an, located three ilometers fromthe hacienda, to withdraw 0?,9.-9 to pay for the wages of the hacienda

worers. The banNs cashier instructed *immy Serafin, #anitor and motorcycledriver of the ban, to drive 3odinez and $roniola bac to the hacienda on oneof the banNs motorcycles. Serafin drove the motorcycle with 3odinez behindhim and $roniola behind 3odinez. 3odinez carried the money in a moneybag which he hung over his left shoulder. EF

As the three were in sitio Lahug, Antipolo, Medellin, Cebu, and nearing thehacienda, the accused, armed with guns, tried to bloc their path and orderedthem to stop. 3odinez recognized the armed men because 5enito Melvidaand 2merlindo Se&uiGo used to wor in the hacienda while 7icenteTumanganNs parents were 3odinezNs neighbors.E;F

Serafin drove on, but as the motorcycle went past the accused, he and3odinez heard a gunshot.E9F3odinez noticed that $roniola had fallen off themotorcycle. Serafin leapt from the motorcycle and ran away. The motorcycletoppled over 3odinez, pinning him to the ground. Accused Tumangan, withgun in hand, approached 3odine', too the money from the money bag, andfled on foot with his co1accused. (ith the assailants gone, 3odinez ranhome, leaving $roniola behind.EFMeanwhile, Serafin had proceeded to thehouse of the $roniolasN which was near the crime scene, and informed$roniolaNs wife of the incident.EF

S0! 2lpidio Luna, who was then at the Medellin police head&uarters,received a report from another policeman about a robbery at sitio

Antipolo. Together with other policemen and some OCafgus,P Luna went to thecrime scene he found an abandoned motorcycle. 0eople who by then hadmilled around the site informed Luna Othat the culprit had already fled.P Lunanoticed that the Obushes were compressedP and found Oa piece of paper
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn9


13/75

utilized as toilet paper with a stool on it EwhichF was somewhat newlydelivered.P The paper was a bio1data sheetE-?Fwith the name OMelvida, 5enitoPand the entry for the fatherNs name filled in with O2lpidio Melvida.P E--F

!ne bystander volunteered to tae Luna to 2lpidio MelvidaNs house where,

however, 2lpidio told Luna that 5enito Melvida was not there but was at hisK5enitoNs brotherNs house. 2lpidio too Luna to the said house where Lunasaw the accused 5enito Melvida playing cards with other persons. Lunaased Melvida to go with him to the barangay captainNs house. Melvidahesitated at first, but his companions prevailed upon him to go with Luna.E-+F

The barangay captain was not home, so Luna too Melvida to the policestation instead. Melvida was ept at the station the whole evening of +: April-- for investigation conducted, first, by Luna, then, by his fellow policemenSgt. 0ablo "got, Cpl. Alfredo Mondigo and 2liseo Tepait, as Luna had to taehis supper. Melvida was allowed to go home the ne't day, but only after thepolice had filed criminal charges against him and he had posted bail. Melvidawas not assisted by counsel during the police investigation, although Lunaassured the trial #udge that the Municipal Mayor of Medellin, who is a lawyer,was present, (hile Luna claimed he ased the Mayor to act as MelvidaNscounsel, he admitted that his re&uest did not appear in the record of theinvestigation. LunaNs investigation of Melvida was not reduced into writing.E-/F

8n the course of LunaNs investigation, Melvida admitted that he ept Ohisshare the lootP in his house. Melvida then was brought to his house where hegot 0,???.??, in one hundred peso bills, placed inside a shoe which he

delivered to the policemen.E-:F

4uring the investigation conducted by S0!/ Alfredo Mondigo, E-FMelvidaadmitted that his KMelvidaNs companions during the robbery were 7icenteTumangan and 2rmelindo Se&uiGo, who were staying in the house of *uanito>ones in 4aanlungsod, Medellin, Cebu. 8mmediately, Mondigo andpoliceman 0roniely Arti&uela proceeded to the house of >ones where theysaw Tumangan and Se&uiGo on the porch. 5oticing something bulging on thewaist of Tumangan, Mondigo and Arti&uela approached Tumangan and asedhim what was that bulging at his waist. Tumangan did not answer. So,

Mondigo patted the bulge which turned out to be a ./ caliber S&uires$ingham revolver with holster and four bullets.E-;F(hen ased if he had alicense for the firearm, Tumangan answered in the negative. Mondigo and

Arti&uela then brought Tumangan and Se&uiGo to the policestation. Tumangan was then investigated in the presence of the Municipalmayor. Tumangan admitted that he was one of the holdupppers.E-9F
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn17


14/75

Mondigo further declared that the police recovered 0++,+;.??,E-Fbut couldnot e'plain any further how the recovery was made and from whom. As tothis amount, S0!- Mariano %emulta, property custodian of the Medellin 050station, merely declared that he was entrusted with the 0++,+;.?? which,according to the station commander, was Orecovered in connection with thehighway robbery case.PE-F

!n the morning of + April --, the sworn statements of 2ugenio3odinez E+?Fand *immy SerafinE+-Fwere taen at the 050 >ead&uartersin Medellin, Cebu, by 0@Cpl. 2liseo Tepait and 0@Sgt. 2lpidio Luna,respectively. !n the same date, the criminal complaint for highway robberywith homicide KCriminal Case 5o. :9/1M was filed with the Third MCTC of4aanbantayan1Medellin, Cebu.

0arafin tests were then conducted on the accused by Lt. Myrna Areola,forensic chemist of the 050 Crime Laboratoryin Camp Cabahug, Cebu City. The tests yielded negative results for thepresence of gunpowder residue on both hands of Tumangan and Melvida,while Se&ioGoNs left hand tested positive for gunpowder residue. E++F

4r. Arturo Sormillon conducted thepost3morteme'amination on 0edro$roniola. >e found a single gunshot wound Oat the upper bac of E$roniolaNsFhead. The entrance of the bullet was at the upper bac of the nape and thebullet e'ited a the mouth splitting the tongue.P 0robing the wound, 4r.Sormillon determined that the bullet followed an upward path from the lowernape and out of the victimNs mouth, thus, he raised the possibility that the gun

used was positioned lower than the e'it wound. >e also advanced that by thenature of the wound, death was instantaneous. E+/F

2milio 4aclan, stenographer of $ranch - of the %TC of Cebu,authenticated the transcript of stenographic notes of MondigoNs testimony in0eople vs. Tumangan, Criminal Case 5o. C$1+++9.E+:F

Atty. 0erpetua Socorro $elarmino, $ranch Cler of Court of the aforesaidtrial court, brought the firearm a ./ caliber revolver with serial number-?++;?, and four live bullets, allegedly confiscated from accusedTumangan. Through $elarmino, the prosecution also presented a certification

dated /? May -+, issued by 050 Cebu 0rovincial 4irector %odolfo L.2sparagoza, stating that 7icente Tumangan had not been issued a license nora permit to possess the firearm described above. E+FAtty. $elarmino, however,was not the incumbent cler of court when the said e'hibits were presented inCriminal Case 5o. C$1+++9.E+;F
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn26


15/75

According to 0resentation vda. de $roniola, her husband 0edro $roniolaearned a monthly salary of 0-,+??.?? from >acienda *ose Anca#as and diedat the age of ;/. At the time of his death, he was already receiving 0?.??from the Social Security System. As a conse&uence of his death, shesuffered OworriesP which she &uantified at 0?,???.??. she alsoased0-?,???.?? as e'emplary damages.E+9F

%ebuttal witness !lympio Lozano, Ooperation officer of the JoreverSecurity and general services,P testified to disprove accused TumanganNsclaim Othat on April +/, the day before the incident in +: April that was his dayoff with Jorever Security Agency.P E+FAccording to Lozano, Tumangan went onabsence without leave on : April --, as evidenced by a spot report dated /

April -- which he prepared reading as follows)

1 .n or about 0500 more or less ? April 91 at the 'icinity of Asian Arts, nc

$aban!on (ebu (ity, #ecurity @uard icente Tuman!an, an out!oin! security!uard failed to turned o'er ser'ice re'ol'er cal ? "6 serial number 5B9?9,local made "6 8rds ammo to the in*comin! security !uard, "hich in'esti!ationdisclosed that #@ Tuman!an hurriedly "ent out of the company carryin! amedium siCe ba! presumably containin! the said firearm E+F

Lozano also reported to the Cebu City 0olice Station / TumanganNs failure toreturn the firearm to the security agency, which was recorded as an O2stafa

AlarmP in the said stationNs blotter.E/?F

The defense interposed alibi and denial and suggested a frame1up fortheir e'culpation.

Accused1appellant 5enito Melvida claims he was at his brotherNs house atthe time of the crime, as his sister1in1law told him to stay there while she wasin Cebu City and her husband was at wor. Later that night, police officerLuna came to the house and showed Melvida the Soiled bio1data which headmitted to be his. >e was ased if Owe were the ones responsible for therobbery and illingP and he said Othat is not true.P Melvida was brought to thepolice station where he was ased if he new those persons who #ust arrivedin his barrio. >e identified one those persons as accused1appellant 2rmelindo

Se&uiGo whom he saw in Se&uiGoNs auntNs house as he was fetching water ataround )?? p.m. >e claims he was ac&uainted only with Se&uiGo and he #ustmet accused1appellant 7icente Tumangan while they had been detained. E/-F

Accused1appellants Tumangan and Se&uiGo also placed themselvessomewhere alse at the time of the crime. At 9)?? a.m. of +: April --,Tumangan had #ust left his post as a security guard at the Asian Arts, 8nc., inLabangon, Cebu City, and at -)?? p.m. he went to Medellin together with his


16/75

friend, Se&uiGo. They were to procure Se&uiGoNs birth certificate to be used inthe latterNs wedding. The two arrived in Medellin at )?? p.m. and they stayedin Se&uiGo auntNs house. They went to sleep early as they were tired fromtheir long trip from Cebu City.E/+F

At )?? p.m., police officers Mondigo and Arte&uela came and were let inby Se&uiGoNs aunt. Tumangan and Se&uiGo awoe to find Mondigo and

Arte&uela pointing an armalite and a ./ caliber pistol, respectively, atTumangan. !ther policemen searched the house, claiming they were looingfor firearms. Tumangan ased had happened and why the police werepointing guns at him, but the policemen did not answer. >e said he had nogun, but the officers said he lied. Tumangan and Se&uiGo were told to godownstairs, leaving Mondigo and Arte&uela upstairs to continue theirsearch. (hen they came down the policemen said they had found a gun, ./caliber OS&uires $ingham,P which Tumangan recognized Obecause it was the

same as the firearm given to me as a security guard.PE//F

Tumangan andSe&uiGo were brought to the police station that same evening. At the station,Tumangan was interrogated by the police without the assistance of counsel,while Se&uiGo was left in a cell.E/:F

The trial court gave weight to the prosecutionNs evidence and in itsdecision it found)

($3A$-, the accused is interposin! the defense of denial "ith traces of alibi andframe*up #o, it behoo'es the (ourt to "ei!h properly the e'idence both "ays

The testimonies of the accused, e'en collecti'ely considered, do not inspire belief tis not )ust because they "ere self*ser'in! but mostly because their assertions, despiteefforts to produce the desired effect, ha'e come out but flimsily skirtin! on "hatshould sDuarely be reasonable or lo!ical and natural And these attributes are tooapparent in this (ourts narration of e'idence and the facts they establish, if at all7supra

+irstly, the (ourt must say that the accuseds defense of alibi and frame*up is notpersuasi'e The defense theory bares the bad!es of a concoction easy to formulate buthard to pro'e Thus, as bet"een the positi'e declarations of the prosecution "itnesses7direct eye"itnesses, themsel'es co*participants "ith the homicide 'ictim, Pedro%roniola, in the s"ift robbery drama: 3u!enio @odineC from "hose shoulder themoney ba! "as snatched by an armed icente Tuman!an as @odineC "as pinnedhelpless under the "ei!ht of the motorcycle that has fallen to "ayside, and ;immy#erafin, "ho dro'e the motorcycle on "hich had ridden at his back @odineC and then%roniola E they sa" the three accused apparently "aitin! for them as they dro'e to thehacienda houseF they heard shouts from "here the accused "ere for the riders to stop
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn34


17/75

the motorcycleF they heard the !unfire from the accusedF they "itnessed %roniola hitand dropped from the 'ehicle by the shootin! from the 'ehicleF they "itnesses #erafinlea'e the 'ehicle and run a"ay and the ne!ati'e statements of the accused, the formerdeser'es more credence 7People ' 3sDuerra, @ o95989, 5 April 199?

eedless to elaborate, there "as homicide in the course of the robbery, and the fact ofthis death has been officially recorded

o amount of denial, or petty alibi, can shake the solid identifications of the accusedby their o"n robbery 'ictims 3u!enio @odineC, in particular, "as cate!orical in this,sayin! that he had lon! kno"n the three accused e'en before the incident 7pa!e2,supra and ho" could he E in board dayli!ht and at almost hi!h noon at all E missreco!niCin! icente Tuman!an "hose face "as hardly a foot a"ay from @odineCsface "hen Tuman!an !rabbed the money ba! from @odineCs shoulderG

The accused themsel'es "ere one in tellin! the (ourt that they and the police officers"ho had follo"ed up this case had not had any misunderstandin! or differencesF theydid not e'en kno" each other until after the incident Absent any sho"in! that thela" enforcers "ere mo'ed by ill*moti'e or improper reasons to falsely impute aserious char!e a!ainst the accused, it is presumed that they had acted in the re!ularperformance of their duties 7id.

To repeat, the (ourt must !rant credibility to the "itnesses for the prosecution Theirtestimonies, unlike those of the accused, are not illo!ical, inconsistent and contrary tohuman eHperience 7People ' #alaCar, et al, @ o4?91, 5 April 199? The (ourt

did closely obser'e each and e'ery "itnesss demeanor "hile testifyin!, disre!ardin!attendant and eHpected little inconsistencies, usually normal, and must hold that theprosecution "itnesses "ere definitely more trust"orthy in their pronouncements incourt than those for the defense efense "itnesses no" and then betrayed theirsmu!ness "hen they should rather be spontaneous n fact, the (ourt "as disturbed"hen there occurred an uneHpected unison by the defense counsel and one of theaccused in "ron!ly surnamin! a relati'e of the accused 7IonesJ from iones

The mere say*so by icente Tuman!an and 3rmelindo #eDuiKo that they left (ebu(ity at 1:00 in the afternoon of 24 April 1991 and arri'ed in &edellin at 8:00 that

afternoon does not remo'e the possibility, if not the probability, that they had actuallybeen in &edellin earlier ** "ith their &edellin*based relati'e, enito &el'ida ** thanthe time of the robbery A fe" hours make a lot of difference, dont theyG After all,the freDuency of the trips of hacienda payroll money from the bank had become ofpublic kno"led!e, especially amon! the hacienda laborers, and their relati'es ofcourseL


18/75

n total, alibi ** denial ** is a "eak defense and becomes "eaker in the face of positi'eidentification of the accused by the prosecution "itnesses 7People ' 3strella, @os 9280B*05, 2 April 199?

Another point must be mentioned no"

3Hplicit is the e'idence to pro'e that the three accused acted in concert, clearlypursuin! the same ob)ecti'e Thus, from their conduct conspiracy may beinferred +or, as been held, it is not essential that there is proof of a pre'iousa!reement to commit a crime M +rom acts and circumstances may lo!ically beinferred the eHistence of a common desi!n to commit the offense char!ed 7People '%untan, #r, @ o 905?B, 12 April 199?

Thus, "ith conspiracy present, the fact of shootin! from the direction of the threeaccused and the fact that the shootin! hit %roniola "ho fell off the motorcycle, and

killed him, are all that matter, irrespecti'e as to "ho of the three had indeed fired thefatal shot +or, after all, the liability of one is the culpability of all in aconspiracy The fin!er of probability, thou!h, stron!ly points to accused 3rmelindo#eDuiKo as the !unfirin! member of the armed trio upon the forensic chemists findin!of Ipresence of !unpo"der residue on the left hand of 3rmelindo #eDuiKo,J reliablethat the paraffin tests on the accused could be, they ha'in! been administered )ustsli!htly more than 24 hours after the fatal shootin! "as done Add the follo"in!:

/ndisputed is the fact of police reco'ery of IpartitionsJ of the loot 7cash not fromone of the three accused but from the three of them in separate Ihidin!J places

The e'idence has established indubitably the follo"in! material facts:

The motorcycle riders 7named,supra, "ho "ere carryin! cash )ust "ithdra"n fromthe &edellin ural %ank for the salaries of employees of the acienda Anca)as "ereheld up by three armed men "ho "ere identified as the accused, about noontime on 24April 1991 in sitio $ahu!, baran!ay Antipolo, municipality of &edellin, pro'ince of(ebu, and one of the hacienda trustee, before the three escaped a"ay #hortlymomentarily before this, and in the process of the robbery, the hacienda bookkeeper,another hacienda trustee "ho "as also on the motorcycle, "as shot dead by the

malefactors >ithout the shootin! "hich had resulted in homicide, the culprits "ouldnot ha'e possibly succeeded in the robbery

>ithout hesitance no" the (ourt, considerin! the facts pro'ed by the e'idence, mustdeclare that the crime committed by the accused "as robbery "ith homicide 7robocon homicido as pro'ided by Article 29471 of the e'ised Penal (ode "hich reads,thus:


19/75

Art 294Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons- Penalties.**Any person !uilty of robbery "ith the use of 'iolence a!ainst or intimidation of anyperson shall suffer:

1 The penalty of reclusion perpetuato death, "hen by reason or on

occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall ha'e beencommitted

The (ourt entertains no doubt "hatsoe'er that the accused did employ 'iolencea!ainst 7shootin! and killin! and intimidation of persons 7"hich in fact compelled therobbery 'ictims, eHcept the killed one, to scamper a"ay fast from the scene of thecrime to consummate their criminal intent to take a"ay, as they did, for personal!ain, the personal property of acienda Anca)as 7payroll money under the custodialtrust of the hacienda o'erseer and paymaster 7#ee People ' e la (ruC, $*10200B?,20 ;anuary 199?E/F

8t then rendered #udgment as follows)

>33+.3, the (ourt finds 3&3$. #3N/O., (3T3 T/&A@Aand 3T. &3$A !uilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery "ithhomicide as defined and penaliCed by Article 294 71 of the e'ised Penal (ode, andhereby sentences 3A( .+ T3& to suffer the penalty ofReclusion Perpetua.

The abo'e*named accused are ordered to indemnify, )ointly and se'erally, the heirs ofkilled 'ictim Pedro %roniola, specifically his "ido", Presentacion 'da de %rociola,

"ith the amount of +ifty Thousand Pesos 7P80,000 They are further ordered to pay,also )ointly and se'erally, the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos 7P10,000 each to theaforementioned "ido", 3u!enio @odineC and ;immy #erafin in concept of moral andeHemplary dama!es eco'ered sums of money, part of the total amount of moneytaken in the robbery, are ordered returned to the acienda Anca)as, e'en as the sameaccused are ordered to pay back, )ointly and se'erally, to said acienda the balance ofthe total loot still unaccounted for

(osts must like"ise be paid by the three accused

#. .33E/;F

+orth"ith, the accused appealed to us from the )ud!ment by filin! a notice of appeal


20/75

+#T A##@&3T .+ 3.

M TAT A((/#3 M A3 @/$T- %3-. 3A#.A%$3 ./%T .+T3 (&3 .+ .%%3- >T .&(3, A #3T3(@ T3&T. #33 T3 P3A$T- P+ $+3 &P#.&3T A T. PA-

;.T$- A #33A$$-, T. T3 3# .+ $$3 (T& P3.%..$A, #P3(+(A$$- T3 >.>, P3#3TA(. A 3%..$A, T3 A&./T .+ P80,000, A +/T3 T. PA- ;.T$-A #33A$$-, T3 #/& .+ P10,000 3A( T. T3 A+.3A&3>.>, 3/@3. @.3Q, A ;&&- #3A+ T3 (.#3PT.+ &.A$ A 3R3&P$A- A&A@3#

#3(. A##@&3T .+ 3.

M TAT A((/#3 M A3 @/$T- .+ T3 (&3 (A@3, 3#PT3

T3 $A( .+ 3TT- .+ T3 P3#. >. +3 T3 A$$3@3#.T TAT T A $$3 T3 (T& P3. %..$A

T A##@&3T .+ 3.

M TAT T33 >A# (.#PA(-, T3 P.#3(/T. .T [email protected] .+ A- 33(3 #.>@ (.#PA(-

+./T A##@&3T .+ 3.

M >3 T +A$3 T. (.#3 T3 .*.%#3A(3 .+ T3(.#TT/T. T3 3#T@AT. >T T3 A((/#3 %- T3P.$(3, A# >3 T3 (./T #A-# IT3 (./T, .>33, &/#T3RP3## T# #&A- .3 T3 N/3#T.A%$3 &3T.# %- T3P.$(3 .++(3# (.(33 &.(3 T3 (.#TT/T., >(T3- T3$3# A3 #>. T. .. A 333, >3T3- .T 3& T3 A((/#3 .+ T3 @T T. 3&A#$3T A T. %3 A###T3 %- (./#3$M

The disposition of the first assigned error depends on whether the

accused were properly found guilty of the crime charged, hence, it shall bediscussed last. The second and third errors may be resolved together s theypertain to the same issue of conspiracy.

(e shall first tae up the fourth assigned error as it raises a constitutionalproblem deserving of primary consideration.


21/75

The fourth assigned error is self1contradictory. (hile it starts with a claimthat the trial court failed to consider the non1observance by the police of theconstitutional safeguards during the investigation of the accused, it &uoted thetrial courtNs statement precisely e'pressing its dismay over the &uestionablemethod used by the police in such investigation and considered it a moceryof the Constitution which the police had sworn to honor and revere. (e &uotewhat the trial court said)

The (ourt, ho"e'er, must eHpress its dismay o'er the Duestionable means employedby the police in in'esti!atin! the accused The police officers concerned mocked the(onstitution, "hich they themsel'es ha'e s"orn to honor and re'ere, "hen they didnot remind the accused of their ri!ht to remain silent and to be assisted bycounsel They must be instructed by their superiors in no uncertain terms to respectthe (onstitution at all times in the performance of their duties %e that as it may, thisunconstitutional act may not benefit the cause of the accused After all, nothin! in thee'idence for the prosecution "as taken from the police in'esti!ation in Duestion ** nofruit, as it "ere, from the Ipoisoned freeJE/F

Also, in the course of his testimony, police officer 2lpidio Luna wasrebued by the trial court for his violation of the constitutional rights ofaccused Melvida. Thus)

Court)

So, you investigated 5enito MelvidaI

A 8 investigated 5enito Melvida.

Court)

"ou investigated him after you arrested himI (hy did you arrest himI

A 8 believed that he was a suspect of that robbery.

Court)

(as your belief sufficient to arrest himI

A 8 only invite him for investigation. 8 did not arrest him.

Court)

That is the enertia EsicF of martial law. O5o we did not arrest him, we only invitedhim.P

Court to witness)

(as he assisted by a lawyer when you investigated himI

A 5o there was none because in our place we can seldom find lawyers.

Court)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn38


22/75

So, since there are no lawyers you go on arresting and investigating without evensufficient ground for such arrestI

A (e did not arrest him we only invite him.

Court)

>owI

A 8 told him, O0lease, go with us because we have something to as from you.P

Court)

(hy did you not as him right thereI (hy did you have to mae him go with youI

A because the $arangay captain was not around 8 should have ased him thereI

Court)

"ou were earlier set to investigate him that is why you brought him to yourhead&uartersI

A "es sir.Court)

4o you have the right to investigate someone whom you have not arrestedI

A 8n our police wor we can do the interrogation and investigation as long as we willnot violate the human rights.

Court)

4id you violate the human rights of 5enito MelvidaI

A 8 did not violate "our >onor.E/F

>owever, while the trial court found a mocery of the Constitution and infact declared that Onothing in the evidence for the prosecution was taen fromthe police investigation in &uestion 11 no fruit, as it were, from the Qpoisonedtree,NP we do not find incongruous the following statement of the trial court)

/ndisputed is the fact of police reco'ery of IpartitionsJ of the loot 7cash not fromone of the three of them in separate Ihidin!J places E:?F

(hat was OrecoveredP from accused Melvida was 0,???.?? which, headmitted, was his share of the loot. E:-FAs to the difference between 0++,+;.??

and 0,???.??, no evidence was adduced how and from whom it wasrecovered. 0olice officer Mariano %emulta merely declared thatthe 0+;,+;.?? was entrusted to him by the station commander who told himthat the amount was Qrecovered in connection with the highway robberycase.PE:+F

Since the OrecoveryP of 0,???.?? from Melvida was due to his OadmissionPin the course of the custodial interrogation made in violation of paragraph K-
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn42


23/75


24/75


25/75

8n this case, Tumangan, with gun in hand and while 3odinez washelplessly pinned under the motorcycle, dispossessed the latter of the moneyhe was carrying. That Tumangan was armed and had in fact already fired it,causing in#ury to $roniola which caused his death, and that 3odinez wasdefenseless naturally impaired the latterNs free will, producing the intimidationelement in robbery.

The crime becomes robbery with homicide when by reason or on occasionof a robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of person, thecrime of homicide shall have been committed. E/FThe term OhomicideP isunderstood in its generic sense, hence, it includes the commission of murderor slight physical in#uries during the robbery.E:F

Since the robbery in this case was accompanied by the illing of 0edro$roniola, the crime becomes robbery with homicide, as the trial court correctlyruled.

The trial court was liewise correct in finding conspiracy in thiscase. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreementconcerning the commission of a felony of a felony and decide to commit it. 8tis not re&uired that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior tobe occurrenceB rather, it is sufficient that at the time of the commission of theoffense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in itse'ecution. The agreement to commit a crime may be gleaned from the modeand manner of the commission of the offense or inferred from the acts of theaccused which point to a #oint purpose and design, concerted action, and

community of intent.EF

8n this case, the three accused were one in blocing the motorcycle of3odinez, Serafin, and $roniola, and commanding their victims to stop. Theywere also unanimous in fleeing the crime scene, taing a single route to4aang Lungsod. These concerted acts indicate a community of criminalintent which is the essence of conspiracy. Conspiracy having beenestablished, it matters not who among the accused actually shot and illed0edro $roniola, for that criminal act is attributable to all three accused.

Thus are the second and third assigned errors settled. The final tas is to

determine the appropriate penalty against the accused. The %evised 0enalCode prescribes the penalty ofrecl!sion perpet!ato death for the crime ofrobbery with homicide,E;Fbut since the offense in this case was committed on+: April --, or while the imposition of the death penalty had beensuspended E9Fand before its reimposition under %.A. 5o. 9;, the trial courtcorrectly imposed the penalty of recl!sion perpet!a. (e do not, however,agree with its awards of moral and e'emplary damages of 0-?,???.?? each to


26/75

2ugenio 3odinez, *immy Serafin, and 0resentacion vda de $roniola. There isno factual basis therefor insofar as 3odinez and Serafin are concerned sincethey did not as for and testify thereon. !nly 0resentacion vda. de $roniolaased for moral damages of 0?,???.?? for her OworriesP due to the death ofher husband.EFAs to e'emplary damages, the law is clear that they can berecovered in criminal cases only when the crime was committed with one ormore aggravating circumstances,EFnone of which was proven in thiscase. The award then of 0-?,???.?? in favor of 0resentacion vda. de$roniola must be deemed as for moral damages only.

Also, the trial court should have ordered the accusedRappellants toindemnify, #ointly and severally, the >acienda *ose Anca#as in the amountof 0?,99.-9, representing the amount withdrawn from the ban and taenby them from 2ugenio 3odinez, since it was never established by admissibleevidence that any portion of this amount had been recovered.

BHEREORE, the instant appeal is 48SM8SS24 and the challengeddecision of $ranch +- of the %egional Trial Court of Cebu City of +: Jebruary-: in Criminal Case 5o. C$1++:; is hereby AJJ8%M24, sub#ect to thefollowing modifications, viz., the award of 0-?,???.?? each to 2ugenio3odinez and *immy Serafin are deleted, while that for 0resentacion vda de$roniola shall only be considered as moral damages, and that the accused1appellants are hereby ordered, #ointly and severally, to indemnify the>acienda *ose Anca#as of Medellin, Cebu, the sum of Jifty Thousand Jive>undred and Seventy1Seven 0esos and Seventeen Centavos K0?,99.-9,

with interest thereon at the legal rate reconed from +: April -- and until itshall have been fully paid.

Costs against the accused1appellants.

SO OR!ERE!.

&arasa, .J. 4hairman5, Melo, /rancisco, andPangani"an, JJ., concur.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/117397.htm#_edn59


27/75

G.R. Nos. 99:>9-9 anar) :7, 1993

"IRIA" !EENSOR-SANTIAGO, petitioner,vs.CONRA!O ". 5AS@#EZ, Omb+sman G#AL0ERTO . !E LA LLANA, S'e&%a *rose&(orSAN!IGAN0AAN an+ REGIONAL TRIAL CO#RT O "ANILA, respondents.

Marciano P. #efensor for petitioner.

&estor P. If!rong for Maria S. Tatoy.

#anilo . !nanan for respondents.

% 2 S ! L T 8 ! 5

REGALA!O, J.:

Jiled directly with the Court, ostensibly as an incident in the present special civil action, is petitionerDsso1called 6Motion to %estrain the Sandiganbayan from 2nforcing its >old 4eparture !rder with0rayer for the 8ssuance of a Temporary %estraining !rder and@or 0reliminary 8n#unction, with Motionto Set 0ending 8ncident for >earing.6 4espite the impropriety of the mode adopted in elevating theissue to us, as will hereinafter be discussed, we will disregard the procedural gaffe in the interest ofan early resolution hereof.

The chronology of events preceding the instant motion is best summarized to readily provide a clearunderstanding and perspective of our disposition of this matter, thus)

-. !n May -/, --, an information dated May , -- and doceted as Criminal Case 5o. -;;

was filed against petitioner with the Sandiganbayan for alleged violation of Section /Ke, %epublic Act5o. /?-, otherwise nown as the Anti13raft and Corrupt 0ractices Act.

+. !n May -:, --, an order of arrest was issued in said case against herein petitioner by 0residing*ustice Jrancis 2. 3architorena of the Sandiganbayan, with bail for the release of the accused fi'edat 0-,???.??. 1

/. !n even date, petitioner filed an 6rgent E%3parteMotion for Acceptance of Cash $ail $ond for

and in $ehalf of 4r. Miriam 4efensor1Santiago,6 :which pertinently states in part)

''' ''' '''

/. As a result of the vehicular collision, she suffered e'tensive physical in#uries whichre&uired surgical intervention. As of this time, her in#uries, specifically in the #aw orgum area of the mouth, prevents her to spea Ksic because of e'treme pain. Jurther,she cannot for an e'tended period be on her feet because she is still in physical pain.. . . .

:. !n the other hand, the accused Miriam 4efensor Santiago sees leave of this>onorable Court that she be considered as having placed herself under the

#urisdiction of this >onorable Court, for purposes of the re&uired trial and other


28/75

proceedings and further sees leave of this >onorable Court that the recommendedbail bond of 0-,???.?? that she is posting in cash be accepted.

''' ''' '''

(>2%2J!%2, it is respectfully prayed of this >onorable Court that the bail bond she

is posting in the amount of 0-,???.?? be duly accepted, and that by this motion, shebe considered as having placed herself under the custody of this >onorable Courtand dispensing of her personal appearance for now until such time she will Ksic haverecovered sufficiently from her recent near fatal accident.

Jurther, on the above basis, it is also respectfully prayed that the warrant for herarrest be immediately recalled.

''' ''' '''

:. Also on the same day, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution 3authorizing petitioner to post a cashbond for her provisional liberty without need for her physical appearance until *une , -- at the latest,

unless by that time her condition does not yet permit her physical appearance before said court. !n May-, --, petitioner filed a cash bond in the amount of 0-,???.??, aside from the other legal fees. ;

. !n May +-, --, respondent !mbudsman Conrado M. 7as&uez filed with the Sandiganbayan amanifestation 6that accused Miriam 4efensor1Santiago appeared in his office in the second floor ofthe !ld 5A(ASA $uilding located in Arroceros Street, 2rmita, Manila at around /)/? oDcloc in theafternoon of May +?, --. She was accompanied by a brother who represented himself to be Atty.

Arthur 4efensor and a lady who is said to be a physician. She came and left unaided, after stayingfor about fifteen minutes. ermoso Travel0rocessing Center, 5o. /;++, + April -?, 9 SC%A -+-.

Article 888, Section ; of the -9 Constitution should by no means be construed asdelimiting the inherent power of the Courts to use all means necessary to carry theirorders into effect in criminal cases pending before them. (hen by law #urisdiction isconferred on a Court or #udicial officer, all au'iliary writs, processes and other meansnecessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such Court or officer K%ule -/,Section ;, %ules of Court.

''' ''' '''

. . . >olding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the Courts bypreventing his departure from the 0hilippines must be considered as a validrestriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law.The offended party in any criminal proceeding is the 0eople of the 0hilippines. 8t is totheir best interest that criminal prosecutions should run their course and proceed tofinality without undue delay, with an accused holding himself amenable at all times toCourt !rders and processes. 33


35/75

!ne final observation. (e discern in the proceedings in this case a propensity on the part ofpetitioner, and, for that matter, the same may be said of a number of litigants who initiate recoursesbefore us, to disregard the hierarchy of courts in our #udicial system by seeing relief directly fromthis Court despite the fact that the same is available in the lower courts in the e'ercise of theiroriginal or concurrent #urisdiction, or is even mandated bylaw to be sought therein. This practicemust be stopped, not only because of the imposition upon the precious time of this Court but also

because of the inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the ad#udication of the casewhich often has to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules ofprocedure, or as better e&uipped to resolve the issues since this Court is not a trier of facts. (e,therefore, reiterate the #udicial policy that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless theredress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where e'ceptional and compellingcircumstances #ustify availment of a remedy within and calling for the e'ercise of our primary

#urisdiction.

Jor the guidance of the bench and the bar, we elucidate that such policy includes the matter ofpetitions or motions involving hold departure orders of the trial or lower courts. 0arties with pendingcases therein should apply for permission to leave the country from the very same courts which, inthe first instance, are in the best position to pass upon such applications and to impose theappropriate conditions therefor since they are conversant with the facts of the cases and theramifications or implications thereof. (here, as in the present case, a hold departure order has beenissued e% parte or mot! propio by said court, the party concerned must first e'haust the appropriateremedies therein, through a motion for reconsideration or other proper submissions, or by the filingof the re&uisite application for travel abroad. !nly where all the conditions and re&uirements for theissuance of the e'traordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus indubitably obtain against adisposition of the lower courts may our power of supervision over said tribunals be invoed throughthe appropriate petition assailing on #urisdictional or clearly valid grounds their actuations therein.

(>2%2J!%2, with respect to and acting on the motion now before us for resolution, the same ishereby 425824 for lac of merit.

S! !%42%24.


36/75

G.R. No. 113=3 "a)


37/75

A day after mbal e'ecuted his e'tra#udicial confession, the operatives of the 0ACC, armed with asearch warrant issued by *udge %oberto A. $arrios of the %egional Trial Court of Manila, $r.

--, 3separately raided the two K+ dwellings of Santiago, one located at 5o. 9 Sangley Street, and theother, along Amalingan Street, both in 3reen >eights Subdivision, 0araGa&ue. The raiders recovered ablue 5issan 0athfinder and assorted firearms and ammunition and placed Santiago and his trusted aide,2fren Madolid, under arrest. Also arrested later that day were Antonio and $ato who were found to have

in their possession several firearms and ammunition and 7an TwestDs Cartier sunglasses.

After evaluating the pieces of evidence gathered by 0ACC operatives, Sr., Supt. 0anfilo Lacson,Chief of 0ACC Tas Jorce >abagat, referred the case to the 4epartment of *ustice for the institutionof criminal proceedings against AJ0C83 Agent %oberto Santiago, S0!- Sergio Antonino, S0!+%oger $ato, 2'1policeman %olando 3amatero, 2fren Madolid, and petitioners herein, Atty. 4iosdado*ose Allado and Atty. %oberto L. Mendoza, for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition,

carnapping, idnapping for ransom with murder, and usurpation of authority. ;8n his letter to the State0rosecutor dated -9 September -/, Sr. Supt. Lacson charged that

Atty. %oberto L. Mendoza and Atty. Allado of Salonga, >ernandez and Allado Law!ffices . . . planned and conspired with other suspects to abduct and ill the 3erman

national Ale'ander 7an Twest in order to eliminate him after forcing the victim to signseveral documents transferring ownership of several properties amounting to severalmillion pesos and caused the withdrawal of 0M deposit from the victimDs banaccount.

Thereafter, Senior State 0rosecutor Jerdinand prosecutor Jerdinand %. Abesamis issued asubpoena to petitioners informing them that a complaintwas filed against them by 0ACC TJ1>abagat, directing them to appear on/? September -/ at the Multi10urpose >all of the 4epartment of *ustice and to submit theircounter1affidavits. Attached to the subpoena were copies of the affidavits e'ecuted by mbal andmembers of the team who raided the two K+ dwellings of Santiago. ead of the 0ACC Tas Jorce recommending approval thereof.13

That same day,the information was filed before the %egional Trial Court of Maati and raffled off to $ranch ;+ presided byrespondent *udge %oberto C. 4iono.

!n : Jebruary -:, respondent #udge, in response to petitionersD re&uest, gave them until Jebruary -: to submit their opposition to the issuance of a warrant of arrest against all the

accused. 1;!n 9 Jebruary -:, petitioners complied with the order of respondent #udge.1

>owever, on even date, respondent #udgeissued the assailed warrant of arrest against petitioners.19>ence, on - Jebruary -:, petitioners filedwith us the instant petition forcertiorariand prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order.

!n -; Jebruary -:, we re&uired respondents to comment on the petition and set the case forhearing on + Jebruary -:. After the hearing, we issued a temporary restraining order en#oining0ACC from enforcing the warrant of arrest and respondent #udge from conducting furtherproceedings on the case and, instead, to elevate the records to us. Meanwhile, on +9 Jebruary-:, petitioners voluntarily surrendered at the >ead&uarters of the Capital Command KCA0C!M,0hilippine 5ational 0olice K050, Camp $agong 4iwa, $icutan, Metro Manila, and on + Jebruary-:, they were released on the basis of our temporary restraining order.

0etitioners, in their //1page petition, inclusive of anne'es, principally contend that respondent#udge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in e'cess of #urisdiction in 6whimsically holding thatthere is probable cause against petitioners without determining the admissibility of the evidence

against petitioners and without even stating the basis of his findings,6 :and in 6relying on the%esolution of the 0anel and their certification that probable cause e'ists when the certification is

flawed.6:10etitioners maintain that the records of the preliminary investigation which respondent #udgesolely relied upon failed to establish probable cause against them to #ustify the issuance of the warrant of

arrest. 0etitioners liewise assail the prosecutorsD 6clear sign of bias and impartiality Ksic.6::


39/75

!n the other hand, the !ffice of the Solicitor 3eneral argues that the determination of probablecause is a function of the #udge who is merely re&uired to personally appreciate certain facts toconvince him that the accused probably committed the crime charged.

Section +, Art. 888, of the -9 Constitution, lays down the re&uirements for the issuance of a warrantof arrest, i.e., a warrant of arrest shall issue only upon probable cause to be determined personally

by the #udge after e'amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses hemay produce.

As early as --, in B!chanan . 2i!da de Este"an, :3this Court speaing through Associate *usticeSherman Moreland defined probable cause as 6the e'istence of such facts and circumstances as woulde'cite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the nowledge of the prosecutor, that theperson charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.6 This definition is still relevant today

as we continue to cite it in recent cases.:;>ence, probable cause for an arrest or for the issuance of awarrant of arrest has been defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonablediscreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be

arrested.:


40/75

The 0residential Anti1Crime Commission relies heavily on the sworn statement of Security 3uardmbal who supposedly confessed his participation in the alleged idnapping and murder of 7anTwest. Jor one, there is serious doubt on 7an TwestDs reported death since the corp!s delicti has notbeen established, nor have his remains been recovered. mbal claims that 7an Twest wascompletely burned into ashes with the use of gasoline and rubber tires from around ten oDcloc in the

evening to si' oDcloc the ne't morning. :9This is highly improbable, if not ridiculous. A human bodycannot be pulverized into ashes by simply burning it with the use of gasoline and rubber tires in an openfield. 2ven crematoria use entirely closed incinerators where the corpse is sub#ected to intense

heat.3Thereafter, the remains undergo a process where the bones are completely ground to dust.

8n the case of 7an Twest, there is not even any insinuation that earnest efforts were e'erted to

recover traces of his remains from the scene of the alleged cremation. 31Could it be that thegovernment investigators did to the place of cremation but could not find anyI !r could it be that they didnot go at all because they new that there would not be any as no burning ever too placeI To allege thenthat the body of 7an Twest was completely burned to ashes in an open field with the use merely of tiresand gasoline is a tale too tall to gulp.

Strangely, if not awwardly, after 7an TwestDs reported abduction on

-; *une -+ which culminated in his decimation by cremation, his counsel continued to representhim before #udicial and &uasi1#udicial proceedings. Thus on /- *uly -+, his counsel filed in hisbehalf a petition for review before this Court, doceted as 3.%. 5os. -?;+/, and on - March -/,a memorandum before the Securities and 2'change Commission in S2C Case 5o. /;. !n+; 5ovember -/, during the preliminary investigation conducted by the panel of prosecutors,counsel again manifested that 6even then and even as of this time, 8 stated in my counter1affidavitthat until the matter of death is to be established in the proper proceedings, 8 shall continue to

pursue my duties and responsibilities as counsel for Mr. 7an Twest.6 3:>ence, even Asst. Solicitor3eneral 2stoesta believes that counsel of 7an Twest doubted the latterDs

death.33!bviously, counsel himself does not believe that his client is in fact already dead otherwise hisobligation to his client would have ceased e'cept to comply with his duty 6to inform the court promptly ofsuch death . . . and to give the name and residence of his e'ecutor, administrator, guardian or other legal

representative,63;which he did not.

nder the circumstances, we cannot discount petitionersD theory that the supposed death of 7anTwest who is reportedly an international fugitive from #ustice, a fact substantiated by petitioners andnever refuted by 0ACC, is a liely story to stop the international manhunt for his arrest. 8n this

regard, we are reminded of the leading case of+.S. . Samarin 3


41/75


42/75

notes Kif any, and all other supporting documents behind the prosecutorDs certification which are materialin assisting the #udge in his determination of probable causeB and, Kc *udges and prosecutors alieshould distinguish the preliminary in&uiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrantof arrest from the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be heldfor trial or released. 2ven if the two in&uiries be conducted in the course of one and the same proceeding,there should be no confusion about their ob#ectives. The determination of probable cause for the warrantis made by the #udge. The preliminary investigationproper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offensecharged and therefore, whether or not he should be sub#ected to the e'pense, rigors and embarrassmentof trial is a function of the prosecutor.

8n 6im . /eli%, ;3where we reiteratedSolien . MakasiarandPeople . Inting, we said

ETFhe *udge does not have to personally e'amine the complainant and his witnesses.The 0rosecutor can perform the same functions as a commissioner for the taing ofthe evidence. >owever, there should be a report and necessary documentssupporting the JiscalDs bare certification. All these should be before the *udge.

The e'tent of the *udgeDs personal e'amination of the report and its anne'esdepends on the circumstances of each case. (e cannot determine beforehand howcursory or e'haustive the *udgeDs e'amination should be. The *udge has to e'ercisesound discretion for, after all, the personal determination is vested in the *udge bythe Constitution. 8t can be as brief or as detailed as the circumstances of each casere&uire. To be sure, the #udge must go beyond the 0rosecutorDs certification andinvestigation report whenever necessary. >e should call for the complainant andwitnesses themselves to answer the courtDs probing &uestions when thecircumstances of the case so re&uire.

Clearly, probable cause may not be established simply by showing that a trial #udge sub#ectivelybelieves that he has good grounds for his action. 3ood faith is not enough. 8f sub#ective good faithalone were the test, the constitutional protection would be demeaned and the people would be

6secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects6 only in the fallible discretion of the #udge. ;;!nthe contrary, the probable cause test is an ob#ective one, for in order that there be probable cause thefacts and circumstances must be such as would warrant a belief by a reasonably discreet and prudent

man that the accused is guilty of the crime which has #ust been committed.;ence, if upon the filing of the information in court the trial #udge, after reviewing the informationand the documents attached thereto, finds that no probable cause e'ists must either call for thecomplainant and the witnesses themselves or simply dismiss the case. There is no reason to hold theaccused for trial and further e'pose him to an open and public accusation of the crime when no probablecause e'ists.

$ut then, it appears in the instant case that the prosecutors have similarly misappropriated, if notabused, their discretion. 8f they really believed that petitioners were probably guilty, they should havearmed themselves with facts and circumstances in support of that beliefB for mere belief is notenough. They should have presented sufficient and credible evidence to demonstrate the e'istenceof probable cause. Jor the prosecuting officer 6is the representative not of an ordinary party to acontroversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as itsobligation to govern allB and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall wina case, but that #ustice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servantof the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. >e mayprosecute with earnestness and vigor indeed, he should do so. $ut, while he may strie hardblows, he is not at liberty to strie foul ones. 8t is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods


43/75

calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a#ust one6 ;=

8n the case at bench, the undue haste in the filing of the information and the inordinate interest of thegovernment cannot be ignored. Jrom the gathering of evidence until the termination of thepreliminary investigation, it appears that the state prosecutors were overly eager to file the case and

secure a warrant for the arrest of the accused without bail and their conse&uent detention. mbalDssworn statement is laden with inconsistencies and improbabilities. $atoDs counter1affidavit wasconsidered without giving petitioners the opportunity to refute the same. The 0ACC which gatheredthe evidence appears to have had a hand in the determination of probable cause in the preliminaryin&uiry as the undated resolution of the panel not only bears the letterhead of 0ACC but was alsorecommended for approval by the head of the 0ACC Tas Jorce. Then petitioners were given therunaround in securing a copy of the resolution and the information against them.

8ndeed, the tas of ridding society of criminals and misfits and sending them to #ail in the hope thatthey will in the future reform and be productive members of the community rests both on the

#udiciousness of #udges and the prudence of prosecutors. And, whether it is a preliminaryinvestigation by the prosecutor, which ascertains if the respondent should be held for trial, or a

preliminary in&uiry by the trial #udge which determines if an arrest warrant should issue, thebottomline is that there is a standard in the determination of the e'istence of probable cause, i.e.,there should be facts and circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a prudent andcautious man to believe that the accused is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. *udges andprosecutors are not off on a frolic of their own, but rather engaged in a delicate legal duty defined bylaw and #urisprudence.

8n this instance, Salonga . Pa7o ;7finds application

The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the innocent against hasty,malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an open and publicaccusation of crime, from the trouble, e'pense and an'iety of a public trial, and alsoto protect the state from useless and e'pensive trial KTrocio v. Manta, -- SC%A+:-, citing>ashim v. $oncan, 9- 0hil. +-;. The right to a preliminary investigation isa statutory grant, and to withhold it would be to transgress constitutional due processK0eople v. !andasa, + SC%A +99.o'eer, in order to satisfy the d!e processcla!se it is not eno!gh that the preliminary inestigation is cond!cted in the sense ofmaking s!re that the transgressor shall not escape 'ith imp!nity. $ preliminaryinestigation seres not only for the p!rposes of the State. More importantly, it is a

part of the g!arantees of freedom and fair play 'hich are "irthrights of all 'ho lie inthe co!ntry. It is therefore imperatie !pon the fiscal or the -!dge as the case may"e, to reliee the acc!sed from the pain of going thr! a trial once it is ascertainedthat the eidence is ins!fficient to s!stain a prima facie case or that no pro"a"leca!se e%ists to form a s!fficient "elief as to the g!ilt of the acc!sedKemphasissupplied.

The facts of this case are fatefully distressing as they showcase the seeming immensity ofgovernment power which when uncheced becomes tyrannical and oppressive. >ence theConstitution, particularly the $ill of %ights, defines the limits beyond which lie unsanctioned stateactions. $ut on occasion, for one reason or another, the State transcends this parameter. 8nconse&uence, individual liberty unnecessarily suffers. The case before us, if uncurbed, can beillustrative of a dismal trend. 5eedless in#ury of the sort inflicted by government agents is notreflective of responsible government. *udges and law enforcers are not, by reason of their high and


44/75

prestigious office, relieved of the common obligation to avoid deliberately inflicting unnecessaryin#ury.

The sovereign power has the inherent right to protect itself and its people from vicious acts whichendanger the proper administration of #usticeB hence, the State has every right to prosecute andpunish violators of the law. This is essential for its self1 preservation, nay, its very e'istence. $ut this

does not confer a license for pointless assaults on its citizens. The right of the State to prosecute isnot a carte "lanchefor government agents to defy and disregard the rights of its citizens under theConstitution. Confinement, regardless of duration, is too high a price to pay for recless andimpulsive prosecution. >ence, even if we apply in this case the 6multifactor balancing test6 whichre&uires the officer to weigh the manner and intensity of the interference on the right of the people,the gravity of the crime committed and the circumstances attending the incident, still we cannot seeprobable cause to order the detention of petitioners.;>

The purpose of the $ill of %ights is to protect the people against arbitrary and discriminatory use ofpolitical power. This bundle of rights guarantees the preservation of our natural rights which includepersonal liberty and security against invasion by the government or any of its branches orinstrumentalities. Certainly, in the hierarchy of rights, the $ill of %ights taes precedence over the

right of the State to prosecute, and when weighed against each other, the scales of #ustice tilttowards the former. Thus, relief may be availed of to stop the purported enforcement of criminal lawwhere it is necessary to provide for an orderly administration of #ustice, to prevent the use of thestrong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive manner, and to afford ade&uate protection toconstitutional rights. ;9

0erhaps, this case would not have reached this Court if petitioners were ordinary people submissiveto the dictates of government. They would have been illegally arrested and detained without bail.Then we would not have the opportunity to rectify the in#ustice. Jortunately, the victims of in#usticeare lawyers who are vigilant of their rights, who fight for their liberty and freedom not otherwiseavailable to those who cower in fear and sub#ection.

Let this then be a constant reminder to #udges, prosecutors and other government agents tased

with the enforcement of the law that in the performance of their duties they must act withcircumspection, lest their thoughtless ways, methods and practices cause a disservice to their officeand maim their countrymen they are sworn to serve and protect. (e thus caution governmentagents, particularly the law enforcers, to be more prudent in the prosecution of cases and not to beoblivious of human rights protected by the fundamental law. (hile we greatly applaud theirdetermined efforts to weed society of felons, let not their impetuous eagerness violate constitutionalprecepts which circumscribe the structure of a civilized community.

(>2%2J!%2, the petition for certiorariand prohibition is 3%A5T24. The temporary restrainingorder we issued on + Jebruary -: in favor of petitioners, Atty. 4iosdad

Documents

Arrest Cases Fulltext