Homework Help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Research Paper help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Online Tutoring

https://www.homeworkping.com/

click here for freelancing tutoring sites

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 111709            August 30, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROGER P. TULIN, VIRGILIO I. LOYOLA, CECILIO O. CHANGCO, ANDRES C. INFANTE, CHEONG SAN HIONG, and JOHN DOES, accused-appellants.

MELO, J.:

This is one of the older cases which unfortunately has remained in docket of the Court for sometime. It was reassigned, together with other similar cases, to undersigned ponente in pursuance of A.M. No. 00-9-03-SC dated February 27, 2001.

In the evening of March 2, 1991, "M/T Tabangao," a cargo vessel owned by the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation, loaded with 2,000 barrels of kerosene, 2,600 barrels of regular gasoline, and 40,000 barrels of diesel oil, with a total value of P40,426,793,87, was sailing off the coast of Mindoro near Silonay Island.

The vessel, manned by 21 crew members, including Captain Edilberto Libo-on, Second Mate Christian Torralba, and Operator Isaias Ervas, was suddenly boarded, with the use of an aluminum ladder, by seven fully armed pirates led by Emilio Changco, older brother of accused-appellant Cecilio Changco. The pirates, including accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. were armed with M-16 rifles, .45 and .38 caliber handguns, and bolos. They detained the crew and took complete control of the vessel. Thereafter, accused-appellant Loyola ordered three crew members to paint over, using black paint, the name "M/T Tabangao" on the front and rear portions of the vessel, as well as the PNOC logo on the chimney of the vessel. The vessel was then painted with the name "Galilee," with registry at San Lorenzo, Honduras. The crew was forced to sail to Singapore, all the while sending misleading radio messages to PNOC that the ship was undergoing repairs.

PNOC, after losing radio contact with the vessel, reported the disappearance of the vessel to the Philippine Coast Guard and secured the assistance of the Philippine Air Force and the Philippine Navy. However, search and rescue operations yielded negative results. On March 9, 1991, the ship arrived in the vicinity of Singapore and cruised around the area presumably to await another vessel which, however, failed to arrive. The pirates were thus forced to return to the Philippines on March 14, 1991, arriving at Calatagan, Batangas on March 20, 1991 where it remained at sea.

On March 28, 1991, the "M/T Tabangao" again sailed to and anchored about 10 to 18 nautical miles from Singapore's shoreline where another vessel called "Navi Pride" anchored beside it. Emilio Changco ordered the crew of "M/T Tabangao" to transfer the vessel's cargo to the hold of "Navi Pride". Accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong supervised the crew of "Navi Pride" in receiving the cargo. The transfer, after an interruption, with both vessels leaving the area, was completed on March 30, 1991.

On March 30, 1991, "M/T Tabangao" returned to the same area and completed the transfer of cargo to "Navi Pride."

On April 8, 1991, "M/T Tabangao" arrived at Calatagan, Batangas, but the vessel remained at sea. On April 10, 1991, the members of the crew were released in three batches with the stern warning not to report the incident to government authorities for a period of two days or until April 12, 1991, otherwise they would be killed. The first batch was fetched from the shoreline by a newly painted passenger jeep driven by accused-appellant Cecilio Changco, brother of Emilio Changco, who brought them to Imus, Cavite and gave P20,000.00 to Captain Libo-on for fare of the crew in proceeding to their respective homes. The second batch was fetched by accused-appellant Changco at midnight of April 10, 1991 and were brought to different places in Metro Manila.

On April 12, 1991, the Chief Engineer, accompanied by the members of the crew, called the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation office to report the incident. The crew members were brought to the Coast Guard Office for investigation. The incident was also reported to the National Bureau of Investigation where the officers and members of the crew executed sworn statements regarding the incident.

A series of arrests was thereafter effected as follows:

a. On May 19, 1991, the NBI received verified information that the pirates were present at U.K. Beach, Balibago, Calatagan, Batangas. After three days of surveillance, accused-appellant Tulin was arrested and brought to the NBI headquarters in Manila.

b. Accused-appellants Infante, Jr. and Loyola were arrested by chance at Aguinaldo Hi-way by NBI agents as the latter were pursuing the mastermind, who managed to evade arrest.

c. On May 20, 1991, accused-appellants Hiong and Changco were arrested at the lobby of Alpha Hotel in Batangas City.

On October 24, 1991, an Information charging qualified piracy or violation of Presidential Decree No. 532 (Piracy in Philippine Waters) was filed against accused-appellants, as follows:

The undersigned State Prosecutor accuses ROGER P. TULIN, VIRGILIO I. LOYOLA, CECILIO O. CHANGCO, ANDRES C. INFANTE, and CHEONG SAN HIONG, and nine (9) other JOHN DOES of qualified piracy (Violation of P.D. No. 532), committed as follows:

That on or about and during the period from March 2 to April 10, 1991, both dates inclusive, and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, then manning a motor launch and armed with high powered guns, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously fire upon, board and seize while in the Philippine waters M/T PNOC TABANGCO loaded with petroleum products, together with the complement and crew members, employing violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, then direct the vessel to proceed to Singapore where the cargoes were unloaded and thereafter returned to the Philippines on April 10, 1991, in violation of the aforesaid law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

(pp. 119-20, Rollo.)

This was docketed as Criminal Case No. 91-94896 before Branch 49 of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region stationed in Manila. Upon arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial thereupon ensued.

Accused-appellants Tulin, Infante, Jr., and Loyola, notwithstanding some inconsistencies in their testimony as to where they were on March 1, 1991, maintained the defense of denial, and disputed the charge, as well as the transfer of any cargo from "M/T Tabangao" to the "Navi Pride." All of them claimed having their own respective sources of livelihood. Their story is to the effect that on March 2, 1991, while they were conversing by the beach, a red speedboat with Captain Edilberto Liboon and Second Mate Christian Torralba on board, approached the seashore. Captain Liboon inquired from the three if they wanted to work in a vessel. They were told that the work was light and that each worker was to be paid P3,000.00 a month with additional compensation if they worked beyond that period. They agreed even though they had no sea-going experience. On board, they cooked, cleaned the vessel, prepared coffee, and ran errands for the officers. They denied having gone to Singapore, claiming that the vessel only went to Batangas. Upon arrival thereat in the morning of March 21, 1991, they were paid P1,000.00 each as salary for nineteen days of work, and were told that the balance would be remitted to

their addresses. There was neither receipt nor contracts of employment signed by the parties.

Accused-appellant Changco categorically denied the charge, averring that he was at home sleeping on April 10, 1991. He testified that he is the younger brother of Emilio Changco, Jr.

Accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong, also known as Ramzan Ali, adduced evidence that he studied in Sydney, Australia, obtaining the "Certificate" as Chief Officer, and later completed the course as a "Master" of a vessel, working as such for two years on board a vessel. He was employed at Navi Marine Services, Pte., Ltd. as Port Captain. The company was engaged in the business of trading petroleum, including shipoil, bunker lube oil, and petroleum to domestic and international markets. It owned four vessels, one of which was "Navi Pride."

On March 2, 1991, the day before "M/T Tabangao" was seized by Emilio Changco and his cohorts, Hiong's name was listed in the company's letter to the Mercantile Section of the Maritime Department of the Singapore government as the radio telephone operator on board the vessel "Ching Ma."

The company was then dealing for the first time with Paul Gan, a Singaporean broker, who offered to sell to the former bunker oil for the amount of 300,000.00 Singapore dollars. After the company paid over one-half of the aforesaid amount to Paul Gan, the latter, together with Joseph Ng, Operations Superintendent of the firm, proceeded to the high seas on board "Navi Pride" but failed to locate the contact vessel.

The transaction with Paul Gan finally pushed through on March 27, 1991. Hiong, upon his return on board the vessel "Ching Ma," was assigned to supervise a ship-to-ship transfer of diesel oil off the port of Singapore, the contact vessel to be designated by Paul Gan. Hiong was ordered to ascertain the quantity and quality of the oil and was given the amount of 300,000.00 Singapore Dollars for the purchase. Hiong, together with Paul Gan, and the surveyor William Yao, on board "Navi Pride" sailed toward a vessel called "M/T Galilee". Hiong was told that "M/T Galilee" would be making the transfer. Although no inspection of "Navi Pride" was made by the port authorities before departure, Navi Marine Services, Pte., Ltd. was able to procure a port clearance upon submission of General Declaration and crew list. Hiong, Paul Gan, and the brokers were not in the crew list submitted and did not pass through the immigration. The General Declaration falsely reflected that the vessel carried 11,900 tons.

On March 28, 1991, "Navi Pride" reached the location of "M/T Galilee". The brokers then told the Captain of the vessel to ship-side with "M/T Galilee" and then transfer of the oil transpired. Hiong and the surveyor William Yao met the Captain of "M/T Galilee," called "Captain Bobby" (who later turned out to be Emilio Changco). Hiong claimed that he did not ask for the full name of Changco nor did he ask for the latter's personal card.

Upon completion of the transfer, Hiong took the soundings of the tanks in the "Navi Pride" and took samples of the cargo. The surveyor prepared the survey report which "Captain Bobby" signed under the name "Roberto Castillo." Hiong then handed the payment to Paul Gan and William Yao. Upon arrival at Singapore in the morning of March 29, 1991, Hiong reported the quantity and quality of the cargo to the company.

Thereafter, Hiong was again asked to supervise another transfer of oil purchased by the firm " from "M/T Galilee" to "Navi Pride." The same procedure as in the first transfer was observed. This time, Hiong was told that that there were food and drinks, including beer, purchased by the company for the crew of "M/T Galilee. The transfer took ten hours and was completed on March 30, 1991. Paul Gan was paid in full for the transfer.

On April 29 or 30, 1991, Emilio Changco intimated to Hiong that he had four vessels and wanted to offer its cargo to cargo operators. Hiong was asked to act as a broker or ship agent for the sale of the cargo in Singapore. Hiong went to the Philippines to discuss the matter with Emilio Changco, who laid out the details of the new transfer, this time with "M/T Polaris" as contact vessel. Hiong was told that the vessel was scheduled to arrive at the port of Batangas that weekend. After being billeted at Alpha Hotel in Batangas City, where Hiong checked in under the name "SONNY CSH." A person by the name of "KEVIN OCAMPO," who later turned out to be Emilio Changco himself, also checked in at Alpha Hotel. From accused-appellant Cecilio Changco, Hiong found out that the vessel was not arriving. Hiong was thereafter arrested by NBI agents.

After trial, a 95-page decision was rendered convicting accused-appellants of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of said decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered by this Court finding the accused Roger Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Andres Infante, Jr. and Cecilio Changco guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principals, of the crime of piracy in Philippine Waters defined in

Section 2(d) of Presidential Decree No. 532 and the accused Cheong San Hiong, as accomplice, to said crime. Under Section 3(a) of the said law, the penalty for the principals of said crime is mandatory death. However, considering that, under the 1987 Constitution, the Court cannot impose the death penalty, the accused Roger Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Andres Infante, Jr., and Cecilio Changco are hereby each meted the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with all the accessory penalties of the law. The accused Cheong San Hiong is hereby meted the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, pursuant to Article 52 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 of PD 532. The accused Roger Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Andres Infante, Jr. and Cecilio Changco are hereby ordered to return to the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation the "M/T Tabangao" or if the accused can no longer return the same, the said accused are hereby ordered to remit, jointly and severally, to said corporation the value thereof in the amount of P11,240,000.00, Philippine Currency, with interests thereon, at the rate of 6% per annum from March 2, 1991 until the said amount is paid in full. All the accused including Cheong San Hiong are hereby ordered to return to the Caltex Philippines, Inc. the cargo of the "M/T Tabangao", or if the accused can no longer return the said cargo to said corporation, all the accused are hereby condemned to pay, jointly and severally, to the Caltex Refinery, Inc., the value of said cargo in the amount of P40,426,793.87, Philippine Currency plus interests until said amount is paid in full. After the accused Cheong San Hiong has served his sentence, he shall be deported to Singapore.

All the accused shall be credited for the full period of their detention at the National Bureau of Investigation and the City Jail of Manila during the pendency of this case provided that they agreed in writing to abide by and comply strictly with the rules and regulations of the City Jail of Manila and the National Bureau of Investigation. With costs against all the accused.

SO ORDERED.

(pp. 149-150, Rollo.)

The matter was then elevated to this Court. The arguments of accused-appellants may be summarized as follows:

Roger P. Tulin, Virgilio I. Loyola, Andres C. Infante, Jr., and Cecilio O. Changco

Accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Infante, Jr., and Cecilio Changco assert that the trial court erred in allowing them to adopt the proceedings taken during the time they were being represented by Mr. Tomas Posadas, a non-lawyer, thereby depriving them of their constitutional right to procedural due process.

In this regard, said accused-appellants narrate that Mr. Posadas entered his appearance as counsel for all of them. However, in the course of the proceedings, or on February 11, 1992, the trial court discovered that Mr. Posadas was not a member of the Philippine Bar. This was after Mr. Posadas had presented and examined seven witnesses for the accused.

Further, accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Infante, Cecilio, Changco uniformly contend that during the custodial investigation, they were subjected to physical violence; were forced to sign statements without being given the opportunity to read the contents of the same; were denied assistance of counsel, and were not informed of their rights, in violation of their constitutional rights.

Said accused-appellants also argue that the trial court erred in finding that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the crime of qualified piracy. They allege that the pirates were outnumbered by the crew who totaled 22 and who were not guarded at all times. The crew, so these accused-appellants conclude, could have overpowered the alleged pirates.

Cheong San Hiong

In his brief, Cheong argues that: (1) Republic Act No. 7659 in effect obliterated the crime committed by him; (2) the trial court erred in declaring that the burden is lodged on him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he had no knowledge that Emilio Changco and his cohorts attacked and seized the "M/T Tabangao" and/or that the cargo of the vessel was stolen or the subject of theft or robbery or piracy; (3) the trial court erred in finding him guilty as an accomplice to the crime of qualified piracy under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Robbery Law of 1974); (4) the trial court erred in convicting and punishing him as an accomplice when the acts allegedly committed by him were done or executed outside of Philippine waters and territory, stripping the Philippine courts of jurisdiction to hold him for trial, to convict, and sentence; (5) the trial court erred in making factual conclusions without evidence on record to prove the same and which in fact are contrary to the evidence adduced during trial; (6) the trial court erred in convicting him as an accomplice under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532 when he was

charged as a principal by direct participation under said decree, thus violating his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Cheong also posits that the evidence against the other accused-appellants do not prove any participation on his part in the commission of the crime of qualified piracy. He further argues that he had not in any way participated in the seajacking of "M/T Tabangao" and in committing the crime of qualified piracy, and that he was not aware that the vessel and its cargo were pirated.

As legal basis for his appeal, he explains that he was charged under the information with qualified piracy as principal under Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 532 which refers to Philippine waters. In the case at bar, he argues that he was convicted for acts done outside Philippine waters or territory. For the State to have criminal jurisdiction, the act must have been committed within its territory.

We affirm the conviction of all the accused-appellants.

The issues of the instant case may be summarized as follows: (1) what are the legal effects and implications of the fact that a non-lawyer represented accused-appellants during the trial?; (2) what are the legal effects and implications of the absence of counsel during the custodial investigation?; (3) did the trial court err in finding that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants committed the crime of qualified piracy?; (4) did Republic Act No. 7659 obliterate the crime committed by accused-appellant Cheong?; and (5) can accused-appellant Cheong be convicted as accomplice when he was not charged as such and when the acts allegedly committed by him were done or executed outside Philippine waters and territory?

On the first issue, the record reveals that a manifestation (Exhibit "20", Record) was executed by accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Changco, and Infante, Jr. on February 11, 1991, stating that they were adopting the evidence adduced when they were represented by a non-lawyer. Such waiver of the right to sufficient representation during the trial as covered by the due process clause shall only be valid if made with the full assistance of a bona fide lawyer. During the trial, accused-appellants, as represented by Atty. Abdul Basar, made a categorical manifestation that said accused-appellants were apprised of the nature and legal consequences of the subject manifestation, and that they voluntarily and intelligently executed the same. They

also affirmed the truthfulness of its contents when asked in open court (tsn, February 11, 1992, pp. 7-59).

It is true that an accused person shall be entitled to be present and to defend himself in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of judgment (Section 1, Rule 115, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). This is hinged on the fact that a layman is not versed on the technicalities of trial. However, it is also provided by law that "[r]ights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with right recognized by law." (Article 6, Civil Code of the Philippines). Thus, the same section of Rule 115 adds that "[u]pon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel." By analogy, but without prejudice to the sanctions imposed by law for the illegal practice of law, it is amply shown that the rights of accused-appellants were sufficiently and properly protected by the appearance of Mr. Tomas Posadas. An examination of the record will show that he knew the technical rules of procedure. Hence, we rule that there was a valid waiver of the right to sufficient representation during the trial, considering that it was unequivocally, knowingly, and intelligently made and with the full assistance of a bona fide lawyer, Atty. Abdul Basar. Accordingly, denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a valid waiver of rights has been made (People vs. Serzo, 274 SCRA 553 [1997]; Sayson vs. People, 166 SCRA 680 [1988]).

However, we must quickly add that the right to counsel during custodial investigation may not be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

Section 12, Article III of the Constitution reads:

SECTION 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

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

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

Such rights originated from Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) which gave birth to the so-called Miranda doctrine which is to the effect that prior to any questioning during custodial investigation, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he gives may be used as evidence against him, and that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. The Constitution even adds the more stringent requirement that the waiver must be in writing and made in the presence of counsel.

Saliently, the absence of counsel during the execution of the so-called confessions of the accused-appellants make them invalid. In fact, the very basic reading of the Miranda rights was not even shown in the case at bar. Paragraph [3] of the aforestated Section 12 sets forth the so-called "fruit from the poisonous tree doctrine," a phrase minted by Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter in the celebrated case of Nardone vs. United States (308 U.S. 388 [1939]). According to this rule, once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained (People vs. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 [1995]). Thus, in this case, the uncounselled extrajudicial confessions of accused-appellants, without a valid waiver of the right to counsel, are inadmissible and whatever information is derived therefrom shall be regarded as likewise inadmissible in evidence against them.

However, regardless of the inadmissibility of the subject confessions, there is sufficient evidence to convict accused-appellants with moral certainty. We agree with the sound deduction of the trial court that indeed, Emilio Changco (Exhibits "U" and "UU") and accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. did conspire and confederate to commit the crime charged. In the words of then trial judge, now Justice Romeo J. Callejo of the Court of Appeals —

. . . The Prosecution presented to the Court an array of witnesses, officers and members of the crew of the "M/T Tabangao" no less, who identified and pointed to the said Accused as among those who attacked and seized, the "M/T Tabangao" on March 2, 1991, at about 6:30 o'clock in the afternoon, off Lubang Island, Mindoro, with its cargo, and brought the said vessel, with its cargo, and the officers and crew of the vessel, in the vicinity of Horsebough Lighthouse, about sixty-six nautical miles off the shoreline of Singapore and sold its cargo to the Accused Cheong San Hiong upon which the cargo was discharged from the "M/T Tabangao" to the "Navi Pride" for the price of about $500,000.00 (American Dollars) on March 29, and 30, 1991. . .

xxx           xxx           xxx

The Master, the officers and members of the crew of the "M/T Tabangao" were on board the vessel with the Accused and their cohorts from March 2, 1991 up to April 10, 1991 or for more than one (1) month. There can be no scintilla of doubt in the mind of the Court that the officers and crew of the vessel could and did see and identify the seajackers and their leader. In fact, immediately after the Accused were taken into custody by the operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation, Benjamin Suyo, Norberto Senosa, Christian Torralba and Isaias Wervas executed their "Joint Affidavit" (Exhibit "B") and pointed to and identified the said Accused as some of the pirates.

xxx           xxx           xxx

Indeed, when they testified before this Court on their defense, the three (3) Accused admitted to the Court that they, in fact, boarded the said vessel in the evening of March 2, 1991 and remained on board when the vessel sailed to its destination, which turned out to be off the port of Singapore.

(pp. 106-112, Rollo.)

We also agree with the trial court's finding that accused-appellants' defense of denial is not supported by any hard evidence but their bare testimony. Greater weight is given to the categorical identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than to the accused's plain denial of participation in the commission of the crime (People v. Baccay, 284 SCRA 296 [1998]). Instead, accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. narrated a patently desperate tale that they were hired by three

complete strangers (allegedly Captain Edilberto Liboon, Second Mate Christian Torralba, and their companion) while said accused-appellants were conversing with one another along the seashore at Aplaya, Balibago, Calatagan, Batangas, to work on board the "M/T Tabangao" which was then anchored off-shore. And readily, said accused-appellants agreed to work as cooks and handymen for an indefinite period of time without even saying goodbye to their families, without even knowing their destination or the details of their voyage, without the personal effects needed for a long voyage at sea. Such evidence is incredible and clearly not in accord with human experience. As pointed out by the trial court, it is incredible that Captain Liboon, Second Mate Torralba, and their companion "had to leave the vessel at 9:30 o'clock in the evening and venture in a completely unfamiliar place merely to recruit five (5) cooks or handymen (p. 113, Rollo)."

Anent accused-appellant Changco's defense of denial with the alibi that on May 14 and 17, he was at his place of work and that on April 10, 1991, he was in his house in Bacoor, Cavite, sleeping, suffice it to state that alibi is fundamentally and inherently a weak defense, much more so when uncorroborated by other witnesses (People v. Adora, 275 SCRA 441 [1997]) considering that it is easy to fabricate and concoct, and difficult to disprove. Accused-appellant must adduce clear and convincing evidence that, at about midnight on April 10, 1991, it was physically impossible for him to have been in Calatagan, Batangas. Changco not only failed to do this, he was likewise unable to prove that he was in his place of work on the dates aforestated.

It is doctrinal that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of a testimony is accorded the highest respect, for trial courts have an untrammeled opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of witnesses and, thus, to determine whether a certain witness is telling the truth (People v. Obello, 284 SCRA 79 [1998]).

We likewise uphold the trial court's finding of conspiracy. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it (Article 8, Revised Penal Code). To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. As noted by the trial court, there are times when conspirators are assigned separate and different tasks which may appear unrelated to one another, but in fact, constitute a whole and collective effort to achieve a common criminal design.

We affirm the trial court's finding that Emilio Changco, accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. and others, were the ones assigned to attack and seize the "M/T Tabangao" off Lubang, Mindoro, while accused-appellant Cecilio Changco was to fetch the master and the members of the crew from the shoreline of Calatagan, Batangas after the transfer, and bring them to Imus, Cavite, and to provide the crew and the officers of the vessel with money for their fare and food provisions on their way home. These acts had to be well-coordinated. Accused-appellant Cecilio Changco need not be present at the time of the attack and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" since he performed his task in view of an objective common to all other accused-appellants.

Of notable importance is the connection of accused-appellants to one another. Accused-appellant Cecilio Changco is the younger brother of Emilio Changco (aka Captain Bobby/Captain Roberto Castillo/Kevin Ocampo), owner of Phil-Asia Shipping Lines. Cecilio worked for his brother in said corporation. Their residences are approximately six or seven kilometers away from each other. Their families are close. Accused-appellant Tulin, on the other hand, has known Cecilio since their parents were neighbors in Aplaya, Balibago, Calatagan, Batangas. Accused-appellant Loyola's wife is a relative of the Changco brothers by affinity. Besides, Loyola and Emilio Changco had both been accused in a seajacking case regarding "M/T Isla Luzon" and its cargo of steel coils and plates off Cebu and Bohol in 1989. Emilio Changco (aka Kevin Ocampo) was convicted of the crime while Loyola at that time remained at large.

As for accused-appellant Hiong, he ratiocinates that he can no longer be convicted of piracy in Philippine waters as defined and penalized in Sections 2[d] and 3[a], respectively of Presidential Decree No. 532 because Republic Act No. 7659 (effective January 1, 1994), which amended Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, has impliedly superseded Presidential Decree No. 532. He reasons out that Presidential Decree No. 532 has been rendered "superfluous or duplicitous" because both Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and Presidential Decree No. 532 punish piracy committed in Philippine waters. He maintains that in order to reconcile the two laws, the word "any person" mentioned in Section 1 [d] of Presidential Decree No. 532 must be omitted such that Presidential Decree No. 532 shall only apply to offenders who are members of the complement or to passengers of the vessel, whereas Republic Act No. 7659 shall apply to offenders who are neither members of the complement or passengers of the vessel, hence, excluding him from the coverage of the law.

Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, used to provide:

ARTICLE 122.Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or passengers.

(Italics supplied.)

Article 122, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (January 1, 1994), reads:

ARTICLE 122.Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, or in Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or passengers.

(Italics ours)

On the other hand, Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 532 provides:

SECTION 2.Definition of Terms. — The following shall mean and be understood, as follows:

d. Piracy. — Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters, shall be considered as piracy. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided (Italics supplied).

To summarize, Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before its amendment, provided that piracy must be committed on the high seas by any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger thereof. Upon its amendment by Republic Act No.

7659, the coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include offenses committed "in Philippine waters." On the other hand, under Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the coverage of the law on piracy embraces any person including "a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters." Hence, passenger or not, a member of the complement or not, any person is covered by the law.

Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532. There is no contradiction between the two laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no need to construe or interpret the law. All the presidential decree did was to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent to protect the citizenry as well as neighboring states from crimes against the law of nations. As expressed in one of the "whereas" clauses of Presidential Decree No. 532, piracy is "among the highest forms of lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes of all countries." For this reason, piracy under the Article 122, as amended, and piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.

As regards the contention that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of accused-appellant Hiong since the crime was committed outside Philippine waters, suffice it to state that unquestionably, the attack on and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" (renamed "M/T Galilee" by the pirates) and its cargo were committed in Philippine waters, although the captive vessel was later brought by the pirates to Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded, transferred, and sold. And such transfer was done under accused-appellant Hiong's direct supervision. Although Presidential Decree No. 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the same need not be committed in Philippine waters.

Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law. The same principle applies even if Hiong, in the instant case, were charged, not with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but under a special law, Presidential Decree No. 532 which penalizes piracy in Philippine waters. Verily, Presidential Decree No. 532 should be applied with more force here since its purpose is precisely to discourage and prevent piracy in Philippine waters (People v. Catantan, 278 SCRA 761 [1997]). It is likewise, well-settled that regardless of the law penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible crime against the whole world (People v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil. 19 [1922]).

However, does this constitute a violation of accused-appellant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him on the ground that he was convicted as an accomplice under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532 even though he was charged as a principal by direct participation under Section 2 of said law?

The trial court found that there was insufficiency of evidence showing:

(a) that accused-appellant Hiong directly participated in the attack and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" and its cargo; (b) that he induced Emilio Changco and his group in the attack and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" and its cargo; (c) and that his act was indispensable in the attack on and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" and its cargo. Nevertheless, the trial court found that accused-appellant Hiong's participation was indisputably one which aided or abetted Emilio Changco and his band of pirates in the disposition of the stolen cargo under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532 which provides:

SECTION 4.Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway robbery brigandage. — Any person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects pirates or highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the movement of police or other peace officers of the government, or acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or any person who directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy or highway robbery or brigandage, shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal officers and be punished in accordance with Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.

It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided in this Section has performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.

The ruling of the trial court is within well-settled jurisprudence that if there is lack of complete evidence of conspiracy, the liability is that of an accomplice and not as principal (People v. Tolentino, 40 SCRA 514 [1971]). Any doubt as to the participation of an individual in the commission of the crime is always resolved in favor of lesser responsibility (People v. Corbes, 270 SCRA 465 [1997]; People vs. Elfano, Jr., 125 SCRA 792 [1983]; People v. Pastores, 40 SCRA 498 [1971]).

Emphasis must also be placed on the last paragraph of Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532 which presumes that any person who does any of the acts provided in

said section has performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is proven. In the case at bar, accused-appellant Hiong had failed to overcome the legal presumption that he knowingly abetted or aided in the commission of piracy, received property taken by such pirates and derived benefit therefrom.

The record discloses that accused-appellant Hiong aided the pirates in disposing of the stolen cargo by personally directing its transfer from "M/T Galilee" to "M/T Navi Pride". He profited therefrom by buying the hijacked cargo for Navi Marine Services, Pte., Ltd. (tsn, June 3, 1992, pp. 15-23). He even tested the quality and verified the quantity of the petroleum products, connived with Navi Marine Services personnel in falsifying the General Declarations and Crew List to ensure that the illegal transfer went through, undetected by Singapore Port Authorities, and supplied, the pirates with food, beer, and other provisions for their maintenance while in port (tsn, June 3, 1992, pp. 133-134).

We believe that the falsification of the General Declaration (Arrival and Departure) and Crew List was accomplished and utilized by accused-appellant Hiong and Navi Marine Services personnel in the execution of their scheme to avert detection by Singapore Port Authorities. Hence, had accused-appellant Hiong not falsified said entries, the Singapore Port Authorities could have easily discovered the illegal activities that took place and this would have resulted in his arrest and prosecution in Singapore. Moreover, the transfer of the stolen cargo from "M/T Galilee" to "Navi Pride" could not have been effected.

We completely uphold the factual findings of the trial court showing in detail accused-appellant Hiong's role in the disposition of the pirated goods summarized as follows: that on March 27, 1991, Hiong with Captain Biddy Santos boarded the "Navi Pride," one of the vessels of the Navi Marine, to rendezvous with the "M/T Galilee"; that the firm submitted the crew list of the vessel (Exhibit "8-CSH", Record) to the port authorities, excluding the name of Hiong; that the "General Declaration" (for departure) of the "Navi Pride" for its voyage off port of Singapore (Exhibits "HH" and "8-A CSH", Record) falsely stated that the vessel was scheduled to depart at 2200 (10 o'clock in the evening), that there were no passengers on board, and the purpose of the voyage was for "cargo operation" and that the vessel was to unload and transfer 1,900 tons of cargo; that after the transfer of the fuel from "M/T Galilee" with Emilio Changco a. k. a. Captain Bobby a. k. a. Roberto Castillo at the helm, the surveyor prepared the "Quantity Certificate" (Exhibit "11-C CSH, Record) stating that the cargo transferred to the "Navi Pride" was 2,406 gross cubic meters; that although Hiong was not the Master of the vessel, he affixed his signature on the "Certificate"

above the word "Master" (Exhibit "11-C-2 CSH", Record); that he then paid P150,000.00 but did not require any receipt for the amount; that Emilio Changco also did not issue one; and that in the requisite "General Declaration" upon its arrival at Singapore on March 29, 1991, at 7 o'clock in the evening, (Exhibits "JJ" and "13-A CSH", Record), it was made to falsely appear that the "Navi Pride" unloaded 1,700 tons of cargo on the high seas during said voyage when in fact it acquired from the "M/T Galilee" 2,000 metric tons of diesel oil. The second transfer transpired with the same irregularities as discussed above. It was likewise supervised by accused-appellant Cheong from his end while Emilio Changco supervised the transfer from his end.

Accused-appellant Hiong maintains that he was merely following the orders of his superiors and that he has no knowledge of the illegality of the source of the cargo.

First and foremost, accused-appellant Hiong cannot deny knowledge of the source and nature of the cargo since he himself received the same from "M/T Tabangao". Second, considering that he is a highly educated mariner, he should have avoided any participation in the cargo transfer given the very suspicious circumstances under which it was acquired. He failed to show a single piece of deed or bill of sale or even a purchase order or any contract of sale for the purchase by the firm; he never bothered to ask for and scrutinize the papers and documentation relative to the "M/T Galilee"; he did not even verify the identity of Captain Robert Castillo whom he met for the first time nor did he check the source of the cargo; he knew that the transfer took place 66 nautical miles off Singapore in the dead of the night which a marine vessel of his firm did not ordinarily do; it was also the first time Navi Marine transacted with Paul Gan involving a large sum of money without any receipt issued therefor; he was not even aware if Paul Gan was a Singaporean national and thus safe to deal with. It should also be noted that the value of the cargo was P40,426,793.87 or roughly more than US$1,000,000.00 (computed at P30.00 to $1, the exchange rate at that time). Manifestly, the cargo was sold for less than one-half of its value. Accused-appellant Hiong should have been aware of this irregularity. Nobody in his right mind would go to far away Singapore, spend much time and money for transportation — only to sell at the aforestated price if it were legitimate sale involved. This, in addition to the act of falsifying records, clearly shows that accused-appellant Hiong was well aware that the cargo that his firm was acquiring was purloined.

Lastly, it cannot be correctly said that accused-appellant was "merely following the orders of his superiors." An individual is justified in performing an act in obedience to an order issued by a superior if such order, is for some lawful purpose and that the

means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful (Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Vol. 1, 1981 ed., p. 212). Notably, the alleged order of Hiong's superior Chua Kim Leng Timothy, is a patent violation not only of Philippine, but of international law. Such violation was committed on board a Philippine-operated vessel. Moreover, the means used by Hiong in carrying out said order was equally unlawful. He misled port and immigration authorities, falsified records, using a mere clerk, Frankie Loh, to consummate said acts. During the trial, Hiong presented himself, and the trial court was convinced, that he was an intelligent and articulate Port Captain. These circumstances show that he must have realized the nature and the implications of the order of Chua Kim Leng Timothy. Thereafter, he could have refused to follow orders to conclude the deal and to effect the transfer of the cargo to the "Navi Pride." He did not do so, for which reason, he must now suffer the consequences of his actions.

WHEREFORE, finding the conviction of accused-appellants justified by the evidence on record, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the judgment of the trial court in toto.

SO ORDERED.

People vs Dasig

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

People vs DasigG.R. No. 100231April 28, 1993

Facts:

Appellants Rodrigo Dasig, Edwin Nuñez and 6 others were charged together of shooting Redempto Manatad, a police officer, as he died while performing duties. Upon arraignment, appellant and Edwin Nuñes entered a plea of "not guilty." However, after the prosecution had presented its first witness, accused Nuñes changed his plea of "not guilty" to "guilty." Hence, the lower court held in abeyance the promulgation of a judgment against said accused until the prosecution had finished presenting its evidence. While trial was still ongoing, Nuñez died on March 10, 1989, thereby extinguishing his criminal liability.

At about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Pfc. Catamora noticed eight (8) persons, one of whom he identified as Edwin Nuñez, acting suspiciously. He noticed one of them giving instructions to two of the men to approach Pfc. Manatad. On August 16, 1987, two teams of police officers were tasked to conduct surveillance on a suspected safehouse of members of the sparrow unit located in Peace Valley, Cebu City. Upon reaching the place, the group saw Rodrigo Dasig and Edwin Nuñes trying to escape. The team of Capt. Antonio Gorre captured Nuñes and confiscated a .45 caliber revolver with 3 magazines and ammunitions, while the group of Sgt. Ronald Arnejo pursued Dasig, who threw a grenade at his pursuers, but was shot on his left upper arm and subsequently apprehended while a .38 caliber revolver with 17 live ammunitions were confiscated from him. Thereafter, Dasig was brought to the hospital for treatment, while Nuñes was turned over to the Metrodiscom for investigation. Dasig confessed that he and the group of Edwin Nuñes killed Pfc. Manatad. He likewise admitted that he and Nuñes were members of the sparrow unit and the their aliases were "Armand" and "Mabi," respectively.

The extra-judicial confession of appellant was signed by him on every page thereof with the first page containing a certification likewise signed by him. However, Dasig contends that the procedure by which his extra-judicial confession was taken was legally defective, and contrary to his Constitutional rights. He further contends that assuming he conspired in the killing of Pfc. Manatad, he should be convicted at most of simple rebellion and not murder with direct assault. Appellant also claims that the custodial interrogation was done while he was still very sick and consequently, he could not have fully appreciated the wisdom of admitting such a serious offense.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused-appellant is liable for extra-judicial killing of the deceased and participated in the act of rebellion?

Held:

Yes. Accused Rogelio Dasig is found guilty of participating in an act of rebellion beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years of prision mayor, and to pay the heirs of Pfc. Redempto Manatad, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.

As to the proper imposable penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to persons convicted of rebellion (Sec. 2, R.A. 4203), contrary to the insinuation of

the Solicitor General. Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P20,000.00 to any person who promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion. However, in the case at bar, there is no evidence to prove that appellant Dasig headed the crime committed. As a matter of fact he was not specifically pinpointed by Pfc. Catamora as the person giving instructions to the group which attacked Pfc. Manatad.

Appellant merely participated in committing the act, or just executed the command of an unknown leader. Hence, he should be made to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years of prision mayor. For the resulting death, appellant is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of Pfc. Manatad FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity.

BENITO ASTORGA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking the reversal of a Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 24986, dated July 5, 2001,1

[1] as well as its Resolutions dated September 28, 2001 and July 10, 2002.

On October 28, 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman filed the following Information against Benito Astorga, Mayor of Daram, Samar, as well as a number of his men for Arbitrary Detention:

That on or about the 1st day of September, 1997, and for sometime subsequent thereto, at the Municipality of Daram, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a public officer, being the Municipal Mayor of Daram, Samar, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office, conniving, confederating and mutually helping with unidentified persons, who are herein referred to under fictitious names JOHN DOES, who were armed with firearms of different calibers, with deliberate intent, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously detain Elpidio Simon, Moises dela Cruz, Wenifredo Maniscan, Renato Militante and Crisanto Pelias, DENR Employees, at the Municipality of Daram, by not allowing them to leave the place, without any legal

1

and valid grounds thereby restraining and depriving them of their personal liberty for nine (9) hours, but without exceeding three (3) days.

CONTRARY TO LAW.2[2]

On September 1, 1997, Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Office No. 8, Tacloban City sent a team to the island of Daram, Western Samar to conduct intelligence gathering and forest protection operations in line with the government’s campaign against illegal logging. The team was composed of Forester II Moises dela Cruz, Scaler Wenifredo Maniscan, Forest Ranger Renato Militante, and Tree Marker Crisanto Pelias, with Elpidio E. Simon, Chief of the Forest Protection and Law Enforcement Section, as team leader. The team was escorted by SPO3 Andres B. Cinco, Jr. and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian.3[3]

The team stopped at Brgy. Bagacay, Daram, Western Samar at 2:00 p.m., where they saw two yacht-like boats being constructed. After consulting with the local barangay officials, the team learned that the boats belonged to a certain Michael Figueroa. However, since Figueroa was not around at the time, the team left Brgy. Bagacay.4[4]

En route to Brgy. Manungca, Sta. Rita, Samar, the team spotted two more boats being constructed in the vicinity of Brgy. Lucob-Lucob, Daram, Samar, between 4:30-5:00 p.m., prompting them to stop and investigate. Thus, Maniscan and Militante disembarked from the DENR’s service pump boat and proceeded to the site of the boat construction. There, they met Mayor Astorga. After conversing with the mayor, Militante returned to their boat for the purpose of fetching Simon, at the request of Mayor Astorga.5[5]

When Simon, accompanied by dela Cruz, SPO3 Cinco, and SPO1 Capoquian, approached Mayor Astorga to try and explain the purpose of their mission, Simon was suddenly slapped hard twice on the shoulder by Mayor Astorga, who exclaimed, “Puwede ko kamo papaglanguyon pag-uli ha Tacloban. Ano, di ka maaram nga

2

3

4

5

natupa ako?Natupa baya ako. Diri kamo makauli yana kay puwede kame e charge ha misencounter.” (I can make you swim back to Tacloban. Don’t you know that I can box? I can box. Don’t you know that I can declare this a misencounter?)6[6] Mayor Astorga then ordered someone to fetch “reinforcements,” and forty-five (45) minutes later, or between 5:00-6:00 p.m., a banca arrived bearing ten (10) men, some of them dressed in fatigue uniforms. The men were armed with M-16 and M14 rifles, and they promptly surrounded the team, guns pointed at the team members.7[7] At this, Simon tried to explain to Astorga the purpose of his team’s mission.8[8] He then took out his handheld ICOM radio, saying that he was going to contact his people at the DENR in Catbalogan to inform them of the team’s whereabouts. Suddenly, Mayor Astorga forcibly grabbed Simon’s radio, saying, “Maupay nga waray kamo radio bisdiri somabut an iyo opisina kon hain kamo, bis diri kamo maka aro hin bulig.” (It’s better if you have no radio so that your office would not know your whereabouts and so that you cannot ask for help).9[9] Mayor Astorga again slapped the right shoulder of Simon, adding, “Kong siga kamo ha Leyte ayaw pagdad-a dinhi ha Samar kay diri kamo puwede ha akon.” (If you are tough guys in Leyte, do not bring it to Samar because I will not tolerate it here.)10[10] Simon then asked Mayor Astorga to allow the team to go home, at which Mayor Astorga retorted that they would not be allowed to go home and that they would instead be brought to Daram.11[11] Mayor Astorga then addressed the team, saying, “Kon magdakop man la kamo, unahon an mga dagko. Kon madakop niyo an mga dagko, an kan Figueroa dida ha Bagacay puwede ko liwat ipadakop an akon.” (If you really want to confiscate anything, you start with the big-time. If you confiscate the boats of Figueroa at Brgy. Bagacay, I will surrender mine.)12[12] Simon then tried to reiterate his request for permission to leave, which just succeeded in irking Mayor Astorga, who angrily said, “Diri kamo maka uli yana kay dad on ko kamo ha Daram, para didto kita mag uro istorya.”

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

(You cannot go home now because I will bring you to Daram. We will have many things to discuss there.)13[13]

The team was brought to a house where they were told that they would be served dinner. The team had dinner with Mayor Astorga and several others at a long table, and the meal lasted between 7:00-8:00 p.m.14[14] After dinner, Militante, Maniscan and SPO1 Capoquian were allowed to go down from the house, but not to leave the barangay.15[15] On the other hand, SPO3 Cinco and the rest just sat in the house until 2:00 a.m. when the team was finally allowed to leave.16[16]

Complainants filed a criminal complaint for arbitrary detention against Mayor Astorga and his men, which led to the filing of the above-quoted Information.

Mayor Astorga was subsequently arraigned on July 3, 2000, wherein he pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged.17[17] At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of SPO1 Capoquian and SPO3 Cinco, as well as their Joint Affidavit.18[18] However, the presentation of Simon’s testimony was not completed, and none of his fellow team members came forward to testify. Instead, the members of the team sent by the DENR RSOG executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance.19[19]

On July 5, 2001, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its Decision, disposing of the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused BENITO ASTORGA Y BOCATCAT guilty of Arbitrary Detention, and in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, applying the Indeterminate

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correctional as maximum.

SO ORDERED.20[20]

The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated July 11, 200121[21] which was denied by the Sandiganabayan in a Resolution dated September 28, 2001.22[22] A Second Motion for Reconsideration dated October 24, 200123[23] was also filed, and this was similarly denied in a Resolution dated July 10, 2002.24[24]

Hence, the present petition, wherein the petitioner assigns a sole error for review:

5.1. The trial court grievously erred in finding the accused guilty of Arbitrary Detention as defined and penalized under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code, based on mere speculations, surmises and conjectures and, worse, notwithstanding the Affidavit of Desistance executed by the five (5) complaining witnesses wherein the latter categorically declared petitioner’s innocence of the crime charged.25[25]

Petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to establish the required quantum of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused,26[26] especially in light of the fact that the private complainants executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance.27[27] Petitioner asserts that nowhere in the records of the case is there any competent evidence that could sufficiently establish the fact that restraint was employed upon the persons of the

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

team members.28[28] Furthermore, he claims that the mere presence of armed men at the scene does not qualify as competent evidence to prove that fear was in fact instilled in the minds of the team members, to the extent that they would feel compelled to stay in Brgy. Lucob-Lucob.29[29]

Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person.30[30] The elements of the crime are:

1. That the offender is a public officer or employee.2. That he detains a person.

3. That the detention is without legal grounds.31[31]

That petitioner, at the time he committed the acts assailed herein, was then Mayor of Daram, Samar is not disputed. Hence, the first element of Arbitrary Detention, that the offender is a public officer or employee, is undeniably present.

Also, the records are bereft of any allegation on the part of petitioner that his acts were spurred by some legal purpose. On the contrary, he admitted that his acts were motivated by his “instinct for self-preservation” and the feeling that he was being “singled out.”32[32] The detention was thus without legal grounds, thereby satisfying the third element enumerated above.

What remains is the determination of whether or not the team was actually detained.

In the case of People v. Acosta,33[33] which involved the illegal detention of a child, we found the accused-appellant therein guilty of kidnapping despite the lack of evidence to show that any physical restraint was employed upon the victim. However, because the victim was a boy of tender age and he was warned not to leave until his

28

29

30

31

32

33

godmother, the accused-appellant, had returned, he was practically a captive in the sense that he could not leave because of his fear to violate such instruction.34[34]

In the case of People v. Cortez,35[35] we held that, in establishing the intent to deprive the victim of his liberty, it is not necessary that the offended party be kept within an enclosure to restrict her freedom of locomotion. At the time of her rescue, the offended party in said case was found outside talking to the owner of the house where she had been taken. She explained that she did not attempt to leave the premises for fear that the kidnappers would make good their threats to kill her should she do so. We ruled therein that her fear was not baseless as the kidnappers knew where she resided and they had earlier announced that their intention in looking for her cousin was to kill him on sight. Thus, we concluded that fear has been known to render people immobile and that appeals to the fears of an individual, such as by threats to kill or similar threats, are equivalent to the use of actual force or violence.36[36]

The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal detention is that the curtailment of the victim’s liberty need not involve any physical restraint upon the victim’s person. If the acts and actuations of the accused can produce such fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze the latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own actions and movements in accordance with the wishes of the accused, then the victim is, for all intents and purposes, detained against his will.

In the case at bar, the restraint resulting from fear is evident. Inspite of their pleas, the witnesses and the complainants were not allowed by petitioner to go home.37[37] This refusal was quickly followed by the call for and arrival of almost a dozen “reinforcements,” all armed with military-issue rifles, who proceeded to encircle the team, weapons pointed at the complainants and the witnesses.38[38] Given such circumstances, we give credence to SPO1 Capoquian’s statement that it was not “safe” to refuse Mayor Astorga’s orders.39[39] It was not just the presence of the armed men, but also the evident effect these gunmen had on the actions of the team which

34

35

36

37

38

proves that fear was indeed instilled in the minds of the team members, to the extent that they felt compelled to stay in Brgy. Lucob-Lucob. The intent to prevent the departure of the complainants and witnesses against their will is thus clear.

Regarding the Joint Affidavit of Desistance executed by the private complainants, suffice it to say that the principles governing the use of such instruments in the adjudication of other crimes can be applied here. Thus, in People v. Ballabare, it was held that an affidavit of desistance is merely an additional ground to buttress the defenses of the accused, not the sole consideration that can result in acquittal. There must be other circumstances which, when coupled with the retraction or desistance, create doubts as to the truth of the testimony given by the witnesses at the trial and accepted by the judge. Here, there are no such circumstances.40[40] Indeed, the belated claims made in the Joint Affidavit of Desistance, such as the allegations that the incident was the result of a misunderstanding and that the team acceded to Mayor Astorga’s orders “out of respect,” are belied by petitioner’s own admissions to the contrary.41[41] The Joint Affidavit of Desistance of the private complainants is evidently not a clear repudiation of the material points alleged in the information and proven at the trial, but a mere expression of the lack of interest of private complainants to pursue the case. This conclusion is supported by one of its latter paragraphs, which reads:

11. That this affidavit was executed by us if only to prove our sincerity and improving DENR relations with the local Chiefs Executive and other official of Daram, Islands so that DENR programs and project can be effectively implemented through the support of the local officials for the betterment of the residence living conditions who are facing difficulties and are much dependent on government support.42[42]

Petitioner also assails the weight given by the trial court to the evidence, pointing out that the Sandiganbayan’s reliance on the testimony of SPO1 Capoquian is misplaced, for the reason that SPO1 Capoquian is not one of the private complainants in the

39

40

41

42

case.43[43] He also makes much of the fact that prosecution witness SPO1 Capoquian was allegedly “not exactly privy to, and knowledgeable of, what exactly transpired between herein accused and the DENR team leader Mr. Elpidio E. Simon, from their alleged ‘confrontation,’ until they left Barangay Lucob-Lucob in the early morning of 2 September 1997.”44[44]

It is a time-honored doctrine that the trial court’s factual findings are conclusive and binding upon appellate courts unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.45[45] Nothing in the case at bar prompts us to deviate from this doctrine. Indeed, the fact that SPO1 Capoquian is not one of the private complainants is completely irrelevant. Neither penal law nor the rules of evidence requires damning testimony to be exclusively supplied by the private complainants in cases of Arbitrary Detention. Furthermore, Mayor Astorga’s claim that SPO1 Capoquian was “not exactly privy” to what transpired between Simon and himself is belied by the evidence. SPO1 Capoquian testified that he accompanied Simon when the latter went to talk to petitioner.46[46] He heard all of Mayor Astorga’s threatening remarks.47[47] He was with Simon when they were encircled by the men dressed in fatigues and wielding M-16 and M-14 rifles.48[48]

In sum, SPO1 Capoquian witnessed all the circumstances which led to the Arbitrary Detention of the team at the hands of Mayor Astorga.

Petitioner submits that it is unclear whether the team was in fact prevented from leaving Brgy. Lucob-Lucob or whether they had simply decided to “while away the time” and take advantage of the purported hospitality of the accused.49[49] On the contrary, SPO3 Cinco clearly and categorically denied that they were simply “whiling away the time” between their dinner with Mayor Astorga and their departure early the

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

following morning.50[50] SPO1 Capoquian gave similar testimony, saying that they did not use the time between their dinner with Mayor Astorga and their departure early the following morning to “enjoy the place” and that, given a choice, they would have gone home.51[51]

Petitioner argues that he was denied the “cold neutrality of an impartial judge”, because the ponente of the assailed decision acted both as magistrate and advocate when he propounded “very extensive clarificatory questions” on the witnesses. Surely, the Sandiganbayan, as a trial court, is not an idle arbiter during a trial. It can propound clarificatory questions to witnesses in order to ferret out the truth. The impartiality of the court cannot be assailed on the ground that clarificatory questions were asked during the trial.52[52]

Thus, we affirm the judgment of the Sandiganbayan finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Arbitrary Detention. Article 124 (1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that, where the detention has not exceeded three days, the penalty shall be arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, which has a range of four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner is entitled to a minimum term to be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, or arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, which has a range of one (1) month and one (1) day to four (4) months. Hence, the Sandiganbayan was correct in imposing the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as maximum.

Before closing, it may not be amiss to quote the words of Justice Perfecto in his concurring opinion in Lino v. Fugoso, wherein he decried the impunity enjoyed by public officials in committing arbitrary or illegal detention, and called for the intensification of efforts towards bringing them to justice:

The provisions of law punishing arbitrary or illegal detention committed by government officers form part of our statute books even before the advent of American sovereignty in our country. Those provisions were already in effect during

50

51

52

the Spanish regime; they remained in effect under American rule; continued in effect under the Commonwealth. Even under the Japanese regime they were not repealed. The same provisions continue in the statute books of the free and sovereign Republic of the Philippines. This notwithstanding, and the complaints often heard of violations of said provisions, it is very seldom that prosecutions under them have been instituted due to the fact that the erring individuals happened to belong to the same government to which the prosecuting officers belong. It is high time that every one must do his duty, without fear or favor, and that prosecuting officers should not answer with cold shrugging of the shoulders the complaints of the victims of arbitrary or illegal detention.

Only by an earnest enforcement of the provisions of articles 124 and 125 of the Revised Penal Code will it be possible to reduce to its minimum such wanton trampling of personal freedom as depicted in this case. The responsible officials should be prosecuted, without prejudice to the detainees’ right to the indemnity to which they may be entitled for the unjustified violation of their fundamental rights.53

[53]

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 24986, dated July 5, 2001 finding petitioner BENITO ASTORGA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Arbitrary Detention and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as maximum, is AFFIRMED in toto.

Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

DWARD S. SERAPIO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

53

Before the Court are two petitions for certiorari filed by petitioner Edward Serapio, assailing the resolutions of the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan denying his petition for bail, motion for a reinvestigation and motion to quash, and a petition for habeas corpus, all in relation to Criminal Case No. 26558 for plunder wherein petitioner is one of the accused together with former President Joseph E. Estrada, Jose “Jinggoy” P. Estrada and several others.

The records show that petitioner was a member of the Board of Trustees and the Legal Counsel of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, a non-stock, non-profit foundation established in February 2000 ostensibly for the purpose of providing educational opportunities for the poor and underprivileged but deserving Muslim youth and students, and support to research and advance studies of young Muslim educators and scientists.

Sometime in April 2000, petitioner, as trustee of the Foundation, received on its behalf a donation in the amount of Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200 Million) from Ilocos Sur Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson through the latter’s assistant Mrs. Yolanda Ricaforte. Petitioner received the donation and turned over the said amount to the Foundation’s treasurer who later deposited it in the Foundation’s account with the Equitable PCI Bank.

In the latter part of the year 2000, Gov. Singson publicly accused then President Joseph E. Estrada and his cohorts of engaging in several illegal activities, including its operation on the illegal numbers game known as jueteng. This triggered the filing with the Office of the Ombudsman of several criminal complaints against Joseph Estrada, Jinggoy Estrada and petitioner, together with other persons. Among such complaints were: Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, versus Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Edward Serapio, et al., docketed as OMB Crim. Case No. 0-00-1754; Graft Free Philippines Foundation, Inc., versus Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Edward Serapio, et al., docketed as OMB Crim. Case No. 0-00-1755; and Leonardo De Vera, Romeo T. Capulong and Dennis B. Funa, versus Joseph Estrada, Yolanda Ricaforte, Edward Serapio, Raul De Guzman, Danilo Reyes and Mila Reforma, docketed as OMB Crim. Case No. 0-00-1757.

Subsequently, petitioner filed his Counter-Affidavit dated February 21, 2001. The other respondents likewise filed their respective counter-affidavits. The Office of the Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation of the complaints and on April 4, 2001, issued a joint resolution recommending, inter alia, that Joseph Estrada, petitioner and several others be charged with the criminal offense of plunder.

On April 4, 2001, the Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan several Informations against former President Estrada, who earlier had resigned from his post as President of the Republic of the Philippines. One of these Informations, docketed as Criminal Case No. 26558, charged Joseph Estrada with plunder. On April 18, 2001, the Ombudsman filed an amended Information in said case charging Estrada and several co-accused, including petitioner, with said crime. No bail was recommended for the provisional release of all the accused, including petitioner. The case was raffled to a special division which was subsequently created by the Supreme Court. The amended Information reads:

“That during the period from June, 1998 to January, 2001, in the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Joseph Ejercito Estrada, THEN A PUBLIC OFFICER, BEING THEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, by himself AND/OR in CONNIVANCE/CONSPIRACY with his co-accused, WHO ARE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY, RELATIVES BY AFFINITY OR CONSANGUINITY, BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, SUBORDINATES AND/OR OTHER PERSONS, BY TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF HIS OFFICIAL POSITION, AUTHORITY, RELATIONSHIP, CONNECTION OR INFLUENCE, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and acquire BY HIMSELF, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount OR TOTAL VALUE of FOUR BILLION NINETY SEVEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS [P4,097,804,173.17], more or less, THEREBY UNJUSTLY ENRICHING HIMSELF OR THEMSELVES AT THE EXPENSE AND TO THE DAMAGE OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, through ANY OR A combination ORA series of overt OR criminal acts, OR SIMILARSCHEMES OR MEANS, described as follows:

(a) by receiving OR collecting, directly or indirectly, on SEVERAL INSTANCES, MONEY IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE MILLION PESOS (P545,000,000.00), MORE OR LESS, FROM ILLEGAL GAMBLING IN THE FORM OF GIFT, SHARE, PERCENTAGE, KICKBACK OR ANY FORM OF PECUNIARY BENEFIT, BY HIMSELF AND/OR in connivance with co-accused CHARLIE ‘ATONG’ ANG, Jose ‘Jinggoy’ Estrada, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Edward Serapio, AND JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, in consideration OF TOLERATION OR PROTECTION OF ILLEGAL GAMBLING;

(b) by DIVERTING, RECEIVING, misappropriating, converting OR misusing DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, for HIS OR THEIR PERSONAL gain and benefit public fund in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION PESOS (P130,000,000.00), more or less, representing a portion of the TWO HUNDRED MILLION PESOS [P200,000,000.00]) tobacco excise tax share allocated for the Province of Ilocos Sur under R.A. No. 7171, BY HIMSELF AND/OR in CONNIVANCE with co-accused Charlie ‘Atong’ Ang, Alma Alfaro, JOHN DOE a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan OR Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, and Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, AND OTHER JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES;

(c) by directing, ordering and compelling FOR HIS PERSONAL GAIN AND BENEFIT, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) TO PURCHASE, 351,878,000 SHARES OF STOCKS, MORE OR LESS, and the Social Security System (SSS), 329,855,000 SHARES OF STOCK, MORE OR LESS, OF THE BELLE CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF MORE OR LESS ONE BILLION ONE HUNDRED TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDERED SEVEN PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS [P1,102,965,607.50] AND MORE OR LESS SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY FOUR MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWELVE THOUSAND AND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS [P744,612,450.00], RESPECTIVELY, OR A TOTAL OR MORE OR LESS ONE BILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIFTY SEVEN PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS [P1,847,578,057.50]; AND BY COLLECTING OR RECEIVING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY HIMSELF AND/OR IN CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, COMMISSIONS OR PERCENTAGES OF SHARES OF STOCK IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS [189,700,000.00] MORE OR LESS, FROM THE BELLE CORPORATION WHICH BECAME PART OF THE DEPOSIT IN THE EQUITABLE-PCI BANK UNDER THE ACCOUNT NAME “JOSE VELARDE”;

(d) by unjustly enriching himself FROM COMMISSIONS, GIFTS, SHARES, PERCENTAGES, KICKBACKS, OR ANY FORM OF PECUNIARY BENEFITS, IN CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, the amount of MORE OR LESS THREE BILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THREE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS [P3,233,104,173.17] AND DEPOSITING THE SAME UNDER HIS ACCOUNT NAME “JOSE VELARDE” AT THE EQUITABLE-PCI BANK.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”54[1]

On April 5, 2001, petitioner obtained a copy of the Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution finding probable cause against him for plunder. The next day, April 6, 2001, he filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation.55[2] Petitioner likewise filed on said date, this time with the Sandiganbayan, an Urgent Omnibus Motion: (a) To Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest and Further Proceedings; (b) To Conduct a Determination of Probable Cause; (c) For Leave to File Accused’s Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation; and (d) To Direct the Ombudsman to Conduct a Reinvestigation of the Charges against accused Edward Serapio.56[3]

On April 10, 2001, the Ombudsman issued an order denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and/or reinvestigation on the ground of lack of jurisdiction since the amended Information charging petitioner with plunder had already been filed with the Sandiganbayan.57[4]

In a parallel development, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution on April 25, 2001 in Criminal Case No. 26558 finding probable cause to justify the issuance of warrants of arrest for the accused, including petitioner. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan issued an Order on the same date for the arrest of petitioner.58[5] When apprised of said order, petitioner voluntarily surrendered at 9:45 p.m. on the same day to Philippine National Police Chief Gen. Leandro Mendoza. Petitioner has since been detained at Camp Crame for said charge.

The Sandiganbayan set the arraignment of the accused, including petitioner, in Criminal Case No. 26558 on June 27, 2001. In the meantime, on April 27, 2001, petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan an Urgent Petition for Bail which was set for hearing on May 4, 2001.59[6] For his part, petitioner’s co-accused Jose “Jinggoy”

54

55

56

57

58

Estrada filed on April 20, 2001 a Very Urgent Omnibus Motion alleging that he was entitled to bail as a matter of right.

During the hearing on May 4, 2001 on petitioner’s Urgent Petition for Bail, the prosecution moved for the resetting of the arraignment of the accused earlier than the June 27, 2001 schedule. However, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion of the prosecution and issued an order declaring that the petition for bail can and should be heard before petitioner’s arraignment on June 27, 2001 and even before the other accused in Criminal Case No. 26558 filed their respective petitions for bail. Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan set the hearing for the reception of evidence on petitioner’s petition for bail on May 21 to 25, 2001.

On May 17, 2001, four days before the hearing on petitioner’s petition for bail, the Ombudsman filed an urgent motion for early arraignment of Joseph Estrada, Jinggoy Estrada and petitioner and a motion for joint bail hearings of Joseph Estrada, Jinggoy Estrada and petitioner. The following day, petitioner filed a manifestation questioning the propriety of including Joseph Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada in the hearing on his (petitioner’s) petition for bail.

The Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution on May 18, 2001 resetting the hearings on petitioner’s petition for bail to June 18 to 28, 2001 to enable the court to resolve the prosecution’s pending motions as well as petitioner’s motion that his petition for bail be heard as early as possible, which motion the prosecution opposed.

On May 31, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying petitioner’s April 6, 2001 Urgent Omnibus Motion. The court ruled that the issues posed by petitioner had already been resolved in its April 25, 2001 Resolution finding probable cause to hold petitioner and his co-accused for trial.60[7] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the said May 31, 2001 Resolution.

On June 1, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution requiring the attendance of petitioner as well as all the other accused in Criminal Case No. 26558 during the hearings on the petitions for bail under pain of waiver of cross-examination. The Sandiganbayan, citing its inherent powers to proceed with the trial of the case in the manner it determines best conducive to orderly proceedings and speedy termination

59

60

of the case, directed the other accused to participate in the said bail hearing considering that under Section 8, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court, whatever evidence is adduced during the bail hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial.61[8]

However, instead of proceeding with the bail hearing set by it on June 18, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued an Order on June 15, 2001 canceling the said bail hearing due to pending incidents yet to be resolved and reset anew the hearing to June 26, 2001.62

[9]

On the eve of said hearing, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of its May 31, 2001 Resolution. The bail hearing on June 26, 2001 did not again proceed because on said date petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to quash the amended Information on the grounds that as against him, the amended Information does not allege a combination or series of overt or criminal acts constitutive of plunder; as against him, the amended Information does not allege a pattern of criminal acts indicative of an overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy; the money alleged in paragraph (a) of the amended Information to have been illegally received or collected does not constitute “ill-gotten wealth” as defined in Section 1(d) of Republic Act No. 7080; and the amended Information charges him of bribery and illegal gambling.63[10] By way of riposte, the prosecution objected to the holding of bail hearing until petitioner agreed to withdraw his motion to quash. The prosecution contended that petitioner’s motion to quash the amended Information was antithetical to his petition for bail.

The Sandiganbayan reset the arraignment of accused and the hearing on the petition for bail of petitioner in Criminal Case No. 26558 for July 10, 2001 to enable it to resolve the pending incidents and the motion to quash of petitioner. However, even before the Sandiganbayan could resolve the pending motions of petitioner and the prosecution, petitioner filed with this Court on June 29, 2001 a Petition for Habeas Corpus and Certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 148468, praying that the Court declare void the questioned orders, resolutions and actions of the Sandiganbayan on his claim that he was thereby effectively denied of his right to due process. Petitioner likewise prayed for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus; that the People be declared to have

61

62

63

waived their right to present evidence in opposition to his petition for bail; and, premised on the failure of the People to adduce strong evidence of petitioner’s guilt of plunder, that he be granted provisional liberty on bail after due proceedings.64[11]

Meanwhile, on June 28, 2001, Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion praying that said court resolve his motion to fix his bail.

On July 9, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying petitioner’s motion to quash the amended Information. Petitioner, through counsel, received on said date a copy of said resolution.65[12] The motion to fix bail filed by Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada was also resolved by the Sandiganbayan.

On July 10, 2001, just before his arraignment in Criminal Case No. 26558, petitioner manifested to the Sandiganbayan that he was going to file a motion for reconsideration of the July 9, 2001 Resolution denying his motion to quash and for the deferment of his arraignment. The Sandiganbayan, however, declared that there was no provision in the Rules of Court or in the Sandiganbayan’s rules granting the right to petitioner to file a motion for the reconsideration of an interlocutory order issued by it and ordered petitioner to orally argue his motion for reconsideration. When petitioner refused, the Sandiganbayan proceeded with his arraignment. Petitioner refused to plead, impelling the court to enter a plea of not guilty for him.

On July 20, 2001, petitioner filed with the Court a Petition for Certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 148769, alleging that the Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its July 9, 2001 Resolution denying his motion to quash, notwithstanding the fact that material inculpatory allegations of the amended Information against him do not constitute the crime of plunder; and that he is charged, under the said amended Information, for more than one offense. Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada likewise filed petition for certiorari with the Court docketed as G.R. No. 148965 for the nullification of a resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying his motion to fix bail.

On August 9, 2001, petitioner filed with the Court another Petition for Certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 149116, assailing the Sandiganbayan’s Resolution dated 31

64

65

May 2001 which denied his April 6, 2001 Urgent Omnibus Motion and its June 25, 2001 Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration of its May 31, 2001 Resolution.

Re: G.R. No. 148769

Petitioner avers that:

THE SANDIGANBAYAN ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, IN DENYING PETITIONER SERAPIO’S MOTION TO QUASH NOTWITHSTANDING THAT –

I

THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE AMENDED INFORMATION AS AGAINST PETITIONER SERAPIO DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE CRIME OF PLUNDER.

A. The Amended Information, as against petitioner Serapio, does not allege a combination or series of overt or criminal acts constitutive of plunder.

B. The Amended Information, as against petitioner Serapio, does not allege a pattern of criminal acts indicative of an overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.

C. The money described in paragraph (a) of the Amended Information and alleged to have been illegally received or collected does not constitute ‘ill-gotten wealth’ as defined in Section 1(d), Republic Act No. 7080, as amended.

II

THE AMENDED INFORMATION CHARGES MORE THAN ONE OFFENSE.”66[13]

Petitioner asserts that, on the face of the amended Information, he is charged with plunder only in paragraph (a) which reads:

“(a) by receiving OR collecting, directly or indirectly, on SEVERAL INSTANCES, MONEY IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF FIVE

66

HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE MILLION PESOS (P545,000,000.00), MORE OR LESS, FROM ILLEGAL GAMBLING IN THE FORM OF GIFT, SHARE, PERCENTAGE, KICKBACK OR ANY FORM OF PECUNIARY BENEFIT, BY HIMSELF AND/OR in connivance with co-accused CHARLIE ‘ATONG’ ANG, Jose ‘Jinggoy’ Estrada, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Edward Serapio, AND JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, in consideration OF TOLERATION OR PROTECTION OF ILLEGAL GAMBLING;”67[14]

Petitioner asserts that there is no allegation in paragraph (a) of the amended Information of a “combination or series of overt or criminal acts” constituting plunder as described in Section 1(d) of R.A. 7080 as amended. Neither does the amended Information allege “a pattern of criminal acts.” He avers that his single act of toleration or protection of illegal gambling impelled by a single criminal resolution does not constitute the requisite “combination or series of acts” for plunder. He further claims that the consideration consisting of gifts, percentages or kickbacks in furtherance of said resolution turned over to and received by former President Joseph E. Estrada “on several occasions” does not cure the defect in the amended information. Petitioner insists that on the face of the amended Information he is charged only with bribery or illegal gambling and not of plunder.

Petitioner argues that the P540 million which forms part of the P4,097,804,173.17 amassed by former President Joseph E. Estrada in confabulation with his co-accused is not ill-gotten wealth as defined in Section 1(d) of R.A. 7080.

We do not agree with petitioner. Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that:

“Sec. 6.Sufficiency of complaint or information. – A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.

When the offense was committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information.”68[15]

67

The acts or omissions complained or must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged and enable the court to know the proper judgment. The Information must allege clearly and accurately the elements of the crime charged. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definition and elements of the specific crimes. The purpose of the requirement of alleging all the elements of the crime in the Information is to inform an accused of the nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare for his defense.69[16] Another purpose is to enable accused, if found guilty, to plead his conviction in a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.70[17] The use of derivatives or synonyms or allegations of basic facts constituting the offense charged is sufficient.71[18]

In this case, the amended Information specifically alleges that all the accused, including petitioner, connived and conspired with former President Joseph E. Estrada to commit plunder “through any or a combination or a series of overt or criminal acts or similar schemes or means.” And in paragraph (a) of the amended Information, petitioner and his co-accused are charged with receiving or collecting, directly or indirectly, on several instances money in the aggregate amount of P545,000,000.00. In Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), et al.,72[19] we held that the word “series” is synonymous with the clause “on several instances”; it refers to a repetition of the same predicate act in any of the items in Section 1(d) of the law. We further held that the word “combination” contemplates the commission of at least any two different predicate acts in any of the said items. We ruled that “plainly, subparagraph (a) of the amended information charges accused therein, including petitioner, with plunder committed by a series of the same predicate act under Section 1(d)(2) of the law” and that:

“x x x Sub-paragraph (a) alleged the predicate act of receiving, on several instances, money from illegal gambling, in consideration of toleration or protection of illegal

68

69

70

71

72

gambling, and expressly names petitioner as one of those who conspired with former President Estrada in committing the offense. This predicate act corresponds with the offense described in item [2] of the enumeration in Section 1(d) of R.A. No. 7080. x x x.”73[20]

It is not necessary to allege in the amended Information a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy because as Section 3 of R.A. 7080 specifically provides, the same is evidentiary and the general rule is that matters of evidence need not be alleged in the Information.74[21]

The Court also ruled in Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan75[22] that the aggregate amount of P4,097,804,173.17 inclusive of the P545 million alleged in paragraph (a) of the amended information is ill-gotten wealth as contemplated in Section 1, paragraph 1(d) of Republic Act 7080, as amended, and that all the accused in paragraph (a) to (d) of the amended information conspired and confederated with former President Estrada to enable the latter to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount of P4,097,804,173.17.

Under the amended Information, all the accused, including petitioner, are charged of having conspired and confabulated together in committing plunder. When two or more persons conspire to commit a crime, each is responsible for all the acts of others. In contemplation of law, the act of the conspirator is the act of each of them.76

[23] Conspirators are one man, they breathe one breath, they speak one voice, they wield one arm and the law says that the acts, words and declarations of each, while in the pursuit of the common design, are the acts, words and declarations of all.77[24]

Petitioner asserts that he is charged under the amended Information of bribery and illegal gambling and others. The Sandiganbayan, for its part, held that petitioner is not charged with the predicate acts of bribery and illegal gambling but is charged only with one crime that of plunder:

73

74

75

76

77

“THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE INFORMATION

CHARGES MORE THAN ONE OFFENSE

According to the accused Estradas and Edward Serapio the information charges more than one offense, namely, bribery (Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code), malversation of public funds or property (Article 217, Revised Penal Code) and violations of Sec. 3(e) of Republic Act (RA No. 3019) and Section 7(d) of RA 6713.

This contention is patently unmeritorious. The acts alleged in the information are not charged as separate offenses but as predicate acts of the crime of plunder.

It should be stressed that the Anti-Plunder law specifically Section 1(d) thereof does not make any express reference to any specific provision of laws, other than R.A. No. 7080, as amended, which coincidentally may penalize as a separate crime any of the overt or criminal acts enumerated therein. The said acts which form part of the combination or series of act are described in their generic sense. Thus, aside from ‘malversation’ of public funds, the law also uses the generic terms ‘misappropriation’, ‘conversion’ or ‘misuse’ of said fund. The fact that the acts involved may likewise be penalized under other laws is incidental. The said acts are mentioned only as predicate acts of the crime of plunder and the allegations relative thereto are not to be taken or to be understood as allegations charging separate criminal offenses punished under the Revised Penal Code, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.”78[25]

This Court agrees with the Sandiganbayan. It is clear on the face of the amended Information that petitioner and his co-accused are charged only with one crime of plunder and not with the predicate acts or crimes of plunder. It bears stressing that the predicate acts merely constitute acts of plunder and are not crimes separate and independent of the crime of plunder. Resultantly then, the petition is dismissed.

Re: G.R. No. 149116

Petitioner assails the May 31, 2001 Joint Resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying his April 4, 2001 Urgent Omnibus Motion contending that:

78

“GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION

THE SANDIGANBAYAN ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN SUMMARILY DENYING PETITIONER SERAPIO’S URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (RE: RESOLUTION DATED 31 MAY 2001), NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE OMBUDSMAN HAD TOTALLY DISREGARDED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE AND COMMITTED GRAVE AND MANIFEST ERRORS OF LAW SERIOUSLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF PETITIONER SERAPIO, AND THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT FOR PLUNDER AS AGAINST PETITIONER SERAPIO.”79[26]

Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his omnibus motion to hold in abeyance the issuance of a warrant for his arrest as well as the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 26558; to conduct a determination of probable cause; and to direct the Ombudsman to conduct a reinvestigation of the charges him. Petitioner asseverates that the Ombudsman had totally disregarded exculpatory evidence and committed grave abuse of discretion in charging him with plunder. He further argues that there exists no probable cause to support an indictment for plunder as against him.80[27]

Petitioner points out that the joint resolution of the Ombudsman does not even mention him in relation to the collection and receipt of jueteng money which started in 199881[28] and that the Ombudsman inexplicably arrived at the conclusion that the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation was a money laundering front organization put up by Joseph Estrada, assisted by petitioner, even though the latter presented evidence that said Foundation is a bona fide and legitimate private foundation.82[29] More importantly, he claims, said joint resolution does not indicate that he knew that the P200 million he received for the Foundation came from jueteng.83[30]

79

80

81

82

Petitioner insists that he cannot be charged with plunder since: (1) the P200 million he received does not constitute “ill-gotten wealth” as defined in Section 1(d) of R.A. No. 7080;84[31] (2) there is no evidence linking him to the collection and receipt of jueteng money;85[32] (3) there was no showing that petitioner participated in a pattern of criminal acts indicative of an overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, or that his act of receiving the P200 million constitutes an overt criminal act of plunder.86[33]

Petitioner argues further that his motion for reinvestigation is premised on the absolute lack of evidence to support a finding of probable cause for plunder as against him,87[34] and hence he should be spared from the inconvenience, burden and expense of a public trial.88[35]

Petitioner also avers that the discretion of government prosecutors is not beyond judicial scrutiny. He asserts that while this Court does not ordinarily look into the existence of probable cause to charge a person for an offense in a given case, it may do so in exceptional circumstances, which are present in this case: (1) to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; (2) for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression; (3) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; and (4) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance.89[36] Petitioner claims that he raised proper grounds for a reinvestigation by asserting that in issuing the questioned joint resolution, the Ombudsman disregarded evidence exculpating petitioner from the charge of plunder and committed errors of law or irregularities which have been prejudicial to his interest.90[37] He also states that during the joint preliminary investigations for the various charges against Joseph Estrada and his associates, of

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

which the plunder charge was only one of the eight charges against Estrada et al., he was not furnished with copies of the other complaints nor given the opportunity to refute the evidence presented in relation to the other seven cases, even though the evidence presented therein were also used against him, although he was only charged in the plunder case.91[38]

The People maintain that the Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s omnibus motion. They assert that since the Ombudsman found probable cause to charge petitioner with the crime of plunder, the Sandiganbayan is bound to assume jurisdiction over the case and to proceed to try the same. They further argue that “a finding of probable cause is merely preliminary and prefatory of the eventual determination of guilt or innocence of the accused,” and that petitioner still has the chance to interpose his defenses in a full blown trial where his guilt or innocence may finally be determined.92[39]

The People also point out that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s omnibus motion asking for, among others, a reinvestigation by the Ombudsman, because his motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s joint resolution did not raise the grounds of either newly discovered evidence, or errors of law or irregularities, which under Republic Act No. 6770 are the only grounds upon which a motion for reconsideration may be filed.93[40]

The People likewise insist that there exists probable cause to charge petitioner with plunder as a co-conspirator of Joseph Estrada.94[41]

This Court does not agree with petitioner.

Case law has it that the Court does not interfere with the Ombudsman’s discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigations. Thus, in Raro vs. Sandiganbayan95[42], the Court ruled:

90

91

92

93

94

“x x x. In the performance of his task to determine probable cause, the Ombudsman’s discretion is paramount. Thus, in Camanag vs. Guerrero, this Court said:

‘x x x. (S)uffice it to state that this Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and leaves to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the exercise of determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish ‘probable cause’ for filing of information against the supposed offender.”

In Cruz, Jr. vs. People,96[43] the Court ruled thus:

“Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s findings are essentially factual in nature. Accordingly, in assailing said findings on the contention that the Ombudsman committed a grave abuse of discretion in holding that petitioner is liable for estafa through falsification of public documents, petitioner is clearly raising questions of fact here. His arguments are anchored on the propriety or error in the Ombudsman’s appreciation of facts. Petitioner cannot be unaware that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, more so in the consideration of the extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither question of fact nor even of law are entertained, but only questions of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Insofar as the third issue is concerned, we find that no grave abuse of discretion has been committed by respondents which would warrant the granting of the writ of certiorari.”

Petitioner is burdened to allege and establish that the Sandiganbayan and the Ombudsman for that matter committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing their resolution and joint resolution, respectively. Petitioner failed to discharge his burden. Indeed, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan and the Ombudsman in finding probable cause against petitioner for plunder. Neither did the Sandiganbayan abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation of the charges against him in the amendedInformation. In its Resolution of April 25, 2001, the Sandiganbayan affirmed the finding of the Ombudsman that probable cause exists against petitioner and his co-accused for the crime of plunder, thus:

95

96

“In the light of the foregoing and considering the allegations of the Amended Information dated 18 April 2001 charging the accused with the offense of PLUNDER and examining carefully the evidence submitted in support thereof consisting of the affidavits and sworn statements and testimonies of prosecution witnesses and several other pieces of documentary evidence, as well as the respective counter-affidavits of accused former President Joseph Estrada dated March 20, 2001, Jose “Jinggoy” Pimentel Estrada dated February 20, 2001, Yolanda T. Ricaforte dated January 21, 2001 and Edward S. Serapio dated February 21, 2001, the Court finds and so holds that probable cause for the offense of PLUNDER exists to justify issuance of warrants of arrest of accused former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Mayor Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, Charlie “Atong” Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro, John Doe. a.k.a.Eleuterio Tan or Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, and Jane Doe a.k.a Delia Rajas.”97[44]

Likewise, in its Resolution dated May 31, 2001 of petitioner’s omnibus motion, the Sandiganbayan noted that a preliminary investigation was fully conducted in accordance with Rule II, Administrative Order No. 7 of the Office of the Ombudsman, pursuant to Sections 18, 23 and 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989); and that all the basic complaints and evidence in support thereof were served upon all the accused.98[45] It was in light of such findings that the Sandiganbayan held that there was no basis for the allegation that accused therein (including petitioner) were deprived of the right to seek a reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s Resolution dated April 4, 2001 finding probable cause to charge them with plunder after the conduct of preliminary investigation in connection therewith. In addition, the Sandiganbayan pointed out that petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s resolution, but failed to show in his motion that there were newly discovered evidence, or that the preliminary investigation was tainted by errors of law or irregularities, which are the only grounds for which a reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s resolution may be granted.99[46]

It bears stressing that the right to a preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right, but is merely a right conferred by statute.100[47] The absence of a preliminary

97

98

99

100

investigation does not impair the validity of the Information or otherwise render the same defective and neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case or constitute a ground for quashing the Information.101[48] If the lack of a preliminary investigation does not render the Information invalid nor affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case, with more reason can it be said that the denial of a motion for reinvestigation cannot invalidate the Information or oust the court of its jurisdiction over the case. Neither can it be said that petitioner had been deprived of due process. He was afforded the opportunity to refute the charges against him during the preliminary investigation.

The purpose of a preliminary investigation is merely to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the person accused of the crime is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.102[49] As the Court held in Webb vs. De Leon, “[a] finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.”103[50]

Absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the prosecutor or any other officer authorized to conduct preliminary investigation, courts as a rule must defer to said officer’s finding and determination of probable cause, since the determination of the existence of probable cause is the function of the prosecutor.104[51] The Court agrees with the Sandiganbayan that petitioner failed to establish that the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman was tainted with irregularity or that its findings stated in the joint resolution dated April 4, 2001 are not supported by the facts, and that a reinvestigation was necessary.

Certiorari will not lie to invalidate the Sandiganbayan’s resolution denying petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation since there is nothing to substantiate

101

102

103

104

petitioner’s claim that it gravely abused its discretion in ruling that there was no need to conduct a reinvestigation of the case.105[52]

The ruling in Rolito Go vs. Court of Appeals106[53] that an accused shall not be deemed to have waived his right to ask for a preliminary investigation after he had been arraigned over his objection and despite his insistence on the conduct of said investigation prior to trial on the merits does not apply in the instant case because petitioner merely prayed for a reinvestigation on the ground of a newly-discovered evidence. Irrefragably, a preliminary investigation had been conducted by the Ombudsman prior to the filing of the amended Information, and that petitioner had participated therein by filing his counter-affidavit. Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan had already denied his motion for reinvestigation as well as his motion for reconsideration thereon prior to his arraignment.107[54] In sum then, the petition is dismissed.

Re: G.R. No. 148468

As synthesized by the Court from the petition and the pleadings of the parties, the issues for resolution are: (1) Whether or not petitioner should first be arraigned before hearings of his petition for bail may be conducted; (2) Whether petitioner may file a motion to quash the amended Information during the pendency of his petition for bail; (3) Whether a joint hearing of the petition for bail of petitioner and those of the other accused in Criminal Case No. 26558 is mandatory; (4) Whether the People waived their right to adduce evidence in opposition to the petition for bail of petitioner and failed to adduce strong evidence of guilt of petitioner for the crime charged; and (5) Whether petitioner was deprived of his right to due process in Criminal Case No. 26558 and should thus be released from detention via a writ of habeas corpus.

On the first issue, petitioner contends that the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it deferred the hearing of his petition for bail to July 10, 2001, arraigned him on said date and entered a plea of not guilty for him when he refused to be arraigned. He insists that

105

106

107

the Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, does not require that he be arraigned first prior to the conduct of bail hearings since the latter can stand alone and must, of necessity, be heard immediately.108[55] Petitioner maintains that his arraignment before the bail hearings are set is not necessary since he would not plead guilty to the offense charged, as is evident in his earlier statements insisting on his innocence during the Senate investigation of the jueteng scandal and the preliminary investigation before the Ombudsman.109[56] Neither would the prosecution be prejudiced even if it would present all its evidence before his arraignment because, under the Revised Penal Code, a voluntary confession of guilt is mitigating only if made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution,110[57] and petitioner admitted that he cannot repudiate the evidence or proceedings taken during the bail hearings because Rule 114, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Court expressly provides that evidence present during bail hearings are automatically reproduced during the trial.111[58] Petitioner likewise assures the prosecution that he is willing to be arraigned prior to the posting of a bail bond should he be granted bail.112[59]

The People insist that arraignment is necessary before bail hearings may be commenced, because it is only upon arraignment that the issues are joined. The People stress that it is only when an accused pleads not guilty may he file a petition for bail and if he pleads guilty to the charge, there would be no more need for him to file said petition. Moreover, since it is during arraignment that the accused is first informed of the precise charge against him, he must be arraigned prior to the bail hearings to prevent him from later assailing the validity of the bail hearings on the ground that he was not properly informed of the charge against him, especially considering that, under Section 8, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court, evidence presented during such proceedings are considered automatically reproduced at the trial.113[60] Likewise, the arraignment of accused prior to bail hearings diminishes the possibility of an accused’s flight from the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan because

108

109

110

111

112

113

trial in absentia may be had only if an accused escapes after he has been arraigned.114

[61] The People also contend that the conduct of bail hearings prior to arraignment would extend to an accused the undeserved privilege of being appraised of the prosecution’s evidence before he pleads guilty for purposes of penalty reduction.115[62]

Although petitioner had already been arraigned on July 10, 2001 and a plea of not guilty had been entered by the Sandiganbayan on his behalf, thereby rendering the issue as to whether an arraignment is necessary before the conduct of bail hearings in petitioner’s case moot, the Court takes this opportunity to discuss the controlling precepts thereon pursuant to its symbolic function of educating the bench and bar.116[63]

The contention of petitioner is well-taken. The arraignment of an accused is not a prerequisite to the conduct of hearings on his petition for bail. A person is allowed to petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender.117[64] An accused need not wait for his arraignment before filing a petition for bail.

In Lavides vs. Court of Appeals, 118[65] this Court ruled on the issue of whether an accused must first be arraigned before he may be granted bail. Lavides involved an accused charged with violation of Section 5(b) Republic Act No. 7610 (The Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), an offense punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. The accused therein assailed, inter alia, the trial court’s imposition of the condition that he should first be arraigned before he is allowed to post bail. We held therein that “in cases where it is authorized, bail should be granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion to quash.”119[66]

114

115

116

117

118

119

However, the foregoing pronouncement should not be taken to mean that the hearing on a petition for bail should at all times precede arraignment, because the rule is that a person deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender may apply for bail as soon as he is deprived of his liberty, even before a complaint or information is filed against him.120[67] The Court’s pronouncement in Lavides should be understood in light of the fact that the accused in said case filed a petition for bail as well as a motion to quash the informations filed against him. Hence, we explained therein that to condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would be to place him in a position where he has to choose between (1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his arraignment cannot be held, and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail. This would undermine his constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon a valid complaint or Information sufficient to charge him with a crime and his right to bail.121[68]

It is therefore not necessary that an accused be first arraigned before the conduct of hearings on his application for bail. For when bail is a matter of right, an accused may apply for and be granted bail even prior to arraignment. The ruling in Lavides also implies that an application for bail in a case involving an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua to death may also be heard even before an accused is arraigned. Further, if the court finds in such case that the accused is entitled to bail because the evidence against him is not strong, he may be granted provisional liberty even prior to arraignment; for in such a situation, bail would be “authorized” under the circumstances. In fine, the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in ordering the arraignment of petitioner before proceeding with the hearing of his petition for bail.

With respect to the second issue of whether petitioner may file a motion to quash during the pendency of his petition for bail, petitioner maintains that a motion to quash and a petition for bail are not inconsistent, and may proceed independently of each other. While he agrees with the prosecution that a motion to quash may in some instances result in the termination of the criminal proceedings and in the release of the accused therein, thus rendering the petition for bail moot and academic, he opines that such is not always the case; hence, an accused in detention cannot be forced to speculate on the outcome of a motion to quash and decide whether or not to file a

120

121

petition for bail or to withdraw one that has been filed.122[69] He also insists that the grant of a motion to quash does not automatically result in the discharge of an accused from detention nor render moot an application for bail under Rule 117, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court.123[70]

The Court finds that no such inconsistency exists between an application of an accused for bail and his filing of a motion to quash. Bail is the security given for the release of a person in the custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the conditions set forth under the Rules of Court.124[71] Its purpose is to obtain the provisional liberty of a person charged with an offense until his conviction while at the same time securing his appearance at the trial.125[72] As stated earlier, a person may apply for bail from the moment that he is deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender.126[73]

On the other hand, a motion to quash an Information is the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint or Information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of the Information.127[74] An accused may file a motion to quash the Information, as a general rule, before arraignment.128[75]

These two reliefs have objectives which are not necessarily antithetical to each other. Certainly, the right of an accused right to seek provisional liberty when charged with an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, or when charged with an offense punishable by such penalties but after due hearing, evidence of his guilt is found not to be strong, does not preclude his right to assail the validity

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

of the Information charging him with such offense. It must be conceded, however, that if a motion to quash a criminal complaint or Information on the ground that the same does not charge any offense is granted and the case is dismissed and the accused is ordered released, the petition for bail of an accused may become moot and academic.

We now resolve the issue of whether or not it is mandatory that the hearings on the petitions for bail of petitioner and accused Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada in Criminal Case No. 26558 and the trial of the said case as against former President Joseph E. Estrada be heard jointly.

Petitioner argues that the conduct of joint bail hearings would negate his right to have his petition for bail resolved in a summary proceeding since said hearings might be converted into a full blown trial on the merits by the prosecution.129[76]

For their part, the People claim that joint bail hearings will save the court from having to hear the same witnesses and the parties from presenting the same evidence where it would allow separate bail hearings for the accused who are charged as co-conspirators in the crime of plunder.130[77]

In issuing its June 1, 2001 Order directing all accused in Criminal Case No. 26558 to participate in the bail hearings, the Sandiganbayan explained that the directive was made was in the interest of the speedy disposition of the case. It stated:

“x x x The obvious fact is, if the rest of the accused other than the accused Serapio were to be excused from participating in the hearing on the motion for bail of accused Serapio, under the pretext that the same does not concern them and that they will participate in any hearing where evidence is presented by the prosecution only if and when they will already have filed their petitions for bail, or should they decide not to file any, that they will participate only during the trial proper itself, then everybody will be faced with the daunting prospects of having to go through the process of introducing the same witness and pieces of evidence two times, three times or four times, as many times as there are petitions for bail filed. Obviously, such procedure

129

130

is not conducive to the speedy termination of a case. Neither can such procedure be characterized as an orderly proceeding.”131[78]

There is no provision in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure or the Rules of Procedure of the Sandiganbayan governing the hearings of two or more petitions for bail filed by different accused or that a petition for bail of an accused be heard simultaneously with the trial of the case against the other accused. The matter of whether or not to conduct a joint hearing of two or more petitions for bail filed by two different accused or to conduct a hearing of said petition jointly with the trial against another accused is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Unless grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction is shown, the Court will not interfere with the exercise by the Sandiganbayan of its discretion.

It may be underscored that in the exercise of its discretion, the Sandiganbayan must take into account not only the convenience of the State, including the prosecution, but also that of the accused and the witnesses of both the prosecution and the accused and the right of accused to a speedy trial. The Sandiganbayan must also consider the complexities of the cases and of the factual and legal issues involving petitioner and the other accused. After all, if this Court may echo the observation of the United States Supreme Court, the State has a stake, with every citizen, in his being afforded our historic individual protections, including those surrounding criminal prosecutions. About them, this Court dares not become careless or complacent when that fashion has become rampant over the earth.132[79]

It must be borne in mind that in Ocampo vs. Bernabe,133[80] this Court held that in a petition for bail hearing, the court is to conduct only a summary hearing, meaning such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of the hearing which is merely to determine the weight of evidence for purposes of bail. The court does not try the merits or enter into any inquiry as to the weight that ought to be given to the evidence against the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further evidence may be offered therein. It may confine itself to receiving such evidence as has reference to substantial matters, avoiding unnecessary thoroughness in the

131

132

133

examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and reducing to a reasonable minimum the amount of corroboration particularly on details that are not essential to the purpose of the hearing.

A joint hearing of two separate petitions for bail by two accused will of course avoid duplication of time and effort of both the prosecution and the courts and minimizes the prejudice to the accused, especially so if both movants for bail are charged of having conspired in the commission of the same crime and the prosecution adduces essentially the same evident against them. However, in the cases at bar, the joinder of the hearings of the petition for bail of petitioner with the trial of the case against former President Joseph E. Estrada is an entirely different matter. For, with the participation of the former president in the hearing of petitioner’s petition for bail, the proceeding assumes a completely different dimension. The proceedings will no longer be summary. As against former President Joseph E. Estrada, the proceedings will be a full-blown trial which is antithetical to the nature of a bail hearing. Moreover, following our ruling in Jose Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, supra where we stated that Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada can only be charged with conspiracy to commit the acts alleged in sub-paragraph (a) of the amended Information since it is not clear from the latter if the accused in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) thereof conspired with each other to assist Joseph Estrada to amass ill-gotten wealth, we hold that petitioner can only be charged with having conspired with the other co-accused named in sub-paragraph (a) by “receiving or collecting, directly or indirectly, on several instances, money x x x from illegal gambling, x x x in consideration of toleration or protection of illegal gambling.”134[81] Thus, with respect to petitioner, all that the prosecution needs to adduce to prove that the evidence against him for the charge of plunder is strong are those related to the alleged receipt or collection of money from illegal gambling as described in sub-paragraph (a) of the amended Information. With the joinder of the hearing of petitioner’s petition for bail and the trial of the former President, the latter will have the right to cross-examine intensively and extensively the witnesses for the prosecution in opposition to the petition for bail of petitioner. If petitioner will adduce evidence in support of his petition after the prosecution shall have concluded its evidence, the former President may insist on cross-examining petitioner and his witnesses. The joinder of the hearing of petitioner’s bail petition with the trial of former President Joseph E. Estrada will be prejudicial to petitioner as it will unduly delay the determination of the issue of the right of petitioner to obtain provisional liberty and seek relief from this Court if his petition is denied by the respondent court.

134

The indispensability of the speedy resolution of an application for bail was succinctly explained by Cooley in his treatise Constitutional Limitations, thus:

“For, if there were any mode short of confinement which would with reasonable certainty insure the attendance of the accused to answer the accusation, it would not be justifiable to inflict upon him that indignity, when the effect is to subject him in a greater or lesser degree, to the punishment of a guilty person, while as yet it is not determined that he has not committed any crime.”135[82]

While the Sandiganbayan, as the court trying Criminal Case No. 26558, is empowered “to proceed with the trial of the case in the manner it determines best conducive to orderly proceedings and speedy termination of the case,”136[83] the Court finds that it gravely abused its discretion in ordering that the petition for bail of petitioner and the trial of former President Joseph E. Estrada be held jointly. It bears stressing that the Sandiganbayan itself acknowledged in its May 4, 2001 Order the “pre-eminent position and superiority of the rights of [petitioner] to have the matter of his provisional liberty resolved … without unnecessary delay,”137[84] only to make a volte face and declare that after all the hearing of petition for bail of petitioner and Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada and the trial as against former President Joseph E. Estrada should be held simultaneously. In ordering that petitioner’s petition for bail to be heard jointly with the trial of the case against his co-accused former President Joseph E. Estrada, the Sandiganbayan in effect allowed further and unnecessary delay in the resolution thereof to the prejudice of petitioner. In fine then, the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of its discretion in ordering a simultaneous hearing of petitioner’s petition for bail with the trial of the case against former President Joseph E. Estrada on its merits.

With respect to petitioner’s allegations that the prosecution tried to delay the bail hearings by filing dilatory motions, the People aver that it is petitioner and his co-accused who caused the delay in the trial of Criminal Case No. 26558 by their filing of numerous manifestations and pleadings with the Sandiganbayan.138[85] They assert

135

136

137

138

that they filed the motion for joint bail hearing and motion for earlier arraignment around the original schedule for the bail hearings which was on May 21-25, 2001.139[86]

They argue further that bail is not a matter of right in capital offenses.140[87] In support thereof, they cite Article III, Sec 13 of the Constitution, which states that—

“All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.”141[88]

The People also cited Rule 114, Secs. 7 and 4 of the Revised Rules of Court which provide:

“Sec. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable.—No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonement, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.

Sec. 4.Bail, a matter of right, exception.—All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule x x x (b) and before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.”142[89]

Irrefragably, a person charged with a capital offense is not absolutely denied the opportunity to obtain provisional liberty on bail pending the judgment of his case. However, as to such person, bail is not a matter of right but is discretionary upon the court.143[90] Had the rule been otherwise, the Rules would not have provided for an

139

140

141

142

143

application for bail by a person charged with a capital offense under Rule 114, Section 8 which states:

“Sec. 8.Burden of proof in bail application. — At the hearing of an application for bail filed by a person who is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bail hearing shallbe considered automatically reproduced at the trial but, upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional examination unless the latter is dead, outside the Philippines, or otherwise unable to testify.”144[91]

Under the foregoing provision, there must be a showing that the evidence of guilt against a person charged with a capital offense is not strong for the court to grant him bail. Thus, upon an application for bail by the person charged with a capital offense, a hearing thereon must be conducted, where the prosecution must be accorded an opportunity to discharge its burden of proving that the evidence of guilt against an accused is strong.145[92] The prosecution shall be accorded the opportunity to present all the evidence it may deems necessary for this purpose.146[93] When it is satisfactorily demonstrated that the evidence of guilt is strong, it is the court’s duty to deny the application for bail. However, when the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail becomes a matter of right.147[94]

In this case, petitioner is not entitled to bail as a matter of right at this stage of the proceedings. Petitioner’s claim that the prosecution had refused to present evidence to prove his guilt for purposes of his bail application and that the Sandiganbayan has refused to grant a hearing thereon is not borne by the records. The prosecution did not waive, expressly or even impliedly, its right to adduce evidence in opposition to the petition for bail of petitioner. It must be noted that the Sandiganbayan had already scheduled the hearing dates for petitioner’s application for bail but the same were reset due to pending incidents raised in several motions filed by the parties, which incidents had to be resolved by the court prior to the bail hearings. The bail

144

145

146

147

hearing was eventually scheduled by the Sandiganbayan on July 10, 2001 but the hearing did not push through due to the filing of this petition on June 29, 2001.

The delay in the conduct of hearings on petitioner’s application for bail is therefore not imputable solely to the Sandiganbayan or to the prosecution. Petitioner is also partly to blame therefor, as is evident from the following list of motions filed by him and by the prosecution:

Motions filed by petitioner:

         Urgent Omnibus Motion, dated April 6, 2001, for (1) leave to file motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation and to direct ombudsman to conduct reinvestigation; (2) conduct a determination of probable cause as would suggest the issuance of house arrest; (3) hold in abeyance the issuance of warrant of arrest and other proceedings pending determination of probable cause;

         Motion for Early Resolution, dated May 24, 2001;

         Urgent Motion to Hold in Abeyance Implementation or Service of Warrant of Arrest for Immediate Grant of bail or For Release on Recognizance, dated April 25, 2001;

         Urgent Motion to allow Accused Serapio to Vote at Obando, Bulacan,dated May 11, 2001;

         Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, dated May 22, 2001, praying for Resolution of May 18, 2001 be set aside and bail hearings be set at the earliest possible time;

         Urgent Motion for Immediate Release on Bail or Recognizance, dated May 27, 2001;

         Motion for Reconsideration of denial of Urgent Omnibus Motion, dated June 13, 2001, praying that he be allowed to file a Motion for Reinvestigation; and

         Motion to Quash, dated June 26, 2001.148[95]

148

Motions filed by the prosecution:

         Motion for Earlier Arraignment, dated May 8, 2001;149[96]

         Motion for Joint Bail Hearings of Accused Joseph Estrada, Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada and Edward Serapio, dated May 8, 2001;150[97]

         Opposition to the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and Omnibus Motion to Adjust Earlier Arraignment, dated May 25, 2001;151[98] and

         Omnibus Motion for Examination, Testimony and Transcription in Filipino, dated June 19, 2001.152[99]

The other accused in Criminal Case No. 26558 also contributed to the aforesaid delay by their filing of the following motions:

         Motion to Quash or Suspend, dated April 24, 2001, filed by Jinggoy Estrada, assailing the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7080 and praying that the Amended Information be quashed;

         Very Urgent Omnibus Motion, dated April 30, 2001, filed by Jinggoy Estrada, praying that he be (1) excluded from the Amended Information for lack of probable cause; (2) released from custody; or in the alternative, (3) be allowed to post bail;

         Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Place on House Arrest, dated April 25, 2001, filed by Joseph and Jinggoy Estrada, praying that they be placed on house arrest during the pendency of the case;

         Position Paper [re: House Arrest], dated May 2, 2001, filed by Joseph and Jinggoy Estrada;

149

150

151

152

         Supplemental Position Paper [re: House Arrest], dated May 2, 2001, filed by Joseph and Jinggoy Estrada;

         Omnibus Motion,dated May 7, 2001, filed by Joseph Estrada, praying by reinvestigation of the case by the Ombudsman or the outright dismissal of the case;

         Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Extension,dated May 2, 2001, filed by Jinggoy Estrada, requesting for five (5) within which to respond to the Opposition to Motion to Quash in view of the holidays and election-related distractions;

         Opposition to Urgent Motion for Earlier Arraignment, dated May 10, 2001, filed by Joseph Estrada;

         Omnibus Manifestation on voting and custodial arrangement, dated May 11, 2001, filed by Joseph and Jinggoy Estrada, praying that they be placed on house arrest;

         Manifestation regarding house arrest, dated May 6, 2001, filed by Joseph and Jinggoy Estrada;

         Summation regarding house arrest, dated May 23, 2001, filed by Joseph and Jinggoy Estrada;

         Urgent Manifestation & Motion, dated May 6, 2001 filed by Jinggoy Estrada;

         Manifestation, dated May 28, 2001, filed by Joseph and Jinggoy Estrada, praying that they be allowed to be confined in Tanay;

         Motion to charge as Accused Luis “Chavit” Singson,filed by Joseph Estrada;

         Omnibus Motion, dated June 11, 2001, filed by Joseph and Jinggoy Estrada, seeking reconsideration of denial of requests for house arrest, for detention in Tanay or Camp Crame; motion for inhibition of Justice Badoy;

         Urgent Motion to Allow Accused to Clear His Desk as Mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila, dated June 28, 2001, filed by Jinggoy Estrada;

         Motion for Reconsideration, dated June 9, 2001, filed by Joseph and Jinggoy Estrada, praying that the resolution compelling them to be present at petitioner Serapio’s hearing for bail be reconsidered;

         Motion to Quash, dated June 7, 2001, filed by Joseph Estrada;

         Still Another Manifestation, dated June 14, 2001, filed by Joseph and Jinggoy Estrada stating that Bishop Teodoro Bacani favors their house arrest;

         Manifestation, dated June 15, 2001, filed by Joseph and Jinggoy Estrada, waiving their right to be present at the June 18 and 21, 2001 bail hearings and reserving their right to trial with assessors;

         Omnibus Motion for Instructions: 30-Day House Arrest; Production, Inspection and Copying of Documents; and Possible Trial with Assessors, dated June 19, 2001, filed by Joseph and Jinggoy Estrada;

         Urgent Motion for Additional Time to Wind Up Affairs, dated June 20, 2001, filed by Jinggoy Estrada;

         Manifestation, dated June 22, 2001, filed by Jinggoy Estrada, asking for free dates for parties, claiming that denial of bail is cruel and inhuman, reiterating request for gag order of prosecution witnesses, availing of production, inspection and copying of documents, requesting for status of alias case; and

         Compliance, dated June 25, 2001, filed by Jinggoy Estrada, requesting for permission to attend some municipal affairs in San Juan, Metro Manila.153[100]

Furthermore, the Court has previously ruled that even in cases where the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to an application for bail by an accused charged with a capital offense, the trial court is still under duty to conduct a hearing

153

on said application.154[101] The rationale for such requirement was explained in Narciso vs. Sta. Romana-Cruz (supra), citing Basco vs. Rapatalo:155[102]

“When the grant of bail is discretionary, the prosecution has the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. However, the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong, being a matter of judicial discretion, remains with the judge. This discretion by the very nature of things, may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the discretion is directed to the weight of the evidence and since evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right of cross-examination and to introduce his own evidence in rebuttal.”156[103]

Accordingly, petitioner cannot be released from detention until the Sandiganbayan conducts a hearing of his application for bail and resolve the same in his favor. Even then, there must first be a finding that the evidence against petitioner is not strong before he may be granted bail.

Anent the issue of the propriety of the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for petitioner, he contends that he is entitled to the issuance of said writ because the State, through the prosecution’s refusal to present evidence and by the Sandiganbayan’s refusal to grant a bail hearing, has failed to discharge its burden of proving that as against him, evidence of guilt for the capital offense of plunder is strong. Petitioner contends that the prosecution launched “a seemingly endless barrage of obstructive and dilatory moves” to prevent the conduct of bail hearings. Specifically, the prosecution moved for petitioner’s arraignment before the commencement of bail hearings and insisted on joint bail hearings for petitioner, Joseph Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada despite the fact that it was only petitioner who asked for a bail hearing; manifested that it would present its evidence as if it is the presentation of the evidence in chief, meaning that the bail hearings would be concluded only after the prosecution presented its entire case upon the accused; and argued that petitioner’s motion to quash and his petition for bail are inconsistent, and

154

155

156

therefore, petitioner should choose to pursue only one of these two remedies.157[104] He further claims that the Sandiganbayan, through its questioned orders and resolutions postponing the bail hearings effectively denied him of his right to bail and to due process of law.158[105]

Petitioner also maintains that the issuance by the Sandiganbayan of new orders canceling the bail hearings which it had earlier set did not render moot and academic the petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, since said orders have resulted in a continuing deprivation of petitioner’s right to bail.159[106] He argues further that the fact that he was arrested and is detained pursuant to valid process does not by itself negate the efficacy of the remedy of habeas corpus. In support of his contention, petitioner cites Moncupa vs. Enrile,160[107] where the Court held that habeas corpus extends to instances where the detention, while valid from its inception, has later become arbitrary.161[108]

However, the People insist that habeas corpus is not proper because petitioner was arrested pursuant to the amended information which was earlier filed in court,162[109] the warrant of arrest issuant pursuant thereto was valid, and petitioner voluntarily surrendered to the authorities.163[110]

As a general rule, the writ of habeas corpus will not issue where the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty in custody of an officer under a process issued by the court which jurisdiction to do so.164[111] In exceptional circumstances, habeas corpus may be granted by the courts even when the person concerned is detained pursuant to a

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

valid arrest or his voluntary surrender, for this writ of liberty is recognized as “the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action” due to “its ability to cut through barriers of form and procedural mazes.”165[112] Thus, in previous cases, we issued the writ where the deprivation of liberty, while initially valid under the law, had later become invalid,166[113] andeven though the persons praying for its issuance were not completely deprived of their liberty.167[114]

The Court finds no basis for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in favor of petitioner. The general rule that habeas corpus does not lie where the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court which had jurisdiction to issue the same168[115] applies, because petitioner is under detention pursuant to the order of arrest issued by the Sandiganbayan on April 25, 2001 after the filing by the Ombudsman of the amended information for plunder against petitioner and his co-accused. Petitioner had in fact voluntarily surrendered himself to the authorities on April 25, 2001 upon learning that a warrant for his arrest had been issued.

The ruling in Moncupa vs. Enrile169[116] that habeas corpus will lie where the deprivation of liberty which was initially valid has become arbitrary in view of subsequent developments finds no application in the present case because the hearing on petitioner’s application for bail has yet to commence. As stated earlier, the delay in the hearing of petitioner’s petition for bail cannot be pinned solely on the Sandiganbayan or on the prosecution for that matter. Petitioner himself is partly to be blamed. Moreover, a petition for habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for asserting one’s right to bail.170[117] It cannot be availed of where accused is entitled to bail not as a matter of right but on the discretion of the court and the latter has not

165

166

167

168

169

170

abused such discretion in refusing to grant bail,171[118] or has not even exercised said discretion. The proper recourse is to file an application for bail with the court where the criminal case is pending and to allow hearings thereon to proceed.

The issuance of a writ of habeas corpus would not only be unjustified but would also preempt the Sandiganbayan’s resolution of the pending application for bail of petitioner. The recourse of petitioner is to forthwith proceed with the hearing on his application for bail.

IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In G.R. No. 148769 and G.R. No. 149116, the petitions are DISMISSED. The resolutions of respondent Sandiganbayan subject of said petitions are AFFIRMED; and

2. In G.R. No. 148468, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The resolution of respondent Sandiganbayan, Annex “L” of the petition, ordering a joint hearing of petitioner’s petition for bail and the trial of Criminal Case No. 26558 as against former President Joseph E. Estrada is SET ASIDE; the arraignment of petitioner on July 10, 2001 is also SET ASIDE.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

BELLOSILLO, J.:

JOHN STUART MILL, in his essay On Liberty, unleashes the full fury of his pen in defense of the rights of the individual from the vast powers of the State and the inroads of societal pressure. But even as he draws a sacrosanct line demarcating the limits on individuality beyond which the State cannot tread - asserting that

171

"individual spontaneity" must be allowed to flourish with very little regard to social interference - he veritably acknowledges that the exercise of rights and liberties is imbued with a civic obligation, which society is justified in enforcing at all cost, against those who would endeavor to withhold fulfillment. Thus he says -

The sole end for which mankind is warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Parallel to individual liberty is the natural and illimitable right of the State to self-preservation. With the end of maintaining the integrity and cohesiveness of the body politic, it behooves the State to formulate a system of laws that would compel obeisance to its collective wisdom and inflict punishment for non-observance.

The movement from Mill's individual liberalism to unsystematic collectivism wrought changes in the social order, carrying with it a new formulation of fundamental rights and duties more attuned to the imperatives of contemporary socio-political ideologies. In the process, the web of rights and State impositions became tangled and obscured, enmeshed in threads of multiple shades and colors, the skein irregular and broken. Antagonism, often outright collision, between the law as the expression of the will of the State, and the zealous attempts by its members to preserve their individuality and dignity, inevitably followed. It is when individual rights are pitted against State authority that judicial conscience is put to its severest test.

Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the highest-ranking official to be prosecuted under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder),i[1] as amended by RA 7659,ii[2] wishes to impress upon us that the assailed law is so defectively fashioned that it crosses that thin but distinct line which divides the valid from the constitutionally infirm. He therefore makes a stringent call for this Court to subject the Plunder Law to the crucible of constitutionality mainly because, according to him, (a) it suffers from the vice of vagueness; (b) it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions; and, (c) it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under The Revised Penal Code,all of which are purportedly clear violations of the fundamental rights of the accused to due process and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Specifically, the provisions of the Plunder Law claimed by petitioner to have transgressed constitutional boundaries are Secs. 1, par. (d), 2 and 4 which are reproduced hereunder:

Section 1. x x x x (d) "Ill-gotten wealth" means any asset, property, business, enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:

(1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;

(2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public office concerned;

(3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, or government owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;

(4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;

(5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or

(6) By taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.

Section 2.Definition of the Crime of Plunder, Penalties. - Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof, in the aggregate amount or total

value of at least fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances as provided by the Revised Penal Code shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State (underscoring supplied).

Section 4.Rule of Evidence. - For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy (underscoring supplied).

On 4 April 2001 the Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan eight (8) separate Informations, docketed as: (a) Crim. Case No. 26558, for violation of RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659; (b) Crim. Cases Nos. 26559 to 26562, inclusive, for violation of Secs. 3, par. (a), 3, par. (a), 3, par. (e) and 3, par. (e), of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), respectively; (c) Crim. Case No. 26563, for violation of Sec. 7, par. (d), of RA 6713 (TheCode of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees); (d) Crim. Case No. 26564, for Perjury (Art. 183 of The Revised Penal Code); and, (e) Crim. Case No. 26565, for Illegal Use Of An Alias (CA No. 142, as amended by RA 6085).

On 11 April 2001 petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for the remand of the case to the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation with respect to specification "d" of the charges in the Information in Crim. Case No. 26558; and, for reconsideration/reinvestigation of the offenses under specifications "a," "b," and "c" to give the accused an opportunity to file counter-affidavits and other documents necessary to prove lack of probable cause. Noticeably, the grounds raised were only lack of preliminary investigation, reconsideration/reinvestigation of offenses, and opportunity to prove lack of probable cause. The purported ambiguity of the charges and the vagueness of the law under which they are charged were never raised in that Omnibus Motion thus indicating the explicitness and comprehensibility of the Plunder Law.

On 25 April 2001 the Sandiganbayan, Third Division, issued a Resolution in Crim. Case No. 26558 finding that "a probable cause for the offense of PLUNDER exists to justify the issuance of warrants for the arrest of the accused." On 25 June 2001 petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan.

On 14 June 2001 petitioner moved to quash the Information in Crim. Case No. 26558 on the ground that the facts alleged therein did not constitute an indictable offense since the law on which it was based was unconstitutional for vagueness, and that the Amended Information for Plunder charged more than one (1) offense. On 21 June 2001 the Government filed its Opposition to the Motion to Quash, and five (5) days later or on 26 June 2001 petitioner submitted his Reply to the Opposition. On 9 July 2001 the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's Motion to Quash.

As concisely delineated by this Court during the oral arguments on 18 September 2001, the issues for resolution in the instant petition for certiorari are: (a) The Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague; (b) The Plunder Law requires less evidence for proving the predicate crimes of plunder and therefore violates the rights of the accused to due process; and, (c) Whether Plunder as defined in RA 7080 is a malum prohibitum, and if so, whether it is within the power of Congress to so classify it.

Preliminarily, the whole gamut of legal concepts pertaining to the validity of legislation is predicated on the basic principle that a legislative measure is presumed to be in harmony with the Constitution.iii[3] Courts invariably train their sights on this fundamental rule whenever a legislative act is under a constitutional attack, for it is the postulate of constitutional adjudication. This strong predilection for constitutionality takes its bearings on the idea that it is forbidden for one branch of the government to encroach upon the duties and powers of another. Thus it has been said that the presumption is based on the deference the judicial branch accords to its coordinate branch - the legislature.

If there is any reasonable basis upon which the legislation may firmly rest, the courts must assume that the legislature is ever conscious of the borders and edges of its plenary powers, and has passed the law with full knowledge of the facts and for the purpose of promoting what is right and advancing the welfare of the majority. Hence in determining whether the acts of the legislature are in tune with the fundamental law, courts should proceed with judicial restraint and act with caution and forbearance. Every intendment of the law must be adjudged by the courts in favor of its constitutionality, invalidity being a measure of last resort. In construing therefore

the provisions of a statute, courts must first ascertain whether an interpretation is fairly possible to sidestep the question of constitutionality.

In La Union Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Yaranoniv[4] we held that as long as there is some basis for the decision of the court, the constitutionality of the challenged law will not be touched and the case will be decided on other available grounds. Yet the force of the presumption is not sufficient to catapult a fundamentally deficient law into the safe environs of constitutionality. Of course, where the law clearly and palpably transgresses the hallowed domain of the organic law, it must be struck down on sight lest the positive commands of the fundamental law be unduly eroded.

Verily, the onerous task of rebutting the presumption weighs heavily on the party challenging the validity of the statute. He must demonstrate beyond any tinge of doubt that there is indeed an infringement of the constitution, for absent such a showing, there can be no finding of unconstitutionality. A doubt, even if well-founded, will hardly suffice. As tersely put by Justice Malcolm, "To doubt is to sustain."v[5] And petitioner has miserably failed in the instant case to discharge his burden and overcome the presumption of constitutionality of the Plunder Law.

As it is written, the Plunder Law contains ascertainable standards and well-defined parameters which would enable the accused to determine the nature of his violation. Section 2 is sufficiently explicit in its description of the acts, conduct and conditions required or forbidden, and prescribes the elements of the crime with reasonable certainty and particularity. Thus -

1. That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons;

2. That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of the following overt or criminal acts: (a) through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury; (b) by receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback or any other form of pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer; (c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of Government owned or controlled

corporations or their subsidiaries; (d) by obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking; (e) by establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or (f) by taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines; and,

3. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least P50,000,000.00.

As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or rule that would inform those who are subject to it what conduct would render them liable to its penalties, its validity will be sustained. It must sufficiently guide the judge in its application; the counsel, in defending one charged with its violation; and more importantly, the accused, in identifying the realm of the proscribed conduct. Indeed, it can be understood with little difficulty that what the assailed statute punishes is the act of a public officer in amassing or accumulating ill-gotten wealth of at least P50,000,000.00 through a series or combination of acts enumerated in Sec. 1, par. (d), of the Plunder Law.

In fact, the amended Information itself closely tracks the language of the law, indicating with reasonable certainty the various elements of the offense which petitioner is alleged to have committed:

"The undersigned Ombudsman, Prosecutor and OIC-Director, EPIB, Office of the Ombudsman, hereby accuses former PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, a.k.a. 'ASIONG SALONGA' and a.k.a. 'JOSE VELARDE,' together with Jose 'Jinggoy' Estrada, Charlie 'Atong' Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro, JOHN DOE a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan OR Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, and John DOES& Jane Does, of the crime of Plunder, defined and penalized under R.A. No. 7080, as amended by Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 7659, committed as follows:

That during the period from June, 1998 to January 2001, in the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Joseph Ejercito Estrada, THEN A PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, by

himself AND/OR in CONNIVANCE/CONSPIRACY with his co-accused, WHO ARE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY, RELATIVES BY AFFINITY OR CONSANGUINITY, BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, SUBORDINATES AND/OR OTHER PERSONS, BY TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF HIS OFFICIAL POSITION, AUTHORITY, RELATIONSHIP, CONNECTION, OR INFLUENCE, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and acquire BY HIMSELF, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or TOTAL VALUE of FOUR BILLION NINETY SEVEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS (P4,097,804,173.17), more or less, THEREBY UNJUSTLY ENRICHING HIMSELF OR THEMSELVES AT THE EXPENSE AND TO THE DAMAGE OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, through ANY OR A combination OR A series of overt OR criminal acts, OR SIMILAR SCHEMES OR MEANS, described as follows:

(a) by receiving OR collecting, directly or indirectly, on SEVERAL INSTANCES, MONEY IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE MILLION PESOS ( P 545,000,000.00), MORE OR LESS, FROM ILLEGAL GAMBLING IN THE FORM OF GIFT, SHARE, PERCENTAGE, KICKBACK OR ANY FORM OF PECUNIARY BENEFIT, BY HIMSELF AND/OR in connection with co-accused CHARLIE 'ATONG' ANG, Jose 'Jinggoy' Estrada, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Edward Serapio, AND JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, in consideration OF TOLERATION OR PROTECTION OF ILLEGAL GAMBLING;

(b) by DIVERTING, RECEIVING, misappropriating, converting OR misusing DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, for HIS OR THEIR PERSONAL gain and benefit, public funds in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION PESOS (P130,000,000.00), more or less, representing a portion of the TWO HUNDRED MILLION PESOS ( P 200,000,000.00) tobacco excise tax share allocated for the province of Ilocos Sur under R.A. No. 7171, by himself and/or in connivance with co-accused Charlie 'Atong' Ang, Alma Alfaro, JOHN DOE a.k.a. Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, AND OTHER JOHN DOES & JANE DOES; (italic supplied).

(c) by directing, ordering and compelling, FOR HIS PERSONAL GAIN AND BENEFIT, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) TO PURCHASE 351,878,000 SHARES OF STOCKS, MORE OR LESS, and the Social Security

System (SSS), 329,855,000 SHARES OF STOCK, MORE OR LESS, OF THE BELLE CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF MORE OR LESS ONE BILLION ONE HUNDRED TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVEN PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS ( P 1,102,965,607.50) AND MORE OR LESS SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY FOUR MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWELVE THOUSAND AND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS ( P 744,612,450.00), RESPECTIVELY, OR A TOTAL OF MORE OR LESS ONE BILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIFTY SEVEN PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS ( P 1,847,578,057.50); AND BY COLLECTING OR RECEIVING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY HIMSELF AND/OR IN CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, COMMISSIONS OR PERCENTAGES BY REASON OF SAID PURCHASES OF SHARES OF STOCK IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS ( P 189,700,000.00) MORE OR LESS, FROM THE BELLE CORPORATION WHICH BECAME PART OF THE DEPOSIT IN THE EQUITABLE-PCI BANK UNDER THE ACCOUNT NAME 'JOSE VELARDE;'

(d) by unjustly enriching himself FROM COMMISSIONS, GIFTS, SHARES, PERCENTAGES, KICKBACKS, OR ANY FORM OF PECUNIARY BENEFITS, IN CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, in the amount of MORE OR LESS THREE BILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THREE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS (P3,233,104,173.17) AND DEPOSITING THE SAME UNDER HIS ACCOUNT NAME 'JOSE VELARDE' AT THE EQUITABLE-PCI BANK."

We discern nothing in the foregoing that is vague or ambiguous - as there is obviously none - that will confuse petitioner in his defense. Although subject to proof, these factual assertions clearly show that the elements of the crime are easily understood and provide adequate contrast between the innocent and the prohibited acts. Upon such unequivocal assertions, petitioner is completely informed of the accusations against him as to enable him to prepare for an intelligent defense.

Petitioner, however, bewails the failure of the law to provide for the statutory definition of the terms "combination" and "series" in the key phrase "a combination or series of overt or criminal acts" found in Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2, and the word "pattern" in Sec. 4. These omissions, according to petitioner, render the Plunder

Law unconstitutional for being impermissibly vague and overbroad and deny him the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, hence, violative of his fundamental right to due process.

The rationalization seems to us to be pure sophistry. A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general terms are used therein, or because of the employment of terms without defining them;vi[6] much less do we have to define every word we use. Besides, there is no positive constitutional or statutory command requiring the legislature to define each and every word in an enactment. Congress is not restricted in the form of expression of its will, and its inability to so define the words employed in a statute will not necessarily result in the vagueness or ambiguity of the law so long as the legislative will is clear, or at least, can be gathered from the whole act, which is distinctly expressed in the Plunder Law.

Moreover, it is a well-settled principle of legal hermeneutics that words of a statute will be interpreted in their natural, plain and ordinary acceptation and signification,vii

[7] unless it is evident that the legislature intended a technical or special legal meaning to those words.viii[8] The intention of the lawmakers - who are, ordinarily, untrained philologists and lexicographers - to use statutory phraseology in such a manner is always presumed. Thus, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary contains the following commonly accepted definition of the words "combination" and "series:"

Combination - the result or product of combining; the act or process of combining. To combine is to bring into such close relationship as to obscure individual characters.

Series - a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial and temporal succession.

That Congress intended the words "combination" and "series" to be understood in their popular meanings is pristinely evident from the legislative deliberations on the bill which eventually became RA 7080 or the Plunder Law:

DELIBERATIONS OF THE BICAMERAL COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, 7 May 1991

REP. ISIDRO: I am just intrigued again by our definition of plunder. We say THROUGH A COMBINATION OR SERIES OF OVERT OR CRIMINAL ACTS AS MENTIONED IN SECTION ONE HEREOF. Now when we say combination, we

actually mean to say, if there are two or more means, we mean to say that number one and two or number one and something else are included, how about a series of the same act? For example, through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, will these be included also?

REP. GARCIA: Yeah, because we say a series.

REP. ISIDRO: Series.

REP. GARCIA: Yeah, we include series.

REP. ISIDRO: But we say we begin with a combination.

REP. GARCIA: Yes.

REP. ISIDRO: When we say combination, it seems that -

REP. GARCIA: Two.

REP. ISIDRO: Not only two but we seem to mean that two of the enumerated means not twice of one enumeration.

REP. GARCIA: No, no, not twice.

REP. ISIDRO: Not twice?

REP. GARCIA: Yes. Combination is not twice - but combination, two acts.

REP. ISIDRO: So in other words, that’s it. When we say combination, we mean, two different acts. It cannot be a repetition of the same act.

REP. GARCIA: That be referred to series, yeah.

REP. ISIDRO: No, no. Supposing one act is repeated, so there are two.

REP. GARCIA: A series.

REP. ISIDRO: That’s not series. Its a combination. Because when we say combination or series, we seem to say that two or more, di ba?

REP. GARCIA: Yes, this distinguishes it really from ordinary crimes. That is why, I said, that is a very good suggestion because if it is only one act, it may fall under ordinary crime but we have here a combination or series of overt or criminal acts. So x x x x

REP. GARCIA: Series. One after the other eh di....

SEN. TANADA: So that would fall under the term “series?”

REP. GARCIA: Series, oo.

REP. ISIDRO: Now, if it is a combination, ano, two misappropriations....

REP. GARCIA: Its not... Two misappropriations will not be combination. Series.

REP. ISIDRO: So, it is not a combination?

REP. GARCIA: Yes.

REP. ISIDRO: When you say combination, two different?

REP. GARCIA: Yes.

SEN. TANADA: Two different.

REP. ISIDRO: Two different acts.

REP. GARCIA: For example, ha...

REP. ISIDRO: Now a series, meaning, repetition...

DELIBERATIONS ON SENATE BILL NO. 733, 6 June 1989

SENATOR MACEDA: In line with our interpellations that sometimes “one” or maybe even “two” acts may already result in such a big amount, on line 25, would the

Sponsor consider deleting the words “a series of overt or,” to read, therefore: “or conspiracy COMMITTED by criminal acts such as.” Remove the idea of necessitating “a series.” Anyway, the criminal acts are in the plural.

SENATOR TANADA: That would mean a combination of two or more of the acts mentioned in this.

THE PRESIDENT: Probably two or more would be....

SENATOR MACEDA: Yes, because “a series” implies several or many; two or more.

SENATOR TANADA: Accepted, Mr. President x x x x

THE PRESIDENT: If there is only one, then he has to be prosecuted under the particular crime. But when we say “acts of plunder” there should be, at least, two or more.

SENATOR ROMULO: In other words, that is already covered by existing laws, Mr. President.

Thus when the Plunder Law speaks of "combination," it is referring to at least two (2) acts falling under different categories of enumeration provided in Sec. 1, par. (d), e.g., raids on the public treasury in Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1), and fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the National Government under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (3).

On the other hand, to constitute a series" there must be two (2) or more overt or criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration found in Sec. 1, par. (d), say, misappropriation, malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which fall under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1). Verily, had the legislature intended a technical or distinctive meaning for "combination" and "series," it would have taken greater pains in specifically providing for it in the law.

As for "pattern," we agree with the observations of the Sandiganbayanix[9] that this term is sufficiently defined in Sec. 4, in relation to Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2 -

x x x x under Sec. 1 (d) of the law, a 'pattern' consists of at least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in subsections (1) to (6) of Sec. 1 (d).

Secondly, pursuant to Sec. 2 of the law, the pattern of overt or criminal acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal which is to enable the public officer to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. And thirdly, there must either be an 'overall unlawful scheme' or 'conspiracy' to achieve said common goal. As commonly understood, the term 'overall unlawful scheme' indicates a 'general plan of action or method' which the principal accused and public officer and others conniving with him follow to achieve the aforesaid common goal. In the alternative, if there is no such overall scheme or where the schemes or methods used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy to attain a common goal.

Hence, it cannot plausibly be contended that the law does not give a fair warning and sufficient notice of what it seeks to penalize. Under the circumstances, petitioner's reliance on the "void-for-vagueness" doctrine is manifestly misplaced. The doctrine has been formulated in various ways, but is most commonly stated to the effect that a statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute. It can only be invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction.

A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. In such instance, the statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects - it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; and, it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.x[10] But the doctrine does not apply as against legislations that are merely couched in imprecise language but which nonetheless specify a standard though defectively phrased; or to those that are apparently ambiguous yet fairly applicable to certain types of activities. The first may be "saved" by proper construction, while no challenge may be mounted as against the second whenever directed against such activities.xi[11] With more reason, the doctrine cannot be invoked where the assailed statute is clear and free from ambiguity, as in this case.

The test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty is whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice.xii[12] It must be stressed, however, that the "vagueness" doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of

certainty for the statute to be upheld - not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude, as petitioner seems to suggest. Flexibility, rather than meticulous specificity, is permissible as long as the metes and bounds of the statute are clearly delineated. An act will not be held invalid merely because it might have been more explicit in its wordings or detailed in its provisions, especially where, because of the nature of the act, it would be impossible to provide all the details in advance as in all other statutes.

Moreover, we agree with, hence we adopt, the observations of Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza during the deliberations of the Court that the allegations that the Plunder Law is vague and overbroad do not justify a facial review of its validity -

The void-for-vagueness doctrine states that "a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law."xiii[13] The overbreadth doctrine, on the other hand, decrees that "a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms."xiv[14]

A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible "chilling effect" upon protected speech. The theory is that "[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity."xv[15] The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of others may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes.

This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. In the area of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech.

The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then have special application only to free speech cases. They are inapt for testing the validity of penal statutes. As the U.S.

Supreme Court put it, in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, "we have not recognized an 'overbreadth' doctrine outside the limited context of the First Amendment."xvi[16] In Broadrick v. Oklahoma,xvii[17] the Court ruled that "claims of facial overbreadth have been entertained in cases involving statutes which, by their terms, seek to regulate only spoken words" and, again, that "overbreadth claims, if entertained at all, have been curtailed when invoked against ordinary criminal laws that are sought to be applied to protected conduct." For this reason, it has been held that "a facial challenge to a legislative act is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid."xviii[18] As for the vagueness doctrine, it is said that a litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it is vague in all its possible applications. "A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others."xix[19]

In sum, the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and vagueness are analytical tools developed for testing "on their faces" statutes in free speech cases or, as they are called in American law, First Amendment cases. They cannot be made to do service when what is involved is a criminal statute. With respect to such statute, the established rule is that "one to whom application of a statute is constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional."xx[20]As has been pointed out, "vagueness challenges in the First Amendment context, like overbreadth challenges typically produce facial invalidation, while statutes found vague as a matter of due process typically are invalidated [only] 'as applied' to a particular defendant."xxi[21] Consequently, there is no basis for petitioner's claim that this Court review the Anti-Plunder Law on its face and in its entirety.

Indeed, "on its face" invalidation of statutes results in striking them down entirely on the ground that they might be applied to parties not before the Court whose activities are constitutionally protected.xxii[22] It constitutes a departure from the case and controversy requirement of the Constitution and permits decisions to be made without concrete factual settings and in sterile abstract contexts.xxiii[23] But, as the U.S. Supreme Court pointed out in Younger v. Harrisxxiv[24]

[T]he task of analyzing a proposed statute, pinpointing its deficiencies, and requiring correction of these deficiencies before the statute is put into effect, is rarely if ever an appropriate task for the judiciary. The combination of the relative remoteness of the

controversy, the impact on the legislative process of the relief sought, and above all the speculative and amorphous nature of the required line-by-line analysis of detailed statutes, . . . ordinarily results in a kind of case that is wholly unsatisfactory for deciding constitutional questions, whichever way they might be decided.

For these reasons, "on its face" invalidation of statutes has been described as "manifestly strong medicine," to be employed "sparingly and only as a last resort,"xxv[25] and is generally disfavored.xxvi[26] In determining the constitutionality of a statute, therefore, its provisions which are alleged to have been violated in a case must be examined in the light of the conduct with which the defendant is charged.xxvii

[27]

In light of the foregoing disquisition, it is evident that the purported ambiguity of the Plunder Law, so tenaciously claimed and argued at length by petitioner, is more imagined than real. Ambiguity, where none exists, cannot be created by dissecting parts and words in the statute to furnish support to critics who cavil at the want of scientific precision in the law. Every provision of the law should be construed in relation and with reference to every other part. To be sure, it will take more than nitpicking to overturn the well-entrenched presumption of constitutionality and validity of the Plunder Law. A fortiori, petitioner cannot feign ignorance of what the Plunder Law is all about. Being one of the Senators who voted for its passage, petitioner must be aware that the law was extensively deliberated upon by the Senate and its appropriate committees by reason of which he even registered his affirmative vote with full knowledge of its legal implications and sound constitutional anchorage.

The parallel case of Gallego v. Sandiganbayanxxviii[28] must be mentioned if only to illustrate and emphasize the point that courts are loathed to declare a statute void for uncertainty unless the law itself is so imperfect and deficient in its details, and is susceptible of no reasonable construction that will support and give it effect. In that case, petitioners Gallego and Agoncillo challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 3, par. (e), of TheAnti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for being vague. Petitioners posited, among others, that the term "unwarranted" is highly imprecise and elastic with no common law meaning or settled definition by prior judicial or administrative precedents; that, for its vagueness, Sec. 3, par. (e), violates due process in that it does not give fair warning or sufficient notice of what it seeks to penalize. Petitioners further argued that the Information charged them with three (3) distinct offenses, to wit: (a) giving of "unwarranted" benefits through manifest partiality; (b) giving of "unwarranted" benefits through evident bad faith; and, (c) giving of "unwarranted" benefits through gross inexcusable negligence while in the discharge of their official

function and that their right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them was violated because they were left to guess which of the three (3) offenses, if not all, they were being charged and prosecuted.

In dismissing the petition, this Court held that Sec. 3, par. (e), of The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act does not suffer from the constitutional defect of vagueness. The phrases "manifest partiality," "evident bad faith," and "gross and inexcusable negligence" merely describe the different modes by which the offense penalized in Sec. 3, par. (e), of the statute may be committed, and the use of all these phrases in the same Information does not mean that the indictment charges three (3) distinct offenses.

The word 'unwarranted' is not uncertain. It seems lacking adequate or official support; unjustified; unauthorized (Webster, Third International Dictionary, p. 2514); or without justification or adequate reason (Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. US Dept. of Justice, C.D. Pa., 405 F. Supp. 8, 12, cited in Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Vol. 43-A 1978, Cumulative Annual Pocket Part, p. 19).

The assailed provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act consider a corrupt practice and make unlawful the act of the public officer in:

x x x or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, x x x (Section 3 [e], Rep. Act 3019, as amended).

It is not at all difficult to comprehend that what the aforequoted penal provisions penalize is the act of a public officer, in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions, in giving any private party benefits, advantage or preference which is unjustified, unauthorized or without justification or adequate reason, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

In other words, this Court found that there was nothing vague or ambiguous in the use of the term "unwarranted" in Sec. 3, par. (e), of The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which was understood in its primary and general acceptation. Consequently, in that case, petitioners' objection thereto was held inadequate to declare the section unconstitutional.

On the second issue, petitioner advances the highly stretched theory that Sec. 4 of the Plunder Law circumvents the immutable obligation of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the predicate acts constituting the crime of plunder when it requires only proof of a pattern of overt or criminal acts showing unlawful scheme or conspiracy -

SEC. 4.Rule of Evidence. - For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.

The running fault in this reasoning is obvious even to the simplistic mind. In a criminal prosecution for plunder, as in all other crimes, the accused always has in his favor the presumption of innocence which is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and unless the State succeeds in demonstrating by proof beyond reasonable doubt that culpability lies, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.xxix[29] The use of the "reasonable doubt" standard is indispensable to command the respect and confidence of the community in the application of criminal law. It is critical that the moral force of criminal law be not diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned. It is also important in our free society that every individual going about his ordinary affairs has confidence that his government cannot adjudge him guilty of a criminal offense without convincing a proper factfinder of his guilt with utmost certainty. This "reasonable doubt" standard has acquired such exalted stature in the realm of constitutional law as it gives life to the Due Process Clause which protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.xxx[30]The following exchanges between Rep. Rodolfo Albano and Rep. Pablo Garcia on this score during the deliberations in the floor of the House of Representatives are elucidating -

DELIBERATIONS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON RA 7080, 9 October 1990

MR. ALBANO: Now, Mr. Speaker, it is also elementary in our criminal law that what is alleged in the information must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If we will prove only one act and find him guilty of the other acts enumerated in the information, does that not work against the right of the accused especially so if the amount committed, say, by falsification is less than P100 million, but the totality of

the crime committed is P100 million since there is malversation, bribery, falsification of public document, coercion, theft?

MR. GARCIA: Mr. Speaker, not everything alleged in the information needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. What is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt is every element of the crime charged. For example, Mr. Speaker, there is an enumeration of the things taken by the robber in the information – three pairs of pants, pieces of jewelry. These need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but these will not prevent the conviction of a crime for which he was charged just because, say, instead of 3 pairs of diamond earrings the prosecution proved two. Now, what is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt is the element of the offense.

MR. ALBANO: I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but considering that in the crime of plunder the totality of the amount is very important, I feel that such a series of overt criminal acts has to be taken singly. For instance, in the act of bribery, he was able to accumulate only P50,000 and in the crime of extortion, he was only able to accumulate P1 million. Now, when we add the totality of the other acts as required under this bill through the interpretation on the rule of evidence, it is just one single act, so how can we now convict him?

MR. GARCIA: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, for purposes of proving an essential element of the crime, there is a need to prove that element beyond reasonable doubt. For example, one essential element of the crime is that the amount involved is P100 million. Now, in a series of defalcations and other acts of corruption in the enumeration the total amount would be P110 or P120 million, but there are certain acts that could not be proved, so, we will sum up the amounts involved in those transactions which were proved. Now, if the amount involved in these transactions, proved beyond reasonable doubt, is P100 million, then there is a crime of plunder (underscoring supplied).

It is thus plain from the foregoing that the legislature did not in any manner refashion the standard quantum of proof in the crime of plunder. The burden still remains with the prosecution to prove beyond any iota of doubt every fact or element necessary to constitute the crime.

The thesis that Sec. 4 does away with proof of each and every component of the crime suffers from a dismal misconception of the import of that provision. What the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt is only a number of acts

sufficient to form a combination or series which would constitute a pattern and involving an amount of at least P50,000,000.00. There is no need to prove each and every other act alleged in the Information to have been committed by the accused in furtherance of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. To illustrate, supposing that the accused is charged in an Information for plunder with having committed fifty (50) raids on the public treasury. The prosecution need not prove all these fifty (50) raids, it being sufficient to prove by pattern at least two (2) of the raids beyond reasonable doubt provided only that they amounted to at least P50,000,000.00.xxxi[31]

A reading of Sec. 2 in conjunction with Sec. 4, brings us to the logical conclusion that "pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy" inheres in the very acts of accumulating, acquiring or amassing hidden wealth. Stated otherwise, such pattern arises where the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the predicate acts as defined in Sec. 1, par. (d). Pattern is merely a by-product of the proof of the predicate acts. This conclusion is consistent with reason and common sense. There would be no other explanation for a combination or series of

overt or criminal acts to stash P50,000,000.00 or more, than "a scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill gotten wealth." The prosecution is therefore not required to make a deliberate and conscious effort to prove pattern as it necessarily follows with the establishment of a series or combination of the predicate acts.

Relative to petitioner's contentions on the purported defect of Sec. 4 is his submission that "pattern" is "a very important element of the crime of plunder;" and that Sec. 4 is "two pronged, (as) it contains a rule of evidence and a substantive element of the crime," such that without it the accused cannot be convicted of plunder -

JUSTICE BELLOSILLO: In other words, cannot an accused be convicted under the Plunder Law without applying Section 4 on the Rule of Evidence if there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of the commission of the acts complained of?

ATTY. AGABIN: In that case he can be convicted of individual crimes enumerated in the Revised Penal Code, but not plunder.

JUSTICE BELLOSILLO: In other words, if all the elements of the crime are proved beyond reasonable doubt without applying Section 4, can you not have a conviction under the Plunder Law?

ATTY. AGABIN: Not a conviction for plunder, your Honor.

JUSTICE BELLOSILLO: Can you not disregard the application of Sec. 4 in convicting an accused charged for violation of the Plunder Law?

ATTY. AGABIN: Well, your Honor, in the first place Section 4 lays down a substantive element of the law x x x x

JUSTICE BELLOSILLO: What I said is - do we have to avail of Section 4 when there is proof beyond reasonable doubt on the acts charged constituting plunder?

ATTY. AGABIN: Yes, your Honor, because Section 4 is two pronged, it contains a rule of evidence and it contains a substantive element of the crime of plunder. So, there is no way by which we can avoid Section 4.

JUSTICE BELLOSILLO: But there is proof beyond reasonable doubt insofar as the predicate crimes charged are concerned that you do not have to go that far by applying Section 4?

ATTY. AGABIN: Your Honor, our thinking is that Section 4 contains a very important element of the crime of plunder and that cannot be avoided by the prosecution.xxxii[32]

We do not subscribe to petitioner's stand. Primarily, all the essential elements of plunder can be culled and understood from its definition in Sec. 2, in relation to Sec. 1, par. (d), and "pattern" is not one of them. Moreover, the epigraph and opening clause of Sec. 4 is clear and unequivocal:

SEC. 4.Rule of Evidence . - For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder x x x x

It purports to do no more than prescribe a rule of procedure for the prosecution of a criminal case for plunder. Being a purely procedural measure, Sec. 4 does not define or establish any substantive right in favor of the accused but only operates in furtherance of a remedy. It is only a means to an end, an aid to substantive law. Indubitably, even without invoking Sec. 4, a conviction for plunder may be had, for what is crucial for the prosecution is to present sufficient evidence to engender that moral certitude exacted by the fundamental law to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, even granting for the sake of argument that Sec. 4 is

flawed and vitiated for the reasons advanced by petitioner, it may simply be severed from the rest of the provisions without necessarily resulting in the demise of the law; after all, the existing rules on evidence can supplant Sec. 4 more than enough. Besides, Sec. 7 of RA 7080 provides for a separability clause -

Sec. 7.Separability of Provisions. - If any provisions of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions of this Act and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Implicit in the foregoing section is that to avoid the whole act from being declared invalid as a result of the nullity of some of its provisions, assuming that to be the case although it is not really so, all the provisions thereof should accordingly be treated independently of each other, especially if by doing so, the objectives of the statute can best be achieved.

As regards the third issue, again we agree with Justice Mendoza that plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent. Thus, he says, in his Concurring Opinion -

x x x Precisely because the constitutive crimes are mala in se the element of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is noteworthy that the amended information alleges that the crime of plunder was committed "willfully, unlawfully and criminally." It thus alleges guilty knowledge on the part of petitioner.

In support of his contention that the statute eliminates the requirement of mens rea and that is the reason he claims the statute is void, petitioner cites the following remarks of Senator Tañada made during the deliberation on S.B. No. 733:

SENATOR TAÑADA . . . And the evidence that will be required to convict him would not be evidence for each and every individual criminal act but only evidence sufficient to establish the conspiracy or scheme to commit this crime of plunder.xxxiii

[33]

However, Senator Tañada was discussing §4 as shown by the succeeding portion of the transcript quoted by petitioner:

SENATOR ROMULO: And, Mr. President, the Gentleman feels that it is contained in Section 4, Rule of Evidence, which, in the Gentleman's view, would provide for a speedier and faster process of attending to this kind of cases?

SENATOR TAÑADA: Yes, Mr. President . . .xxxiv[34]

Senator Tañada was only saying that where the charge is conspiracy to commit plunder, the prosecution need not prove each and every criminal act done to further the scheme or conspiracy, it being enough if it proves beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or ciminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy. As far as the acts constituting the pattern are concerned, however, the elements of the crime must be proved and the requisite mens rea must be shown.

Indeed, §2 provides that -

Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court.

The application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances in the Revised Penal Code to prosecutions under the Anti-Plunder Law indicates quite clearly that mens rea is an element of plunder since the degree of responsibility of the offender is determined by his criminal intent. It is true that §2 refers to "any person who participates with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder." There is no reason to believe, however, that it does not apply as well to the public officer as principal in the crime. As Justice Holmes said: "We agree to all the generalities about not supplying criminal laws with what they omit, but there is no canon against using common sense in construing laws as saying what they obviously mean."xxxv[35]

Finally, any doubt as to whether the crime of plunder is a malum in se must be deemed to have been resolved in the affirmative by the decision of Congress in 1993 to include it among the heinous crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Other heinous crimes are punished with death as a straight penalty in R.A. No. 7659. Referring to these groups of heinous crimes, this Court held in People v. Echegaray:xxxvi[36]

The evil of a crime may take various forms. There are crimes that are, by their very nature, despicable, either because life was callously taken or the victim is treated like an animal and utterly dehumanized as to completely disrupt the normal course of his or her growth as a human being . . . . Seen in this light, the capital crimes of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom resulting in the death of the victim or the victim is raped, tortured, or subjected to dehumanizing acts; destructive arson resulting in death; and drug offenses involving minors or resulting in the death of the victim in the case of other crimes; as well as murder, rape, parricide, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention, where the victim is detained for more than three days or serious physical injuries were inflicted on the victim or threats to kill him were made or the victim is a minor, robbery with homicide, rape or intentional mutilation, destructive arson, and carnapping where the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped, which are penalized by reclusion perpetua to death, are clearly heinous by their very nature.

There are crimes, however, in which the abomination lies in the significance and implications of the subject criminal acts in the scheme of the larger socio-political and economic context in which the state finds itself to be struggling to develop and provide for its poor and underprivileged masses. Reeling from decades of corrupt tyrannical rule that bankrupted the government and impoverished the population, the Philippine Government must muster the political will to dismantle the culture of corruption, dishonesty, greed and syndicated criminality that so deeply entrenched itself in the structures of society and the psyche of the populace. [With the government] terribly lacking the money to provide even the most basic services to its people, any form of misappropriation or misapplication of government funds translates to an actual threat to the very existence of government, and in turn, the very survival of the people it governs over. Viewed in this context, no less heinous are the effects and repercussions of crimes like qualified bribery, destructive arson resulting in death, and drug offenses involving government officials, employees or officers, that their perpetrators must not be allowed to cause further destruction and damage to society.

The legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. For when the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they are mala in sexxxvii[37] and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a special law, especially since in the case of plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. Indeed, it would be absurd to treat prosecutions for plunder as though they are mere prosecutions for violations of the Bouncing Check Law (B.P.

Blg. 22) or of an ordinance against jaywalking, without regard to the inherent wrongness of the acts.

To clinch, petitioner likewise assails the validity of RA 7659, the amendatory law of RA 7080, on constitutional grounds. Suffice it to say however that it is now too late in the day for him to resurrect this long dead issue, the same having been eternally consigned by People v. Echegarayxxxviii[38] to the archives of jurisprudential history. The declaration of this Court therein that RA 7659 is constitutionally valid stands as a declaration of the State, and becomes, by necessary effect, assimilated in the Constitution now as an integral part of it.

Our nation has been racked by scandals of corruption and obscene profligacy of officials in high places which have shaken its very foundation. The anatomy of graft and corruption has become more elaborate in the corridors of time as unscrupulous people relentlessly contrive more and more ingenious ways to bilk the coffers of the government. Drastic and radical measures are imperative to fight the increasingly sophisticated, extraordinarily methodical and economically catastrophic looting of the national treasury. Such is the Plunder Law, especially designed to disentangle those ghastly tissues of grand-scale corruption which, if left unchecked, will spread like a malignant tumor and ultimately consume the moral and institutional fiber of our nation. The Plunder Law, indeed, is a living testament to the will of the legislature to ultimately eradicate this scourge and thus secure society against the avarice and other venalities in public office.

These are times that try men's souls. In the checkered history of this nation, few issues of national importance can equal the amount of interest and passion generated by petitioner's ignominious fall from the highest office, and his eventual prosecution and trial under a virginal statute. This continuing saga has driven a wedge of dissension among our people that may linger for a long time. Only by responding to the clarion call for patriotism, to rise above factionalism and prejudices, shall we emerge triumphant in the midst of ferment.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court holds that RA 7080 otherwise known as the Plunder Law, as amended by RA 7659, is CONSTITUTIONAL. Consequently, the petition to declare the law unconstitutional is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. WALPAN LADJAALAM y MIHAJIL alias “WARPAN,” appellant.

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Republic Act No. 8294 penalizes simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that the person arrested committed “no other crime.” Furthermore, if the person is held liable for murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms is an aggravating circumstance, but not a separate offense. Hence, where an accused was convicted of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide for firing an unlicensed M-14 rifle at several policemen who were about to serve a search warrant, he cannot be held guilty of the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms. Neither can such unlawful act be considered to have aggravated the direct assault.

The Case

Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil, also known as “Warpan,” appeals before us the September 17, 1998 Decisionxxxix[1] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City (Branch 16), which found him guilty of three out of the four charges lodged against him.

Filed against appellant were four Informations,xl[2] all signed by Assistant Regional State Prosecutor Ricardo G. Cabaron and dated September 25, 1997. The first Informationxli[3] was for maintaining a den for the use of regulated drugs. It reads as follows:

“That on or about September 24, 1997, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Walpan Ladjaalam being then the owner of a residential house located at Rio Hondo,xlii[4]this City, conspiring and confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting x x x his co-accused wife Nur-in Ladjaalam and Ahmad Sailabbi y Hajaraini, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, maintain said house as a den, where regulated drug [was] used in any form.”xliii[5]

The second Informationxliv[6] charged appellant with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. We quote it below:

“That on or about September 24, 1997, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting with one another, without any justifiable reason or purpose other than to use it in the commission of crime, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in their possession and under their custody and control, the following weapons, to wit: one (1) M14 rifle with SN 1555225 with magazines and seven (7) rounds of live ammunition; two (2) magazines with twenty (20) and twenty[-one] (21) rounds of live [ammunition]; one (1) homemade caliber .38 revolver with five (5) live ammunition; one (1) M-79 (single) rifle with pouch and with five (5) empty shell[s]; one (1) home made caliber .38 with SN-311092 with five live ammunition and one empty shell of [a] cal. 38 x x x Smith and Wesson; two (2) .38 Caliber paltik revolver with Serial Number 311092 and one defaced M79 grenade launcher paltik, without first having obtained the necessary license and or permit therefor from authorities concerned, in flagrant violation of the aforementioned law.”xlv[7]

The third Information,xlvi[8] for multiple attempted murder with direct assault, was worded thus:

“That on or about September 24, 1997, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being then armed with M-14 Armalite Rifles, M-16 Armalite Rifles and other assorted firearms and explosives, conspiring and confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting x x x one another and with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously try and attempt to kill SPO1 WILLIAM B. JONES, JR., PO3 ENRIQUE C. RIVERA[,] SPO1 AMADO A. MIRASOL, JR., and SPO1 RICARDO J. LACASTESANTOS, in the following manner, to wit: by then and there firing their M-14 x x x Armalite Rifles, M-16 Armalite Rifles and other assorted firearms and explosives, aimed and directed at the fatal parts of the bodies of the above-named police officers, well known to the accused as members of the Philippine National Police, Zamboanga City Police Office, and as such, agents of a person in authority, who at the time of the attack were engaged in the performance of their duties, that is, on the occasion when said officers were about to serve the Search Warrant legally issued by the Regional Trial Court, this City, to the person of the accused thus commencing the commission of crime of multiple murder directly by overt acts, and if the accused did not accomplish their unlawful purpose, that is, to kill the above-named Police Officers, it was not by reason of their own voluntary desistance but rather because of the fact that all the above-named police officers were able to seek cover during the firing and were not hit by the bullets and explosives fired by the

accused and also by the fact said police officers were able to wrestle with two (2) of the accused namely: Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil a.k.a. ‘Warpan’ and Ahmad Sailabbi y Hajairani, who were subdued and subsequently placed under arrest; whereas accused PO2 Nurhakim T. Hadjula was able to make good his escape and has remained at-large.”xlvii[9]

In the fourth Information, appellant was charged with illegal possession of drugs.xlviii

[10]

On December 21, 1997, the cases against Nur-in Ladjaalam and Ahmad Sailabbi y Hajaraini were dismissed upon motion of the Office of the City Prosecutor, which had conducted a reinvestigation of the cases as ordered by the lower court. The accused were consequently released from jail.

The arraignment of appellant on all four (4) charges took place on January 6, 1998, during which he entered a plea of not guilty.xlix[11] After pretrial, the assailed Decision was rendered, the dispositive part of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused WALPAN LADJAALAM y MIHAJIL a.k.a. ‘WARPAN’ -

“1. in Criminal Case No. 14636, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section 15-A, Article III, of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, and SENTENCES said accused to the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) and to pay the costs;

“2. In Criminal Case No. 14637, NOT GUILTY of Violation of Section 16, Article III, in relation to Section 21, Article IV, of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, and ACQUITS him of said crime with costs de oficio;

“3. in Criminal Case No. 14638, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition penalized under Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act. No. 8294, and SENTENCES said accused to suffer an indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS of prision mayor as maximum and to pay a fine [of] THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00) and pay the costs;

“4. in Criminal Case No. 14639, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide and SENTENCES said accused to an indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of prision correccional as minimum to SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional as maximum and to pay a fine of ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) and to pay the costs.” (emphasis in the original)

Hence, this appeal.l[12]

The Facts

Prosecution’s Version

In its Brief,li[13] the Office of the Solicitor General presents the facts in this wise:

“At 1:45 p.m. of September 24, 1997, PO3 Allan Marcos Obut filed an application for the issuance of a search warrant against appellant, his wife and some John Does (Exh. C). After the search warrant was issued about 2:30 p.m. of the same day, a briefing was conducted inside the office of the Anti-Vice/Narcotics Unit of the Zamboanga City Police Office in connection with the service of the search warrant. The briefing was conducted by SPO2 Felipe Gaganting, Chief of the Anti-Vice/Narcotics Unit. During the briefing, PO3 Renato Dela Peña was assigned as presentor of the warrant. SPO1 Ricardo Lacastesantos and PO3 Enrique Rivera were designated to conduct the search. Other policemen were assigned as perimeter guards (TSN, March 3, 1998, pp. 33-36).

“After the briefing, more than thirty (30) policemen headed by Police Superintendent Edwin Soledad proceeded to the house of appellant and his wife at Rio Hondo on board several police vehicles (TSN, March 4, 1998, p. 32; April 22, 1998, p. 54). Before they could reach appellant’s house, three (3) persons sitting at a nearby store ran towards the house shouting, ‘[P]olice, raid, raid’ (Ibid., March 3, 1998, pp. 41, 43-44; April 23, 1998, p. 4). When the policemen were about ten (10) meters from the main gate of the house, they were met by a rapid burst of gunfire coming from the second floor of the house. There was also gunfire at the back of the house (Ibid., March 5, 1998, pp. 14-16).

“SPO1 Mirasol, SPO2 Lacastesantos, PO3 Rivera, and PO3 Dela Peña who were with the first group of policemen saw appellant fire an M14 rifle towards them. They all knew appellant. When they were fired upon, the group, together with SPO2

Gaganting, PO3 Obut and Superintendent Soledad, sought cover at the concrete fence to observe the movements at the second floor of the house while other policemen surrounded the house (Ibid., March 4, 1998, pp. 50-51).

“In front of the house was an extension building connected to the concrete fence (Ibid., pp. 45-46, 57-59, 73-76). Gaganting, Mirasol, Lacastesantos, Gregorio, and Obut entered the door of the extension building. Gaganting opened the main (steel) gate of the house. The other members of the team then entered. Lacastesantos and Mirasol entered the house through the main door and went inside the sala of the ground floor while other policemen surrounded the house. Two (2) old women were in the sala together with a young girl and three (3) children. One of the old women took the children to the second floor while the young girl remained seated at the corner (Ibid., pp. 19-21).

“Lacastesantos and Mirasol proceeded to the second floor where they earlier saw appellant firing an M14 rifle at them through the window. While they were going upstairs, appellant noticed their presence. He went inside the bedroom and, after breaking and removing the jalousies, jumped from the window to the roof of a neighboring house. Seeing this, Mirasol rushed downstairs and asked help from the other members of the raiding team to arrest appellant. Lacastesantos went to the second floor and shouted to the policemen outside not to fire in the direction of the second floor because there were children. Mirasol and SPO1 Cesar Rabuya arrested appellant at the back of his house after a brief chase (Ibid., pp. 21-23).

“At the second floor, Lacastesantos saw an M14 rifle (Exh. B-3) with magazine on top of the sofa at the sala on the second floor (Ibid., P. 27). The rifle bore Serial No. 1555225. He removed the magazine from the rifle and the bullet inside the chamber of the rifle. He counted seventeen (17) live ammunition inside the magazine. He saw two (2) more M14 rifle magazines on the sofa, one with twenty (20) live ammunition (Exh.G-3) and another with twenty-one (21) live ammunition (Exh.G-4). He likewise saw three (3) M16 rifle magazines (Exh. G-2) in a corner at the second floor (TSN, March 5, 1998, pp. 23-32, 53-57).

“After Lacastesantos and Mirasol entered appellant’s house, Rivera, Dela Peña, Gregorio and Obut followed and entered the house. After identifying themselves as members of the PNP Anti-Vice/Narcotics Unit, Obut presented to the old women a copy of the search warrant. Dela Peña and Rivera then searched appellant’s room on the ground floor in the presence of Punong Barangay Elhano (TSN, March 3, 1998, pp. 41-43). On top of a table was a pencil case (Exh. J) with fifty (50) folded

aluminum foils inside (Exhs. J-1 to J-50), each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or ‘shabu’.

“Other items were found during the search, namely, assorted coins in different denominations (Exh. W; TSN, April 28, 1998, pp. 23-25), one (1) homemade .38 caliber revolver (Exh. B-2) with five (5) live [ammunition], one (1) M79 single rifle with [a] pouch containing five (5) empty shells of an M79 rifle (Exh. B-4), and one (1) empty shell of an M14 rifle (TSN, April 23, 1998, pp. 30-32).

“Rino Bartolome Locson was an informer of the Anti-Vice/Narcotics Unit of the Zamboanga Police. [O]n the morning of September 24, 1997, he was instructed by SPO2 Gaganting to go to appellant’s house to buy ‘shabu.’ Locson knew appellant as a seller of ‘shabu’ (TSN, April 22, 1998, p. 5) and had been to appellant’s house about fifteen (15) times before. He went to Rio Hondo and arrived at appellant’s house at 3:20 p.m. He bought P300.00 worth of ‘shabu’ from appellant. The latter got three (3) decks of shabu from his waist bag. Appellant instructed Locson to go behind the curtain where there was a table. There were six (6) persons already smoking. There was a lighted kerosene lamp made of a medicine bottle placed on the table. They asked Locson to smoke ‘shabu’ and Locson obliged. He placed the three (3) decks of ‘shabu’ he bought on the table (Ibid., pp. 8-15).

“While they were smoking ‘shabu,’ Locson heard gunfire coming from appellant’s house. They all stood and entered appellant’s compound but were instructed to pass [through] the other side. They met appellant at the back of his house. Appellant told them to escape ‘because the police are already here.’ They scampered and ‘ran away because there were already shots.’ Locson jumped over the fence and ran towards the seashore. Upon reaching a place near the Fisheries School, he took a tricycle and went home (Ibid., pp. 17-19).

“The following day, September 25, 1997, he went to the police station and executed an affidavit (Exh. M) narrating what transpired at appellant’s house [o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997.

“After the search and before returning to the police station, P03 Dela Peña prepared a ‘Receipt for Property Seized’ (Exh. P & 3) listing the properties seized during the search. The receipt was signed by Dela Peña as the seizure officer, and by Punong Barangay Hadji Hussin Elhano and radio reporter Jun Cayona as witnesses. A copy of the receipt was given to appellant but he refused to acknowledge the properties seized (TSN, April 23, 1998, pp. 11-12).

“An examination conducted by Police Inspector Mercedes D. Diestro, Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service Office 9, on the paraffin casts taken from both hands of appellant yielded positive for gunpowder nitrates (Exh. A-3), giving rise to the possibility that appellant had fired a gun before the examination (TSN, March 3, 1998, p. 11). Gunpowder residue examinations conducted on September 26, 1997 showed that the following firearms ‘were fired’ (Exh. B-5): a .38 caliber revolver (homemade) with Serial No. 311092 (Exh. B-1), another .38 caliber revolver (homemade) without a serial number (Exh.B-2), a Cal. 7.62 mm M14 U.S. rifle with Serial No. 1555225 (Exh.B-3), and an M79 rifle without a serial number (Exh. B-4). They were fired within five (5) days prior to the examination (TSN, March 3, 1998, pp. 16-21).

“With respect to the crystalline substances, an examination conducted by Police Inspector Susan M. Cayabyab, likewise a Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service Office 9, on the fifty (50) pieces of folded aluminum foils each containing white crystalline granules with a total weight of 1.7426 grams (Exh. J-1 to J-50) yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) (Exh. L). However, the examination of one (1) crystalline stone weighing 83.2674 grams (Exh. K) yielded negative results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (Exh. L).

“The records of the Regional Operation and Plans Division of the PNP Firearm and Explosive Section show that appellant ‘had not applied/filed any application for license to possess firearm and ammunition or x x x been given authority to carry [a] firearm outside of his residence’ (Exh. X)”lii[14]

Defense’s Version

Appellant Ladjaalam agrees with the narration of facts given by the lower court.liii[15] Hence, we quote the pertinent parts of the assailed Decision:

“Accused Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil a.k.a. ‘Warpan’, 30 years old, married, gave his occupation as ‘smuggling’ (tsn, p. 2, May 4, 1998). He used to go to Labuan in Malaysia and bring cigarettes to the Philippines without paying taxes (tsn, pp. 40-41, id). He said that his true name [was] Abdul Nasser Abdurakman and that Warpan or Walpan Ladjaalam [was] only his ‘alias’. However, he admitted that more people kn[e]w him as Walpan Ladjaalam rather than Abdul Nasser Abdurakman (tsn. pp. 39-40; 46-47, id). He testified that [o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997, when he was arrested by the police, he was sleeping in the house of Dandao, a relative of his

wife. He was alone. He slept in Dandao’s house and not in his house because they ha[d] ‘a sort of a conference’ as Dandao’s daughter was leaving for Saudi Arabia. He noticed the presence of policemen in his neighborhood at Aplaya, Rio Hondo when he heard shots. He woke up and went out of the house and that was the time that he was arrested. He said he was arrested ‘xxx [at] the other side of my house; at the other side of the fence where I was sleeping. xxx. At the back of my house’ (tsn, p. 7, id.). He does not know who arrested him ‘considering that the one who arrested me does not have nameplate.’ He was arrested by four (4) persons. Not one of those who arrested him testified in Court. He was handcuffed and placed inside a jeep parked at Rio Hondo Elementary School. According to him, he did not fire a gun at the policemen from [t]he second floor of his house. He said the ‘policemen’ [were] ‘the one[s] who fire[d] at us’ (tsn, p. 5, id.). If he fired a gun at the policemen for sure they [would] die ‘[b]ecause the door is very near x x x the vicinity of my house’. He does not own the M14 rifle (Exh. ‘B-3’) which according to policemen, he used in firing at them. The gun does not belong to him. He does not have a gun like that (tsn, p. 15, id.). A policeman also owns an M14 rifle but he does not know the policeman (tsn, pp. 16-17, id). He said that the M79 rifle (Exh. ‘B-4’), the three (3) empty M16 rifle magazines (Exh. ‘G’; ‘G-1’ to ‘G-2’), the two (2) M14 magazines with live ammunition (Exh.‘G-3’; ‘G-4’); the two (2) caliber .38 revolvers (Exhs. ‘B-1’; ‘B-2’), the fifty (50) aluminum foils each containing shabu (Exhs. ‘J-1’ to ‘J-50’) placed inside a pencil case (Exh. ‘J’, the assorted coins placed inside a blue bag (Exh. ‘W’) and the white crystalline stone (Exh. ‘K’) all do not belong to him. He said that the policemen just produced those things as their evidence. The firearms do not belong to him. They were brought by the policemen (tsn, p. 43, May 4, 1998). Regarding the blue bag containing assorted coins, he said: ‘that is not ours, I think this (is) theirs, xxx they just brought that as their evidence’ (tsn, pp. 15-24, id.)

“Walpan Ladjaalam declared there were occupants who were renting his extension house. He affirmed that he owns that house. Four (4) persons were staying in the extension house. He could only recognize the husband whose name is Momoy. They are from Jolo. They left the place already because they were afraid when the police raided the place. (tsn, pp. 8-10, May 4, 1998). He does not know prosecution witness Rino Locson y Bartolome. Although Locson recognized him, in his case he does not know Locson and he does not recognize him (tsn, p.11, id). He did not sell anything to Locson and did not entertain him. He is not selling shabu but he knows ‘for a fact that there are plenty of person who are engaged in selling shabu in that place’, in that area known as Aplaya, Rio Hondo. One of them is Hadji Agbi (tsn, pp.11-14, id).

“After his arrest Walpan Ladjaalam was brought to the police station where he stayed for one day and one night before he was transferred to the City jail. While at the police station, he was not able to take a bath. He smokes two packs of cigarette a day. While he was at the police station, he smoked [a] cigarette given to him by his younger sister. He lighted the cigarettes with [a] match. From the police station, he was brought to the PNP Regional Office at R.T. Lim Boulevard where he was subject to paraffin examination (tsn, pp. 24-26, May 4, 1998).

“During the raid conducted on his house, his cousin Boy Ladjaalam, Ating Sapadi, and Jecar (Sikkal) Usman, the younger brother of his wife were killed. Walpan Ladjaalam said that he saw that ‘it was the policeman who shot them[,] only I do not know his name.” They were killed at the back of his house. He said that no charges were filed against the one responsible for their death (tsn, pp. 30-33- May 4, 1998).

“Anilhawa Ahamad, more or less 80 years old, a widow was in the house of Walpan Ladjaalam whom he calls ‘Hadji Id’ at the time the police raided the house. She is the mother of Ahma Sailabbi. She was together with Babo Dandan, two small children and a helper when ‘soldiers’ entered the house. ‘(W)hen they arrived, they kept on firing (their guns) even inside the house’ (tsn, p.5, May 5, 1998). They were armed with short and long firearms. They searched the house and scattered things and got what they wanted. They entered the room of Walpan Ladjaalam. They tried to open a bag containing jewelry. When Anilhawa tried to bring the bag outside the room, they grabbed the bag from her and poked a gun at her. At that time Walpan Ladjaalam was not in the house. Ahamad Sailabbi was also not in the house. A Search Warrant was shown to Anilhawa after the search was conducted and just before the policemen left the place. Anilhawa Ahamad said that ‘it was already late in the afternoon[;] before they left that was the time the Search Warrant (was) given to us by xxx Barangay Captain Hussin Elhano’ (tsn, pp.6-8, May 5, 1998). Barangay Chairman Elhano arrived ‘already late in the afternoon, almost sundown’ (tsn, p. 9, id). Anilhaw declared that aside from a bag containing jewelry and a bag full of money, she had not seen anything else that was taken from Walpan Ladjaalam’s house (tsn, pp. 9-12, id).

“Akmad (Ahmad) Sailabbi, 37 years old, married testified that about 4:00 o’clock [o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997, ha was standing in front of his house when policemen arrived and immediately arrested him. He was about to go to the City Proper to buy articles he was intending to bring to Sabah. He had ‘around P50,000.00’ placed inside a waist bag tied around his waist. The policemen told him to lie down in prone position and a policeman searched his back. They pulled his

waist bag and took his DiaStar wrist watch. He was shot three times and was hit on the forehead leaving a scar. His injury was not treated. He was taken to the police station where he was detained for one day and one night. He was detained at the City Jail for three months and five days after which he was released (tsn, pp. 25-29, May 5, 1998).

“Melba Usma, 20 years old, a widow, testified that [o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997, she was in the house of her parents lying together with her husband Sikkal Usma. There is only one house between her parents’ house and the house of Walpan Ladjaalam. Her husband Sikkal Usman is the brother of Nur-in Ladjaalam, Walpan’s wife. When Melba heard shots, she went downstairs. A policeman was looking for her husband. The policeman called her husband. When her husband went down, he was instructed by the policeman to lie down in prone position. Then the policeman shot her husband. The policeman had two other companions who also shot her husband while he was lying down in prone position (tsn, pp.2-7, May 5, 1998).

“Murkisa Usman, 30 years old, married, declared that [o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997, she was sitting at the door of her house watching her children playing when a motorcyle, driven by a person, stopped near her house. The driver was Gaganting whom she called a soldier. He went down from his motorcycle, pulled a gun and poked it at Murkisa. Murkisa stood up and raised her hands. She got her children and when she was about to enter the room of her house, Gaganting again poked a gun at her and ‘there was a shot.’ As a result of firing, three persons died, namely, Sikkal Usman, Boy Ladjaalam and Atip Sapali Sali (tsn, pp. 8-10, May 5, 1998).

“Barangay Captain Hadji Hussin Elhano, 51 years old, testified that about 4:00 o ‘clock [o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997, he was fetched by two policemen at Catabangan where he was attending a seminar. Because of traffic along the way, they arrived at the Rio Hondo already late in the afternoon. He saw policemen were already inside the house. Upon entering the gate, he saw Walpan at the gate already handcuffed. Walpan called him but the police advised him not to approach Walpan. The search was already over and things were already taken inside the house. When he went inside the house, he saw ‘the things that they (policemen) searched, the firearms and the shabu‘ (tsn, p. 17. May 8, 1998). He did not see the Search Warrant. What was shown to him were the things recovered during the search which were being listed. They were being counted and placed on a table. ‘Upon seeing the things that were recovered during the search, I just signed the receipt (Exh. “P”; “P-1”) of the things x x x taken during the search” (tsn, pp. 17-18. May 8, 1998). He saw three

dead bodies at the side of the fence when he went to the other side of the house. The three persons were killed outside the fence of Walpan Ladjaalam (tsn, p. 18, id).”liv[16]

The Trial Court’s Ruling

The trial court observed that the house of appellant was raided on September 24, 1997 by virtue of Search Warrant No. 20 issued on the same day. However, the lower court nullified the said Warrant because it had been issued for more than one specific offense,lv[17] in violation of Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.lvi[18] The court a quo ruled:

“It should be stated at the outset that Search Warrant No. 20 is totally ‘null and void’ because it was issued for more than one specific offense x x x contrary to Section 3, Rule 1[2]6 of the Rules of Court which provides that ‘A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense xxx ’ . In Tambasan vs. People, 246 SCRA 184 (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that a search warrant for more than one offense - a ‘scatter shot warrant’ - violates Section 3, Rule 126 of the [R]evised Rules of Court and is ‘totally null and void.’”lvii[19] (emphasis in the original)

Nevertheless, the trial court deemed appellant’s arrest as valid. It emphasized that he had shot at the officers who were trying to serve the void search warrant. This fact was established by the testimonies of several police officers,lviii[20] who were participants in the raid, and confirmed by the laboratory report on the paraffin tests conducted on the firearms and appellant.lix[21] Additionally, the judge noted that Appellant Ladjaalam, based on his statements in his Counter Affidavit, impliedly contradicted his assertions in open court that there had been no exchange of gunfire during the raid.lx[22] The trial court concluded that the testimonies of these officers must prevail over appellant’s narration that he was not in his house when the raid was conducted.

Prescinding from this point, the court a quo validated the arrest of appellant, reasoning thus:

“Under the circumstances, the policemen ‘had authority to pursue and arrest Walpan Ladjaalam and confiscate the firearm he used in shooting at the policemen and to enter his house to effect said arrest and confiscation of the firearm.’ Under Rule 113, Section 5 (a), of the Rules of Court, ‘A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person xxx (w)hen in his presence, the person to be arrested has

committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.’ An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. At the time the policemen entered the house of accused Walpan Ladjaalam after he had fired shots at the policemen who intended to serve the Search Warrant to him, the accused was engaged in the commission of a crime, and was pursued and arrested after he committed the crime of shooting at the policemen who were about to serve the Search Warrant.”lxi[23]

As a consequence of the legal arrest, the seizure of the following was also deemed valid: the M14 rifle (with a magazine containing seventeen live ammunition)lxii[24] used by appellant against the police elements, two M14 magazines, and three other M16 rifle magazines.lxiii[25]The trial court observed that these items were in “plain view” of the pursuing police officers. Moreover, it added that these same items were “evidence [of] the commission of a crime and/or contraband and therefore, subject to seizure”lxiv[26] since appellant “had not applied for a license to possess firearm and had not been given authority to carry firearm outside his residence.”lxv[27]

For being incredible and unsupported by evidence, appellant’s claim that the items that were seized by the police officers had been planted was disbelieved by the trial court. It ruled that if the police officers wanted to plant evidence to incriminate him, they could have done so during the previous raids or those conducted after his arrest. To its mind, it was unbelievable that they would choose to plant evidence, when they were accompanied by the barangay chairman and a radio reporter who might testify against them. It then dismissed these allegations, saying that frame-up, like alibi, was an inherently weak defense.lxvi[28]

The trial court also convicted the accused of the crime of maintaining a drug den. It reasoned as follows:

“The testimony of Rino Bartolome Locson, corroborated by SPO1 Ricardo Lacastesantos and SPO1 Amado Mirasol, Jr. clearly established that Walpan Ladjaalam operated and maintained a drug den in his extension house where shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, was sold, and where persons or customers bought and used shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride by burning the said regulated drug and sniffing its smoke with the use of an aluminum foil tooter. A drug den is a lair or hideaway where prohibited or regulated drugs are used in any form or are found. Its existence [may be] proved not only by direct evidence but may

also be established by proof of facts and circumstances, including evidence of the general reputation of the house, or its general reputation among police officers. The uncorroborated testimony of accused Walpan Ladjaalam a.k.a. Warpan’ that he did not maintain an extension house or a room where drug users who allegedly buy shabu from him inhales or smokes shabu cannot prevail over the testimonies of Locson, SPO1 Lacastesantos, and SPO1 Mirasol. He admitted that he is the owner of the extension house but he alleged that there were four (4) occupants who rented that extension house. He knew the name of only one of the four occupants who are allegedly from Jolo, a certain Momoy, the husband. Aside from being uncorroborated, Walpan’s testimony was not elaborated by evidence as to when or for how long was the extension house rented, the amount of rental paid, or by any other document showing that the extension house was in fact rented. The defense of denial put up by accused Walpan Ladjaalam a.k.a. 'Warpan’ is a weak defense. Denial is the weakest defense and cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence which deserve no weight in law and cannot be given evidentiary weight over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As between the positive declaration of the prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserve more credence.”lxvii[29]

In conclusion, the trial court explained appellant’s liability in this manner:

“x x x. The act of the accused in firing an M14 rifle to the policemen who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant constitutes the crime of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide[,] not multiple attempted murder with direct assault[,] considering that no policeman was hit and injured by the accused and no circumstance was proved to qualify the attempted killing to attempted murder.

“The accused Walpan Ladjaalam a.k.a. ‘Warpan’ cannot be held liable [for] the crime of Violation of Section 16, Article III, in relation to Section 21, Article IV, of Republic Act 6425 otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1992, as amended, because the fifty (50) pieces of folded aluminum foils having a total weight of 1.7426 grams all containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu allegedly found in his house are inadmissible as evidence against him considering that they were seized after [a] search conducted by virtue of Search Warrant No. 20 which is totally null and void as it was issued for more than one offense, and were not found in ‘plain view’ of the police officers who seized them. Neither could the accused be held liable for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition except for the (1) M14 rifle

with Serial Number 1555225 and with magazine containing fifteen (15) live ammunition and two more M14 rifle magazines with twenty (20) and twenty-one (21) live ammunition respectively considering that the policemen who recovered or seized the other firearms and ammunition did not testify in court. The blue bag containing assorted coins cannot be returned to the accused Walpan Ladjaalam a.k.a. ‘Warpan’ because according to the accused the blue bag and assorted coins do not belong to him[;] instead the said assorted coins should be turned over to the National Treasury.”lxviii[30]

The Issues

In his Brief, appellant submits the following Assignment of Errors:

I

“The trial court erred when it concluded that appellant Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil [had] fired first at the police officers who went to his house to serve a search warrant upon him which led to an exchange of fire between Ladjaalam and the police officer.

II

“The trial court erred when it denied the appellant the right and opportunity for an ocular inspection of the scene of the firefight and where the house of the appellant [was] located.

III

“The trial court erred when it ruled that the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties [excluded] the claim of the appellant that the firearms and methamphetamine hydrochloride (i.e. shabu) were planted by the police.”lxix[31]

In the interest of simplicity, we shall take up these issues seriatim: (a) denial of the request for ocular inspection, (b) credibility of the prosecution witnesses, and (c) the defense of frame-up. In addition, we shall also discuss the proper crimes and penalties to be imposed on appellant.

The Court’s Ruling

The appeal has no merit.

First Issue: Denial of Request for Ocular Inspection

Appellant insists that the trial court erred in denying his request for an ocular inspection of the Ladjaalam residence. He argues that an ocular inspection would have afforded the lower court “a better perspective and an idea with respect to the scene of the crime.”lxx[32] We do not agree.

We fail to see the need for an ocular inspection in this case, especially in the light of the clear testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.lxxi[33] We note in particular that the defense had even requested SPO1 Amado Mirasol Jr. to sketch the subject premises to give the lower court a fairly good idea of appellant’s house.lxxii[34] Viewing the site of the raid would have only delayed the proceedings.lxxiii[35] Moreover, the question whether to view the setting of a relevant event has long been recognized to be within the discretion of the trial judge.lxxiv[36] Here, there is no reason to disturb the exercise of that discretion.lxxv[37]

Second Issue: Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses

Appellant, in essence, questions the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.lxxvi[38] Suffice it to state that the trial court’s assessment of their credibility is generally accorded respect, even finality.lxxvii[39] After carefully examining the records and finding no material inconsistencies to support appellant’s claim, we cannot exempt this case from the general rule.lxxviii[40] Quite the contrary, the testimonies of these witnesses positively showed that appellant had fired upon the approaching police elements, and that he had subsequently attempted to escape. SPO1 Amado Mirasol Jr.lxxix[41] testified thus:

“PROSECUTOR NUVAL:

Q: And, this trail is towards the front of the house of the accused?

A: Yes.

Q: And it’s there where you were met by a volley of fire?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:

Q: How far were you from the concrete fen[c]e when you were met by a volley of fire? ... You said you were fired upon?

A: More or less, five (5) meters.

x x x x x x x x x

PROSECUTOR NUVAL:

Q: Now, you said you were able to enter the house after the gate was opened by your colleague Felipe Gaganting ... I will reform that question.

Q: Who opened the gate Mr. Witness?

A: SPO2 Felipe Gaganting, Efren Gregorio and Allan Marcos Obut.

Q: And, at that time you were hiding at the concrete fence?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, when this gate was opened, you said you went inside the house, right?

A: Yes.

Q: What did you see inside the house?

A: I, together with SPO1 Ricardo Lacastesantos, entered the main door of the house of Walfran [sic] Ladjaalam at the ground floor. We went inside the sala on the ground floor of his house[;] I saw two old woman.

x x x x x x x x x

PROSECUTOR NUVAL:

Q: Now, what did you do with these two old women?

A: I did not mind those two old women because those two women were sitting on the ground floor. I was concentrating on the second floor because Ladjaalam was firing towards our group so, I, together with Ricardo Lacastesantos, went upstairs to the second floor of the house.

Q: Were you able to go to the second floor of the house?

A: Yes.

Q: What happened when you were already on the second floor?

A: While we were proceeding to the second floor, Walfan [sic] Ladjaalam, noticed our presence and immediately went inside the bedroom [o]n the second floor and he went immediately and jumped from the window of his house x x x leading to the roof of the neighbor’s house.

x x x x x x x x x

COURT:

Reform. That is leading

Q: What happened when you entered and he jumped to the roofing of the neighbor’s house?

A: Immediately, I myself, we immediately went downstairs and asked the assistance of the members of the raiding team to arrest Walfan Ladjaalam.

x x x x x x x x x

PROSECUTOR NUVAL:

Q: Were you able to go down?

A: Yes.

Q: What happened when you were there?

A: We immediately went out and I asked the assistance of the members of the raiding team and the investigator of the unit especially SPO1 Cesar Rabuya. I was able to manage to arrest Walfan Ladjaalam.”lxxx[42]

What happened thereafter was narrated by Senior Police Officer Ricardo Lacastesantos,lxxxi[43] as follows:

“Q: What did you notice [o]n the second floor?

A: I went where the firing came from, so, I saw [an] M14 rifle and I shouted from the outside, ‘do not fire at the second floor because there [are] a lot of children here.’

Q: Now, that rifle you said [was an] M14, where did you find this?

A: At the sala set.

Q: This sala set where is this located?

A: Located [on] the second floor of the house.

Q: Is there a sala [o]n the second floor?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you still identify that M14 rifle which you said you recovered from the sale set?

A: Yes.

Q: Why can you identify that?

A: The Serial No. of M14 is 1555225 and I marked it with my initial.

Q: Now, I have here M14 rifle[;] will you please tell us where is the Serial No. of this?

A: 1555225 and I put my initial, RJL.

FISCAL NUVAL:

This is already marked as our Exhibit ‘B-3’ with magazine, one magazine and seven round [ammunition].

Q: After recovering this, what did you do with this firearm?

A: When I recovered it I removed the bullets inside the chamber[.] I removed the magazine and I turned it over to the investigator.

Q: Where did you turn it over?

A: At the crime scene.

Q: Now, that magazine, can you still identify this?

A: Yes.

Q: Why?

A: I put x x x markings.

x x x x x x x x x

COURT:

So, a[si]de from the magazine attached to the M14 rifle you found six more magazines?

A: Yes, so, all in all six magazines, three empty M16 rifle magazines and three M14.

Q: The M16 magazines [were] empty?

A: Empty.

Q: How about the M14?

A: Found with [ammunition].

x x x x x x x x x

Q: So, where are the three M16 magazines?

A: In the corner.

Q: What did you do with [these] three magazines of M16?

A: I turned [them] over to the investigator.

Q: Can you identify them?

A: Yes, because of my initials[.]

Q: Where are your initials?

A: On the magazines.

Q: RJL?

A: RJL.”lxxxii[44]

These were confirmed by the results of the paraffin tests conducted on appellant and on the weapons seized during the raid. Both of his hands as well as the weapons, particularly the M-14 which he had used, were positive for gunpowder nitrate. Police Inspector Mercedes Delfin-Diestro explained in open court:

“Q: Okay. Now, what was the result of your examination, Madam Witness?

A: The result of the examination [was] that both hands of the subject person, ha[d] presence of gun powder nitrates.

Q: What do you mean Madam Witness, what does that indicate?

A: It indicates there is presence of powder nitrates.

Q: Can we conclude that he fired a gun?

A: I cannot conclude that he fired a gun because there are so many circumstances [why] a person [would be] positive on his hands for gun powder nitrates.

Q: But, most likely, he fired a gun?

A: Yes.

x x x x x x x x x

PROSECUTOR NUVAL:

Q: What about, Madam Witness this Exhibit ‘B-3’, which is the M14 rifle. What did you do with this?

A: SPO3 Abu did the swabbing both in the chamber and the barrel wherein I observed there [were] black and traces of brown residue on the bolt, chamber and in the barrel.

Q: And, that indicates Madam Witness...?

A: It indicates that the gun was fired.

Q: Recently?

A: Because of the traces of brown residue, it could be possible that the gun was fired before the incident x x x.

COURT:

Q: There is also black residue?

A: Yes.

Q: What does it indicate?

A: It indicates that the firearm was recently fired.

Q: And, where is this swab used at the time of the swabbing of this Exhibit?

A: This one.

PROSECUTOR NUVAL:

May we ask that this be marked as Exhibit ‘B-3-A’.

COURT:

Q: The firing there indicates that the gun was recently fired, during the incident?

A: Yes.

Q: And also before the incident it was fired because of the brown residue?

A: Yes, Your Honor.”lxxxiii[45] (emphasis supplied)

Duly proven from the foregoing were the two elementslxxxiv[46] of the crime of illegal possession of firearms. Undoubtedly, the established fact that appellant had fired an M-14 rifle upon the approaching police officers clearly showed the existence of the firearm or weapon and his possession thereof. Sufficing to satisfy the second element was the prosecution’s Certificationlxxxv[47] stating that he had not filed any application for license to possess a firearm, and that he had not been given authority to carry any outside his residence.lxxxvi[48] Further, it should be pointed out that his possession and use of an M-14 rifle were obviously unauthorized because this weapon could not be licensed in favor of, or carried by, a private individual.lxxxvii[49]

Third Issue: Defense of Frame-up

From the convoluted arguments strewn before us by appellant, we gather that the main defense he raises is frame-up. He claims that the items seized from his house were “planted,” and that the entire Zamboanga police force was out to get him at all cost.

This Court has invariably held that the defense of frame-up is inherently weak, since it is easy to fabricate, but terribly difficult to disprove.lxxxviii[50] Absent any showing of an improper motive on the part of the police officers,lxxxix[51] coupled with the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty, such defense cannot be given much credence.xc[52] Indeed, after examining the records of this case, we conclude that appellant has failed to substantiate his claim. On the contrary, his statements in his Counter Affidavit are inconsistent with his testimony during the trial.xci[53] He testified thus:

“Q Now, Mr. Witness, do you remember having executed an Affidavit/ a Counter-Affidavit?

A I could not remember.

Q I have here a Counter-Affidavit and it was signed before this representation on the 8th day of December 1997[;] tell us whose signature is this appearing above the typewritten name

FISCAL NUVAL:

Q . . . . Walpan Ladjaalam, whose signature is this?

(Showing)

A Yes, Sir. This is mine.

Q Now, in paragraph[s] 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8; you stated in this Counter-Affidavit which I quote: ‘that I was resting and sleeping when I heard the gunshots and I noticed that the shots were directed towards our house..and I inspected and x x x we were attacked by armed persons.. and I was apprehended by the persons who attacked x x x our house’; [the] house you are referring to [in] this paragraph, whose house [are you] referring to, is this [what] you are referring to [as] your house or the house of your neighbors [from] which you said you heard gunshots?

A Our house.

Q Now, in paragraph 6 of your Counter-Affidavit you stated and I quote: ‘that [o]n that afternoon of September 24, 1997, I was at home in my house Aplaya,

Riohondo, Bo. Campo Muslim, my companions in my house [were] the two old women and my children, is this correct?

A They were not there.

Q Now, in that statement Mr. Witness, you said that you were at home in [your] house at Aplaya, Riohondo, Bo. Campo Muslim[;] which is which now, you were in your house or you were in your neighbors[‘] house at that time when you heard gunshots?

A I was in the house near my house.

Q So, your statement particularly paragraph 6 of your Counter-Affidavit that you were at home in [your] house at Aplaya Riohondo Bo. Campo Muslim, is x x x not correct?

A Yes, Sir. This is not correct.”xcii[54]

Crime and Punishment

The trial court convicted appellant of three crimes: (1) maintenance of a drug den, (2) direct assault with attempted homicide, and (3) illegal possession of firearms. We will discuss each of these.

Maintenance of a Drug Den

We agree with the trial court that appellant was guilty of maintenance of a drug den, an offense for which he was correctly sentenced to reclusion perpetua. His guilt was clearly established by the testimony of Prosecution Witness Rino Bartolome Locson, who himself had used the extension house of appellant as a drug den on several occasions, including the time of the raid. The former’s testimony was corroborated by all the raiding police officers who testified before the court. That appellant did not deny ownership of the house and its extension lent credence to the prosecution’s story.

Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide

The trial court was also correct in convicting appellant of direct assaultxciii[55] with multiple counts of attempted homicide. It found that “[t]he act of the accused [of] firing an M14 rifle [at] the policemen[,] who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant x x x” constituted such complex crime.xciv[56]

We note that direct assault with the use of a weapon carries the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, while attempted homicide carries the penalty of prision correccional.xcv[57] Hence, for the present complex crime, the penalty for direct assault, which constitutes the “most serious crime,” should be imposed and applied in its maximum period.xcvi[58]

Illegal Possession of Firearms

Aside from finding appellant guilty of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide, the trial court convicted him also of the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms under PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, and sentenced him to 6 years of prision correccional to 8 years of prision mayor.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) disagrees, on the ground that the trial court should not have applied the new law. It contends that under the facts of the case, the applicable law should have been PD 1866, as worded prior to its amendment by RA 8294.

The trial court’s ruling and the OSG’s submission exemplify the legal community’s difficulty in grappling with the changes brought about by RA 8294. Hence, before us now are opposing views on how to interpret Section 1 of the new law, which provides as follows:

“SECTION 1. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

“Section 1.Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition Instruments Used or Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. -- The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000) shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery,

tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition: Provided, That no other crime was committed.

“The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000) shall be imposed if the firearm is classified as high powered firearm which includes those with bores bigger in diameter than .30 caliber and 9 millimeter such as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered firearms but considered powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 centerfire magnum and other firearms with firing capability of full automatic and by burst of two or three: Provided, however, That no other crime was committed by the person arrested.

“If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

“If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d’etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d’etat.

“The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs or willfully or knowingly allow any of them to use unlicensed firearms or firearms without any legal authority to be carried outside of their residence in the course of their employment.

“The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal authority therefor.”

Citing People v. Jayson,xcvii[59] the OSG argues that the foregoing provision does not cover the specific facts of this case. Since another crime -- direct assault with multiple unlawful homicide -- was committed, appellant cannot be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms under the second paragraph of the aforecited provision. Furthermore, since there was no killing in this case, illegal possession cannot be deemed as an aggravating circumstance under the third paragraph of the provision. Based on these premises, the OSG concludes that the applicable law is not RA 8294, but PD 1866 which, as worded prior the new law, penalizes simple illegal possession of firearms even if another crime is committed at the same time.xcviii[60]

Applying a different interpretation, the trial court posits that appellant should be convicted of illegal possession of firearms, in addition to direct assault with multiple attempted homicide. It did not explain its ruling, however. Considering that it could not have been ignorant of the provisoxcix[61]in the second paragraph, it seemed to have construed “no other crime” as referring only to homicide and murder, in both of which illegal possession of firearms is an aggravating circumstance. In other words, if a crime other than murder or homicide is committed, a person may still be convicted of illegal possession of firearms. In this case, the other crime committed was direct assault with multiple attempted homicide; hence, the trial court found appellant guilty of illegal possession of firearms.

We cannot accept either of these interpretations because they ignore the plain language of the statute. A simple reading thereof shows that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the “other crime” is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense. Since direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in this case, appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms.

Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused.c[62] In this case, the plain meaning of RA 8294’s simple language is most favorable to herein appellant. Verily, no other interpretation is justified, for the language of the new law demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the accused.ci[63] Accordingly, appellant cannot be convicted of two separate offenses of illegal possession of firearms and direct assault with attempted homicide. Moreover, since the crime committed was direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance.

We reject the OSG’s contention that PD 1866, as worded prior to its amendment by RA 8294, should be applied in this case. When the crime was committed on September 24, 1997, the original language of PD 1866 had already been expressly superseded by RA 8294 which took effect on July 6, 1997.cii[64] In other words, no longer in existence was the earlier provision of PD 1866, which justified a conviction for illegal possession of firearms separate from any other crime. It was replaced by RA 8294 which, among other amendments to PD 1866, contained the specific proviso that “no other crime was committed.”

Furthermore, the OSG’s reliance on People v. Jaysonciii[65]is misplaced. True, this Court sustained the conviction of appellant for illegal possession of firearms, although he had also committed homicide. We explained, however, that “the criminal case for homicide [was] not before us for consideration.”

Just as unacceptable is the interpretation of the trial court. We find no justification for limiting the proviso in the second paragraph to murder and homicide. The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that “no other crime was committed by the person arrested.” If the intention of the law in the second paragraph were to refer only to homicide and murder, it should have expressly said so, as it did in the third paragraph. Verily, where the law does not distinguish, neither should we.

The Court is aware that this ruling effectively exonerates appellant of illegal possession of an M-14 rifle, an offense which normally carries a penalty heavier than that for direct assault. While the penalty for the first is prision mayor, for the second it is only prision correccional. Indeed, the accused may evade conviction for illegal possession of firearms by using such weapons in committing an even lighter offense,civ[66] like alarm and scandalcv[67] or slight physical injuries,cvi[68] both of which are punishable by arresto menor.cvii[69] This consequence, however, necessarily arises from the language of RA 8294, whose wisdom is not subject to the Court’s review. Any perception that the result reached here appears unwise should be addressed to Congress. Indeed, the Court has no discretion to give statutes a new meaning detached from the manifest intendment and language of the legislature. Our task is constitutionally confined only to applying the law and jurisprudencecviii[70] to the proven facts, and we have done so in this case.

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMEDwith the MODIFICATIONthat appellant is found guilty only of two offenses: (1) direct assault and multiple attempted homicide with the use of a weapon, for which he is sentenced to 2 years and 4 months to 6 years of prision correccional; and (2) maintaining a drug den, for which he was correctly sentenced by the trial court to reclusion perpetua. Costs against appellant.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Congress of the Philippines for a possible review, at its sound discretion, of RA 8294.

SO ORDERED.

Homework Help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Math homework help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Research Paper help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Algebra Help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Calculus Help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Accounting help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Paper Help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Writing Help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Online Tutor

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Online Tutoring

https://www.homeworkping.com/

i

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

viii

ix

x

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

xviii

xix

xx

xxi

xxii

xxiii

xxiv

xxv

xxvi

xxvii

xxviii

xxix

xxx

xxxi

xxxii

xxxiii

xxxiv

xxxv

xxxvi

xxxvii

xxxviii

xxxix

xl

xli

xlii

xliii

xliv

xlv

xlvi

xlvii

xlviii

xlix

l

li

lii

liii

liv

lv

lvi

lvii

lviii

lix

lx

lxi

lxii

lxiii

lxiv

lxv

lxvi

lxvii

lxviii

lxix

lxx

lxxi

lxxii

lxxiii

lxxiv

lxxv

lxxvi

lxxvii

lxxviii

lxxix

lxxx

lxxxi

lxxxii

lxxxiii

lxxxiv

lxxxv

lxxxvi

lxxxvii

lxxxviii

lxxxix

xc

xci

xcii

xciii

xciv

xcv

xcvi

xcvii

xcviii

xcix

c

ci

cii

ciii

civ

cv

cvi

cvii

cviii