crim rev case-title 1 to 3

8/11/2019 Crim Rev Case-title 1 to 3

1/63

G.R. No. 162808 April 22, 2008

FELICIANO GALVANTE, petitioner,vs.HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, Depu ! O"#u$%"&' (or )e Mili &r! &'$O )er L&* E'(or+e"e' O((i+e%, IENVENIDO C. LANCAFLOR, Dire+ or,DENNIS L. GARCIA, Gr&( I'-e% i & io' &'$ /ro%e+u io' O((i+er, S/ORAMIL AVENIDO, /O1 EDDIE DEGRAN, /O1 VALENTINO R FANO, &'$/O1 FEDERICO ALOLOT, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

A STRIA MARTINE3, J. 4

Assailed herein by Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rulesof Court are the October 30, 2003 Resolution of the Office of the !eputyO"buds"an for the #ilitary and Other $a% &nforce"ent Offices ' Office of theO"buds"an (O"buds"an) %hich dis"issed for lac* of probable cause the cri"inalco"plaint, doc*eted as O#+'P'C'02'0 0 '+, filed by -eliciano alvante 2 (petitioner) a/ainst PO1 +en a"in Conde, PO Ra"il Avenido, PO &ddie !e/ran,PO alentino Rufano, and PO -ederico +alolot (private respondents) for arbitrarydetention, ille/al search and /rave threats4 and the anuary 20, 2001 O"buds"anOrder 3 %hich denied his "otion for reconsideration.

he facts are of record.

7n the afternoon of #ay 1, 200 at itio Cahi'an, 8apatun/an, rento, A/usan delur, private respondents confiscated fro" petitioner one colt pistol super .39auto"atic %ith serial no. 6: :3, one short "a/a;ine, and nine super .39 livea""unitions. 1 he confiscated "aterials %ere covered by an eo. 3259, doc*eted as Cri"inal Case

>o. 501:, before the Re/ional rial Court (R C), Prosperidad, A/usan del ur.

Pendin/ resolution of Cri"inal Case >o. 501:, petitioner filed a/ainst privaterespondents an ad"inistrative case, doc*eted as Ad"inistrative Case >o. 7A O+'02000: for rave #isconduct, before the 7nternal Affairs ervice (7A ), Re/ion ?777,!epart"ent of 7nterior and $ocal overn"ent (!7$ )4 : and a cri"inal case, doc*etedas O#+'P'C'02'0 0 '+ for Arbitrary !etention, 7lle/al earch and rave hreats,

before the O"buds"an. 9

7n the une 2 , 200 Affidavit'Co"plaint he filed in both cases, petitioner narratedho%, on #ay 1, 200 , private respondents ai"ed their lon/ firear"s at hi",arbitrarily searched his vehicle and put hi" in detention, thus@

. hat so"eti"e on #ay 1, 200 7 left "y house at around @00 o cloc* inthe afternoon after havin/ lunch for itio Cahi'an, +r/y. 8apatun/an, rento,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt8


2/63

A/usan del ur to "eet retired police Percival Pla;a and in=uire about theretire"ent procedure for police"en4

2. hat upon arrival at the house of retired police Percival Pla;a, to/ether %ith$oren;o anoria, !elfin Ra"ire; and Pedro Ra"as %ho as*ed for a ride fro"

the hi/h%ay in /oin/ to itio Cahi'an, 7 i""ediately %ent do%n of the eep but before 7 could call #r. Pla;a, four police"en in unifor" bloc*ed "y %ay4

3. hat the four police"en %ere Bprivate respondents PO Ro"il AvenidoP>P, PO alentino Rufano, P>P both "e"ber of 12nd Co"pany, Re/ional#obile roup and PO &ddie !e/ran P>P and PO -ederico +alolot P>P"e"bers of 103 Prov l #obile roup, all of +una%an +roo*, +una%an,A/usan del ur4 %ho all pointed their lon/ firear"s ready to fire Bat "e,havin/ heard the sound of the release of the safety loc*4

1. hat raisin/ "y ar"s, 7 heard Bprivate respondent PO Avenido sayin/,DA> 7#O> PE 7$, 7FA A D %hich "eans D ive "e your firear",D to%hich 7 ans%ered, DGA$A #A> 8O H PE 7$D translated as D7 have nofirear",D sho%in/ "y %aistline %hen 7 raised "y 'shirt4

5. hat "y other co"panions on the eep also %ent do%n and raised their ar"sand sho%ed their %aistline %hen the sa"e police"en and a person in civilianattire holdin/ an ar"alite also pointed their firear"s to the" to %hich #r.Percival Pla;a %ho ca"e do%n fro" his house told the" not to harass "e as 7a" also a for"er police officer but they did not heed #r. Pla;a s state"ents4

6. hat %hile %e %ere raisin/ our ar"s Bprivate respondent PO1 +en a"inConde, r. %ent near "y o%ner type eep and conducted a search. o %hich 7as*ed the" if they have any search %arrant4

:. hat after a %hile they sa% "y super .39 pistol under the floor"at of "y eep and as*ed "e of the #R of the firear" but due to fear that their lon/ ar"s%ere still pointed to us, 7 searched "y %allet and /ave the as*ed Bsicdocu"ent4

9. hat i""ediately the police"en left "e and "y co"panions %ithout sayin/anythin/ brin/in/ %ith the" the firear"4

. hat at about 2@30 p."., 7 left #r. Percival s house and %ent to rento Policetation %here 7 sa% a person in civilian attire %ith a revolver tuc*ed on his

%aist, to %hich 7 as*ed the police officers includin/ those %ho searched "y eep to apprehend hi" also4

0. hat nobody a"on/ the police"en at the station "ade a "ove toapprehend the ar"ed civilian person so 7 %ent to the office of Police ChiefRocacorba %ho i""ediately called the ar"ed civilian to his office and %henalready inside his office, the disar"in/ %as done4


3/63

. hat after the disar"in/ of the civilian 7 %as put to ail %ith the said person by Police Chief Rocacorba and %as released only at 1@00 o cloc* in theafternoon of #ay 6, 200 after postin/ a bailbond4

2. hat 7 caused the e A#7> CO>!&, R., %ho %as actin/as our tea" leader durin/ the #ay 1, 200 &lections, fro" the eep of #r.

alvante after searchin/ the sa"e4 and

3. that %e noticed the afore"entioned discrepancy in our affidavit datedAu/ust 29, 200 after %e have already affio. 7A O+'02000:, findin/ all private respondents /uilty of /rave "isconduct but penali;ed the"%ith suspension only. he 7A noted ho%ever that private respondents %ere "erely

bein/ DBenthusiastic in the conduct of the arrest in line of duty.D 5
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt15


4/63

#ean%hile, in Cri"inal Case >o. 501:, petitioner filed %ith the R C a #otion forPreli"inary 7nvesti/ation and to Fold in Abeyance the 7ssuance of or Recall theGarrant of Arrest. 6 he R C /ranted the sa"e in an Order : dated Au/ust :, 200 .Epon reinvesti/ation, Prosecutor 77 &liseo !ia;, r. filed a DReinvesti/ation %ith#otion to !is"issD dated >ove"ber 22, 200 , reco""endin/ the dis"issal of

Cri"inal Case >o. 501: on the /round that Dthe action of the police"en %hoconducted the %arrantless search in spite of the absence of any circu"stances

ustifyin/ the sa"e intruded into the privacy of the accused and the security of his property.D 9 Officer'in'Char/e Prosecutor 77 ictoriano Pa/'on/ approved saidreco""endation.

he R C /ranted the prosecution s "otion to dis"iss in an Order 20 dated anuary 6,2003.

Apparently una%are of %hat transpired in Cri"inal Case >o. 501:, O"buds"an7nvesti/ation J Prosecution Officer !ennis $. arcia issued in O#+'P'C'02'0 0 '+,the October 30, 2003 Resolution, to %it@

After a careful evaluation, the undersi/ned prosecutor finds no probable causefor any of the offenses char/ed a/ainst above'na"ed respondents.

he alle/ations of the co"plainant failed to establish the factual basis of theco"plaint, it appearing from the records that the incident stemmed from avalid warrantless arrest . he subse=uent e


5/63

Petitioner filed the present petition, attributin/ to !eputy O"buds"an Casi"iro,!irector +lancaflor and Prosecutor arcia (public respondents) the follo%in/ acts of/rave abuse of discretion@

7. Public respondents acted %ithout or in e


6/63

7t is noted that the cri"inal co"plaint %hich petitioner filed %ith the O"buds"anchar/es private respondents %ith %arrantless search, arbitrary detention, and /ravethreats.

he co"plaint for *&rr&' le%% %e&r+) char/es no cri"inal offense. he conduct of a%arrantless search is not a cri"inal act for it is not penali;ed under the Revised PenalCode (RPC) or any other special la%. Ghat the RPC punishes are only t%o for"s ofsearches@

Art. 2 . Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service ofthose legally obtained . ' 7n addition to the liability attachin/ to the offender for the co""ission of any other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its"a


7/63

o avail of such re"edies, petitioner "ay file a/ainst private respondents a co"plaintfor da"a/es %ith the re/ular courts 39 or an ad"inistrative case %ith the P>PI!7$ , 3 as petitioner did in Ad"inistrative Case >o. 7A O+'02000:, and not a cri"inal action%ith the O"buds"an.

Public respondents dis"issal of the cri"inal co"plaint for ille/al search %hich petitioner filed %ith the O"buds"an a/ainst private respondents %as therefore proper, althou/h the reasons public respondents cited for dis"issin/ the co"plaint arerather off the "ar* because they relied solely on the findin/ that the %arrantlesssearch conducted by private respondents %as valid and that the Affidavit of!esistance %hich petitioner eo%here in said affidavit did petitioner alle/e that private respondentseffected his detention, or %ere in any other %ay involved in it. 11 here %as, therefore,no factual or le/al basis to sustain the cri"inal char/e for arbitrary detention a/ainst

private respondents.

-inally, on the cri"inal co"plaint for /rave threats, the olicitor eneral aptly pointed out that the sa"e is based "erely on petitioner s bare alle/ation that privaterespondents ai"ed their firear"s at hi". 15 uch bare alle/ation stands no chancea/ainst the %ell'entrenched rule applicable in this case, that public officers en oy a

presu"ption of re/ularity in the perfor"ance of their official function. 16 he 7Aitself observed that private respondents "ay have been carried a%ay by their

Denthusias" in the conduct of the arrest in line of duty.D1:

Petitioner eo costs.

SO ORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_162808_2008.html#fnt47


8/63

G.R. No%. 1 20 0 2 7u'e 1, 200

VICENTE /. LADLAD, NATHANAEL S. SANTIAGO, RANDALL .ECHANIS, &'$ RE CLARO C. CASAM RE, Petitioners,vs.

SENIOR STATE /ROSEC TOR EMMAN EL . VELASCO, SENIOR STATE/ROSEC TOR 7OSELITA C. MENDO3A, SENIOR STATE /ROSEC TORAILEEN MARIE S. G TIERRE3, STATE /ROSEC TOR IR5IN A.MARA A, &'$ STATE /ROSEC TOR MER A A. 5AGA, i' )eir +&p&+i ! &%"e"#er% o( )e Dep&r "e' o( 7u% i+e p&'el o( pro%e+u or% i'-e% i & i' I.S.No%. 2006 229, 2006 226 &'$ 2006 2: , 7 STICE SECRETAR RA L M.GON3ALE3, DIRECTOR GENERAL ART RO C. LOMI AO, i' )i% +&p&+i !&% C)ie(, /)ilippi'e N& io'&l /oli+e, /;CS /T. RODOLFO . MENDO3A, 7R.,&'$ /;S /T. OLANDA G. TANIG E, Respondents.


9/63

hese are consolidated petitions for the %rits of prohibition and certiorari to en oin petitionersK prosecution for Rebellion and to set aside the rulin/s of the !epart"ent of

ustice (!O ) and the Re/ional rial Court of #a*ati City (R C #a*ati) on theinvesti/ation and prosecution of petitionersK cases.

he -acts

Petitioner in .R. >o. :50 3, Crispin +. +eltran (+eltran), and petitioners in .R. >os. :20:1':6, $i;a $. #a;a (#a;a), oel . irador ( irador), aturnino C.Oca"po (Oca"po), eodoro A. CasiLo (CasiLo), and Rafael . #ariano (#ariano), are "e"bers of the Fouse of Representatives representin/ various party'list /roups .2 Petitioners in .R. >os. :20:0':2 are private individuals. Petitioners all face char/esfor Rebellion under Article 31 in relation to Article 35 of the Revised Penal Code int%o cri"inal cases pendin/ %ith the R C #a*ati.

.R. >o. :50 3 ( he +eltran Petition)

-ollo%in/ the issuance by President loria #acapa/al'Arroyo of PresidentialProcla"ation >o. 0 : on 21 -ebruary 2006 declarin/ a D tate of >ational&"er/ency,D police officers 3 arrested +eltran on 25 -ebruary 2006, %hile he %as enroute to #arilao, +ulacan, and detained hi" in Ca"p Cra"e, Mue;on City. +eltran%as arrested %ithout a %arrant and the arrestin/ officers did not infor" +eltran of thecri"e for %hich he %as arrested. On that evenin/, +eltran %as sub ected to an in=uestat the Mue;on City Fall of ustice for 7ncitin/ to edition under Article 12 of theRevised Penal Code based on a speech +eltran alle/edly /ave durin/ a rally inMue;on City on 21 -ebruary 2006, on the occasion of the 20 th anniversary of the&! A Revolution. he in=uest %as based on the oint affidavit of +eltranKs arrestin/officers %ho clai"ed to have been present at the rally. he in=uest prosecutor 1 indicted +eltran and filed the correspondin/ 7nfor"ation %ith the #etropolitan rialCourt of Mue;on City (#e C). 5

he authorities brou/ht bac* +eltran to Ca"p Cra"e %here, on 2: -ebruary 2006, he%as sub ected to a second in=uest, %ith st $t. $a%rence an uan ( an uan), thisti"e for Rebellion. A panel of tate prosecutors 6 fro" the !O conducted this secondin=uest. he in=uest %as based on t%o letters, both dated 2: -ebruary 2006, ofHolanda ani/ue ( ani/ue) and of Rodolfo #endo;a (#endo;a). ani/ue is theActin/ &os. :20:1':6, an

uan, and several others as Dleaders and pro"otersD of an alle/ed foiled plot tooverthro% the Arroyo /overn"ent. he plot %as supposed to be carried out ointly by"e"bers of the Co""unist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the #a*abayan/8a%al n/ Pilipinas (#8P), %hich have for"ed a Dtactical alliance.D

On 2: -ebruary 2006, the !O panel of prosecutors issued a Resolution findin/ probable cause to indict +eltran and an uan as DleadersIpro"otersD of Rebellion.

he panel then filed an 7nfor"ation %ith the R C #a*ati. he 7nfor"ation alle/ed

that +eltran, an uan, and other individuals Dconspirin/ and confederatin/ %ith eachother, < <


10/63

alliance bet%een the CPPI>PA, rena"ed as Partidon/ 8o"unista n/ Pilipinas (P8P)and its ar"ed re/ular "e"bers as 8atipunan n/ Ana* n/ +ayan (8A+) %ith the#a*abayan/ 8a%al n/ Pilipinas (#8P) and thereby rise publicly and ta*e up ar"sa/ainst the duly constituted /overn"ent, < < o. 06'152, %as raffled to +ranch 3: under Presidin/ ud/e enny

$ind R. Aldecoa'!elorino ( ud/e !elorino).

+eltran "oved that +ranch 3: "a*e a udicial deter"ination of probable causea/ainst hi". 9 +efore the "otion could be resolved, ud/e !elorino recused herselffro" the case %hich %as re'raffled to +ranch 16 under ud/e &ncarnacion a a'#oya ( ud/e #oya).

7n its Order dated 3 #ay 2006, +ranch 16 sustained the findin/ of probable causea/ainst +eltran. +eltran sou/ht reconsideration but ud/e #oya also inhibited herself fro" the case %ithout resolvin/ +eltranKs "otion. ud/e &l"o #. Ala"eda of +ranch

50, to %ho" the case %as re'raffled, issued an Order on 2 Au/ust 2006 denyin/+eltranKs "otion.

Fence, the petition in .R. >o. :50 3 to set aside the Orders dated 3 #ay 2006 and2 Au/ust 2006 and to en oin +eltranKs prosecution.

7n his Co""ent to the petition, the olicitor eneral clai"s that +eltranKs in=uest forRebellion %as valid and that the R C #a*ati correctly found probable cause to try+eltran for such felony.

.R. >os. :20:0':2 and :20:1':6 ( he #a;a and $adlad Petitions)

+ased on ani/ue and #endo;aKs letters, the !O sent subpoenas to petitioners on 6#arch 2006 re=uirin/ the" to appear at the !O Office on 3 #arch 2006 Dto /etcopies of the co"plaint and its attach"ent.D Prior to their receipt of the subpoenas,

petitioners had =uartered the"selves inside the Fouse of Representatives buildin/ forfear of bein/ sub ected to %arrantless arrest.

!urin/ the preli"inary investi/ation on 3 #arch 2006, the counsel for the C7! presented a "as*ed "an, later identified as ai"e -uentes (-uentes), %ho clai"ed to be an eye%itness a/ainst petitioners. -uentes subscribed to his affidavit beforerespondent prosecutor &""anuel elasco %ho then /ave copies of the affidavit to

"edia "e"bers present durin/ the proceedin/s. he panel of prosecutors0

/ave petitioners 0 days %ithin %hich to file their counter'affidavits. Petitioners %erefurnished the co"plete copies of docu"ents supportin/ the C7! Ks letters only on :#arch 2006.

Petitioners "oved for the inhibition of the "e"bers of the prosecution panel for lac* of i"partiality and independence, considerin/ the political "ilieu under %hich

petitioners %ere investi/ated, the state"ents that the President and the ecretary of ustice "ade to the "edia re/ardin/ petitionersK case, and the "anner in %hich the

prosecution panel conducted the preli"inary investi/ation. he !O panel of prosecutors denied petitionersK "otion on 22 #arch 2006. Petitioners sou/ht

reconsideration and additionally prayed for the dis"issal of the cases. Fo%ever, the panel of prosecutors denied petitionersK "otions on 1 April 2006.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt11


11/63

Petitioners no% see* the nullification of the !O Orders of 22 #arch 2006 and 1April 2006.

Actin/ on petitionersK prayer for the issuance of an in unctive %rit, the Court issued astatus =uo order on 5 une 2006. Prior to this, ho%ever, the panel of prosecutors, on

2 April 2006, issued a Resolution findin/ probable cause to char/e petitioners and 16others %ith Rebellion. he prosecutors filed the correspondin/ 7nfor"ation %ith+ranch 5: of the R C #a*ati, doc*eted as Cri"inal Case >o. 06' 11 (laterconsolidated %ith Cri"inal Case >o. 06'152 in +ranch 16), char/in/ petitioners andtheir co'accused as Dprincipals, "aster"inds, Bor headsD of a Rebellion. 2 Conse=uently, the petitioners in .R. >os. :20:0':2 filed a supple"ental petition toen oin the prosecution of Cri"inal Case >o. 06' 11.

7n his separate Co""ent to the #a;a petition, the olicitor eneral sub"its that the preli"inary investi/ation of petitioners %as not tainted %ith irre/ularities. he

olicitor eneral also clai"s that the filin/ of Cri"inal Case >o. 06' 11 has "ootedthe #a;a petition.

he 7ssues

he petitions raise the follo%in/ issues@

. 7n .R. >o. :50 3, (a) %hether the in=uest proceedin/ a/ainst +eltran forRebellion %as valid and (b) %hether there is probable cause to indict +eltran forRebellion4 and

2. 7n .R. >os. :20:0':2 and :20:1':6, %hether respondent prosecutors should been oined fro" continuin/ %ith the prosecution of Cri"inal Case >o. 06' 11 . 3

he Rulin/ of the Court

Ge find the petitions "eritorious. On the +eltran Petition

he 7n=uest Proceedin/ a/ainst +eltran for Rebellion is oid.

7n=uest proceedin/s are proper only %hen the accused has been la%fully arrested%ithout %arrant. 1 ection 5, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Cri"inal Procedure

provides the instances %hen such %arrantless arrest "ay be effected, thus@

Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person "ay,%ithout a %arrant, arrest a person@

(a) Ghen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co""itted, is actuallyco""ittin/, or is atte"ptin/ to co""it an offense4

(b) Ghen an offense has ust been co""itted and he has probable cause to believe based on personal *no%led/e of facts or circu"stances that the person to be arrestedhas co""itted it4 and

< < <


12/63

7n cases fallin/ under para/raphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested %ithout a%arrant shall be forth%ith delivered to the nearest police station or ail and shall be

proceeded a/ainst in accordance %ith section : of Rule 2.

he oint affidavit of +eltranKs arrestin/ officers 5 states that the officers arrested

+eltran, %ithout a %arrant, 6 for 7ncitin/ to edition, and not for Rebellion. hus, thein=uest prosecutor could only have conducted N as he did conduct N an in=uest for7ncitin/ to edition and no other. Conse=uently, %hen another /roup of prosecutorssub ected +eltran to a second in=uest proceedin/ for Rebellion, they overstepped their authority renderin/ the second in=uest void. >one of +eltranKs arrestin/ officers sa%+eltran co""it, in their presence, the cri"e of Rebellion. >or did they have personal*no%led/e of facts and circu"stances that +eltran had ust co""itted Rebellion,sufficient to for" probable cause to believe that he had co""itted Rebellion. Ghatthese arrestin/ officers alle/ed in their affidavit is that they sa% and heard +eltran"a*e an alle/edly seditious speech on 21 -ebruary 2006. :

7ndeed, under !O Circular >o. 6 , dated 2 epte"ber 3, the initial duty of thein=uest officer is to deter"ine if the arrest of the detained person %as "ade Dinaccordance %ith the provisions of para/raphs (a) and (b) of ection 5, Rule 3.D 9 7fthe arrest %as not properly effected, the in=uest officer should proceed under ection

of Circular >o. 6 %hich provides@

Ghere Arrest >ot Properly &ffected. hould the 7n=uest Officer find that the arrest%as not "ade in accordance %ith the Rules, he shall@

a) reco""end the release of the person arrested or detained4

b) note do%n the disposition on the referral docu"ent4

c) prepare a brief "e"orandu" indicatin/ the reasons for the action ta*en4 and

d) for%ard the sa"e, to/ether %ith the record of the case, to the City orProvincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.

Ghere the reco""endation for the release of the detained person is approved by theCity or Provincial Prosecutor but the evidence on hand %arrant the conduct of are/ular preli"inary investi/ation, the order of release shall be served on the officer

havin/ custody of said detainee and shall direct the said officer to serve upon thedetainee the subpoena or notice of preli"inary investi/ation, to/ether %ith the copiesof the char/e sheet or co"plaint, affidavit or s%orn state"ents of the co"plainant andhis %itnesses and other supportin/ evidence. (&"phasis supplied)

-or the failure of +eltranKs panel of in=uest prosecutors to co"ply %ith ection :,Rule 2 in relation to ection 5, Rule 3 and !O Circular >o. 6 , %e declare+eltranKs in=uest void. +eltran %ould have been entitled to a preli"inaryinvesti/ation had he not as*ed the trial court to "a*e a udicial deter"ination of

probable cause, %hich effectively too* the place of such proceedin/.

here is >o Probable Cause to 7ndict
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt19


13/63

+eltran for Rebellion.

Probable cause is the De


14/63

+eltran. 29 7n his affidavit, &scala recounted that in the afternoon of 20 -ebruary 2006,he sa% +eltran, Oca"po, CasiLo, #a;a, #ariano, irador, and other individuals on

board a vehicle %hich entered a chic*en far" in +ucal, Padre arcia, +atan/as andthat after the passen/ers ali/hted, they %ere "et by another individual %ho loo*edli*e an uan. -or his part, Cachuela stated that he %as a for"er "e"ber of the CPP

and that ( ) he attended the CPPKs D 0 th Plenu"D in 2 %here he sa% +eltran4 (2) hetoo* part in cri"inal activities4 and (3) the ar"s he and the other CPP "e"bers used%ere purchased partly fro" contributions by Con/ressional "e"bers, li*e +eltran,%ho represent party'list /roups affiliated %ith the CPP.

he alle/ations in these affidavits are far fro" the proof needed to indict +eltran forta*in/ part in an ar"ed public uprisin/ a/ainst the /overn"ent. Ghat thesedocu"ents prove, at best, is that +eltran %as in +ucal, Padre arcia, +atan/as on 20-ebruary 2006 and that 1 years earlier, he %as present durin/ the 2 CPP Plenu".

>one of the affidavits stated that +eltran co""itted specific acts of pro"otin/,"aintainin/, or headin/ a rebellion as found in the !O Resolution of 2: -ebruary2006. >one of the affidavits alle/ed that +eltran is a leader of a rebellion. +eltranKsalle/ed presence durin/ the 2 CPP Plenu" does not auto"atically "a*e hi" aleader of a rebellion.

7n fact, CachuelaKs affidavit stated that +eltran attended the 2 CPP Plenu" asDChair"an, 8ilusan/ #ayo Eno (8#E).D Assu"in/ that +eltran is a "e"ber of theCPP, %hich +eltran does not ac*no%led/e, "ere "e"bership in the CPP does notconstitute rebellion. 2 As for the alle/ed fundin/ of the CPPKs "ilitary e=uip"ent fro"+eltranKs con/ressional funds, CachuelaKs affidavit "erely contained a /eneralconclusion %ithout any specific act sho%in/ such fundin/. Cachuela "erely alle/edthat Dan/ "/a iban/ "/a pondo na"in ay /alin/ sa "/a party list na naihalal sa8on/reso tulad n/ +AHA> #E>A N pi"u"unuan nila A ER OCA#PO atCR7 P7> +&$ RA>, < <


15/63

the alle/ations in -uentesK affidavit "a*e out is a case for Conspiracy to Co""itRebellion, punishable under Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code, not Rebellionunder Article 31. Attendance in "eetin/s to discuss, a"on/ others, plans to brin/do%n a /overn"ent is a "ere preparatory step to co""it the acts constitutin/Rebellion under Article 31. &ven the prosecution ac*no%led/ed this, since the

felony char/ed in the 7nfor"ation a/ainst +eltran and an uan in Cri"inal Case >o.06'152 is Conspiracy to Co""it Rebellion and not Rebellion. he 7nfor"ation"erely alle/ed that +eltran, an uan, and others conspired to for" a DtacticalallianceD to co""it Rebellion. hus, the R C #a*ati erred %hen it neverthelessfound probable cause to try +eltran for Rebellion based on the evidence before it.

he "inutes 32 of the 20 -ebruary 2006 alle/ed "eetin/ in +atan/as bet%een "e"bersof #8P and CPP, includin/ +eltran, also do not detract fro" ourfindin/. 1a !"phi1.net >o%here in the "inutes %as +eltran i"plicated. Ghile the"inutes state that a certain DCrisD attended the alle/ed "eetin/, there is no otherevidence on record indicatin/ that DCrisD is +eltran. an uan, fro" %ho" the DflashdriveD containin/ the so'called "inutes %as alle/edly ta*en, denies *no%in/ +eltran.

o repeat, none of the affidavits alle/es that +eltran is pro"otin/, "aintainin/, orheadin/ a Rebellion. he 7nfor"ation in Cri"inal Case >o. 06'152 itself does not"a*e such alle/ation. hus, even assu"in/ that the 7nfor"ation validly char/es+eltran for ta*in/ part in a Rebellion, he is entitled to bail as a "atter of ri/ht sincethere is no alle/ation in the 7nfor"ation that he is a leader or pro"oter of theRebellion. 33 Fo%ever, the 7nfor"ation in fact "erely char/es +eltran for Dconspirin/and confederatin/D %ith others in for"in/ a Dtactical allianceD to co""it rebellion. As%orded, the 7nfor"ation does not char/e +eltran %ith Rebellion but %ith Conspiracyto Co""it Rebellion, a bailable offense. 31

On the $adlad and #a;a Petitions

he Preli"inary 7nvesti/ation %as ainted

Gith 7rre/ularities.

As in the deter"ination of probable cause, this Court is si"ilarly loath to en oin the prosecution of offenses, a practice rooted on public interest as the speedy closure ofcri"inal investi/ations fosters public safety .35 Fo%ever, such relief in e=uity "ay be

/ranted if, a"on/ others, the sa"e is necessary (a) to prevent the use of the stron/ar" of the la% in an oppressive and vindictive "anner 36 or (b) to afford ade=uate protection to constitutional ri/hts. 3: he case of the petitioners in .R. >os. :20:0':2 and :20:1':6 falls under these e


16/63

(a) he co"plaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall beacco"panied by the affidavits of the co"plainant and his %itnesses, as %ell asother supportin/ docu"ents to establish probable cause. hey shall be in suchnu"ber of copies as there are respondents, plus t%o (2) copies for the officialfile. he affidavits shall be subscribed and s%orn to before any prosecutor or

/overn"ent official authori;ed to ad"inister oath, or, in their absence orunavailability, before a notary public, each of %ho" "ust certify that he

personally e


17/63

(f) Githin ten ( 0) days after the investi/ation, the investi/atin/ officer shalldeter"ine %hether or not there is sufficient /round to hold the respondent fortrial. (&"phasis supplied)

7nstead of follo%in/ this procedure scrupulously, as %hat this Court had "andated in

an earlier rulin/, Dso that the constitutional ri/ht to liberty of a potential accused can be protected fro" any "aterial da"a/e,D 39 respondent prosecutors nonchalantlydisre/arded it. Respondent prosecutors failed to co"ply %ith ection 3(a) of Rule 2%hich provides that the co"plaint (%hich, %ith its attach"ent, "ust be of suchnu"ber as there are respondents) be acco"panied by the affidavits of the co"plainantand his %itnesses, subscribed and s%orn to before any prosecutor or /overn"entofficial authori;ed to ad"inister oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before anotary public. Respondent prosecutors treated the unsubscribed letters of ani/ue and#endo;a of the C7! , P>P as co"plaints 3 and accepted the affidavits attached to theletters even thou/h so"e of the" %ere notari;ed by a notary public %ithout anysho%in/ that a prosecutor or =ualified /overn"ent official %as unavailable asre=uired by ection 3(a) of Rule 2.

-urther, ection 3(b) of Rule 2 "andates that the prosecutor, after receivin/ theco"plaint, "ust deter"ine if there are /rounds to continue %ith the investi/ation. 7fthere is none, he shall dis"iss the case, other%ise he shall Dissue a subpoena to therespondents.D Fere, after receivin/ the C7! letters, respondent prosecutors

pere"ptorily issued subpoenas to petitioners re=uirin/ the" to appear at the !Ooffice on 3 #arch 2006 Dto secure copies of the co"plaints and its attach"ents.D!urin/ the investi/ation, respondent prosecutors allo%ed the C7! to present a"as*ed -uentes %ho subscribed to an affidavit before respondent prosecutor elasco.

elasco proceeded to distribute copies of -uentesK affidavit not to petitioners or theircounsels but to "e"bers of the "edia %ho covered the proceedin/s. Respondent

prosecutors then re=uired petitioners to sub"it their counter'affidavits in 0 days. 7t%as only four days later, on : #arch 2006, that petitioners received the co"pletecopy of the attach"ents to the C7! letters. 1a !"phi1.net

hese uncontroverted facts belie respondent prosecutorsK state"ent in the Order of 22#arch 2006 that the preli"inary investi/ation D%as done in accordance %ith theRevised Rules oBf Cri"inal Procedure.D 10 7ndeed, by pere"ptorily issuin/ thesubpoenas to petitioners, toleratin/ the co"plainantKs antics durin/ the investi/ation,and distributin/ copies of a %itnessK affidavit to "e"bers of the "edia *no%in/ that

petitioners have not had the opportunity to e


18/63

Contrary to the sub"ission of the olicitor eneral, respondent prosecutorsK filin/ ofthe 7nfor"ation a/ainst petitioners on 2 April 2006 %ith +ranch 5: of the R C#a*ati does not "oot the petitions in .R. >os. :20:0':2 and :20:1':6. Our

po%er to en oin prosecutions cannot be frustrated by the si"ple filin/ of the7nfor"ation %ith the trial court. 1a !"phi1.net

On Respondent ProsecutorsK $ac* of 7"partiality

Ge find "erit in petitionersK doubt on respondent prosecutorsK i"partiality.Respondent ecretary of ustice, %ho e


19/63

/ROSEC TOR 7OSELITA C. MENDO3A, SENIOR STATE /ROSEC TORAILEEN MARIE S. G TIERRE3, STATE /ROSEC TOR IR5IN A.MARA A, &'$ STATE /ROSEC TOR MER A A. 5AGA, i' )eir +&p&+i ! &%"e"#er% o( )e Dep&r "e' o( 7u% i+e p&'el o( pro%e+u or% i'-e% i & i' I.S.No%. 2006 229, 2006 226 &'$ 2006 2: , 7 STICE SECRETAR RA L M.GON3ALE3, DIRECTOR GENERAL ART RO C. LOMI AO, i' )i% +&p&+i !&% C)ie(, /)ilippi'e N& io'&l /oli+e, /;CS /T. RODOLFO . MENDO3A, 7R.,&'$ /;S /T. OLANDA G. TANIG E, Respondents.


20/63

he -acts

Petitioner in .R. >o. :50 3, Crispin +. +eltran (+eltran), and petitioners in .R. >os. :20:1':6, $i;a $. #a;a (#a;a), oel . irador ( irador), aturnino C.Oca"po (Oca"po), eodoro A. CasiLo (CasiLo), and Rafael . #ariano (#ariano),

are "e"bers of the Fouse of Representatives representin/ various party'list /roups .2 Petitioners in .R. >os. :20:0':2 are private individuals. Petitioners all face char/esfor Rebellion under Article 31 in relation to Article 35 of the Revised Penal Code int%o cri"inal cases pendin/ %ith the R C #a*ati.

.R. >o. :50 3 ( he +eltran Petition)

-ollo%in/ the issuance by President loria #acapa/al'Arroyo of PresidentialProcla"ation >o. 0 : on 21 -ebruary 2006 declarin/ a D tate of >ational&"er/ency,D police officers 3 arrested +eltran on 25 -ebruary 2006, %hile he %as enroute to #arilao, +ulacan, and detained hi" in Ca"p Cra"e, Mue;on City. +eltran%as arrested %ithout a %arrant and the arrestin/ officers did not infor" +eltran of thecri"e for %hich he %as arrested. On that evenin/, +eltran %as sub ected to an in=uestat the Mue;on City Fall of ustice for 7ncitin/ to edition under Article 12 of theRevised Penal Code based on a speech +eltran alle/edly /ave durin/ a rally inMue;on City on 21 -ebruary 2006, on the occasion of the 20 th anniversary of the&! A Revolution. he in=uest %as based on the oint affidavit of +eltranKs arrestin/officers %ho clai"ed to have been present at the rally. he in=uest prosecutor 1 indicted +eltran and filed the correspondin/ 7nfor"ation %ith the #etropolitan rialCourt of Mue;on City (#e C). 5

he authorities brou/ht bac* +eltran to Ca"p Cra"e %here, on 2: -ebruary 2006, he%as sub ected to a second in=uest, %ith st $t. $a%rence an uan ( an uan), thisti"e for Rebellion. A panel of tate prosecutors 6 fro" the !O conducted this secondin=uest. he in=uest %as based on t%o letters, both dated 2: -ebruary 2006, ofHolanda ani/ue ( ani/ue) and of Rodolfo #endo;a (#endo;a). ani/ue is theActin/ &os. :20:1':6, an

uan, and several others as Dleaders and pro"otersD of an alle/ed foiled plot tooverthro% the Arroyo /overn"ent. he plot %as supposed to be carried out ointly by

"e"bers of the Co""unist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the #a*abayan/8a%al n/ Pilipinas (#8P), %hich have for"ed a Dtactical alliance.D

On 2: -ebruary 2006, the !O panel of prosecutors issued a Resolution findin/ probable cause to indict +eltran and an uan as DleadersIpro"otersD of Rebellion.

he panel then filed an 7nfor"ation %ith the R C #a*ati. he 7nfor"ation alle/edthat +eltran, an uan, and other individuals Dconspirin/ and confederatin/ %ith eachother, < <


21/63

Cri"inal Case >o. 06'152, %as raffled to +ranch 3: under Presidin/ ud/e enny$ind R. Aldecoa'!elorino ( ud/e !elorino).

+eltran "oved that +ranch 3: "a*e a udicial deter"ination of probable causea/ainst hi". 9 +efore the "otion could be resolved, ud/e !elorino recused herself

fro" the case %hich %as re'raffled to +ranch 16 under ud/e &ncarnacion a a'#oya ( ud/e #oya).

7n its Order dated 3 #ay 2006, +ranch 16 sustained the findin/ of probable causea/ainst +eltran. +eltran sou/ht reconsideration but ud/e #oya also inhibited herself fro" the case %ithout resolvin/ +eltranKs "otion. ud/e &l"o #. Ala"eda of +ranch

50, to %ho" the case %as re'raffled, issued an Order on 2 Au/ust 2006 denyin/+eltranKs "otion.

Fence, the petition in .R. >o. :50 3 to set aside the Orders dated 3 #ay 2006 and2 Au/ust 2006 and to en oin +eltranKs prosecution.

7n his Co""ent to the petition, the olicitor eneral clai"s that +eltranKs in=uest forRebellion %as valid and that the R C #a*ati correctly found probable cause to try+eltran for such felony.

.R. >os. :20:0':2 and :20:1':6 ( he #a;a and $adlad Petitions)

+ased on ani/ue and #endo;aKs letters, the !O sent subpoenas to petitioners on 6#arch 2006 re=uirin/ the" to appear at the !O Office on 3 #arch 2006 Dto /etcopies of the co"plaint and its attach"ent.D Prior to their receipt of the subpoenas,

petitioners had =uartered the"selves inside the Fouse of Representatives buildin/ forfear of bein/ sub ected to %arrantless arrest.

!urin/ the preli"inary investi/ation on 3 #arch 2006, the counsel for the C7! presented a "as*ed "an, later identified as ai"e -uentes (-uentes), %ho clai"ed to be an eye%itness a/ainst petitioners. -uentes subscribed to his affidavit beforerespondent prosecutor &""anuel elasco %ho then /ave copies of the affidavit to"edia "e"bers present durin/ the proceedin/s. he panel of prosecutors 0 /ave

petitioners 0 days %ithin %hich to file their counter'affidavits. Petitioners %erefurnished the co"plete copies of docu"ents supportin/ the C7! Ks letters only on :#arch 2006.

Petitioners "oved for the inhibition of the "e"bers of the prosecution panel for lac* of i"partiality and independence, considerin/ the political "ilieu under %hich

petitioners %ere investi/ated, the state"ents that the President and the ecretary of ustice "ade to the "edia re/ardin/ petitionersK case, and the "anner in %hich the

prosecution panel conducted the preli"inary investi/ation. he !O panel of prosecutors denied petitionersK "otion on 22 #arch 2006. Petitioners sou/ht

reconsideration and additionally prayed for the dis"issal of the cases. Fo%ever, the panel of prosecutors denied petitionersK "otions on 1 April 2006.

Petitioners no% see* the nullification of the !O Orders of 22 #arch 2006 and 1April 2006.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt11


22/63

Actin/ on petitionersK prayer for the issuance of an in unctive %rit, the Court issued astatus =uo order on 5 une 2006. Prior to this, ho%ever, the panel of prosecutors, on2 April 2006, issued a Resolution findin/ probable cause to char/e petitioners and 16others %ith Rebellion. he prosecutors filed the correspondin/ 7nfor"ation %ith+ranch 5: of the R C #a*ati, doc*eted as Cri"inal Case >o. 06' 11 (later

consolidated %ith Cri"inal Case >o. 06'152 in +ranch 16), char/in/ petitioners andtheir co'accused as Dprincipals, "aster"inds, Bor headsD of a Rebellion. 2 Conse=uently, the petitioners in .R. >os. :20:0':2 filed a supple"ental petition toen oin the prosecution of Cri"inal Case >o. 06' 11.

7n his separate Co""ent to the #a;a petition, the olicitor eneral sub"its that the preli"inary investi/ation of petitioners %as not tainted %ith irre/ularities. he

olicitor eneral also clai"s that the filin/ of Cri"inal Case >o. 06' 11 has "ootedthe #a;a petition.

he 7ssues

he petitions raise the follo%in/ issues@

. 7n .R. >o. :50 3, (a) %hether the in=uest proceedin/ a/ainst +eltran forRebellion %as valid and (b) %hether there is probable cause to indict +eltran forRebellion4 and

2. 7n .R. >os. :20:0':2 and :20:1':6, %hether respondent prosecutors should been oined fro" continuin/ %ith the prosecution of Cri"inal Case >o. 06' 11 . 3

he Rulin/ of the CourtGe find the petitions "eritorious. On the +eltran Petition

he 7n=uest Proceedin/ a/ainst +eltran for Rebellion is oid.

7n=uest proceedin/s are proper only %hen the accused has been la%fully arrested%ithout %arrant. 1 ection 5, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Cri"inal Procedure

provides the instances %hen such %arrantless arrest "ay be effected, thus@

Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person "ay,

%ithout a %arrant, arrest a person@

(a) Ghen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co""itted, is actuallyco""ittin/, or is atte"ptin/ to co""it an offense4

(b) Ghen an offense has ust been co""itted and he has probable cause to believe based on personal *no%led/e of facts or circu"stances that the person to be arrestedhas co""itted it4 and

< < <


23/63

7n cases fallin/ under para/raphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested %ithout a%arrant shall be forth%ith delivered to the nearest police station or ail and shall be

proceeded a/ainst in accordance %ith section : of Rule 2.

he oint affidavit of +eltranKs arrestin/ officers 5 states that the officers arrested

+eltran, %ithout a %arrant, 6 for 7ncitin/ to edition, and not for Rebellion. hus, thein=uest prosecutor could only have conducted N as he did conduct N an in=uest for7ncitin/ to edition and no other. Conse=uently, %hen another /roup of prosecutorssub ected +eltran to a second in=uest proceedin/ for Rebellion, they overstepped their authority renderin/ the second in=uest void. >one of +eltranKs arrestin/ officers sa%+eltran co""it, in their presence, the cri"e of Rebellion. >or did they have personal*no%led/e of facts and circu"stances that +eltran had ust co""itted Rebellion,sufficient to for" probable cause to believe that he had co""itted Rebellion. Ghatthese arrestin/ officers alle/ed in their affidavit is that they sa% and heard +eltran"a*e an alle/edly seditious speech on 21 -ebruary 2006. :

7ndeed, under !O Circular >o. 6 , dated 2 epte"ber 3, the initial duty of thein=uest officer is to deter"ine if the arrest of the detained person %as "ade Dinaccordance %ith the provisions of para/raphs (a) and (b) of ection 5, Rule 3.D 9 7fthe arrest %as not properly effected, the in=uest officer should proceed under ection

of Circular >o. 6 %hich provides@

Ghere Arrest >ot Properly &ffected. hould the 7n=uest Officer find that the arrest%as not "ade in accordance %ith the Rules, he shall@

a) reco""end the release of the person arrested or detained4

b) note do%n the disposition on the referral docu"ent4

c) prepare a brief "e"orandu" indicatin/ the reasons for the action ta*en4 and

d) for%ard the sa"e, to/ether %ith the record of the case, to the City orProvincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.

Ghere the reco""endation for the release of the detained person is approved by theCity or Provincial Prosecutor but the evidence on hand %arrant the conduct of are/ular preli"inary investi/ation, the order of release shall be served on the officer

havin/ custody of said detainee and shall direct the said officer to serve upon thedetainee the subpoena or notice of preli"inary investi/ation, to/ether %ith the copiesof the char/e sheet or co"plaint, affidavit or s%orn state"ents of the co"plainant andhis %itnesses and other supportin/ evidence. (&"phasis supplied)

-or the failure of +eltranKs panel of in=uest prosecutors to co"ply %ith ection :,Rule 2 in relation to ection 5, Rule 3 and !O Circular >o. 6 , %e declare+eltranKs in=uest void. +eltran %ould have been entitled to a preli"inaryinvesti/ation had he not as*ed the trial court to "a*e a udicial deter"ination of

probable cause, %hich effectively too* the place of such proceedin/.

here is >o Probable Cause to 7ndict
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_172070_2007.html#fnt19


24/63

+eltran for Rebellion.

Probable cause is the De


25/63

+eltran. 29 7n his affidavit, &scala recounted that in the afternoon of 20 -ebruary 2006,he sa% +eltran, Oca"po, CasiLo, #a;a, #ariano, irador, and other individuals on

board a vehicle %hich entered a chic*en far" in +ucal, Padre arcia, +atan/as andthat after the passen/ers ali/hted, they %ere "et by another individual %ho loo*edli*e an uan. -or his part, Cachuela stated that he %as a for"er "e"ber of the CPP

and that ( ) he attended the CPPKs D 0 th Plenu"D in 2 %here he sa% +eltran4 (2) hetoo* part in cri"inal activities4 and (3) the ar"s he and the other CPP "e"bers used%ere purchased partly fro" contributions by Con/ressional "e"bers, li*e +eltran,%ho represent party'list /roups affiliated %ith the CPP.

he alle/ations in these affidavits are far fro" the proof needed to indict +eltran forta*in/ part in an ar"ed public uprisin/ a/ainst the /overn"ent. Ghat thesedocu"ents prove, at best, is that +eltran %as in +ucal, Padre arcia, +atan/as on 20-ebruary 2006 and that 1 years earlier, he %as present durin/ the 2 CPP Plenu".

>one of the affidavits stated that +eltran co""itted specific acts of pro"otin/,"aintainin/, or headin/ a rebellion as found in the !O Resolution of 2: -ebruary2006. >one of the affidavits alle/ed that +eltran is a leader of a rebellion. +eltranKsalle/ed presence durin/ the 2 CPP Plenu" does not auto"atically "a*e hi" aleader of a rebellion.

7n fact, CachuelaKs affidavit stated that +eltran attended the 2 CPP Plenu" asDChair"an, 8ilusan/ #ayo Eno (8#E).D Assu"in/ that +eltran is a "e"ber of theCPP, %hich +eltran does not ac*no%led/e, "ere "e"bership in the CPP does notconstitute rebellion. 2 As for the alle/ed fundin/ of the CPPKs "ilitary e=uip"ent fro"+eltranKs con/ressional funds, CachuelaKs affidavit "erely contained a /eneralconclusion %ithout any specific act sho%in/ such fundin/. Cachuela "erely alle/edthat Dan/ "/a iban/ "/a pondo na"in ay /alin/ sa "/a party list na naihalal sa8on/reso tulad n/ +AHA> #E>A N pi"u"unuan nila A ER OCA#PO atCR7 P7> +&$ RA>, < <


26/63

the alle/ations in -uentesK affidavit "a*e out is a case for Conspiracy to Co""itRebellion, punishable under Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code, not Rebellionunder Article 31. Attendance in "eetin/s to discuss, a"on/ others, plans to brin/do%n a /overn"ent is a "ere preparatory step to co""it the acts constitutin/Rebellion under Article 31. &ven the prosecution ac*no%led/ed this, since the

felony char/ed in the 7nfor"ation a/ainst +eltran and an uan in Cri"inal Case >o.06'152 is Conspiracy to Co""it Rebellion and not Rebellion. he 7nfor"ation"erely alle/ed that +eltran, an uan, and others conspired to for" a DtacticalallianceD to co""it Rebellion. hus, the R C #a*ati erred %hen it neverthelessfound probable cause to try +eltran for Rebellion based on the evidence before it.

he "inutes 32 of the 20 -ebruary 2006 alle/ed "eetin/ in +atan/as bet%een "e"bersof #8P and CPP, includin/ +eltran, also do not detract fro" ourfindin/. 1a !"phi1.net >o%here in the "inutes %as +eltran i"plicated. Ghile the"inutes state that a certain DCrisD attended the alle/ed "eetin/, there is no otherevidence on record indicatin/ that DCrisD is +eltran. an uan, fro" %ho" the DflashdriveD containin/ the so'called "inutes %as alle/edly ta*en, denies *no%in/ +eltran.

o repeat, none of the affidavits alle/es that +eltran is pro"otin/, "aintainin/, orheadin/ a Rebellion. he 7nfor"ation in Cri"inal Case >o. 06'152 itself does not"a*e such alle/ation. hus, even assu"in/ that the 7nfor"ation validly char/es+eltran for ta*in/ part in a Rebellion, he is entitled to bail as a "atter of ri/ht sincethere is no alle/ation in the 7nfor"ation that he is a leader or pro"oter of theRebellion. 33 Fo%ever, the 7nfor"ation in fact "erely char/es +eltran for Dconspirin/and confederatin/D %ith others in for"in/ a Dtactical allianceD to co""it rebellion. As%orded, the 7nfor"ation does not char/e +eltran %ith Rebellion but %ith Conspiracyto Co""it Rebellion, a bailable offense. 31

On the $adlad and #a;a Petitions

he Preli"inary 7nvesti/ation %as ainted

Gith 7rre/ularities.

As in the deter"ination of probable cause, this Court is si"ilarly loath to en oin the prosecution of offenses, a practice rooted on public interest as the speedy closure ofcri"inal investi/ations fosters public safety .35 Fo%ever, such relief in e=uity "ay be

/ranted if, a"on/ others, the sa"e is necessary (a) to prevent the use of the stron/ar" of the la% in an oppressive and vindictive "anner 36 or (b) to afford ade=uate protection to constitutional ri/hts. 3: he case of the petitioners in .R. >os. :20:0':2 and :20:1':6 falls under these e


27/63

(a) he co"plaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall beacco"panied by the affidavits of the co"plainant and his %itnesses, as %ell asother supportin/ docu"ents to establish probable cause. hey shall be in suchnu"ber of copies as there are respondents, plus t%o (2) copies for the officialfile. he affidavits shall be subscribed and s%orn to before any prosecutor or

/overn"ent official authori;ed to ad"inister oath, or, in their absence orunavailability, before a notary public, each of %ho" "ust certify that he

personally e


28/63

(f) Githin ten ( 0) days after the investi/ation, the investi/atin/ officer shalldeter"ine %hether or not there is sufficient /round to hold the respondent fortrial. (&"phasis supplied)

7nstead of follo%in/ this procedure scrupulously, as %hat this Court had "andated in

an earlier rulin/, Dso that the constitutional ri/ht to liberty of a potential accused can be protected fro" any "aterial da"a/e,D 39 respondent prosecutors nonchalantlydisre/arded it. Respondent prosecutors failed to co"ply %ith ection 3(a) of Rule 2%hich provides that the co"plaint (%hich, %ith its attach"ent, "ust be of suchnu"ber as there are respondents) be acco"panied by the affidavits of the co"plainantand his %itnesses, subscribed and s%orn to before any prosecutor or /overn"entofficial authori;ed to ad"inister oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before anotary public. Respondent prosecutors treated the unsubscribed letters of ani/ue and#endo;a of the C7! , P>P as co"plaints 3 and accepted the affidavits attached to theletters even thou/h so"e of the" %ere notari;ed by a notary public %ithout anysho%in/ that a prosecutor or =ualified /overn"ent official %as unavailable asre=uired by ection 3(a) of Rule 2.

-urther, ection 3(b) of Rule 2 "andates that the prosecutor, after receivin/ theco"plaint, "ust deter"ine if there are /rounds to continue %ith the investi/ation. 7fthere is none, he shall dis"iss the case, other%ise he shall Dissue a subpoena to therespondents.D Fere, after receivin/ the C7! letters, respondent prosecutors

pere"ptorily issued subpoenas to petitioners re=uirin/ the" to appear at the !Ooffice on 3 #arch 2006 Dto secure copies of the co"plaints and its attach"ents.D!urin/ the investi/ation, respondent prosecutors allo%ed the C7! to present a"as*ed -uentes %ho subscribed to an affidavit before respondent prosecutor elasco.

elasco proceeded to distribute copies of -uentesK affidavit not to petitioners or theircounsels but to "e"bers of the "edia %ho covered the proceedin/s. Respondent

prosecutors then re=uired petitioners to sub"it their counter'affidavits in 0 days. 7t%as only four days later, on : #arch 2006, that petitioners received the co"pletecopy of the attach"ents to the C7! letters. 1a !"phi1.net

hese uncontroverted facts belie respondent prosecutorsK state"ent in the Order of 22#arch 2006 that the preli"inary investi/ation D%as done in accordance %ith theRevised Rules oBf Cri"inal Procedure.D 10 7ndeed, by pere"ptorily issuin/ thesubpoenas to petitioners, toleratin/ the co"plainantKs antics durin/ the investi/ation,and distributin/ copies of a %itnessK affidavit to "e"bers of the "edia *no%in/ that

petitioners have not had the opportunity to e


29/63

Contrary to the sub"ission of the olicitor eneral, respondent prosecutorsK filin/ ofthe 7nfor"ation a/ainst petitioners on 2 April 2006 %ith +ranch 5: of the R C#a*ati does not "oot the petitions in .R. >os. :20:0':2 and :20:1':6. Our

po%er to en oin prosecutions cannot be frustrated by the si"ple filin/ of the7nfor"ation %ith the trial court. 1a !"phi1.net

On Respondent ProsecutorsK $ac* of 7"partiality

Ge find "erit in petitionersK doubt on respondent prosecutorsK i"partiality.Respondent ecretary of ustice, %ho e


30/63

PA> A>7+A>, $ .@

Republic Act >o. 92 1 penali;es si"ple ille/al possession of firear"s, provided thatthe person arrested co""itted no other cri"e.Q -urther"ore, if the person is heldliable for "urder or ho"icide, ille/al possession of firear"s is an a//ravatin/

circu"stance, but not a separate offense. Fence, %here an accused %as convicted ofdirect assault %ith "ultiple atte"pted ho"icide for firin/ an unlicensed #' 1 rifle atseveral police"en %ho %ere about to serve a search %arrant, he cannot be held /uiltyof the separate offense of ille/al possession of firear"s. >either can such unla%ful act

be considered to have a//ravated the direct assault.

he Case

Galpan $ad aala" y #iha il, also *no%n as Garpan,Q appeals before us theepte"ber :, 9 !ecision iB of the Re/ional rial Court (R C) of a"boan/a

City (+ranch 6), %hich found hi" /uilty of three out of the four char/es lod/eda/ainst hi".

-iled a/ainst appellant %ere four 7nfor"ations, iiB2 all si/ned by Assistant Re/ionaltate Prosecutor Ricardo . Cabaron and dated epte"ber 25, :. he first

7nfor"ation iiiB3 %as for "aintainin/ a den for the use of re/ulated dru/s. 7t reads asfollo%s@

hat on or about epte"ber 21, :, in the City of a"boan/a, Philippines, and%ithin the urisdiction of this Fonorable Court, the above'na"ed accused, Galpan$ad aala" bein/ then the o%ner of a residential house located at Rio Fondo, ivB1 thisCity, conspiring and confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting x xx his co-accused wife Nur-in Ladjaalam and Ahmad Sailabbi y Hajaraini, didthen and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, maintain said house as aden, where regulated drug was! used in any form"# vB5

he second 7nfor"ation viB6 char/ed appellant %ith ille/al possession of firear"s anda""unition. Ge =uote it belo%@

hat on or about epte"ber 21, :, in the City of a"boan/a, Philippines, and%ithin the urisdiction of this Fonorable Court, the above'na"ed accused, conspirin/and confederatin/ to/ether, "utually aidin/ and assistin/ %ith one another, %ithout

any ustifiable reason or purpose other than to use it in the co""ission of cri"e, didthen and there, %ilfully, unla%fully, and feloniously have in their possession andunder their custody and control, the follo%in/ %eapons, to %it@ one ( ) # 1 rifle %ith

> 555225 %ith "a/a;ines and seven (:) rounds of live a""unition4 t%o (2)"a/a;ines %ith t%enty (20) and t%entyB'one (2 ) rounds of live Ba""unition 4 one( ) ho"e"ade caliber .39 revolver %ith five (5) live a""unition4 one ( ) #':(sin/le) rifle %ith pouch and %ith five (5) e"pty shellBs 4 one ( ) ho"e "ade caliber .39 %ith >'3 0 2 %ith five live a""unition and one e"pty shell of Ba cal. 39 < < &>C& said accused tothe penalty of RECL SION /ER/ET A and to pay a fine of FIVE H NDREDTHO SAND (P500,000.00) and to pay the costs4


32/63

2. 7n Cri"inal Case >o. 163:, NOT G ILT of iolation of ection 6,Article 777, in relation to ection 2 , Article 7 , of Republic Act >o. 6125, other%ise*no%n as the !an/erous !ru/s Act of :2, as a"ended, and AC ITS hi" of saidcri"e %ith costs de oficio4

3. in Cri"inal Case >o. 1639, G ILT E OND REASONA LE DO T of the cri"e of 7lle/al Possession of -irear" and A""unition penali;ed underPresidential !ecree >o. 966, as a"ended by Republic Act. >o. 92 1, andSENTENCES said accused to suffer an indeter"inate penalty of SIB =6> EARS of

prision correccional as "ini"u" to EIGHT =8> EARS of prision "ayor as"a and pay thecosts4

1. in Cri"inal Case >o. 163 , G ILT E OND REASONA LE DO T of the cri"e of !irect Assault %ith #ultiple Atte"pted Fo"icide and SENTENCES said accused to an indeter"inate penalty of T5O =2> EARS &'$ FO R = >MONTHS of prision correccional as "ini"u" to SIB =6> EARS of prisioncorreccional as "a and to

pay the costs.Q (e"phasis in the ori/inal)

Fence, this appeal. arcotics Enit of the a"boan/aCity Police Office in connection %ith the service of the search %arrant. he briefin/%as conducted by PO2 -elipe a/antin/, Chief of the Anti' iceI>arcotics Enit.!urin/ the briefin/, PO3 Renato !ela PeLa %as assi/ned as presentor of the %arrant.

PO Ricardo $acastesantos and PO3 &nri=ue Rivera %ere desi/nated to conduct thesearch. Other police"en %ere assi/ned as peri"eter /uards ( >, #arch 3, 9, pp.33'36).

After the briefin/, "ore than thirty (30) police"en headed by Police uperintendent&d%in oledad proceeded to the house of appellant and his %ife at Rio Fondo on

board several police vehicles ( >, #arch 1, 9, p. 324 April 22, 9, p. 51).+efore they could reach appellantKs house, three (3) persons sittin/ at a nearby storeran to%ards the house shoutin/, SBP olice, raid, raidK (7bid., #arch 3, 9, pp. 1 , 13'114 April 23, 9, p. 1). Ghen the police"en %ere about ten ( 0) "eters fro" the"ain /ate of the house, they %ere "et by a rapid burst of /unfire co"in/ fro" thesecond floor of the house. here %as also /unfire at the bac* of the house (7bid.,#arch 5, 9, pp. 1' 6).

PO #irasol, PO2 $acastesantos, PO3 Rivera, and PO3 !ela PeLa %ho %ere %iththe first /roup of police"en sa% appellant fire an # 1 rifle to%ards the". hey all


33/63

*ne% appellant. Ghen they %ere fired upon, the /roup, to/ether %ith PO2a/antin/, PO3 Obut and uperintendent oledad, sou/ht cover at the concrete fence

to observe the "ove"ents at the second floor of the house %hile other police"ensurrounded the house (7bid., #arch 1, 9, pp. 50'5 ).

7n front of the house %as an e


34/63

Rino +artolo"e $ocson %as an infor"er of the Anti' iceI>arcotics Enit of thea"boan/a Police. BO n the "ornin/ of epte"ber 21, :, he %as instructed byPO2 a/antin/ to /o to appellantKs house to buy Sshabu.K $ocson *ne% appellant as

a seller of SshabuK ( >, April 22, 9, p. 5) and had been to appellantKs house aboutfifteen ( 5) ti"es before. Fe %ent to Rio Fondo and arrived at appellantKs house at

3@20 p.". Fe bou/ht P300.00 %orth of SshabuK fro" appellant. he latter /ot three (3)dec*s of shabu fro" his %aist ba/. Appellant instructed $ocson to /o behind thecurtain %here there %as a table. here %ere si< (6) persons already s"o*in/. here%as a li/hted *erosene la"p "ade of a "edicine bottle placed on the table. heyas*ed $ocson to s"o*e SshabuK and $ocson obli/ed. Fe placed the three (3) dec*s ofSshabuK he bou/ht on the table (7bid., pp. 9' 5).

Ghile they %ere s"o*in/ Sshabu,K $ocson heard /unfire co"in/ fro" appellantKshouse. hey all stood and entered appellantKs co"pound but %ere instructed to passBthrou/h the other side. hey "et appellant at the bac* of his house. Appellant toldthe" to escape Sbecause the police are already here.K hey sca"pered and Sran a%ay

because there %ere already shots.K $ocson u"ped over the fence and ran to%ards theseashore. Epon reachin/ a place near the -isheries chool, he too* a tricycle and %entho"e (7bid., pp. :' ).

he follo%in/ day, epte"ber 25, :, he %ent to the police station and e, #arch 3, 9, p. ). unpo%der residue e,#arch 3, 9, pp. 6'2 ).

Gith respect to the crystalline substances, an eP Cri"e$aboratory ervice Office , on the fifty (50) pieces of folded alu"inu" foils eachcontainin/ %hite crystalline /ranules %ith a total %ei/ht of .:126 /ra"s (&


35/63

93.26:1 /ra"s (&ot one of those %ho arrestedhi" testified in Court. Fe %as handcuffed and placed inside a eep par*ed at RioFondo &le"entary chool. Accordin/ to hi", he did not fire a /un at the police"enfro" Bt he second floor of his house. Fe said the S policemen K B%ere Sthe one*s+ who

fire*d+ at us K (tsn, p. 5, id.). 7f he fired a /un at the police"en for sure they B%oulddie S*b+ecause the door is very near ) ) ) the vicinity of my house K. Fe does not o%nthe # 1 rifle (&


36/63

e


37/63

ail for three "onths and five days after %hich he %as released (tsn, pp. 25'2 , #ay 5,9).

#elba Es"a, 20 years old, a %ido%, testified that Bo n the afternoon of epte"ber21, :, she %as in the house of her parents lyin/ to/ether %ith her husband i**al

Es"a. here is only one house bet%een her parentsK house and the house of Galpan$ad aala". Fer husband i**al Es"an is the brother of >ur'in $ad aala", GalpanKs%ife. Ghen #elba heard shots, she %ent do%nstairs. A police"an %as loo*in/ for her husband. he police"an called her husband. Ghen her husband %ent do%n, he %asinstructed by the police"an to lie do%n in prone position. hen the police"an shother husband. he police"an had t%o other co"panions %ho also shot her husband%hile he %as lyin/ do%n in prone position (tsn, pp.2':, #ay 5, 9).

#ur*isa Es"an, 30 years old, "arried, declared that Bo n the afternoon of epte"ber 21, :, she %as sittin/ at the door of her house %atchin/ her children playin/ %hena "otorcyle, driven by a person, stopped near her house. he driver %as a/antin/%ho" she called a soldier. Fe %ent do%n fro" his "otorcycle, pulled a /un and

po*ed it at #ur*isa. #ur*isa stood up and raised her hands. he /ot her children and%hen she %as about to enter the roo" of her house, a/antin/ a/ain po*ed a /un ather and S there was a shot .K As a result of firin/, three persons died, na"ely, i**alEs"an, +oy $ad aala" and Atip apali ali (tsn, pp. 9' 0, #ay 5, 9).

+aran/ay Captain Fad i Fussin &lhano, 5 years old, testified that about 1@00 oScloc* Bo n the afternoon of epte"ber 21, :, he %as fetched by t%o police"en atCataban/an %here he %as attendin/ a se"inar. +ecause of traffic alon/ the %ay, theyarrived at the Rio Fondo already late in the afternoon. Fe sa% police"en %erealready inside the house. Epon enterin/ the /ate, he sa% Galpan at the /ate alreadyhandcuffed. Galpan called hi" but the police advised hi" not to approach Galpan.

he search %as already over and thin/s %ere already ta*en inside the house. Ghen he%ent inside the house, he sa% S the things that they policemen/ searched# the firearmsand the shabu S (tsn, p. :. #ay 9, 9). Fe did not see the earch Garrant. Ghat%as sho%n to hi" %ere the thin/s recovered durin/ the search %hich %ere bein/listed. hey %ere bein/ counted and placed on a table. S 8pon seeing the things thatwere recovered during the search# , 0ust signed the receipt 5)h. 9%:; 9% 1:/ of thethings ) ) ) ta-en during the search: tsn# pp. 1< 1=. May =# 1>>=/ . Fe sa% three dead

bodies at the side of the fence %hen he %ent to the other side of the house. he three persons %ere *illed outside the fence of Galpan $ad aala" (tsn, p. 9, id).Q


38/63

a"basan vs. People, 216 CRA 91 ( 5), the upre"e Court ruled that a search%arrant for "ore than one offense ' a Sscatter shot %arrantK ' violates ection 3, Rule

26 of the BR evised Rules of Court and is Stotally null and void.KQ


39/63

a/ainst the". 7t then dis"issed these alle/ations, sayin/ that fra"e'up, li*e alibi, %asan inherently %ea* defense.


40/63

police officers %ho sei;ed the". >either could the accused be held liable for ille/al possession of firear"s and a""unition eu"ber 555225 and %ith "a/a;ine containin/ fifteen ( 5) live a""unition and t%o"ore # 1 rifle "a/a;ines %ith t%enty (20) and t%enty'one (2 ) live a""unitionrespectively considerin/ that the police"en %ho recovered or sei;ed the other

firear"s and a""unition did not testify in court. he blue ba/ containin/ assortedcoins cannot be returned to the accused Galpan $ad aala" a.*.a. B3arpan& becauseaccordin/ to the accused the blue ba/ and assorted coins do not belon/ to hi"B4instead the said assorted coins should be turned over to the >ational reasury.Q


41/63

defense had even re=uested PO A"ado #irasol r. to s*etch the sub ect pre"ises to/ive the lo%er court a fairly /ood idea of appellantKs house.


42/63

M@ >o%, %hen this /ate %as opened, you said you %ent inside the house, ri/htT

A@ Hes.

M@ Ghat did you see inside the houseT

A@ 7, to/ether %ith PO Ricardo $acastesantos, entered the "ain door of thehouse of Galfran Bsic $ad aala" at the /round floor. Ge %ent inside the sala on the/round floor of his houseB4 7 sa% t%o old %o"an.

< < < < < < < < E A$@

M@ >o%, %hat did you do %ith these t%o old %o"enT

A@ 7 did not "ind those t%o old %o"en because those t%o %o"en %ere sittin/ onthe /round floor. 7 %as concentratin/ on the second floor because $ad aala" %asfirin/ to%ards our /roup so, 7, to/ether %ith Ricardo $acastesantos, %ent upstairs tothe second floor of the house.

M@ Gere you able to /o to the second floor of the houseT

A@ Hes.

M@ Ghat happened %hen you %ere already on the second floorT

A@ Ghile %e %ere proceedin/ to the second floor, Galfan Bsic $ad aala",noticed our presence and i""ediately %ent inside the bedroo" Bo n the second floorand he %ent i""ediately and u"ped fro" the %indo% of his house < < < leadin/ tothe roof of the nei/hborKs house.

< < < < < < < < o%, 7 have here # 1 rifleB4 %ill you please tell us %here is the erial >o. ofthisT

A@ 555225 and 7 put "y initial, R $.

-7 CA$ >E A$@

his is already "ar*ed as our &


44/63

A@ Ghen 7 recovered it 7 re"oved the bullets inside the cha"berB. 7 re"oved the"a/a;ine and 7 turned it over to the investi/ator.

M@ Ghere did you turn it overT

A@ At the cri"e scene.

M@ >o%, that "a/a;ine, can you still identify thisT

A@ Hes.

M@ GhyT

A@ 7 put < < < "ar*in/s.

< < < < < < < < o%, #r. Gitness, do you re"e"ber havin/ eE A$@

M . . . . Galpan $ad aala", %hose si/nature is thisT

( ho%in/)

A Hes, ir. his is "ine.

M >o%, in para/raphBs ,2,3,1,5,6,: and 94 you stated in this Counter'Affidavit%hich 7 =uote@ Sthat 7 %as restin/ and sleepin/ %hen 7 heard the /unshots and 7noticed that the shots %ere directed to%ards our house.. and 7 inspected and < < < %e%ere attac*ed by ar"ed persons.. and 7 %as apprehended by the persons %ho attac*ed< < < our houseK4 Bthe house you are referrin/ to Bin this para/raph, %hose house Bareyou referrin/ to, is this B%hat you are referrin/ to Bas your house or the house of

your nei/hbors Bfro" %hich you said you heard /unshotsTA Our house.

M >o%, in para/raph 6 of your Counter'Affidavit you stated and 7 =uote@ SthatBo n that afternoon of epte"ber 21, :, 7 %as at ho"e in "y house Aplaya,Riohondo, +o. Ca"po #usli", "y co"panions in "y house B%ere the t%o old%o"en and "y children, is this correctT

A hey %ere not there.

M >o%, in that state"ent #r. Gitness, you said that you %ere at ho"e in Byourhouse at Aplaya, Riohondo, +o. Ca"po #usli"B4 %hich is %hich no%, you %ere inyour house or you %ere in your nei/hborsBS house at that ti"e %hen you heard/unshotsT

A 7 %as in the house near "y house.

M o, your state"ent particularly para/raph 6 of your Counter'Affidavit that you%ere at ho"e in Byour house at Aplaya Riohondo +o. Ca"po #usli", is < < < notcorrectT

A Hes, ir. his is not correct.Q livB51


48/63

Cri"e and Punish"ent

he trial court convicted appellant of three cri"es@ ( ) "aintenance of a dru/ den, (2)direct assault %ith atte"pted ho"icide, and (3) ille/al possession of firear"s. Ge %illdiscuss each of these.

Maintenance of a (rug (en

Ge a/ree %ith the trial court that appellant %as /uilty of "aintenance of a dru/ den,an offense for %hich he %as correctly sentenced to reclusion perpetua . Fis /uilt %asclearly established by the testi"ony of Prosecution Gitness Rino +artolo"e $ocson,%ho hi"self had used the e . ection of Presidential !ecree >o. 966, as a"ended, is herebyfurther a"ended to read as follo%s@


49/63

ection . 8nlawful Manufacture# Sale# Ac?uisition# (isposition or %ossession of Hirearms or Ammunition ,nstruments 8sed or ,ntended to be 8sed in the Manufactureof Hirearms or Ammunition. '' he penalty of prision correccional in its "a


50/63

not have been i/norant of the proviso l


51/63

that for direct assault. Ghile the penalty for the first is prision mayor , for the second itis only prision correccional . 7ndeed, the accused "ay evade conviction for ille/al

possession of firear"s by usin/ such %eapons in co""ittin/ an even li/hteroffense, l


52/63

ANGEL CELINO, SR.,

Petitioner,

' versus '

CO RT OF A//EALS, CECIT , HON. DELANO F.VILLAR 3, /re%i$i' 7u$ e,

r&'+) 16, Re io'&l Tri&l Cour ,C&pi , Ro?&% Ci !, &'$ /EO/LEOF THE /HILI//INES,

Respondents.

G.R. No. 1 0962

Present@

ME7 E#+7> , U $ ., Chairperson#CARP7O, UUCARP7O #ORA$& ,

7> A, and

&$A CO, R., $$ .

Pro"ul/ated@

une 2 , 200:


53/63

his petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court

assails the Court of AppealsK !ecision dated April 9, 2005 B affir"in/

the trial courtKs denial of petitioner An/el Celino, r.Ks #otion to Muash4

and Resolution dated epte"ber 26, 2005 2B2 denyin/ petitionerKs #otion

for Reconsideration of the said !ecision.

he follo%in/ facts are not disputed@

%o separate infor"ations %ere filed before the Re/ional rial

Court of Roo. 6116 (/un ban), 3B3 and ection , Para/raph

2 of Republic Act >o. (R.A.) 92 1 1B1 (ille/al possession of firear"), as

follo%s@

Criminal Case Io. C 1J< 7K

hat on or about the 2 th day of #ay, 2001, in the City of Ro


54/63

havin/ obtained the proper authority in %ritin/ fro" the Co""issionon &lections, #anila, Philippines.

CO> RARH O $AG. 5B5

Criminal Case Io. C 1J= 7K

hat on or about the 2 th day of #ay, 2001, in the City of Ro RARH O $AG. 6B6

Epon arrai/n"ent in Cri"inal Case >o. C' 39'01, petitioner

pleaded not /uilty to the /un ban violation char/e. : B:

Prior to his arrai/n"ent in Cri"inal Case >o. C' 3:'01, petitioner

filed a #otion to Muash 9B9 contendin/ that he cannot be prosecuted for

ille/al possession of firear"s < < < if he %as also char/ed of havin/

co""itted another cri"e of B sic violatin/ the Co"elec /un ban under

the sa"e set of facts < <


55/63

+y Order of uly 2 , 2001, 0B 0 the trial court denied the #otion

to Muash on the basis of this CourtKs B affir"ation in Margare0o v.

2on. 5scoses 2B 2 of therein respondent ud/eKs denial of a si"ilar

"otion to =uash on the /round that the other offense char/ed < < < is not

one of those enu"erated under R.A. 92 1 < <


56/63

appellate court s resolution on October 5, 2005 B denyin/ his

"otion for reconsideration. 7nstead, petitioner chose to file the present

petition under Rule 65 only on !ece"ber 2, 2005, 20B20 a /ood 59 days

after he received the said resolution.

Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for lost appeal.

Certiorari lies only %hen there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and

ade=uate re"edy in the ordinary course of la%. Ghy the =uestion bein/

raised by petitioner, i.e., %hether the appellate court co""itted /rave

abuse of discretion, could not have been raised on appeal, no reason

therefor has been advanced. 2 B2

Ghile this Court, in accordance %ith the liberal spirit pervadin/ the

Rules of Court and in the interest of ustice, has the discretion to treat a

petition for certiorari as havin/ been filed under Rule 15, especially if

filed %ithin the re/le"entary period under said Rule, it finds nothin/ in

the present case to %arrant a liberal application of the Rules, no

ustification havin/ been proffered, as ust stated, %hy the petition %as

filed beyond the re/le"entary period, 22B22 especially considerin/ that it

is substantially ust a replication of the petition earlier filed before theappellate court.

echnicality aside, the petition fails ust the sa"e.

20222


57/63

he relevant provision of R.A. 92 1 reads@

&C 7O> . ection of Presidential !ecree >o. 966, asa"ended, is hereby further a"ended to read as follo%s@

D &C 7O> . 8nlawful Manufacture# Sale#

Ac?uisition# (isposition or %ossession of Hirearms or Ammunition or ,nstruments 8sed or ,ntended to be8sed in the Manufacture of Hirearms or Ammunition.

< <


58/63

< < < < (Enderscorin/ supplied)

he cru< of the controversy lies in the interpretation of the

underscored proviso. Petitioner, citin/ Agote v. @orenzo#23B23 %eople v.

@ad0aalam#21B21 and other si"ilar cases, 25B25 contends that the "ere

filin/ of an infor"ation for /un ban violation a/ainst hi" necessarily bars

his prosecution for ille/al possession of firear". he olicitor eneral

contends other%ise on the basis of Margare0o v. 2on. 5scoses 26B26 and

%eople v. 'aldez. 2: B2:

7n Agote#29B29 this Court affir"ed the accusedKs conviction for

/un ban violation but e


59/63

#oreover, penal la%s are construed liberally in favor of theaccused. 7n this case, the plain "eanin/ of RA 92 1 s si"ple lan/ua/eis "ost favorable to herein appellant. erily, no other interpretation is

ustified, for the lan/ua/e of the ne% la% de"onstrates the le/islativeintent to favor the accused. Accordin/ly, appellant cannot be convicted

of t%o separate offenses of ille/al possession of firear"s and directassault %ith atte"pted ho"icide. <

crim rev case-title 1 to 3

Documents