Cases Crim Law-1

8/20/2019 Cases Crim Law-1

1/120

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987

RESTITUTO YNOT, petitioner,

vs.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE OURT, T!E STATION OMMANDER, INTEGRATED

NATIONAL POLIE, "AROTA NUE#O, ILOILO a$% T!E REGIONAL DIRETOR,

"UREAU O& ANIMAL INDUSTRY, REGION I#, ILOILO ITY, respondents.

Ramon A. Gonzales for petitioner.

RU', J.:

The essence of due process is distilled in the immortal cry of Themistocles to Alcibiades

"Strike — but hear me first!" It is this cry that the petitioner in effect repeats here as he

challenges the constitutionality of ecutive rder #o. $%$&A.

The said eecutive order reads in full as follo's(

)*+AS, the resident has given orders prohibiting the interprovincial

movement of carabaos and the slaughtering of carabaos not complying

'ith the re-uirements of ecutive rder #o. $%$ particularly 'ith respect

to age

)*+AS, it has been observed that despite such orders the violators

still manage to circumvent the prohibition against inter&provincial

movement of carabaos by transporting carabeef instead and

)*+AS, in order to achieve the purposes and ob/ectives of ecutiverder #o. $%$ and the prohibition against interprovincial movement of

carabaos, it is necessary to strengthen the said ecutive rder and

provide for the disposition of the carabaos and carabeef sub/ect of the

violation


2/120

#), T*+0+, I, 0+1I#A#1 . 2A+3S, resident of the

hilippines, by virtue of the po'ers vested in me by the 3onstitution, do

hereby promulgate the follo'ing(

S3TI# 4. ecutive rder #o. $%$ is hereby amended such that

henceforth, no carabao regardless of age, se, physical condition or

purpose and no carabeef shall be transported from one province to

another. The carabao or carabeef transported in violation of this ecutive

rder as amended shall be sub/ect to confiscation and forfeiture by the

government, to be distributed to charitable institutions and other similar

institutions as the 3hairman of the #ational 2eat Inspection 3ommission

may ay see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to deserving farmers through

dispersal as the 1irector of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of

carabaos.

S3TI# %. This ecutive rder shall take effect immediately.

1one in the 3ity of 2anila, this %5th day of ctober, in the year of ur

6ord, nineteen hundred and eighty.

7S81.9

0+1I#A#1 .

2A+3S

resid

ent

+epublic of the

hilippines

The petitioner had transported si carabaos in a pump boat from 2asbate to Iloilo on

:anuary 4;, 4, 'hen they 'ere confiscated by the police station commander of

?arotac #uevo, Iloilo, for violation of the above measure. 1 The petitioner sued for recovery, and the+egional Trial 3ourt of Iloilo 3ity issued a 'rit of replevin upon his filing of a supersedeas bond of 4%,@@@.@@. After considering the merits of

the case, the court sustained the confiscation of the carabaos and, since they could no longer be produced, ordered the confiscation of the

bond. The court also declined to rule on the constitutionality of the eecutive order, as raise by the petit ioner, for lack of authority and also for

its presumed validity.2

The petitioner appealed the decision to the Intermediate Appellate 3ourt,( ) 'hich upheld the trial court, (( and he has no' come before us in this petition for revie' on certiorari.

The thrust of his petition is that the eecutive order is unconstitutional insofar as it authories outright confiscation of the carabao or carabeef

being transported across provincial boundaries. *is claim is that the penalty is invalid because it is imposed 'ithout according the o'ner a

right to be heard before a competent and impartial court as guaranteed by due process. *e complains that the measure should not have


3/120

been presumed, and so sustained, as constitutional. There is also a challenge to the improper eercise of the legislative po'er by the former

resident under Amendment #o. $ of the 4


4/120

The due process clause 'as kept intentionally vague so it 'ould remain also conveniently resilient. This 'as felt necessary because due

process is not, like some provisions of the fundamental la', an "iron rule" laying do'n an implacable and immutable command for all

seasons and all persons. 0leibility must be the best virtue of the guaranty. The very elasticity of the due process clause 'as meant to make

it adapt easily to every situation, enlarging or constricting its protection as the changing times and circumstances may re-uire.

A'are of this, the courts have also hesitated to adopt their o'n specific description of due process lest they confine themselves in a legal

strait/acket that 'ill deprive them of the elbo' room they may need to vary the meaning of the clause 'henever indicated. Instead, they have

preferred to leave the import of the protection open&ended, as it 'ere, to be "gradually ascertained by the process of inclusion and eclusionin the course of the decision of cases as they arise." 11 Thus, :ustice 0eli 0rankfurter of the D.S. Supreme 3ourt, for eample, 'ould go no

farther than to define due process — and in so doing sums it all up — as nothing more and nothing less than "the embodiment of the sporting

Idea of fair play." 12

)hen the barons of ngland etracted from their sovereign liege the reluctant promise that that 3ro'n 'ould thenceforth not proceed

against the life liberty or property of any of its sub/ects ecept by the la'ful /udgment of his peers or the la' of the land, they thereby 'on for

themselves and their progeny that splendid guaranty of fairness that is no' the hallmark of the free society. The solemn vo' that Eing :ohn

made at +unnymede in 4%45 has since then resounded through the ages, as a ringing reminder to all rulers, benevolent or base, that every

person, 'hen confronted by the stern visage of the la', is entitled to have his say in a fair and open hearing of his cause.

The closed mind has no place in the open society. It is part of the sporting Idea of fair play to hear "the other side" before an opinion is

formed or a decision is made by those 'ho sit in /udgment. bviously, one side is only one&half of the -uestion the other half must also be

considered if an impartial verdict is to be reached based on an informed appreciation of the issues in contention. It is indispensable that the

t'o sides complement each other, as unto the bo' the arro', in leading to the correct ruling after eamination of the problem not from one or

the other perspective only but in its totality. A /udgment based on less that this full appraisal, on the pretet that a hearing is unnecessary oruseless, is tainted 'ith the vice of bias or intolerance or ignorance, or 'orst of all, in repressive regimes, the insolence of po'er.

The minimum re-uirements of due process are notice and hearing 1) 'hich, generally speaking, may not be dispensed 'ith because they

are intended as a safeguard against official arbitrariness. It is a gratifying commentary on our /udicial system that the /urisprudence of this

country is rich 'ith applications of this guaranty as proof of our fealty to the rule of la' and the ancient rudiments of fair play. )e have

consistently declared that every person, faced by the a'esome po'er of the State, is entitled to "the la' of the land," 'hich 1aniel )ebster

described almost t'o hundred years ago in the famous 1artmouth 3ollege 3ase, 14 as "the la' 'hich hears before it condemns, 'hich

proceeds upon in-uiry and renders /udgment only after tr ial." It has to be so if the rights of every person are to be secured beyond the reach

of officials 'ho, out of mistaken eal or plain arrogance, 'ould degrade the due process clause into a 'orn and empty catch'ord.

This is not to say that notice and hearing are imperative in every case for, to be sure, there are a number of admitted eceptions. The

conclusive presumption, for eample, bars the admission of contrary evidence as long as such presumption is based on human eperience

or there is a rational connection bet'een the fact proved and the fact ul timately presumed therefrom. 15 There are instances 'hen the need

for epeditions action 'ill /ustify omission of these re-uisites, as in the summary abatement of a nuisance per se, like a mad dog on the

loose, 'hich may be killed on sight because of the immediate danger it poses to the safety and lives of the people. ornographic materials,

contaminated meat and narcotic drugs are inherently pernicious and may be summarily destroyed. The passport of a person sought for a

criminal offense may be cancelled 'ithout hearing, to compel his return to the country he has fled. 1* 0ilthy restaurants may be summarily

padlocked in the interest of the public health and ba'dy houses to protect the public morals. 17 In such instances, previous /udicial hearing

may be omitted 'ithout violation of due process in vie' of the nature of the property involved or the urgency of the need to protect the

general 'elfare from a clear and present danger.

The protection of the general 'elfare is the particular function of the police po'er 'hich both restraints and is restrained by due process. The

police po'er is simply defined as the po'er inherent in the State to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the general 'elfare. 18

?y reason of its function, it etends to all the great public needs and is described as the most pervasive, the least limitable and the most

demanding of the three inherent po'ers of the State, far outpacing taation and eminent domain. The individual, as a member of society, is

hemmed in by the police po'er, 'hich affects him even before he is born and follo's him still after he is dead — from the 'omb to beyond

the tomb — in practically everything he does or o'ns. Its reach is virtually limitless. It is a ubi-uitous and often un'elcome intrusion. ven

so, as long as the activity or the property has some relevance to the public 'elfare, its regulation under the police po'er is not only proper

but necessary. And the /ustification is found in the venerable 6atin maims, Salus populi est suprema lex and Sic utere tuo ut alienum non

laedas, 'hich call for the subordination of individual interests to the benefit of the greater number.

It is this po'er that is no' invoked by the government to /ustify ecutive rder #o. $%$&A, amending the basic rule in ecutive rder #o.

$%$, prohibiting the slaughter of carabaos ecept under certain conditions. The original measure 'as issued for the reason, as epressed in

one of its )hereases, that "present conditions demand that the carabaos and the buffaloes be conserved for the benefit of the small farmers

'ho rely on them for energy needs." )e affirm at the outset the need for such a measure. In the face of the 'orsening energy crisis and the

increased dependence of our farms on these traditional beasts of burden, the government 'ould have been remiss, indeed, i f it had not

taken steps to protect and preserve them.


5/120

A similar prohibition 'as challenged in United States v. Toribio, 19 'here a la' regulating the registration, branding and slaughter of large

cattle 'as claimed to be a deprivation of property 'ithout due process of la'. The defendant had been convicted thereunder for having

slaughtered his o'n carabao 'ithout the re-uired permit, and he appealed to the Supreme 3ourt. The conviction 'as affirmed. The la' 'as

sustained as a valid police measure to prevent the indiscriminate killing of carabaos, 'hich 'ere then badly needed by farmers. An epidemic

had stricken many of these animals and the reduction of their number had resulted in an acute decline in agricultural output, 'hich in turn

had caused an incipient famine. 0urthermore, because of the scarcity of the animals and the conse-uent increase in their price, cattle&

rustling had spread alarmingly, necessitating more effective measures for the registration and branding of these animals. The 3ourt held that

the -uestioned statute 'as a valid eercise of the police po'er and declared in part as follo's(

To /ustify the State in thus interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must appear, first, that the interests of the

public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, re-uire such interference and second, that the

means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon

individuals. ...

0rom 'hat has been said, 'e think it is clear that the enactment of the provisions of the statute under consideration

'as re-uired by "the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class" and that the

prohibition of the slaughter of carabaos for human consumption, so long as these animals are fit for agricultural 'ork or

draft purposes 'as a "reasonably necessary" limitation on private o'nership, to protect the community from the loss of

the services of such animals by their slaughter by improvident o'ners, tempted either by greed of momentary gain, or

by a desire to en/oy the luury of animal food, even 'hen by so doing the productive po'er of the community may be

measurably and dangerously affected.

In the light of the tests mentioned above, 'e hold 'ith the Toribio 3ase that the carabao, as the poor manCs tractor, so to speak, has a directrelevance to the public 'elfare and so is a la'ful sub/ect of ecutive rder #o. $%$. The method chosen in the basic measure is also

reasonably necessary for the purpose sought to be achieved and not unduly oppressive upon individuals, again follo'ing the above&cited

doctrine. There is no doubt that by banning the slaughter of these animals ecept 'here they are at least seven years old if male and eleven

years old if female upon issuance of the necessary permit, the eecutive order 'ill be conserving those still fit for farm 'ork or breeding and

preventing their improvident depletion.

?ut 'hile conceding that the amendatory measure has the same la'ful sub/ect as the original eecutive order, 'e cannot say 'ith e-ual

certainty that it complies 'ith the second re-uirement, viz., that there be a la'ful method. )e note that to strengthen the original measure,

ecutive rder #o. $%$&A imposes an absolute ban not on the slaughter of the carabaos but on their movement , providing that "no carabao

regardless of age, se, physical condition or purpose 7sic9 and no carabeef shall be transported from one province to another." The ob/ect of

the prohibition escapes us. The reasonable connection bet'een the means employed and the purpose sought to be achieved by the

-uestioned measure is missing

)e do not see ho' the prohibition of the inter&provincial transport of carabaos can prevent their indiscriminate slaughter, considering that

they can be killed any'here, 'ith no less difficulty in one province than in another. bviously, retaining the carabaos in one province 'ill not

prevent their slaughter there, any more than moving them to another province 'ill make it easier to kill them there. As for the carabeef, the

prohibition is made to apply to it as other'ise, so says eecutive order, it could be easily circumvented by simply killing the animal. erhaps

so. *o'ever, if the movement of the live animals for the purpose of preventing their slaughter cannot be prohibited, it should follo' that there

is no reason either to prohibit their transfer as, not to be flippant dead meat.

ven if a reasonable relation bet'een the means and the end 'ere to be assumed, 'e 'ould still have to reckon 'ith the sanction that the

measure applies for violation of the prohibition. The penalty is outright confiscation of the carabao or carabeef being transported, to be meted

out by the eecutive authorities, usually the police only. In the Toribio 3ase, the statute 'as sustained because the penalty prescribed 'as

fine and imprisonment, to be imposed by the court after trial and conviction of the accused. Dnder the challenged measure, significantly, no

such trial is prescribed, and the property being transported is immediately impounded by the police and declared, by the measure itself, as

forfeited to the government.

In the instant case, the carabaos 'ere arbitrarily confiscated by the police station commander, 'ere returned to the petitioner only after he

had filed a complaint for recovery and given a supersedeas bond of 4%,@@@.@@, 'hich 'as ordered confiscated upon his failure to producethe carabaos 'hen ordered by the trial court. The eecutive order defined the prohibition, convicted the petitioner and immediately imposed

punishment, 'hich 'as carried out forthright. The measure struck at once and pounced upon the petitioner 'ithout giving him a chance to be

heard, thus denying him the centuries&old guaranty of elementary fair play.

It has already been remarked that there are occasions 'hen notice and hearing may be validly dispensed 'ith not'ithstanding the usual

re-uirement for these minimum guarantees of due process. It is also conceded that summary action may be validly taken in administrative

proceedings as procedural due process is not necessarily /udicial only.20 In the eceptional cases accepted, ho'ever. there

is a /ustification for the omission of the right to a previous hearing, to 'it, the immediac of the problem

sought to be corrected and the urgenc of the need to correct it.


6/120

In the case before us, there 'as no such pressure of time or action calling for the petitionerCs peremptory

treatment. The properties involved 'ere not even inimical per se as to re-uire their instant destruction.

There certainly 'as no reason 'hy the offense prohibited by the eecutive order should not have been

proved first in a court of /ustice, 'ith the accused being accorded all the rights safeguarded to him under

the 3onstitution. 3onsidering that, as 'e held in Pesigan v. Angeles, 21 ecutive rder #o. $%$&A is

penal in nature, the violation thereof should have been pronounced not by the police only but by a court of

/ustice, 'hich alone 'ould have had the authority to impose the prescribed penalty, and only after trial

and conviction of the accused.

)e also mark, on top of all this, the -uestionable manner of the disposition of the confiscated property as

prescribed in the -uestioned eecutive order. It is there authoried that the seied property shall "be

distributed to charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the 3hairman of the #ational 2eat

Inspection 3ommission ma see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to deserving farmers through dispersal

as the 1irector of Animal Industry ma see fit, in the case of carabaos." 7mphasis supplied.9 The phrase

!ma see fit! is an etremely generous and dangerous condition, if condition it is. It is laden 'ith perilous

opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even corruption. ne searches in vain for the usual standard

and the reasonable guidelines, or better still, the limitations that the said officers must observe 'hen they

make their distribution. There is none. Their options are apparently boundless. )ho shall be the fortunatebeneficiaries of their generosity and by 'hat criteria shall they be chosenF nly the officers named can

supply the ans'er, they and they alone may choose the grantee as they see fit, and in their o'n eclusive

discretion. 1efinitely, there is here a "roving commission," a 'ide and s'eeping authority that is not

"canalied 'ithin banks that keep it from overflo'ing," in short, a clearly profligate and therefore invalid

delegation of legislative po'ers.

To sum up then, 'e find that the challenged measure is an invalid eercise of the police po'er because

the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the la'

and, 'orse, is unduly oppressive. 1ue process is violated because the o'ner of the property confiscated

is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and punished. The

conferment on the administrative authorities of the po'er to ad/udge the guilt of the supposed offender is

a clear encroachment on /udicial functions and militates against the doctrine of separation of po'ers.

There is, finally, also an invalid delegation of legislative po'ers to the officers mentioned therein 'ho are

granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of the properties arbitrarily taken. 0or these reasons, 'e

hereby declare ecutive rder #o. $%$&A unconstitutional.

)e agree 'ith the respondent court, ho'ever, that the police station commander 'ho confiscated the

petitionerCs carabaos is not liable in damages for enforcing the eecutive order in accordance 'ith its

mandate. The la' 'as at that time presumptively valid, and it 'as his obligation, as a member of the

police, to enforce it. It 'ould have been impertinent of him, being a mere subordinate of the resident, to

declare the eecutive order unconstitutional and, on his o'n responsibility alone, refuse to eecute it.

ven the trial court, in fact, and the 3ourt of Appeals itself did not feel they had the competence, for all

their superior authority, to -uestion the order 'e no' annul.

The 3ourt notes that if the petitioner had not seen fit to assert and protect his rights as he sa' them, this

case 'ould never have reached us and the taking of his property under the challenged measure 'ould

have become a fait accompli despite its invalidity. )e commend him for his spirit. )ithout the present

challenge, the matter 'ould have ended in that pump boat in 2asbate and another violation of the

3onstitution, for all its obviousness, 'ould have been perpetrated, allo'ed 'ithout protest, and soon

forgotten in the limbo of relin-uished rights.


7/120

The strength of democracy lies not in the rights it guarantees but in the courage of the people to invoke

them 'henever they are ignored or violated. +ights are but 'eapons on the 'all if, like epensive

tapestry, all they do is embellish and impress. +ights, as 'eapons, must be a promise of protection. They

become truly meaningful, and fulfill the role assigned to them in the free society, if they are kept bright and

sharp 'ith use by those 'ho are not afraid to assert them.

)*+0+, ecutive rder #o. $%$&A is hereby declared unconstitutional. cept as affirmed above,

the decision of the 3ourt of Appeals is reversed. The supersedeas bond is cancelled and the amount

thereof is ordered restored to the petitioner. #o costs.

S +1+1.

Teehan"ee, #.$., %ap, &ernan, 'arvasa, Gutierrez, $r., Paras, Gancaco, Padilla (idin Sarmiento and

#ortes, $$., concur.

)elencio*+errera and &eliciano, $$., are on leave.


8/120


SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 125865 January 28, 2000

JEFFREY LING !"UEFENG#, petitioner

!s"

PEOPLE OF T"E P"ILIPPINES, respon#ent"

YNRES$SNTIGO, J.:

Petitioner is an econo$ist %or&in' %ith the Asian De!elop$ent Ban& (ADB)" So$eti$e in

*++, for alle'e#l- utterin' #efa$ator- %or#s a'ainst fello% ADB %or&er .o-ce Cabal he %aschar'e# before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Man#alu-on' Cit- %ith t%o counts of

'ra!e oral #efa$ation #oc&ete# as Cri$inal Cases Nos" /0*12 an# /0*1*" Petitioner %as

arreste# b- !irtue of a %arrant issue# b- the MeTC" After fi3in' petitioner4s bail at P5,22"22 per

cri$inal char'e the MeTC release# hi$ to the custo#- of the Securit- Officer of ADB" The ne3t

#a- the MeTC 6u#'e recei!e# an 7office of protocol7 fro$ the Depart$ent of Forei'n Affairs

(DFA) statin' that petitioner is co!ere# b- i$$unit- fro$ le'al process un#er Section ,/ of the

A'ree$ent bet%een the ADB an# the Philippine 8o!ern$ent re'ar#in' the 9ea#:uarters of the

ADB (hereinafter A'ree$ent) in the countr-" Base# on the sai# protocol co$$unication that

petitioner is i$$une fro$ suit the MeTC 6u#'e %ithout notice to the prosecution #is$isse# the

t%o cri$inal cases" The latter file# a $otion for reconsi#eration %hich %as oppose# b- the DFA"

;hen its $otion %as #enie# the prosecution file# a petition for certiorari an# mandamus %ith

the Re'ional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasi' Cit- %hich set asi#e the MeTC rulin's an# or#ere# the

latter court to enforce the %arrant of arrest it earlier issue#" After the $otion for reconsi#eration

%as #enie# petitioner ele!ate# the case to this Court via a petition for re!ie% ar'uin' that he is

co!ere# b- i$$unit- un#er the A'ree$ent an# that no preli$inar- in!esti'ation %as hel# before

the cri$inal cases %ere file# in court"1âwphi1.nêt

The petition is not i$presse# %ith $erit"

First courts cannot blin#l- a#here an# ta&e on its face the co$$unication fro$ the DFA that

petitioner is co!ere# b- an- i$$unit-" The DFA4s #eter$ination that a certain person is co!ere#

b- i$$unit- is onl- preli$inar- %hich has no bin#in' effect in courts" In recei!in' ex-parte the

DFA4s a#!ice an# in motu propio #is$issin' the t%o cri$inal cases %ithout notice to the

prosecution the latter4s ri'ht to #ue process %as !iolate#" It shoul# be note# that #ue process is a

ri'ht of the accuse# as $uch as it is of the prosecution" The nee#e# in:uirin %hat capacit-


9/120

petitioner %as actin' at the ti$e of the alle'e# utterances re:uires for its resolution e!i#entiar-

basis that has -et to be presente# at the proper ti$e"* At an- rate it has been rule# that the $ere

in!ocation of the i$$unit- clause #oes not ipso facto result in the #roppin' of the char'es"5

Second un#er Section ,/ of the A'ree$ent %hich pro!i#es<

Officers an# staff of the Ban& inclu#in' for the purpose of this Article e3perts an#

consultants perfor$in' $issions for the Ban& shall en6o- the follo%in' pri!ile'es an#

i$$unities<

a") i$$unit- fro$ le'al process %ith respect to acts perfor$e# b- the$ in their

official capacit- e3cept %hen the Ban& %ai!es the i$$unit-"

the i$$unit- $entione# therein is not absolute but sub6ect to the e3ception that the acts %as

#one in 7official capacit-"7 It is therefore necessar- to #eter$ine if petitioner4s case falls %ithin

the a$bit of Section ,/(a)" Thus the prosecution shoul# ha!e been 'i!en the chance to rebut the

DFA protocol an# it $ust be accor#e# the opportunit- to present its contro!ertin' e!i#ence

shoul# it so #esire"

Third slan#erin' a person coul# not possibl- be co!ere# b- the i$$unit- a'ree$ent because our

la%s #o not allo% the co$$ission of a cri$e such as #efa$ation in the na$e of official #ut-"0

The i$putation of theft is ultra vires an# cannot be part of official functions" It is %ell=settle#

principle of la% that a public official $a- be liable in his personal pri!ate capacit- for %hate!er

#a$a'e he $a- ha!e cause# b- his act #one %ith $alice or in ba# faith or be-on# the scope of

his authorit- or 6uris#iction", It appears that e!en the 'o!ern$ent4s chief le'al counsel the

Solicitor 8eneral #oes not support the stan# ta&en b- petitioner an# that of the DFA"

Fourth un#er the Vienna Con!ention on Diplo$atic Relations a #iplo$atic a'ent assu$in'

petitioner is such en6o-s i$$unit- fro$ cri$inal 6uris#iction of the recei!in' state e3cept in the

case of an action relatin' to an- professional or co$$ercial acti!it- e3ercise# b- the #iplo$atic

a'ent in the recei!in' state outsi#e his official functions"/ As alrea#- $entione# abo!e the

co$$ission of a cri$e is not part of official #ut-"

Finally on the contention that there %as no preli$inar- in!esti'ation con#ucte# suffice it to sa-

that preli$inar- in!esti'ation is not a $atter of ri'ht in cases co'ni>able b- the MeTC such asthe one at bar "? Bein' purel- a statutor- ri'ht preli$inar- in!esti'ation $a- be in!o&e# onl-

%hen specificall- 'rante# b- la%"1 The rule on the cri$inal proce#ure is clear that no preli$inar-

in!esti'ation is re:uire# in cases fallin' %ithin the 6uris#iction of the MeTC"@ Besi#es the

absence of preli$inar- in!esti'ation #oes not affect the court4s 6uris#iction nor #oes it i$pair the

!ali#it- of the infor$ation or other%ise ren#er it #efecti!e"+

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_125865_2000.html#fnt1


10/120

;9EREFORE the petition is DENIED"

SO ORDERED"1âwphi1.nêt

Davide, r., !.., "uno, #apunan and "ardo, ., concur"


11/120


SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 127107 Oc+o-r 12, 1998

PETER PAUL DIMATULA a$% #ERONIA DIMATULA, petitioners,

vs.

!ON. SESINANDO #ILLON $ h/ caac+ a/ Pr-/%$ 3%- o +h- R-o$a6 Tra6 or+ o Paa$a, "ra$ch 54 !ON. TEO&ISTO

GUINGONA, $ h/ caac+ a/ S-cr-+ar o 3/+c- MAYOR SANTIAGO YA"UT, SER#ILLANO YA"UT, MARTIN YA"UT a$%

&ORTUNATO MALLARI, respondents.

DA#IDE, 3R., J.:

The issues raised by petitioners in their 2emorandum 1 and by the ffice of the Solicitor 8eneral in its 3omment 2 in

this special civil action for certiorari , prohibition and mandamus under +ule $5 of the +ules of 3ourt filed

by petitioners, children of the deceased olice fficer ; 7;9 Girgilio 1imatulac of 2asantol, ampanga,

may be summaried as follo's(

A. )*T*+ T* 00I3 0 T* +GI#3IA6 +S3DT+

322ITT1 8+AG A?DS 0 1IS3+TI# I#( 749 8IGI#8 1D

3D+S T T* 2TI# 0+ +I#GSTI8ATI# ?H +IGAT

+S#1#TS A8AI#ST )*2 )A++A#TS 0 A++ST )+

ISSD1 ?DT )* *A1 #T HT ?# ?+D8*T I#T T*

3DST1H f T* 6A) and 7%9 0I6I#8 T* I#0+2ATI# 0+

*2I3I1 1SIT E#)618 0 T* AA6 0+2 SAI1

+S3DT+CS +S6DTI# T T* 00I3 0 T*

S3+TA+H 0 :DSTI3.

?. )*T*+ D?6I3 +S#1#T :D18 A3T1 I# 3SS 0

:D+IS1I3TI# I# +31I#8 )IT* T* A++AI8#2#T A#1 I#

1#HI#8 TITI#+SC 2TI#S T ST ASI1 A++AI8#2#T

A#1 +3#SI1+ATI# T*+0 1SIT *IS E#)618 0

T* #1#3H 0 T* AA6 A#1 T* SD?2ISSI# 0 GITA6

GI1#3 T +G T*AT 2D+1+ A#1 #T *2I3I1 )AS

322ITT1 ?H T* A33DS1.

3. )*T*+ D?6I3 +S#1#T S3+TA+H 0 :DSTI3

322ITT1 8+AG A?DS 0 1IS3+TI# I# +3#SI1+I#8

*IS +1+ 0I#1I#8 T*AT T* 3+I2 322ITT1 )AS 2D+1+

A#1 1I+3TI#8 T* +GI#3IA6 +S3DT+ T A2#1 T*

I#0+2ATI# 0+2 *2I3I1 T 2D+1+.

The records and the pleadings of the parties disclose the antecedents.


12/120

n ; #ovember 4


13/120

ne of the men of 2ayor "1ocsay" Habut shot Girgilio 1imatulac, and as a conse-uence,

he died and before he epired, he left a dying declaration pointing to the group of 2ayor

"1ocsay" Habut as the one responsible.

That right after Girgilio 1imatulac 'as shot, accused "1ocsay" Habut ordered his men to

go on board the truck and immediately left a'ay leaving Girgilio 1imatulac bleeding and

asking for help.

n their 'ay home to 2inalin, accused Santiago "1ocsay" Habut gave money to accused

:ohn 1oe 1anJ1anny and 0rancisco "?oy" Hambao 'as asked to bring the accused :ohn

1oe to #ueva ci/a 'hich he did.

0urther, accused Santiago "1ocsay" Habut told his group to deny that they ever 'ent to

2asantol.

The court, after having conducted preliminar examination on the complainant and the

itnesses presented, -is satisfied that there is a -sic reasonable ground to believe that

the crime of murder as committed and that the accused in conspiring and confederating ith one another are probabl guilt thereof.

#ircumstantial evidence strongl shos the presence of conspirac.

That in order not to frustrate the ends of /ustice, 'arrants of arrest 'ere issued against

Santiago Habut, 2artin Habut, Servillano Habut, 0rancisco Hambao, Avelino 1avid, 3asti

1avid, 3atoy #aguit, 0ortunato 2allari, ?oy dela 3ru, 6ito 2iranda and :uan 2agat 'ith

no bail recommended.

*o'ever, 'ith respect to accused 1anJ1anny and EoyangJArding, the court directed the

police authorities to furnish the court KaL description personae of the accused for thepurpose of issuing the needed 'arrant of arrest.

The accused 'ere furnish Ksic L copies of the complaint and affidavits of 'itnesses for

them to file their counter&affidavits in accordance to Ksic L la'.

As of this date, only accused 0rancisco "?oy" Hambao filed his counter&affidavit and all

the others 'aived the filing of the same.

A close evaluation of the evidence submitted by the accused 0rancisco Hambao 'hich

the court finds it Ksic L straightfor'ard and more or less credible and seems to be

consistent 'ith truth, human nature and KtheL natural course of things and lack of motives

Ksic L, the evidence of guilt against him is rather 'eak Kcompared toL the others, 'hich Kis

'hyL the court recommends a cash bond of 5@,@@@.@@ for his provisional liberty, and the

courtCs previous order of no bail for said accused is hereby reconsidered.

)*+0+, premises considered, the 3lerk of 3ourt is directed to for'ard he entire

records of the case to the ffice of the rovincial rosecutor of ampanga for further

action, together 'ith the bodies of accused 0rancisco Hambao and :uan 2agat to be

remanded to the provincial :ail of ampanga. 5 7emphasis supplied9


14/120

In a s'orn statement, * petitioner eter aul 1imatulac narrated that 2ayor Santiago Habut, accompanied

by a number of bodyguards, 'ent to the residence of ; Girgilio 1imatulac to talk about a problem

bet'een the 2ayor and eter aulCs uncle, :un 1imatulac. Girgilio 'armly 'elcomed the group and even

prepared coffee for them. Servillano and 2artin Habut told Girgilio to come do'n from his house and

apologie to the 2ayor, but hardly had Girgilio descended 'hen eter aul heard a gunshot. )hile eter

aul did not see 'ho fired the shot, he 'as sure it 'as one of 2ayor HabutCs companions. eter aul

opined that his father 'as killed because the latter spoke to the people of 2inalin, ampanga, against the

2ayor, eter aul added in a supplemental statement 7Susog na Salaysay9 7 that he heard 2ayor Habut

order Girgilio killed.

It his Sinumpaang Salasa , 8 olice fficer 6eopoldo Soriano of the 2asantol 2unicipal olice Station in

2asantol, ampanga, declared that on ; #ovember 4


15/120

means and method of attack nor the manner thereof. ther'ise there 'ould have been

no necessity for him to give the order to the assailant. The method and manner of attack

'as adopted by the assailant at the spur of the moment and the vulnerable position of the

victim 'as not deliberately and consciously adopted. Treachery therefore could not be

appreciated and the crime reasonably believeKdL to have been committed is *omicide as

no circumstance 'ould -ualify the killing to murder.

Alfonso&0lores then ruled(

)*+0+, in vie' of the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that(

4. An information be filed 'ith the proper court charging

Santiago, Servillano and 2artin all surnamed Habut, and

one :ohn 1oe alias 1anny as conspirators in the crime

of *omicide

%. The case be dismissed against accused velino

1avid, :ustino 2andap a.k.a. 3asti 1avid, 0ranciscoHambao, :uan 2agat, Arturo #aguit, ?ladimir 1imatulac,

0ortunato 2allari, Aniano 2agnaye, 8ilberto 2alabanan,

:esus dela 3ru and :oselito 2iranda.

?ail of %@,@@@.@@ for each of the accused is like'ise recommended.

The +esolution discloses that Alfonso&0lores conducted a hearing on 44 :anuary 4


16/120

T* SD+&TH*# "+SI#8" )AS +A8I#8 #

#G2?+ ;, 4


17/120

All contrary to la'.

The Information, although dated %< :anuary 4


18/120

his motion for reconsideration of the order of 2arch %$, 4@;


19/120

d. ; Alfonso 3anilao

h. Investigation +eport&dated #ovember >, 4


20/120

surrounding his killing, ; 1imatulac 'as indeed deprived of an opportunity to defend

himself or to retaliate.

3orollarily, 'e are also convinced that such mode of attack 'as consciously and

deliberately adopted by the respondents to ensure the accomplishment of their criminal

ob/ective. The admission of respondent 2alabanan is replete 'ith details on ho' the

principal respondent, 2ayor Habut, in conspiracy 'ith the assailant and others, had

consciously and deliberately adopted means to ensure the eecution of the crime.

According to him, 'hile they 'ere on their 'ay to the victimCs house, 2ayor Habut already

instructed 1anny, the assailant, that, "1ikitan mo lang, alam no na king ano ang gaga'in

mo, bahala ka na" This eplains 'hy 1anny positioned himself near the stairs of the

victimCs house armed 'ith a handgun, such positioning 'as precisely adopted as a

means to ensure the accomplishment of their evil design and 2ayor Habut ordered

nobody else but 1anny to shoot the victim 'hile descending the stairs as his position 'as

very strategic to ensure the killing of the victim.

As has been repeatedly held, to constitute treachery, t'o conditions must be present, to

'it( 749 employment of means of eecution that gives the person KattackedL no opportunityto defend himself or retaliate and 7%9 the means of eecution 'ere deliberately or

consciously adopted 7eople vs. Talaver, %;@ S3+A %=4 K4 of "AdministrativeJAdministration

rder #o. %%; of the 1:." 40

In an 7x*Parte 2anifestation 41 dated %4 :une 4


21/120

%. There is merit to the cause of petitioners. If the Secretary of :ustice

'ould find their Appeal meritorious, the rovincial rosecutor 'ould be

directed to upgrade the Information to 2urder and etreme pre/udice if

not gross in/ustice 'ould thereby have been avoided.

;. 3onse-uently, the undersigned counsel interpose no ob/ection to the

issuance of a 'rit of prohibition en/oining respondent :udge from holding

further proceedings in 3riminal 3ase #o.


22/120

In an order 55 dated 45 ctober 4 of the +egional Trial 3ourt of

2acabebe, ampanga, 'hich 'as previously presided over by :udge Gillon. 58 :udge +oura informed the

ffice of the 3ourt Administrator and this 3ourt that he had already inhibited himself from hearing

3riminal 3ase #o. 9 months until the offense charged

'as do'ngraded.

7;9 The information for homicide 'as nevertheless filed despite notice to

the ffice of the rovincial rosecutor of the appeal filed 'ith theSecretary of :ustice and re-uest to defer any action on the case.

7>9 The ffice of the ublic rosecutor of ampanga disallo'ed the

private prosecutor from further participating in the case.

759 :udge +oura denied the motion to defer proceedings and declared in

open court that there 'as no prima facie case for murder,


23/120

not'ithstanding the pendency of petitionersC appeal 'ith respondent

Secretary of :ustice.

7$9 ven before receipt by petitioners of :udge +ouraCs order inhibiting

himself and the order regarding the transfer of the case to ?ranch 5>,

public respondent :udge Gillon set the case for arraignment and, 'ithout

notice to petitioners, forth'ith arraigned the accused on the information

for homicide on %@ 2ay 4@;


24/120

rivate respondents further argue that the decision of respondent Secretary, involving as it did the

eercise of discretionary po'ers, is not sub/ect to /udicial revie'. Dnder the principle of separation of

po'ers, petitionersC recourse should have been to the resident. )hile as regards petitionersC plea that

the Secretary be compelled to amend the information from homicide to murder, private respondents

submit that mandamus does not lie, as the determination as to 'hat offense 'as committed is a

prerogative of the 1:, sub/ect only to the control of the resident.

As regards 1: 1epartment rder #o. %%;, private respondents theorie that appeal by complainants is

allo'ed only if the complaint is dismissed by the prosecutor and not 'hen there is a finding of probable

cause, in 'hich case, only the accused can appeal. *ence, petitionersC appeal 'as improper.

0inally, private respondents stress the fact that petitioners never appealed the 'ithdra'al by the public

prosecutor of the private prosecutorCs authority to handle the case.

In its comment for the public respondents, the ffice of the Solicitor 8eneral 7S89 prays that the petition

be denied because( 7a9 in accordance 'ith Section > of 1: rder #o. %%;, upon arraignment of the

accused, the appeal to the Secretary of :ustice shall be dismissed motu proprio 7b9 the filing of the

information for homicide 'as in compliance 'ith the directive under Section >7%9, 1.. #o. %%;, i .e., anappeal or motion for reinvestigation from a resolution finding probable cause shall not hold the filing of the

information in court 7c9 the trial court even accommodated petitioners by initially deferring arraignment

pending resolution by the 3ourt of Appeals of the petition for prohibition, and since said 3ourt did not

issue any restraining order, arraignment 'as properly had and 7d9 reliance on Roberts is misplaced, as

there, accused +oberts and others had not been arraigned and respondent :udge had ordered the

indefinite postponement of the arraignment pending resolution of their petitions before the 3ourt of

Appeals and the Supreme 3ourt.

)e no' consider the issues enumerated at the outset of this ponencia.

lainly, the proceedings belo' 'ere replete 'ith procedural irregularities 'hich lead us to conclude that

something had gone a'ry in the ffice of the rovincial rosecutor of ampanga resulting in manifest

advantage to the accused, more particularly the HA?DTs, and grave pre/udice to the State and to private

complainants, herein petitioners.

0irst, 'arrants for the arrest of the HA?DTs 'ere issued by the 23T3, 'ith no bail recommended for their

temporary liberty. *o'ever, for one reason or another undisclosed in the record, the HA?DTs 'ere not

arrested neither did they surrender. *ence, they 'ere never brought into the custody of the la'. Het, Asst.

rovincial 0iscal Alfonso +eyes, either motu proprio or upon motion of the HA?DTs, conducted a

reinvestigation. Since said accused 'ere at large, Alfonso&+eyes should not have done so. )hile it may

be true that under the second paragraph of Section 5, +ule 44% of the +ules of 3ourt, the provincial

prosecutor may disagree 'ith the findings of the /udge 'ho conducted the preliminary investigation, as

here, this difference of opinion must be on the basis of the revie' of the record and evidence transmittedby the /udge. )ere that all she did, as she had no other option under the circumstance, she 'as 'ithout

any other choice but to sustain the 23T3 since the HA?DTs and all other accused, ecept 0rancisco

Hambao, 'aived the f iling of their counter&affidavits. Then, further stretching her magnanimity in favor of

the accused, Alfonso&+eyes allo'ed the HA?DTs to submit their counter&affidavits 'ithout first demanding

that they surrender because of the standing 'arrants of arrest against them. In short, Alfonso&+eyes

allo'ed the HA?DTs to make a mockery of the la' in order that they gain their provisional liberty pending

trial and be charged 'ith the lesser offense of homicide.


25/120

Second, Alfonso&+eyes recommended a bond of only %@,@@@.@@ for the HA?DTs and co&accused

"1anny," despite the fact that they 'ere charged 'ith homicide and they 'ere, at the time, fugitives from

/ustice for having avoided service of the 'arrant of arrest issued by the 23T3 and having failed to

voluntarily surrender.

Third, Alfonso&+eyes 'as fully a'are of the private prosecutionCs appeal to the 1: from her resolution.

She could not have been ignorant of the fact that the appeal vigorously assailed her finding that there 'as

no -ualifying circumstance attending the killing, and that the private prosecution had convincing

arguments to support the appeal. The subse-uent resolution of the Secretary of :ustice confirmed the

correctness of the private prosecutionCs stand and eposed the blatant errors of Alfonso&+eyes.

0ourth, despite the pendency of the appeal, Alfonso&+eyes filed the Information for homicide on %=

0ebruary 4 of +ule 44% of the +ules of 3ourt provides(

If upon petition by a proper party, the Secretary of :ustice reverses the resolution of the

provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the fiscal concerned to file

the corresponding information 'ithout conducting another preliminary investigation or to

dismiss or move for the dismissal of the complaint or information.

It is clear from the above, that the proper part referred to therein could be either the offended

party or the accused.


26/120

2ore importantly, an appeal to the 1: is an invocation of the SecretaryCs po'er of control over

prosecutors. Thus, in 9edesma v. #ourt of Appeals, 1* 'e emphatically held(

1ecisions or resolutions of prosecutors are sub/ect to appeal to the secretary of /ustice

'ho, under the +evised Administrative 3ode, *2 eercises the po'er of direct control and

supervision over said prosecutors and 'ho, may thus affirm, nullify, reverse or modify

their rulings.

Sec. ;@@B, 'hich read(

Sec. ;. . . .

The 3hief State rosecutor, the Assistant 3hief State rosecutors, the

Senior State rosecutors, and the State rosecutors shall . . . perform

such other duties as may be assigned to them by the Secretary of

:ustice in the interest of public service.

Sec. ;B. The provisions of the eisting la' to the contrary

not'ithstanding, 'henever a specific po'er, authority, duty, function, or

activity is entrusted to a chief of bureau, office, division or service, the

same shall be understood as also conferred upon the proper 1epartment

*ead 'ho shall have authority to act directly in pursuance thereof, or to

revie', modify, or revoke any decision or action of said chief of bureau,

office, division or service.

"Supervision" and "control" of a department head over his subordinates have beendefined in administrative la' as follo's(

In administrative la', supervision means overseeing or the po'er or

authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their

duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such

action or step as prescribed by la' to make them perform such duties.

3ontrol, on the other hand, means the po'er of an officer to alter or


27/120

modify or nullify or set aside 'hat a subordinate officer had done in the

performance of his duties and to substitute the /udgment of the former for

that of the latter.

+evie' as an act of supervision and control by the /ustice secretary over the fiscals and

prosecutors finds basis in the doctrine of ehaustion of administrative remedies 'hich

holds that mistakes, abuses or negligence committed in the initial steps of an

administrative activity or by an administrative agency should be corrected by higher

administrative authorities, and not directly by courts. As a rule, only after administrative

remedies are ehausted may /udicial recourse be allo'ed.

1: rder #o. %%; of ;@ :une 4


28/120

Appeals, *) that nothing in the ruling in #respo v. )ogul , *4 reiterated in Roberts v. #ourt of Appeals, *5

forecloses the po'er of authority of the Secretary of :ustice to revie' resolutions of his subordinates in

criminal cases despite an information already having been filed in court. The Secretary of :ustice is only

en/oined to refrain, as far as practicable, from entertaining a petition for revie' or appeal from the action

of the prosecutor once a complaint or information is filed in court. In any case, the grant of a motion to

dismiss, 'hich the prosecution may file after the Secretary of :ustice reverses an appealed resolution, is

sub/ect to the discretion of the court. In Roberts 'e 'ent further by saying that #respo could not have

foreclosed said po'er or authority of the Secretary of :ustice "'ithout doing violence to, or repealing, the

last paragraph of Section >, +ule 44% of the +ules of 3ourt" 'hich is -uoted above.

Indubitably then, there 'as on the part of the public prosecution, indecent haste in the filing of the

information for homicide, depriving the State and the offended parties of due process.

As to the second issue, 'e like'ise hold that :udge +oura acted 'ith grave abuse of discretion 'hen, in

his order of %$ 2arch l


29/120

All the foregoing demanded from any impartial mind, especially that of :udge Gillon, a cautious attitude as

these 'ere unmistakable indicia of the probability of a miscarriage of /ustice should arraignment be

precipitately held. *o'ever, :udge Gillon cursorily ignored all this. )hile it may be true that he 'as not

bound to a'ait the 1:Cs resolution of the appeal, as he had, procedurally speaking, complete control

over the case and any disposition thereof rested on his sound discretion, *8 his /udicial instinct should

have led him to peruse the documents submitted on ;@ April 4


30/120

Indeed, for /ustice to prevail, the scales must balance /ustice is not to be dispensed for the accused

alone. The interests of society and the offended parties 'hich have been 'ronged must be e-ually

considered. Gerily, a verdict of conviction is not necessarily a denial of /ustice and an ac-uittal is not

necessarily a triumph of /ustice, for, to the society offended and the party 'ronged, it could also mean

in/ustice. 79 :ustice then must be rendered even&handedly to both the accused, on one hand, and the

State and offended party, on the other.

In this case, the abuse of discretion on the part of the public prosecution and :udges +oura and Gillon

'as gross, grave and palpable, denying, the State and the offended parties their day in court, or in a

constitutional sense, due process. As to said /udges, such amounted to lack or ecess of /urisdiction, or

that their court 'as ousted of the /urisdiction in respect thereto, thereby nullifying as having been done

'ithout /urisdiction, the denial of the motion to defer further hearings, the denial of the motion to

reconsider such denial, the arraignment of the HA?DTs and their plea of not guilty.

These lapses by both the /udges and prosecutors concerned cannot be taken lightly. )e must remedy the

situation before the onset of any irreversible effects. )e thus have no other recourse, for as 3hief :ustice

3laudio Teehankee pronounced in Galman v. Sandiganbaan( 80

The Supreme 3ourt cannot permit such a sham trial and verdict and travesty of /ustice to

stand unrectified. The courts of the land under its aegis are courts of la' and /ustice and

e-uity. They 'ould have no reason to eist if they 'ere allo'ed to be used as mere tools

of in/ustice, deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth, instead of

repositories of /udicial po'er 'hose /udges are s'orn and committed to render impartial

/ustice to all alike 'ho seek the enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention of

redress of a 'rong, 'ithout fear or favor and removed from the pressures of politics and

pre/udice.

)e remind all members of the pillars of the criminal /ustice system that theirs is not a mere

ministerial task to process each accused in and out of prison, but a noble duty to preserve our

democratic society under a rule of la'.

Anent the third issue, it 'as certainly grave error for the 1: to reconsider its B :une 4


31/120

the case, and, insofar as prosecutor 1atu 'as concerned, in disallo'ing the private prosecutor from

further participating in the case.

0inally, the 1: should have further in-uired into the vicissitudes of the case belo' to determine the

regularity of arraignment, considering that the appeal 'as received by the 1: as early as %; 0ebruary

4


32/120


SUPREME COURT

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No%. 1&8'(2$80). Mar*+ &1, 2005

NTE GUE-RR, UGUSTUS F. CESR an RINO SL-OR, Petitioners

!s"

T"E "ON. FOURT" I-ISION OF T"E SNIGN/YN, PEOPLE OF T"E

P"ILIPPINES, ENI P. PI an CRESENCINO . GTC"LIN, Respon#ents"

D E C I S I O N

CLLEJO, SR., .<

This is a petition for certiorari un#er Rule ?/ assailin' the Resolution* of the San#i'anba-an

#ate# April ? *+++ in Cri$inal Case Nos" 502@5 502@, 502@/ 502@? 502@1 502@+ 502+2

502+* 502+5 502+0 502+, 502+? an# 502+1 or#erin' the reinstate$ent of sai# cri$inal

cases"

Cresenciano 8atchalian an# enai#a Pia facult- $e$bers of the Pol-technic ni!ersit- of the

Philippines (PP) file# a co$plaint5 for !iolation of Republic Act No" 02*+ %ith the Office of

the O$bu#s$an a'ainst the a#$inistrators of PP na$el- petitioners Dr" enai#a A" Olonan

the Presi#ent Dr" Dante 8ue!arra the Vice=Presi#ent for A#$inistration an# Finance Att-"

Au'ustus F" Cesar A#$inistrati!e Officer V an# Mr" A#riano A" Sal!a#or the Actin' Chief of

the Accountin' Office" The char'es %ere $a#e in connection %ith certain :uestionable

transactions entere# into b- the PP" A special au#it tea$ of the Co$$ission on Au#it (COA)

ha# li&e%ise con#ucte# a special au#it of selecte# transactions an# its fin#in's %ere containe#

in SAO=SO8 Report No" +0=*+" The case %as #oc&ete# as COA Case No" +5=5+2" Petitioner

Olonan sub$itte# a cop- of the sai# report the Me$oran#u$ of the COA Re!ie% Panel an# her

re:uest for reconsi#eration of the fin#in's of the special au#it tea$ in the sai# report"

An Infor$ation %as thereafter file# in the San#i'anba-an a'ainst all the accuse# inclu#in'

petitioner Olonan" The accusator- portion of the Infor$ation rea#s<

That on or about *+@+ an# for a perio# subse:uent thereto in Sta" Mesa Manila Philippines an#

%ithin the 6uris#iction of this 9onorable Court accuse# Dr" enai#a A" Olonan a public officer

bein' then the Presi#ent of the Pol-technic ni!ersit- of the Philippines (P""P") accuse# Dr"

Dante 8" 8ue!arra li&e%ise a public officer bein' then the Vice=Presi#ent for A#$inistration

an# Finance of the P""P" accuse# Att-" Au'ustus F" Cesar also a public officer bein' then an

A#$inistrati!e Officer V of the P""P" an# accuse# A#riano A" Sal!a#or a public officer too

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt2


33/120

bein' then the Actin' Chief of the Accountin' Di!ision of the P""P" ta&in' a#!anta'e of their

positions an# the offense bein' co$$itte# in relation to their office actin' in e!i#ent ba# faith

an# $anifest partialit- %ith a sin'le cri$inal intent an# all to'ether conspirin' an#

confe#eratin' %ith each other #i# then an# there %illfull- unla%full- an# cri$inall- co$$it

the follo%in' acts to %it<

*" After the construction of ei'ht school buil#in's %ith a total cost of P52+*555+"0* allo% the

non=turno!er of unuse# construction $aterials an# scrap construction $aterials to the P""P"

5" Ma&e an o!erpa-$ent of P**212/?",/ as ter$inal lea!e benefits to Dr" Ne$esio Pru#ente

0" Ma&e a pa-$ent of P*"1, Million to ?, e$plo-ees of the Bureau of Construction (B"O"C")

Depart$ent of Public ;or&s an# 9i'h%a-s (DP;9) %hich a$ount is o!er an# abo!e the

prescribe# fees for technical an# super!ision ser!ices an# also $a&e honoraria pa-$ents to *+

P""P" officials in the a$ount of P//?0?1"22 %ithout le'al basis

," Incur an o!erpa-$ent of P*00522"22 on a parcel of lan# in ope> ue>on Pro!ince b-

failin' to re'ister on ti$e a Dee# of Donation co!erin' *005 s:uare $eters of the aforestate#

propert- %hich %as e$bo#ie# in a Dee# of Sale co!erin' */+*+ s:uare $eters of lan#

/" Ma&e pa-$ents in the total a$ount of P*2?,?502"5@ base# on blin# certifications in

!iolation of Sec" ,? of P"D" **11 the na$es of cre#itors sub$itte# to the DBM for purposes of

cash allocation bein' #ifferent fro$ the na$es of the cre#itors in the Sche#ule of Accounts

pa-able

?" Ma&e pa-$ent for the purchase of curtains for the C"M" Recto Au#itoriu$ e3cee#in' the

re:uire# :uantit- of */+ -ar#s %orth P51,?5"22

1" Ma&e pa-$ents %ith a total a$ount of P*?1?51"*0 %ith the necessar- #ocu$ents to !ali#ate

pa-$ents thereto in the< repaintin' of the ele!ate# concrete tan& floor san#in' an# !arnishin' of

the '-$nasiu$ reno!ation of the four (,) tennis courts an# repair an# paintin' of the Pacia

Boar# 9i'h School Buil#in' an#

@" Ma&e an o!erpa-$ent of P*"++ Million %hen si3 chan'e=%or& or#ers in the construction of

the librar- buil#in' %ere i$pose# %ith the in#irect cost of *+ instea# of onl- *?

thus causin' un#ue in6ur- to the 'o!ern$ent in the aforestate# a$ounts to the #a$a'e an#

pre6u#ice of the 'o!ern$ent"

CONTRARG TO A;"0

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt3


34/120

The case %as #oc&ete# as Cri$inal Case No" 55@/, an# raffle# to the Secon# Di!ision of the

San#i'anba-an" On $otion of the Special Prosecutor the arrai'n$ent of the accuse# %as reset to

No!e$ber *, *++/",

8raft In!esti'ation Officer II E!elina S" Ma'lanoc=Re-es reco$$en#e# that the char'es be

#is$isse#"/ 9o%e!er the O$bu#s$an #isappro!e# this reco$$en#ation an# a#opte# that of

Special Prosecution Officer I Cicero D" .ura#o .r" #ate# .ul- 5@ *++/ to char'e the accuse#

%ith *1 counts of !iolation of Section 0(e) of Rep" Act No" 02*+"? The accuse# file# a $otion for

the reconsi#eration of the Resolution"

Mean%hile Special Prosecution Officer I E!el-n T" ucero=A'caoili re!ie%e# the

reco$$en#ation of .ura#o an# sub$itte# a Me$oran#u$ to the O$bu#s$an reco$$en#in'

that *1 Infor$ations be file# a'ainst all the accuse# an# that the Infor$ation in Cri$inal Case

No" 55@/, be %ith#ra%n" 9ence the Special Prosecutor file# a Motion to ;ith#ra% Cri$inal

Case No" 55@/,1 #ate# .anuar- @ *++?" Appen#e# thereto %ere the *1 Infor$ations a#!erte# to

b- the Special Prosecutor"

On .anuar- *5 *++? the San#i'anba-an 'rante# the $otion an# #is$isse# Cri$inal Case No"

55@/," The bon# poste# b- the accuse# %as li&e%ise cancelle#"@ On Februar- 5@ *++?

A'caoili sub$itte# a Me$oran#u$+ to the Office of the O$bu#s$an reco$$en#in' that the *1

Infor$ations be $aintaine#"

It appears ho%e!er that the reco$$en#ation of A'caoili %as referre# to retire# Court of

Appeals Associate .ustice Alfre#o Mari'o$en a Special Assistant in the Office of the

O$bu#s$an for re!ie%" On Ma- 5, *++? .ustice Mari'o$en sub$itte# a Report

*2

reco$$en#in' the #roppin' of so$e of the char'es a'ainst petitioner Olonan an# her retention

as one of the accuse# in Cri$inal Case Nos" 502@0 502@@ an# 502+@" The O$bu#s$an

appro!e# the reco$$en#ation"**

On .une , *++? the COA ren#ere# a #ecision*5 in Case No" +5=5+2 'rantin' the $otion for

reconsi#eration of petitioner Olonan in SAO=SO8 Report No" +0=*+ an# e3oneratin' her of the

char'es therein" On Au'ust */ *++? the San#i'anba-an issue# a Resolution*0 re:uirin' the

Prosecutor to infor$ the Court %hen the O$bu#s$an recei!e# the #ecision of the COA in Case

No" +5=5+2 an# %hether the sai# #ecision %ill alter the position of the prosecution"

On No!e$ber 51 *++1 the Special Prosecutor file# a Manifestation an# Motion*, pra-in' inter

alia that the arrai'n$ent of all the accuse# in Cri$inal Case No" 502+@ procee# as sche#ule#"

The- li&e%ise $anifeste# that base# on the reco$$en#ation of retire# .ustice Mari'o$en

#ate# Ma- 5, *++? *0 cases file# a'ainst the accuse# specificall- Cri$inal Case Nos" 502@5

502@, 502@/ 502@? 502@1 502@+ 502+2 502+* 502+5 502+0 502+, 502+? an# 502+1

%ere reco$$en#e# for #is$issal he ha# no ob6ection to the %ith#ra%al of the Infor$ation in

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt14


35/120

Cri$inal Case No" 502+1 since it %as $erel- a repetition of Cri$inal Case No" 502+? an# %ith

respect to the re$ainin' four cases it appears that one of the$ specificall- Cri$inal Case No"

502+/ (%ithhol#in' of RATA of Buscaino) %as reco$$en#e# for #is$issal in re'ar# to the

three cases Cri$inal Case No" 502@0 (blin# certification) Cri$inal Case No" 502@@ (floor

san#in' an# !arnishin' of '-$nasiu$) an# Cri$inal Case No" 502+@ (irre'ular pa-$ent of

salar- of COA Au#itors) it appears that petitioner OlonanHs participation %as un#ispute#"*/ The

accuse# oppose# the $otion"

Durin' the hearin' of No!e$ber 5@ *++1 the 'raft court conse:uentl- #irecte# the Special

Prosecutor to file the appropriate $otion %ith reference to the *0 cri$inal cases"*? On .anuar- @

*++@ the Prosecutor file# a .oint Repl- to the plea#in's of the accuse# appen#in' thereto the

Report of .ustice Mari'o$en"*1 On .anuar- 5? *++@ the 'raft court issue# an Or#er #is$issin'

Cri$inal Case Nos" 502@5 502@, 502@/ 502@? 502@1 an# 502@+ 502+2 502+* 502+5

502+0 502+, an# 502+? to 502+1 an# %ith reference to Cri$inal Case Nos" 502@0 502@@ an#

502+@ the Office of the Special Prosecutor %as 'i!en a perio# of 02 #a-s %ithin %hich to further re!ie% the recor#s of the sai# cases an# to report to the 'raft court %ithin the sa$e perio# its

fin#in's an# reco$$en#ation an# the O$bu#s$anHs action thereon $ore specificall- as to

%hether the sai# cases shoul# procee# to trial or shoul# be #is$isse#" The sai# or#er %as

purporte#l- base# on the reco$$en#ation of .ustice Mari'o$en %hich %as cite# b- the Special

Prosecutor in his Manifestation an# Motion"

Conse:uentl- the 'raft court hel# in abe-ance the arrai'n$ent of petitioners Olonan Cesar an#

Sal!a#or in Cri$inal Case Nos" 502@0 502@@ an# 502+@ until further assi'n$ent" i&e%ise the

consi#eration of the 7Motion to Suspen# Accuse# "endente $ite7 #ate# Dece$ber 0 *++/ %as

hel# in abe-ance until the 'raft court ha# recei!e# the Me$oran#u$ of the Office of the SpecialProsecutor containin' its fin#in's an# reco$$en#ations in Cri$inal Case Nos" 502@0 502@@

an# 502+@ an# the O$bu#s$anHs final action thereon"*@

;hen the Special Prosecutor recei!e# a cop- of the Or#er of .anuar- 5? *++@ he file# on

Februar- 52 *++@ a $otion for the partial reconsi#eration of the or#er conten#in' that in his

report .ustice Mari'o$en $erel- reco$$en#e# that onl- petitioner Olonan be #roppe# as one

of the accuse# persons in Cri$inal Case Nos" 502@5 502@, 502@/ 502@? 502@1 502@+

502+2 502+* 502+5 502+0 502+, 502+? an# 502+1 that the sai# cases shoul# be $aintaine#

as a'ainst the three other accuse# that the inclusion of accuse# Olonan in Cri$inal Case Nos"

502@5 502@@ an# 502+@ re$ain un#isturbe# an# that Cri$inal Case Nos" 502+/ shoul# be#is$isse#"*+

The Special Prosecutor reasone# out that as 'leane# fro$ the Me$oran#u$ of retire# .ustice

Mari'o$en the reco$$en#ation of #roppin' of the *0 cri$inal cases applie# onl- to petitioner

Olonan" 9ence there %as no le'al an# factual basis for the #is$issal of the *0 cri$inal cases as

a'ainst petitioners 8ue!arra Cesar an# Sal!a#or"52

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt20


36/120

The Special Prosecutor then pra-e# that the .anuar- 5? *++@ Or#er of the 'raft court #is$issin'

the abo!e=$entione# cases a'ainst the petitioners be reconsi#ere# an# the *0 cases file# a'ainst

the$ be reinstate#"5*

The petitioners oppose# the $otion conten#in' that the .anuar- 5? *++@ Or#er of the 'raft

court ha# beco$e final an# e3ecutor-" Since no appeal or a $otion for reconsi#eration thereof

%as file# %ithin the perio# therefor the or#er of the 'raft court %as base# on no less than the

Manifestation an# Motion of the Special Prosecutor"

On April ? *+++ the San#i'anba-an issue# a Resolution 'rantin' the $otion of the Special

Prosecutor an# $o#ifie# its .anuar- 5? *++@ Or#er" The 'raft court set asi#e its Or#er

#is$issin' Cri$inal Case Nos" 502@5 502@, 502@/ 502@? 502@1 502@+ 502+2 502+*

502+5 502+0 502+, 502+? an# 502+1 as a'ainst the petitioners an# or#ere# the reinstate$ent

of the sai# cases as a'ainst the$"55

The 'raft court #eclare# that %hile the $otion of the Special Prosecutor %as file# three #a-s

be-on# the perio# therefor ne!ertheless it 'rante# the $otion in the interest of substantial

6ustice"50

9ence the present petition for certiorari assailin' the April ? *+++ Resolution of the

San#i'anba-an %here the follo%in' issues are raise#<

I" ;9ET9ER OR NOT RESPONDENT CORT COMMITTED 8RAVE ABSE OF

DISCRETION IN REINSTATIN8 T9E T9IRTEEN (*0) CRIMINA CASES A8AINST T9E

PETITIONERS ON T9E BASIS OF T9E MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FIED BG

T9E PROSECTION FIED BEGOND T9E FIFTEEN=DAG RE8EMENTARG PERIOD"

II" ;9ET9ER OR NOT RESPONDENT CORT COMMITTED 8RAVE ABSE OF

DISCRETION IN 8RANTIN8 T9E MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON T9E BASIS

SOEG OF T9E 8RONDS CITED BG T9E PROSECTION"5,

The petitioners a!er that un#er Section 1 of Presi#ential Decree No" *?2? an# Rule VIII of the

Re!ise# Rules of Proce#ure of the San#i'anba-an respon#ent People of the Philippines as

plaintiff ha# onl- */ #a-s fro$ notice of the 'raft courtHs final or#er %ithin %hich to file a

$otion for the reconsi#eration thereof" The petitioners also assert that un#er Section 5 Rule ,/of the *++1 Rules of Ci!il Proce#ure the respon#ent People of the Philippines ha# onl- */ #a-s

fro$ receipt of notice of the final or#er or the resolution #en-in' its $otion for reconsi#eration

thereof %ithin %hich to file a petition for re!ie% %ith this Court" The failure of the respon#ent

People of the Philippines to file the sai# $otion %ithin the perio# therefor ren#ere# the or#er

issue# b- the 'raft court final an# e3ecutor-" As such no $atter ho% erroneous the sai# or#ers

$a- ha!e been it %as be-on# the 6uris#iction of the San#i'anba-an to set asi#e or nullif- the$"

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt24


37/120

Citin' the rulin' of this Court in %cao v. &paliso' 5/ the petitioners posit that the rule applies e!en

to cri$inal cases" The- further posit that penal la%s shoul# be obser!e# strictl- a'ainst the State"

The petitioners point out that the Special Prosecutor has not cite# an- 6ustification for his failure

to file the $otion for partial reconsi#eration %ithin the perio# therefore 'i!en the fact that he

%as present %hen the 'raft court issue# its or#er in open court on .anuar- 5? *++@ #is$issin'

the *0 cases"

The petitioners further assert that in resol!in' %hether to #is$iss the *0 cases or not it behoo!e#

the respon#ent People of the Philippines an# the San#i'anba-an to consi#er not onl- the Report

of .ustice Mari'o$en but also the #ecision of the COA in Case No" +5=5+2"

In its co$$ent on the petition respon#ent People of the Philippines asserts that the 'eneral rule

that the perio#s prescribe# to #o certain acts $ust be follo%e# is sub6ect to e3ceptional

circu$stances" A #ela- $a- be e3cuse# on 'roun#s of substantial 6ustice an# e:uit- an# in the

e3ercise of e:uit- 6uris#iction" The respon#ent e$phasi>e# that %hen the 'raft court 'a!e a

!erbal or#er #is$issin' the *0 cases #urin' the hearin' of .anuar- 5? *++@ the Special

Prosecutor ob6ecte# thereto" The respon#ent ar'ues that the 'raft court #i# not co$$it an- 'ra!e

abuse of its #iscretion in issuin' its April ? *+++ Resolution an# insists that it acte# in the

interest of substantial 6ustice %hen it rectifie# its .anuar- 5? *++@ Or#er upon reali>in' that it

erre# in #is$issin' the *0 cases on the basis of the Report of .ustice Mari'o$en since it #i# not

contain an- such reco$$en#ation of #is$issal"

In their repl- the petitioners insist that substantial 6ustice alone %ithout an- 6ustification of the

respon#entHs failure to file a $otion for reconsi#eration %ithin the re'le$entar- perio# shoul#

not pre!ail o!er the clearl- lai# #o%n polic- on finalit- of 6u#'$ent an# rules on re'le$entar- perio#"

The petition has no $erit"

The petitioners are correct in clai$in' that an or#er or resolution of the San#i'anba-an or#erin'

the #is$issal of cri$inal cases beco$es final an# e3ecutor- upon the lapse of */ #a-s fro$

notice thereof to the parties an# as such is be-on# the 6uris#iction of the 'raft court to re!ie%

$o#if- or set asi#e if no appeal therefro$ is file# b- the a''rie!e# part-" 9o%e!er if the

San#i'anba-an acts in e3cess or lac& of 6uris#iction or %ith 'ra!e abuse of #iscretion a$ountin'

to e3cess or lac& of 6uris#iction in #is$issin' a cri$inal case the #is$issal is null an# !oi#" Atribunal acts %ithout 6uris#iction if it #oes not ha!e the le'al po%er to #eter$ine the case there

is e3cess of 6uris#iction %here a tribunal bein' clothe# %ith the po%er to #eter$ine the case

o!ersteps its authorit- as #eter$ine# b- la%"5? A !oi# 6u#'$ent or or#er has no le'al an# bin#in'

effect force or efficac- for an- purpose" In conte$plation of la% it is non=e3istent"51 Such

6u#'$ent or or#er $a- be resiste# in an- action or procee#in' %hene!er it is in!ol!e#" It is not

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt27


38/120

e!en necessar- to ta&e an- steps to !acate or a!oi# a !oi# 6u#'$ent or final or#er it $a- si$pl-

be i'nore#"5@

In the present case %e fin# an# so hol# that the San#i'anba-an acte# %ith 'ra!e abuse of its

#iscretion a$ountin' to e3cess of its 6uris#iction %hen it issue# the Or#er of .anuar- 5? *++@

#is$issin' the *0 cri$inal cases base# on the Manifestation an# Motion of the Special

Prosecutor %hich %as in turn base# on the report of retire# Court of Appeals .ustice

Mari'o$en" The recor#s further sho% that the report of .ustice Mari'o$en %as tri''ere# b- the

Reco$$en#ation of Special Prosecution Officer I Cicero .ura#o .r" #ate# .ul- 5@ *++/

reco$$en#in' that the *1 char'es a'ainst the accuse# be $aintaine# %hich in effect #enie# the

$otion for reconsi#eration of petitioner Olonan" The report of .ustice Mari'o$en #i# not #el!e

into an# resol!e the $atter of the retention or #is$issal of the *0 cri$inal cases a'ainst the

petitioners precisel- because the sa$e %as not referre# to hi$ for stu#- an# reco$$en#ation"

9ence .ustice Mari'o$en $erel- reco$$en#e# that petitioner Olonan be #roppe# as accuse# in

the *0 cri$inal cases an# that her inclusion in Cri$inal Case Nos" 502@0 502@@ an# 502+@ be$aintaine# thus<

;9EREFORE it is hereb- reco$$en#e# that $o!ant Dr" enai#a A" Olonan be #roppe# as one

of the accuse# persons in Cri$inal Case Nos" 502@5 502@, 502@/ 502@? 502@1 502@+

502+2 502+* 502+5 502+0 502+, 502+? an# 502+1" 9er inclusion in Cri$inal Case Nos"

502@0 502@@ an# 502+@ shall re$ain un#isturbe#" The entire Cri$inal Case No" 502+/ shoul#

be #is$isse#"5+

The San#i'anba-an %as %ell a%are of .ustice Mari'o$enHs report since the Special Prosecutor

appen#e# a cop- thereof to his .oint Repl- file# on .anuar- @ *++@ in co$pliance %ith the 'raftcourtHs Or#er of Dece$ber *2 *++1"

The San#i'anba-an or#ere# the #is$issal of the *0 cases as a'ainst the petitioners o!er the

ob6ection of the Special Prosecutor on its erroneous perception that .ustice Mari'o$en

reco$$en#e# in his report the #is$issal of the *0 cases a'ainst the petitioners" B- its Or#er the

'raft court #epri!e# the respon#ent People of the Philippines of its ri'ht to #ue process" In fine

the San#i'anba-an acte# in e3cess of its 6uris#iction an# co$$itte# 'ra!e abuse of its #iscretion

in #is$issin' the *0 cri$inal cases a'ainst the petitioners"02 9ence its Or#er #ate# .anuar- 5?

*++@ #is$issin' the *0 cri$inal cases as a'ainst the petitioners %as null an# !oi#0* it $a- thus

be rectifie# as #i# the 'raft court per its Resolution #ate# April ? *+++ #espite the lapse offifteen #a-s fro$ notice of the Special Prosecutor of its .anuar- 5? *++@ Or#er" B- rectif-in' its

!oi# Or#er it cannot be sai# that the 'raft court acte# %ith 'ra!e abuse of its #iscretion

a$ountin' to e3cess or lac& of 6uris#iction"

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt31


39/120

In#ee# in so #oin' the San#i'anba-an acte# in accor# %ith la%" It bears stressin' that the State

li&e the accuse# is also entitle# to #ue process of la%" Not too lon' a'o the Court e$phasi>e#

that<

In#ee# for 6ustice to pre!ail the scales $ust balance 6ustice is not to be #ispense# for the

accuse# alone" The interests of societ- an# the offen#e# parties %hich ha!e been %ron'e# $ust

be e:uall- consi#ere#" Veril- a !er#ict of con!iction is not necessaril- a #enial of 6ustice an# an

ac:uittal is not necessaril- a triu$ph of 6ustice for to the societ- offen#e# an# the part-

%ron'e# it coul# also $ean in6ustice" .ustice then $ust be ren#ere# e!en=han#e#l- to both the

accuse# on one han# an# the State an# offen#e# part- on the other"05

The Special Prosecutor $ust share the bla$e %ith the San#i'anba-an because in his

Manifestation an# Motion the Special Prosecutor a!erre# therein that .ustice Mari'o$en

reco$$en#e# the #is$issal of the *0 cri$inal cases a'ainst all the accuse# %ithout specificall-

statin' therein that the reco$$en#ation for #is$issal pertaine# onl- to petitioner Olonan an#

not to the other accuse# %ho are the petitioners herein" The Special Prosecutor shoul# ha!e been

$ore precise an# forthri'ht so as not to $islea# the 'raft court"

IN LIG"T OF LL T"E FOREGOING the petition is DISMISSED" The assaile# Resolution

of the San#i'anba-an #ate# April ? *+++ is AFFIRMED" No costs"

SO ORDERED"

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_138792-804_2005.html#fnt32


40/120


SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 12809* 3a$ar 20, 1999

PAN&ILO M. LASON, -++o$-r,

vs.

T!E EEUTI#E SERETARY, T!E SANDIGAN"AYAN, O&&IE O& T!E SPEIAL

PROSEUTOR, T!E DEPARTMENT O& 3USTIE, MYRNA A"ALORA, NENITAALAP:AP, IMELDA PAN!O MONTERO, a$% T!E PEOPLE O& T!E P!ILIPPINES,

respondent.

ROMEO M. AOP AND &RANISO G. 'U"IA, 3R., petitioner&intervenors.

MARTINE', J.:

The constitutionality of Sections > and B of +epublic Act #o. =%>< — an act 'hichfurther defines the /urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan — is being challenged in this

petition for prohibition and mandamus. etitioner anfilo 6acson, /oined by petitioners&

intervenors +omeo Acop and 0rancisco Nubia, :r., also seeks to prevent the

Sandiganbayan from proceedings 'ith the trial of 3riminal 3ases #os. %;@>B&%;@5B

7for multiple murder9 against them on the ground of lack of /urisdiction.

The antecedents of this case, as gathered from the partiesC pleadings and documentary

proofs, are as follo's(

In the early morning of 2ay 4=, 4


41/120

0rancisco Nubia, :r. residential Anti&3rime 3ommission — Task 0orce *abagat

7A33&T0*9 headed by petitioner 3hief Superintendent anfilo 2. 6acson 3entral

olice 1istrict 3ommand 73139 led by 3hief Superintendent +icardo de 6eon and the

3riminal Investigation 3ommand 73I39 headed by petitioner&intervenor 3hief

Superintendent +omeo Acop.

Acting on a media epose of S% duardo delos +eyes, a member of the 3I3, that

'hat actually transpired at da'n of 2ay 4=, 4


42/120

n 2ay 4B, 4 'ith 4

neither concurring not dissenting, retained /urisdiction to try and decide the cases 1*

7mpahasis supplied9

etitioner no' -uestions the constitutionality of Section > of +.A. #o. =%>


43/120

the 'ay the Sandiganbayan has foot&dragged for nine 7 and B 'hich actually epands rather than defines the old Sandiganbayan

la' 7+A B


44/120

Sec. 5. The ?atasang ambansa shall create a special court, to be kno'n as

Sandiganbayan, 'hich shall have /urisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft

and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and

employees including those in government&o'ned or controlled corporations, in relation to

their office as may be determined by la'.

The said special court is retained in the ne' 74=$ 21 created the Sandiganbayan.

Thereafter, the follo'ing la's on the Sandiganbayan, in chronological order, 'ere enacted( .1. #o.

4$@$, 22 Section %@ of ?atas ambansa ?lg. 4%;, 2) .1. #o. 4=$@, 24 .1. #o. 4=$4, 25 +.A. #o. B of +.A. #o. =%>. :urisdiction — The Sandiganbayan shall eercise eclusive original /urisdiction in

all cases involving(

a. Giolations of +epublic Act #o. ;@4


45/120

7e9 fficers of the hilippines #ational olice 'hile occupying the

position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior

superintendent or higher .

7f9 3ity of provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and

prosecutors in the ffice of the mbudsman and special prosecutor

7g9 residents, directors or trustees or managers of government&o'ned

or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or

foundations

7%9 2embers of 3ongress or officials thereof classified as&8rade "%B" and up under the

3ompensation and osition 3lassification Act of 4


46/120

The procedure prescribed in ?atas ambansa ?lg. 4%, and >&A, issued in 4< states(

Sec. B. Transitory provision — This act shall apply to all cases pending in any court over'hich trial has not begun as of the approval hereof. 7mphasis supplied9

The Sandiganbayan la' prior to +.A. =%>< 'as +.A. B


47/120

7d9 hilippine Army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers

of higher rank

7e9 # chief superintendent and # officers of higher rank

7f9 3ity and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and

prosecutors in the ffice of the mbudsman and special prose

Cases Crim Law-1

Documents

Transcript of Cases Crim Law-1