Consti Cases April 21

8/18/2019 Consti Cases April 21

1/24

G.R. No. L-278 July 18, 1946HAYDEE HERRAS TEEHANKEE, petitioner,vs.THE DIRECTOR O !RISONS, "#$ LEO!OLDO RO%IRA, !O&!EYO DIA', ANTONIO()IRINO "#$ JOSE !. %EL)', Ju$*+ o !+ol+/ Cou0, respondents.Vicente J. Francisco for petitioner.

Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Solicitor Kapunan, Jr. for respondent Director of Prisons.Respondent Judges of People's Court in teir o!n "ealf.HILADO, J.

On February 16, 1946, we approved a minute resolution ordering that "petitioner Haydee HerrasTeehanee, upon her !iling in this ourt o! a bond in the sum o! !i!ty thousand pesos #$%&,&&&'and upon said bond duly approved, be !orthwith set at liberty." This is now written to set !orth atlength the reason underlying su(h order.$etitioner was one o! the persons detained by the ounter )ntelligen(e orps *eta(hment o! the+nited tates -rmy mentioned in the ourts de(ision in (ase o! /a0uia #s. 2rad!ord #3% $hil.,%&'. -s said in that de(ision, petitioner was apprehended by the said ounter intelligen(e orps*eta(hment under e(urity ommitment Order o. 56 wherein she was spe(i!i(ally (hargedwith #a' "a(tive (ollaboration with the 7apanese," and #"' "previous asso(iation with the enemy."#$"id ., p. %6.' 8hen she, along with her (odetainees and (opetitioners in that (ase, wasdelivered by the +nited tates -rmy to the ommonwealth :overnment pursuant to thepro(lamation o! :eneral o! the -rmy *ouglas ;a(-rthur o! *e(ember 59, 1944, she wasdetained by said :overnment under that (harge. -nd under that (harged. -nd under the same(harge she has remained in (ustody o! the ommonwealth :overnment during all the timeherein re!erred to.

+ntil the instant (ase was submitted !or de(ision, no in!ormation had been !iled against thepetitioner under the $eoples ourt -(t and the (orrelative provisions o! the penal laws. 8henpetitioner submitted to the $eoples ourt her petition dated O(tober 5, 194%, seeing temporaryrelease under bail, said (ourt by its order dated O(tober 4, 194%, signed by 7udge -ntonioeopoldo /ovira o! the $eoples ourt, in view o! said re(ommendation,entered an order dated O(tober 9, 194%, re!erring the petition !or re(onsideration by the Fi!th*ivision o! the ourt, but adding that in his opinion "it should be denied notwithstanding there(ommendation o! the oli(itor :eneral !or her provisional release under a bond o! !i!tythousand pesos #%&,&&&'." -nd on that same date 7udge $ompeyo *ia o! the same (ourtentered an order disposing o! the petition, as well as the re(ommendation o! the oli(itor

:eneral, in these words?. . . . in view o! the gravity o! the o!!ense as (an be dedu(ed !rom the !a(t that theo!!i(e o! pe(ial $rose(utors re(ommends as high as !i!ty thousands pesos #$%&,&&&'!or her provisional release, it is ordered that the said petition !or provinsional releasebe, as it is hereby denied.

- motion to re(onsider this order was denied by 7udge *ia on O(tober 1@, 194%.$etitioner !iled with this (ourt a petition !or certiorari and %anda%us #Herras Teehanee vs./ovira, 3% $hil., 6@4', praying that the orders above mentioned be set aside, they having beenentered with abuse o! dis(retion and without hearing granted to petitioner. This (ourt, on*e(ember 5&, 194%, rendered a Audgment the dispositive part o! whi(h provides and de(rees as!ollows?

8here!ore, it is the Audgment o! this (ourt that #a' the order o! the $eoples ourt,dated O(tober 9, 194%, denying petitioners petition !or provisional release under bail,and the order o! said (ourt, dated O(tober 1@, 194%, denying petitioners motion !orre(onsideration o! said order o! O(tober 9, 194%, whi(h we de(lare to have beenentered with grave abuse o! dis(retion, be set asideB and #"' that !or the properappli(ation o! the pertinent (onstitutional, statutory, and reglementary provisionsalluded to in the body o! this de(ision, a hearing o! petitioners appli(ation !or bail be

held be!ore the $eoples ourt with due noti(e to the oli(itor :eneral, as well as tothe petitioner, as hereinabove outlined, said hearing, whether summary or otherwise,to be su(h as would enable the $eoples ourt to e=er(ise its sound dis(retion in thedisposal o! the a!oresaid petition. 8ithout (osts. o ordered.

$ursuant to this de(ision, the $eoples ourt pro(eeded to hear the petition !or provisionalrelease under bail in the presen(e o! the petitioner on *e(ember 53, 194%. -t su(h hearing,notwithstanding the spe(ial prose(utors statement that he had no obAe(tion to the petition,7udge antonio iwag gave riseto the a"eas corpus pro(eedings instituted in his behal! in (ase :./. o. >5@3 #45 O!!. :a.,9@4', on 7anuary 1%, 1946, whi(h resulted in the release o! said o!!i(ial pursuant to an order, o!the same date, by Hon. :regorio $er!e(to, -sso(iate 7usti(e o! this ourt. The order issued by7usti(e $er!e(to was predi(ated upon"the instru(tions (ontained in our resolution o! 7anuary 11,


2/24

1946, above 0uoted, to the e!!e(t that even where the $eoples ourt believes that the spe(ialprose(utors attitude in not opposing the petitioner !or provisional release under bail is not

Austi!ied, i! the oli(itor :eneral !iled a statement under his o!!i(ial oath to the e!!e(t that thedis(losure o! the eviden(e in the hands o! the prose(utor may imperial the su((ess o! theprose(ution and Aeopardie publi( interest, the authority o! the $eoples ourt to in0uire into theprose(utions eviden(e (eases and, there!ore, the prose(utor (annot be held guilty o! (ontempt!or re!using to answer the 0uestions o! the (ourt. /espondent 7udge -ntonio 1&11 dated 7anuary 16B 1946, asingthis ourt to grant her dire(tly provisional release under bail. 8e denied the motion with the0uali!i(ation that "there having been unne(essary delay in the disposition by respondents o! thepetition !or provisional release under bail, said respondents are hereby dire(ted to a(t on anddispose o! said petition without any !urther delay." This order o! denial was !ounded on the(ir(umstan(e that the $eoples ourt had not yet rendered its de(ision on the verbal petition,and we then believed that, with the order o! release issued by 7usti(e per!e(to in the a"eascorpus pro(eedings instituted by pe(ial $rose(utor >iwag and with the unanimous denial bythis ourt o! the motion !or re(onsideration !iled by 7udge


3/24

The provision on bail in our onstitution is patterned a!ter similar provisions (ontained in theonstitution o! the +nited tates and that o! many states o! the +nion. -nd it is said that?

The onstitution o! the +nited tates and the (onstitution o! many o! the statesprovide that all persons shall be bailable by su!!i(ient sureties, e=(ept !or (apitalo!!enses, where the proo! is evident or the presumption o! guilt is great, and, undersu(h provisions, bail is a matter o! right whi(h no (ourt or Audge (an properly re!use, inall (ases not embra(ed in the e=(eptions. +nder su(h provisions bail is a matter o!right even in (ases o! (apital o!!enses, unless the proo! o! guilt is evident or thepresumption thereo! is great. #6 .7., se(. 16, pp. 9%@, 9%4.'

)t is to be observed that the word "(harged" is not used in the -meri(an (onstitution, the reasonbeing that no one would apply !or bail unless he is detained !or some (harged either oral or in

writing made either by a private individual or by a publi( o!!i(er. ertainly the (harge need not bea !ormal in!ormation in order that a person detained may apply !or bail. Thus, it has been saidthat?

2y the (ommon law all o!!enses, in(luding treason, murder, and other !elonies, werebailable "efore indict%ent found , although the granting or re!using o! su(h bail in (aseo! (apital o!!enses was a mater within the dis(retion o! the (ourt. #6 .7., se(. 163, p.9%@B emphasis ours.'

The provisions o! our /ules o! ourt on the matter o! bail whi(h are intended to mae e!!e(tivethe (onstitutional provision on the same matter, (ontain a (lear distin(tion between persons!ormally (harged and persons merely arrested. )t is a distin(tion !avorable to the petitioner. Thus,se(tions @ and 4 o! /ule 11& use the words "the de!endant" in providing !or instan(es in whi(hsu(h de!endant may be bailed as o! right or in the dis(retion o! the (ourt. 8hereas se(tion 6whi(h re!ers pre(isely to (apital o!!enses uses the words "persons in (ustody !or the (ommissiono! a (apital o!!ense" in providing that he shall be admitted to bail i! the eviden(e o! his guilt is notstrong. Had this provision, whi(h is interpretative o! the onstitution, been intended to re!er only

to persons !ormally (harged, it would have used the word "de!endant" as the other provisionsabove mentioned. The petitioners (ase !alls s0uarely under this se(tion 6 o! /ule 11&, !or she isa "person in (ustody !or the (ommission o! a (apital o!!ense," and, there!ore, she is entitled tobail i! the eviden(e o! her guilt is not shown to be strong.Te(hni(al and useless e!!orts have been made to draw a distin(tion between the situation o! aperson detained and that a person already (harged so as to e=(lude the !ormer !rom the(onstitutional prote(tion. 2ut the more e!!orts are made in that dire(tion, the (learer be(omes thedistin(tion in !avor o! the detainee. The presumption o! inno(en(e in !avor o! one against whomthere already is a !ormal (harge #onstitution, -rti(le ))), se(tion 1, paragraph 13' should (learlybe stronger in !avor o! one not yet so (harged, though already arrested or detained. -nd sin(ethe personal liberty guaranteed by the onstitution is predi(ted upon the presumption o!inno(en(e, su(h guarantee should obviously be stronger in !avor o! a person merely arrested ordetained than o! a person already a((used. The right to !reedom is a sa(red right,(omplementing the right to li!e, and the guarantee (ontained in the !undamental law !or thepreservation o! su(h sa(red right should not be lightly brushed aside. -ll doubts that may arise in

the (onstru(tion o! the onstitution C and, in the instant (ase none e=ists C should be resolvedin !avor o! individual !reedom.8e reiterate now that, under the (onstitution, all persons, without distin(tion, whether !ormally(harged or not yet so (harged with any (riminal o!!ense, "shall be!ore (onvi(tion be bailable," theonly e=(eption being when the (harge is !or a (apital o!!ense and the (ourt !inds that theeviden(e o! guilt is strong. The power o! the (ourt to mae sure !inding implies a !ull e=er(ise o!

Audi(ial dis(retion. )t is !or this reason that (apital o!!enses are said to be bailable in thedis(retion o! the (ourt. )n (onstruing se(tion 6@ o! the ode o! riminal $ro(edure whi(hprovides that "all prisoners shall be bailable be!ore (onvi(tion, e=(eption those (harged with the(ommission o! (apital o!!enses when proo! o! guilt is evident or the presumption o! guilt isstrong," whi(h is substantially the same as -rti(le ))), se(tion 1, paragraph 16, o! our (onstitution,this ourt, through ;r. 7usti(e ;oreland, said? ")t is (lear that even (apital o!!enses are bailablein the discretion o! the ourt be!ore (onvi(tion." #Dmphasis oursB +nited tates #s. 2abasa, 19$hil., 19.'

-nd su(h dis(retion has not other re!eren(e than to the determination as to whether or not the

eviden(e o! guilt is strong. Thus, in *arcos #s. Cru+ #63 $hil., 5', this ourt, through 7usti(e)mperial, held that "when the (rime (harged is punishable with death, the right to be admitted to

bail is dis(retionary on the (ourt, depending on whether or not the eviden(e o! guilt is strong." -nd this was a mere reiteration o! a ruling laid down in a !ormer (ase #;ontalbo #s. antamaria,%4 $hil., 9%%'. )n that (ase the a((used was (harged with murder with the 0uali!ying(ir(umstan(e o! evident premeditation and the aggravating (ir(umstan(e o! trea(hery. Thea((used applied !or provisional release under bail. The Audge re!used to determine whether theeviden(e o! guilt was strong upon the belie! that he had no dis(retion to grant the appli(ation.The a((used !iled a petition !or mandamus against him with this ourt. -nd this ourt, through;r. 7usti(e Eillamor, held?

The obAe(t o! this appli(ation is to re0uire the respondent Audge to (omply with hisministerial duty o! (onsidering and de(iding whether the proo! is evident or thepresumption o! guilt is strong against the de!endant, !or the purpose o! granting or

denying his provisional liberty. uppliant does not as that the matter be de(ided oneway or the other, but simply that it be de(ided. )n other words, it is proposed not tointer!ere with the udicial discretion to grant or deny the motion !or provisional liberty,but !or en!or(e the e=er(ise o! said discretion a((ording to the Audgment and dis(retiono! the respondent. )n this (ase a Audge has de(lined to mae a de(ision whi(h the lawenAoins upon him. #Dmphasis ours.'

-nd in the dispositive part this ourt said?. . . .8here!ore, the respondent Audge is hereby ordered to determine whether in the(ase at bar the proo! is evident or the presumption o! guilt is strong against thede!endant, and to e-ercise udicial discretion in denying or granting the petition !orprovisional liberty. 8ithout spe(ial pronoun(ement o! (osts. o ordered. #Dmphasisours.'

-nd this is the rule in the +nited tatesB -lthough the right to bail in (apital (ases, e=(ept those in whi(h the proo! is evident orthe presumption great, is generally absolute, the determination as to whether the

eviden(e in any parti(ular (ase (omes within these e=(eptions is a matter for tesound discretion of te court or o!!i(er hearing the appli(ation. #Dmphasis oursB .7.., p. %6 on 2ail.'$rimarily the prisoner (annot demand bail as a matter o! right where the o!!ense is a(apital one, sin(e, upon as(ertaining the (hara(ter o! the (harge against him, the ne=t0uestion would be as to the degree o! proo! and the nature o! the presumption o! guilt.there!ore the power to admit to bail generally be(omes a matter o! udicial discretion inthis (lass o! (ases, and, although the e=er(ise o! this discretion will not be (ontrolledunless mani!estly abuse, it should be e=er(ised with great (aution. #Dmphasis oursB 6.7., se(. 13&, pp. 9%4, 9%%.'

)t is a wellnown rule o! statutory (onstru(tion that "all statutes are presumed to be ena(ted bythe legislature with !ull nowledge o! the e=isting (ondition o! the law and with re!eren(e to it.They are, there!ore, to be (onstrued in (onne(tion and in harmony with the e=isting law, and asa part o! a general and uni!orm system o! Aurispruden(e, and their meaning and e!!e(t is to bedetermined in (onne(tion, not only with the (ommon law and the (onstitution, but also with

re!eren(e to other statutes and the de(isions o! the (ourts ... " #%9 .7., 1&@.'in(e the $eoples ourt -(t and the onstitution and other statutes in this Aurisdi(tion should beread as one law, and sin(e the language used by this ourt in (onstruing the onstitution andother statutes on the matter o! bail is substantially the same as the language used by the$eoples ourt -(t on the same subAe(t, the most natural and logi(al (on(lusion to !ollow in(ases o! (apital o!!enses be!ore (onvi(tion is that the dis(retion provided in said -(t is the samedis(retion provided in the onstitution and similar statutes, that dis(retion having re!eren(e only,as above stated, to the determination o! whether or not the eviden(e o! guilt is strong. To holdthat the $eoples ourt has un(ontrolled dis(retion in su(h (ases to deny bail even where theeviden(e o! guilt is not strong or there is absolutely no eviden(e at all, is to mae the -(to!!ensive not only to the letter but al so to the spirit o! the onstitution, and this is (ontrary to themost elementary rules o! statutory (onstru(tion.

- statute, whi(h provides that "a person (harged with an o!!ense may be admitted tobail be!ore (onvi(tion, as !ollows" 1st, as a matter o! dis(retion in all (ase where thepunishment is deathB 5nd, as a matter o! right in all other (ases, and that "no person

shall be admitted to bail when he is (harged with an o!!ense punishable with death,when the proo! is evident and the presumption great," is in(onsistent with the


4/24

(onstitutional provision that "all persons shall be bailable by su!!i(ient sureties, unless!or (apital o!!enses, when the proo! is evident or the presumption great," sin(e itdenies bail as a matter o! absolute right in (apital (ases where the proo! is not evidentnor the presumption great. #$eople #s. Tinder, 19 al., %@9, %45B 1 -m. *e(., 33.'

)t is to be observed in this (onne(tion that we hold no portion o! the $eoples ourt -(t to beun(onstitutional, but, upon the (ontrary, we rely upon the presumption o! (onstitutionality, andbe(ause o! that presumption we (onstrue the -(t in (onsonan(e with the mandates o! theonstitution.

)t is an elementary prin(iple that where the validity o! a statute is assailed and thereare two possible interpretations, by one o! whi(h the statute would be un(onstitutionaland by the other it would be valid, the (ourt should adopt the (onstru(tion whi(h would

uphold it. )t is the duty o! (ourts to adopt a (onstru(tion o! a statute that will bring itinto harmony with the (onstitution, i! its language will permit. #11 -m. 7ur.,onstitutional law, se(tion 93.'

However, the dis(retion o! the ourt, as above des(ribed, is not absolute nor beyond (ontrol.)ndeed, its very (on(ept repels the idea o! unlimited power. )t must be sound, and e=er(isedwithin reasonable bounds. in(e Audi(ial dis(retion, by its very nature, involves the e=er(ise o!the Audges individual opinion, the law has wisely provided that its e=er(ise be guided and(ontrolled by (ertain wellnown rules whi(h, while allowing the Audge rational latitude !or theoperation o! his own individual views, prevent them !rom getting out o! (ontrol. -n un(ontrolledor un(ontrollable dis(retion is a misnomer. )t is a !alla(y. >ord ;ans!ield, speaing o! thedis(retion to be e=er(ised in ;ans!ield, speaing o! the dis(retion to be e=er(ised guided by law.)t must be governed by rule, not by humourB it must not be arbitrary, vague, and !an(i!ulB butlegal and regular." #/e= #s. 8ilee, 4 2urr., 5%53, 5%@9B 9 /eprint, @53, (ited in note 56 aG, 6.7., p. 9%4.'

The poli(y pervading our Aurispruden(e is to (ommit as little as possible to Audi(ial

dis(retion, presuming that "that system o! l aws is best whi(h (on!ides as little aspossible to the dis(retion o! the Audge C that Audge is best who relies as little aspossible upon his opinion." )n pursuan(e o! this poli(y, ever sin(e the provisions "thatall persons shall be bailable by su!!i(ient sureties e=(ept !or (apital o!!enses, wherethe proo! is great," be(ome a part o! the settled (onstitutional and statutory laws o!nearly all the states o! the +nion, the (ourts have endeavored, with more or lesssu((ess, to !ormulate some stable rules to guide their Audgment. #$n re Thomas, 5&Ol., 163, 131B 9@ $., 9&B @9 >. /. -., .. 3%5 and note, (ited in 6 .7., p. 9%%, note@1 aG.'&o! e-ercised . The dis(retion e=er(ised by the (ourt in granting or re!using bail is notan arbitrary but a Audi(ial oneB it is governed or dire(ted by nown and establishedrules, and in truth (annot be otherwise applied then to de(ide whether or not the !a(tsbring the (ase within their operation. #6 .7., p. 9%4.'

)n this Aurisdi(tion in!erior (ourts are (ontrolled in the e=er(ise o! their dis(retion, first , by theappli(able provisions o! the onstitution and the statutesB second , by the rules whi(h the

upreme ourt may promulgate under the authority o! -rti(le E))), se(tion 1@, o! theonstitutionB and, tird, by those prin(iples o! e0uity and Austi(e that are deemed to be part o!the laws o! the land. +pon the basis o! (onstitutional, legal and reglementary provisions(ombined with wellnown prin(iples o! pra(ti(e and pro(edure, this ourt in its resolution o!7anuary 11, 1946, above 0uoted, gave the !ollowing instru(tions to the $eoples ourt?#1' )n (apital (ases lie the present, when the prose(utor does not oppose the petition !orrelease on bail, the (ourt should, as a general rule, in the proper e=er(ise o! its dis(retion, grantthe release a!ter approval o! the bail whi(h it should !i= !or the purposeB#5' 2ut i! the (ourt has reasons to believe that the spe(ial prose(utors attitude is not Austi!ied, itmay as him 0uestions to as(ertain the strength o! the states eviden(e or to Audge the ade0ua(yo! the amount o! bailB#@' 8hen, however, the spe(ial prose(utor re!uses to answer any parti(ular 0uestion on theground that the answer any parti(ular 0uestion on the ground that the answer may involve adis(losure imperiling the su((ess o! the prose(ution or Aeopardiing the publi( interest, the (ourtmay not (ompel him to do so, i! and when he e=hibits a statement to that e!!e(t o! the oli(itor

:eneral, who, as head o! the O!!i(e o! pe(ial $rose(utors, is vested with the dire(tion and(ontrol o! the prose(ution, and may not, even at the trial, be ordered by the (ourt to present

eviden(e whi(h he does not want to introdu(e C provided, o! (ourse, that su(h re!usal shall notpreAudi(e the rights o! the de!endant or detainee.The !irst instru(tion is predi(ated upon se(tion 3 o! /ule 11& o! the /ules o! ourt in (onne(tionwith se(tion 1% and 55 o! the $eoples ourt -(t. e(tion 1% o! the $eoples ourt -(t, inentrusting the O!!i(e o! pe(ial $rose(utors with "the dire(tion and (ontrol o! the prose(ution" in(ases mentioned in said -(t "the provisions o! any law or rules o! (ourt to the (ontrarynotwithstanding," ne(essarily (on!ers upon said o!!i(e the e=(lusive power, (oupled with the(orrelative responsibility, o! de(iding, among others, su(h 0uestions as to whether or not it willoppose bail petitioned by a detainee in any o! said (ases, whether or not it should addu(eeviden(e, and the ind o! 0uantity thereo!, or whether or not to reveal su(h eviden(e at thehearing o! any su(h petitions. The law assigns to the (ourt and the publi( prose(utors their

respe(tive powers and responsibilities in the Audi(ial elu(idation o! these (ases, Aust as in allothers. The very e=igen(ies o! an orderly and e!!i(ient administration o! Austi(e demand that the

Audge should not invade the provin(e o! the prose(utors any more than the latter (an invade thato! the !ormer. )! the prose(utor prose(utes, and the Audge Audges, ea(h within his proper sphere,neither need have any (ompun(tion over the dis(harge o! his own mission.e(tion 55 o! the $eoples ourt -(t provides that the prose(ution and trial o! (ases be!ore said(ourt should be in a((ordan(e with rules o! (ourt, and se(tion 3 o! /ule 11& provides that at the"hearing o! an appli(ation !or admission to bail made by any person who is in (ustody !or the(ommission o! a (apital o!!ense, the burden o! showing that the eviden(e o! guilt is strong is onthe prose(ution." The prose(utor is !ree to satis!y or not to satis!y that burden. The oli(itor:eneral is !ree to oppose or not to oppose the appli(ation !or bail, as above stated, a((ording towhat he believes to be in the best interests o! the state. -nd it is unne(essary to say that i! here!uses to satis!y his burden be(ause he does not oppose the appli(ation !or bail, the usual(ourse open to the (ourt leads to the granting o! the bail.8hen the !irst proviso o! se(tion 19 ommonwealth -(t o. 65 and -rti(le ))), se(tion 1,

paragraph 16, o! the onstitution, re!er to the (ase where the (ourt !inds that there is strong"eviden(e" o! the (ommission o! a (apital o!!ense, they ne(essarily mean eviden(e properlyaddu(ed by the parties or any o! them be!ore it, in the manner and !orm pres(ribed by the lawsand rules o! Audi(ial pro(edure. )!, !or any reason, any party should abstain !rom introdu(ingeviden(e in the (ase !or any de!inite purpose, no law nor rule e=ists by whi(h he may be so(ompelled and the (ourt be!ore whi(h the (ase is pending has to a(t without that eviden(e and,in so doing, it (learly would not be !ailing in its duties. )! the onstitution or the law plots a (ertain(ourse o! a(tion to be taen by the (ourt when (ertain eviden(e is !ound by it to e=ist, and theopposite (ourse i! that eviden(e is wanting, and said eviden(e is not voluntarily addu(ed by theproper party, the (ourt s (lear duty would be to adopt that (ourse whi(h has been provided !or in(ase o! absen(e o! su(h eviden(e. -pplying the prin(iple to the (ase at bar, it was no morewithin the power C nor dis(retion C o! the (ourt to coerce the prose(ution into presenting itseviden(e than to !or(e the prisoner into addu(ing hers. -nd when both ele(ted not to do so, asthey had a per!e(t right to ele(t, the only thing remaining !or the (ourt to do was to grant theappli(ation !or bail.

>et not the (ase o! Payao #s. )esaca #6@ $hil., 51&', be invoed in respondents !avor. True, insaid (ase this ourt approved o! the a(tion o! the trial (ourt in (onsidering the re(ord o! thepreliminary investigation in determining the 0uestion o! bail. 2ut it must be remembered, in the!irst pla(e, that at the same preliminary investigation the a((used must, under the law, bepresumed to have been presentB (on!ronted with the witnesses herB had the right to (rosse=amine them, mae obAe(tions, present her own eviden(e, and to be heard in her own de!enseBand, in the se(ond pla(e, the provin(ial !is(al presented said re(ord at the hearing ##ide, page514, volume (ited on the 0uestion o! bail' again in the presence o! the a((used who again had aright to interpose obAe(tions, addu(e eviden(e and be heard in de!ense. Had the !is(al notpresented said re(ord at the hearing, it would not have been (onsidered by the ourt o! First)nstan(e, sin(e, generally, the re(ord o! the preliminary investigation be!ore the Austi(e o! thepea(e is not by itsel! a party o! the re(ord on the (ase in the ourt o! First )nstan(e #+nitedtates #s. -buan, 5 $hil., 1@&'.)n the (ase o! *arcos #s. Cru+ #63 $hil., 5', involving a (apital (rime, a preliminaryinvestigation e- parte was (ondu(ted by the 7udge o! First )nstan(e previous to the arrest o! the

de!endants. -!ter their arrest, the de!endants ased !or provisional release under bail, and thepetition was denied by respondent Audge upon the ground that the eviden(e dis(losed at the e-


5/24

parte preliminary investigation was strong and that, there!ore, the de!endants were not entitledto bail. This ourt disapproved the pro(edure !ollowed by respondent Audge as !ollows?

e arguye 0ue el 7ue re(urrido, antes de e=pedir el mandamiento de arresto de losa(usados, e=amino a los dos testigos de (argo 0ue presento el Fis(al y 0ue estaspruebas estable(ieron asimismo la presun(ion de (ulpabilidad de los a(usados y elre0uerimiento adi(ional de 0ue las pruebas de (ulpabilidad deben ser evidentes.opodemos prestar nuestro asentimiento a esta pretension. o debe olvidarse 0uetales pruebas se re(ibieron en ausen(ia de los a(usados y estos no tuvieronoportunidad de verles de(larar ni de repreguntarles . . . . Otras raones 0ue impidenel 0ue tales pruebas se puedan tener en (uenta (ontra los a(usados on? 0ue el Fis(alno las produAo ni o!re(io en la vista de las peti(iones de libertad baAo !iana . . . Dn

tales (ir(unstan(ias era deber del 7ue re(urrido re0uerir al Fis(al 0ue presente suspruebas para demostrar 0ue el delito imputado era (apital, 0ue las pruebas eranevidentes y 0ue la presun(ion de (ulpabilidad era !uerte.

)t is thus (lear that the $eoples ourt, in the e=er(ise o! its dis(retion, (an (onsider no eviden(ethat has not properly been presented to it by the parties, and that, when the spe(ial prose(utorele(ts not to oppose the appli(ation !or bail and, (onse0uently, re!uses to present any eviden(e,"the (ourt should, as a general rule, in the proper e=er(ise o! its dis(retion, grant the releasea!ter approval o! the bail whi(h it should !i= !or the purpose."8e said "in the proper e=er(ise o! its dis(retion," !or the reason that, sin(e su(h dis(retion hasre!eren(e to the weight o! eviden(e, it should be e=er(ised in !avor o! the appli(ant when there isno eviden(e C mu(h less strong eviden(e C presented by the prose(ution. )n other words, thedis(retion should be e=er(ised as i! the (ourt, a!ter e=amining the eviden(e, !ound none againstthe appli(ant. O! (ourse, the dis(retion i! negligible when no eviden(e is presented by theprose(utor, but some amount o! dis(retion still remains, !or, as stated in or !irst instru(tion, thedis(retion should be e=er(ised in !avor o! the appli(ant "as a general rule." 8e used advisedly

these words "as a general rule," !or there may be an e=(eption, as that re!erred to in the se(ondinstru(tion.The prose(utor might not oppose the appli(ation !or bail and might re!use to satis!y his burden o! proo!, but where the (ourt has reasons to believe that the prose(utors attitude is not Austi!ied, aswhen he is evidently (ommitting a gross error or a dereli(tion o! duty, the (ourt must possess areasonable degree o! (ontrol over him in the paramount interest o! Austi(e. +nder su(h(ir(umstan(e, the (ourt is authoried by our se(ond instru(tion to in0uire !rom the prose(utor asto the nature o! his eviden(e to determine whether or not it is strong, it being possible !or theprose(utor to have erred in (onsidering it wea and, there!ore, re(ommending bail.The (ourse !ollowed by the respondents was obviously predi(ated on this implied authority, butthe power o! the (ourt to that e!!e(t must have its limitation !ounded e0ually on the paramountinterest o! Austi(e. -nd we (ome now to our third instru(tion. The 0uestion made by the (ourt tothe prose(utor may involve a dis(losure o! eviden(e that may imperil the su((ess o! theprose(ution or Aeopardie the publi( interest. )n su(h event, a((ording to our third instru(tion, theprose(utor may not be (ompelled to mae the dis(losure "i! and when he e=hibits a statement to

that e!!e(t o! the oli(itor :eneral, who, as Head o! the O!!i(e o! pe(ial $rose(utors, is vestedwith the dire(tion and (ontrol o! the prose(ution, and may not even at the trial be ordered by the(ourt to present eviden(e whi(h he does not want to introdu(e C provided, o! (ourse, that su(hre!usal shall not preAudi(e the right o! the de!endant or detainee.")t must be observed that the (ourt is made to rely upon the o!!i(ial statement o! the oli(itor:eneral on the 0uestion o! whether or not the revelation o! eviden(e may endanger the su((esso! the prose(ution and Aeopardie the publi( interest. This is so, !or there is no way !or the (ourtto determine that 0uestion without having the eviden(e dis(losed in the presen(e o! theappli(ant, dis(losure whi(h is sought to be avoided to prote(t the interests o! the prose(utionbe!ore the trial. )n this (onne(tion, we bear in mind what hie! 7usti(e ;arshall said in 2urrs trialwith re!eren(e to the power o! the (ourt to determine whether or not a do(ument in thepossession o! the $resident (ontains se(ret in!ormation. hie! 7usti(e ;arshall said that "mu(hrelian(e must be pla(ed on the de(laration o! the $resident" and that "the (ourt out to (onsiderthe reasons whi(h would indu(e the $resident to re!use to e=hibit su(h a letter as (on(lusive onit." O! (ourse, the oli(itor :eneral is not the $resident, but the 0uestion involved was one that

might a!!e(t the trial on the merits, unlie the matter be!ore us whi(h is a mere in(ident(on(erning bail. Thus, to a (ertain e=tent the rule may be adopted by analogy. The oli(itor

:eneral is a high o!!i(er o! the :overnment, made responsible by law !or the prose(ution o!o!!enses be!ore the $eoples ourt, and he is in a better position than anyone else, in(luding the(ourt itsel!, to determine the riss whi(h a dis(losure o! his eviden(e may entail. in(e the

Audgement o! the oli(itor :eneral on this simple matter maybe deemed to be reliable and therebeing no way !or the (ourt to veri!y it without running the riss sought to be avoided, it is made!inal. )! !urther developments show the oli(itor :eneral to have betrayed his trust, he maysurely be (alled to a((ount.The power o! the oli(itor :eneral is not, however, unlimited under our third instru(tion. He(annot re!use to mae a dis(losure when his re!usal shall preAudi(e the right o! the de!endant ordetainee. The prose(utor may not, !or instan(e, (hoose to mae dis(losures damaging to theappli(ant, and later re!use to dis(lose other eviden(e !avorable to her, on the prete=t that su(h

dis(losure may imperial the su((ess o! the prose(ution.)t may be said that there is nothing in these instru(tions e=pressly indi(ating the (ourse to be!ollowed by the $eoples ourt in (ase the oli(itor :eneral re!uses validly to dis(lose hiseviden(e under our third instru(tion. This is so, be(ause things that are sel!evident need not bee=pressly stated. The situation is (lear. )! the oli(itor :eneral re!uses validly to dis(lose hiseviden(e and, !or that reason, no eviden(e lies be!ore the (ourt, then the situation (omes underour !irst instru(tion, and the petition !or bail should be granted. 8e do not need to state thise=pressly, !or it is sel!evident !rom the instru(tions themselves. 8e, do not have to repeat in thethird instru(tion what is already (overed in the !irst. These instru(tions, whi(h are simple and(lear, having re!eren(e to three di!!erent possibilities simply and (learly de!ined, are dire(ted to

Audges who are presumed to be versed in the law, and should not be (logged with repetitionsthat (an in no measure add to their lu(idity.)t is our (onsidered opinion that the pro(edure adopted by the $eoples ourt, a!ter the thirdhearing o! 7anuary 5, 1946, whereby it e=amined the spe(ial prose(utors eviden(e in a privatein0uiry without the presen(e o! the petitioner, and upon the basis o! nowledge a(0uired therein

it denied the appli(ation !or bail., is improper, arbitrary, and (onstitutes a grave abuse o!dis(retion?Firstly, be(ause it violates our order o! *e(ember 5&, 194%, wherein it was held that the hearingon appli(ations !or bail should be in the presen(e o! the appli(ant or at least with due noti(e toher, and, there!ore, su(h private in0uiry (annot be a part o! the hearing. The nowledge orin!ormation thus obtained was without the sa!eguards o! (on!rontation, (rosse=amination andopportunity to be heard in de!ense on the part o! the prisoner and (annot be a proper ground !ordenying bail, as ruled e=pressly by this (ourt in *arcos #s. Cru+, supraBe(ondly, be(ause su(h private in0uiry is in(onsistent with our three instru(tions abovementioned. The pro(edure outlined in said three instru(tions is su(h as to allow no room !or aprivate (on!eren(e between the (ourt and the spe(ial prose(utor. )! su(h ind o! (on!eren(ewere permissible, we would not have to 0uali!y or limit the power o! the (ourt to in0uire in thethree instan(es (ontemplated in our three instru(tions. The nature o! su(h instru(tions is su(h as(learly to show that nothing (an be used against the appli(ant that has not been broughtproperly be!ore the (ourt in her presen(e. )t is pre(isely !or this reason that the oli(itor :eneral

is given the !inal word on the 0uestion o! whether the dis(losure o! the prose(utions eviden(emay endanger the su((ess o! the prose(ution be(ause there is no way !or the (ourt to maesu(h determination without having the eviden(e dis(losed in the presen(e o! the appli(ant andwithout thus running the riss sought to be avoided. )! private (on!eren(e were permissible, wewould not have re0uired the solemn statement o! the oli(itor :eneral, and, instead, we wouldhave provided that, upon the prose(utors re!usal to dis(lose eviden(e in the presen(e o! theappli(ant, the (ourt may (all him to a private (on!eren(e. 2ut we did not do so, be(ause aprivate (on!eren(e is strongly repugnant to the re0uirements o! a hearing provided by law, andthus the solemn statement o! the oli(itor :eneral is made the end o! the (ourts power toin0uire legally in a (ase where the prose(utor does not oppose the granting o! the bailB andThirdly, the nowledge a(0uired in su(h private (on!eren(e is not di!!erent in (hara(ter !rom a7udges personal or spe(ial nowledge, upon whi(h, by wellsettled rules o! eviden(e, he, as

Audge, has no right to a(t.. . . . and it is hardly ne(essary to state that the Audge has no right to a(t upon his ownperson or spe(ial nowledge o! !a(ts as distinguished !rom that general nowledge

whi(h might properly be important to other persons o! intelligen(e. ;ore than twohundred years ago in ir 7ohn Fenwi(s trial, it was said by the soli(itor general? ") do


6/24

not say that a Audge upon his private nowledge ought to Audge, he ought not. 2ut i! a Audge nows anything whereby the prisoner might be (onvi(ted or a(0uitted #notgenerally nown', then ) do say he ought to be (alled !rom the pla(e where he sateand go to the bar and give eviden(e o! his nowledge." )n a +tah (ase one o! thebrie!s (ontained the statement? "The !a(t that the +tah ursery ompany, a(orporation, was personally nown to the (ountry Audge, had been admitted in oralargument by (ounsel !or appellant and did not need to be proven." The (ourt said thatnothing in the re(ord supported the statement that it was admitted by (ounsel that the(orporation was a !oreign (orporation, and (ounsel would not seriously (ontend thatthe personal nowledge o! the Audge meets the re0uirements o! the law that proo! o!the !a(ts shall be made. The law is well settled upon the point that the Audges

personal nowledge (annot be used C in (riminal (ases he should be, it not awitness, (ertainly not a Audge Cin (ivil (ases, his nowledge must not be madeapparent to the Aury. #1 7ones on Dv., 5 ed., pp. 644, 64%, se(. 1@@.'

)n a (ase where a $ubli( +tility ommission issued a regulation o! telephone rates upon datagathered in a private investigation, 7usti(e ardoo said?

From the standpoint o! due pro(ess C the prote(tion o! the individual against arbitrarya(tion C a deeper vi(e is this, that even now we do not now the parti(ular orevidential !a(ts o! whi(h the ommission too Audi(ial noti(e and on whi(h it rested its(on(lusion. ot only are the !a(ts unnownB there is no way to !ind them out. 8henpri(e lists or trade Aournals or even government reports are put in eviden(e upon atrial, the party against whom the are o!!ered may see the eviden(e or hear it and parryits e!!e(t. Dven i! they are (opied in the !indings without preliminary proo!, there is atleast an opportunity in (onne(tion with a Audi(ial review o! the de(ision to (hallengethe dedu(tions made !rom them. The opportunity is e=(luded here. The ommission,withholding !rom the re(ord the evidential !a(ts that is has gathered here and there,

(ontents itsel! with saying that in gathering them it went to Aournals and ta= lists, as i! a Audge were to tell us, ") looed at the statisti(s in the >ibrary o! ongress, and theytea(h me thus and so." This will never do i! hearings and appeals are to be more thanempty !orms. 8hat the upreme ourt o! Ohio did #in sustaining the order o! theommission' was to tae the word o! the ommission as to the out(ome o! a se(retinvestigation, and let it go a t that. "- hearing is not Audi(ial, at least in any ade0uatesense, unless the eviden(e (an be nown." #Ohio 2ell Telephone o. #s. $ubli(+tilities ommission, @&1 +.., 595B %3 up., 354.'

8e shall now pro(eed to resume the attitude observed by respondent Audges in (onne(tion withthe appli(ation !or bail !iled by the petitioner. )t must be re(alled that in our !irst de(ision o!*e(ember 5&, 194%, we held, in (onne(tion with the appli(ation !or bail !iled by the petitioner,that the $eoples ourt should hold a hearing with due noti(e to both the oli(itor :eneral andthe appli(ant, and that the order issued by the $eoples ourt denying su(h appli(ation withoutsu(h hearing was null and void. )t must be observed, !urthermore, that the $eoples ourt thendenied the petition only be(ause the oli(itor :eneral re(ommended a bail o! $%&,&&& !rom

whi(h it in!erred that the (rime involved must be serious, when said (ourt admittedly granted bailin the same amount to other detainees o! the same (lass as the herein petitioner. -!ter the$eople ourt was noti!ied o! our a!oresaid order, it held a hearing on *e(ember 53, 194%,wherein the herein petition !iled a verbal appli(ation !or bail, whi(h the spe(ial prose(utor did notoppose. The (ourt, however, instead o! granting the bail, dire(ted 0uestions to the spe(ialprose(utor to (ompel him to reveal his eviden(e. The appli(ant, without waiting !or the de(isiono! the $eoples ourt granting or denying the appli(ation !or bail., (ame to this ourt asing thatthe $eoples ourt be ordered to grant the bail applied !or. 8e denied the petition as premature,but we ordered the $eoples ourt to render its de(ision on the a!oresaid verbal petition in(on!ormity with the three instru(tions above mentioned. The $eoples ourt (alled anotherhearing on 7anuary 1%, 1946, and notwithstanding the spe(ial prose(utors having reiterated thathe had no obAe(tion to the appli(ation !or bail, the (ourt insisted on addressing to him pra(ti(allythe same 0uestion as those made at the hearing o! *e(ember 53, 194%. -nd upon theprose(utors de(lining to answer, supported by his presentation o! a (erti!i(ate o! the oli(itor:eneral that the answer to said 0uestions may imperial the su((ess o! the prose(ution and

Aeopardie the publi( interest, respondent (ourt, through 7udge -ntonio


7/24

+.. C +.. #s. Hamilton, @ *all., 13B 1 >aw ed., 49&. -la. C -. p. tate, 5&% -la., 11B 3 ., %94B tate #s. >owe, 5&4 -la., 5B % .,3&3B - p. room, 19 -la., %61.

-ri., C $n re & aigler, 1% -ri., 1%&B 1@3 $., 45@. -r. C - p. 8hite, 9 -r., 555.al., C - p. urtis, 95 al., 1B 5 $. 55@B - p. *un(an, %@ al., 41&.olo. C /omeo #s. *owner, 69 olo., 51 B 19@ $., %%9.Fla. C /ussel #s. tate. 31 Fla., 5@6B 31 ., 53B - p. athan, %& ., @B 2enAamin #s.tate, 5% Fla., 63%B 6 ., 4@@B Holley #s. tate, 1% Fla., 6B Fin(h #s. tate, 1% Fla.6@@.)nd., C - p. /i(hards, 1&5 )nd., 56&B 1 . e., 6@9B - p. utherlin, %6 )nd., %9%B - p.

;oore, @& )nd., 193B- p. He!ren, 53 )nd., 3B >umm #s. tate, @ )nd., 59@B tate #s.2est, 3 2la(!., 611.)owa. C Ford #s. *illey, 134 )owa, 54@B 1%6 .8., %[email protected]. C $n re /ol!, @& Ian., 3% B 1 $., %5@.;iss. C;arley #s. tate, 1&9 ;iss., 169B 6 ., 3%, 33&B treet #s. tate, 4@ ;iss.,1B - p. :ray, @& ;iss., 63@.;o. C-le=anders $et., %9 ;o. %9B 51 -m. /., @[email protected]. C -. p. agel, 41 ev., 6B 163 $., 69.. ). C $eo. #s. Folmsbee, 6& 2arts., 4&.. . C tate #s. Herndon, 1&3 .., 9@4B 15 /D., 56?tate #s. 8iley, 64 .., 51B tate #s. Ddney, 6& .., [email protected] power o! the upreme ourt or o! a Austi(e thereo!, to bail in all (ases, whether itbe treason, murder, arson, or any other o!!ense, is indisputable. #$eople #s. EanHorne, 2ar., 1%B $eople #s. $erry, -bb., $r., .., 53, (ited in note on p. 3%, @9>./.-., new series.'

The upreme ourt o! the +nited tates has power to admit to bail on a (harge o!high treason. #+.. #s. Hamilton, @ *al., 13B 1 >aw. ed., 49&, (ited in note on pp. 3%,3%9B @9 >./.-., new series.'

To hold this ourt powerless to grant bail dire(tly under the (ir(umstan(es o! the instant (ase is(ertainly to destroy the great !un(tion o! the highest tribunal o! the land (reated by theonstitution as the ultimate bulwar o! the liberties o! the people.o (osts. o ordered.*oran, C.J., and /eng+on, J., (on(ur.

3G.R. No. 12967. +50u"0y 1, 2

&ANOLET O. LA%IDES, petitioner , vs. HONORALE CO)RT O A!!EALS HON.ROSALINA L. L)NA !ISON, Ju$*+ !0+$#* o:+0 0"#;< 17, RTC, (u+=o# Cy "#$!EO!LE O THE !HILI!!INES, respondents.

D E C I S I O N&ENDO'A, J .$etitioner ;anolet>avides was arrested on -pril @, 1993 !or (hild abuse under /.-. o. 361& #ana(t providing !or stronger deterren(e and spe(ial prote(tion against (hild abuse, e=ploitation anddis(rimination, providing penalties !or its violation, and other purposes'. His arrest was madewithout a warrant as a result o! an entrapment (ondu(ted by the poli(e. )t appears that on -pril@, 1993, the parents o! (omplainant >orelie an ;iguel reported to the poli(e that their daughter,then 16 years old, had been (onta(ted by petitioner !or an assignation that night at petitionersroom at the ;etropolitan Hotel in *iliman, orelie, who was wearing only a tshirt and an underwear, whereuponthey arrested him. 2ased on the sworn statement o! (omplainant and the a!!idavits o! the

arresting o!!i(ers, whi(h were submitted at the in0uest, an in!ormation !or viola tion o! -rt. ))), %#b'o! /.-. o. 361& was !iled on -pril 3, 1993 against petitioner in the /egional Trial ourt, orelie an ;iguel, and by three other minor (hildren, ;ary -nn Tardesilla,7enni!er atarman, and -nnalynTalingting. The (ases were do(eted as riminal ase os.


8/24

8HD/DFO/D, (onsidering that the (onditions imposed under os. 5a'and 5b',%G o! the ;ay 5@ #should be ;ay 16', 1993 Order, are separable,and would not a!!e(t the (ash bond whi(h petitioner posted !or hisprovisional liberty, with the sole modi!i(ation that those a!oresaid (onditionsare hereby -+>>D* and DT -)*D, the ;ay 16, ;ay 5@ and ;ay 5@,1993 Orders are ;-)T-)D* in all other respe(ts. 6G ;isoedp

The appellate (ourt invalidated the !irst two (onditions imposed in the ;ay 16, 1993 order !or thegrant o! bail to petitioner but ruled that the issue (on(erning the validity o! the (ondition maingarraignment a prere0uisite !or the approval o! petitioners bail bonds to be moot and a(ademi(. )tnoted "that petitioner has posted the (ash bondsB that when arraigned, represented by lawyers,he pleaded not guilty to ea(h o!!enseB and that he has already been released !rom detention."

The ourt o! -ppeals thought that the a!oresaid (onditions in the ;ay 16, 1993 order were(ontrary to -rt. ))), 14#5' o! the onstitution whi(h provides that "aG!ter arraignment, trial maypro(eed notwithstanding the absen(e o! the a((used provided that he has been duly noti!iedand his !ailure to appear is unAusti!iable."8ith respe(t to the denial o! petitioners motion to 0uash the in!ormations against him, theappellate (ourt held that petitioner (ould not 0uestion the same in a petition !or (ertiorari be!oreit, but what he must do was to go to trial and to reiterate the grounds o! his motion to 0uash onappeal should the de(ision be adverse to him.Hen(e this petition. $etitioner (ontends that the ourt o! -ppeals erred 3G JJ

1.......)n ruling that the (ondition imposed by respondent 7udge that theapproval o! petitioners bail bonds "shall be made only a!ter his arraignment"is o! no moment and has been rendered moot and a(ademi( by the !a(t thathe had already posted the bail bonds and had pleaded not guilty to all theo!!ensesB5.......)n not resolving the submission that the arraignment was void not only

be(ause it was made under (ompelling (ir(umstan(e whi(h le!t petitioner nooption to 0uestion the respondent 7udges arbitrary a(tion but also be(auseit emanated !rom a void OrderB@.......)n ruling that the denial o! petitioners motion to 0uash may not beimpugned in a petition !or (ertiorariB and4.......)n not resolving the legal issue o! whether or not petitioner may bevalidly (harged !or violation o! e(tion %#b' o! /- o. 361& under severalin!ormations (orresponding to the number o! alleged a(ts o! (hild abuseallegedly (ommitted against ea(h private (omplainant by the petitioner.

8e will deal with ea(h o! these (ontentions although not in the order in whi(h they are stated bypetitioner.First. -s already stated, the trial (ourts order, dated ;ay 16, 1993, imposed !our (onditions !orthe grant o! bail to petitioner?

a' The a((used shall not be entitled to a waiver o! appearan(e during thetrial o! these (ases. He shall and must always be present at the hearings o!

these (asesBb' )n the event that he shall not be able to do so, his bail bonds shall beautomati(ally (an(elled and !or!eited, warrants !or his arrest shall beimmediately issued and the (ases shall pro(eed to trial in absentiaB(' The holddeparture Order o! this ourt dated -pril 1&, 1993 standsBand Ddpmisd' -pproval o! the bail bonds shall be made only a!ter the arraignment toenable this ourt to immediately a(0uire Aurisdi(tion over the a((usedB

The ourt o! -ppeals de(lared (onditions #a' and #b' invalid but de(lined to pass upon thevalidity o! (ondition #d' on the ground that the issue had be(ome moot and a(ademi(. $etitionertaes issue with the ourt o! -ppeals with respe(t to its treatment o! (ondition #d' o! the ;ay 16,1993 order o! the trial (ourt whi(h maes petitioners arraignment a prere0uisite to the approvalo! his bail bonds. His (ontention is that this (ondition is void and that his arraignment was alsoinvalid be(ause it was held pursuant to su(h invalid (ondition.8e agree with petitioner that the appellate (ourt should have determined the validity o! the

(onditions imposed in the trial (ourts order o! ;ay 16, 1993 !or the grant o! bail be(ausepetitioners (ontention is that his arraignment was held in pursuan(e o! these (onditions !or bail.

)n re0uiring that petitioner be !irst arraigned be!ore he (ould be granted bail, the trial (ourtapprehended that i! petitioner were released on bail he (ould, by being absent, prevent his earlyarraignment and thereby delay his trial until the (omplainants got tired and lost interest in their(ases. Hen(e, to ensure his presen(e at the arraignment, approval o! petitioners bail bondsshould be de!erred until he (ould be arraigned. -!ter that, even i! petitioner does not appear, trial(an pro(eed as long as he is noti!ied o! the date o! hearing and his !ailure to appear isunAusti!ied, sin(e under -rt. ))), 14#5' o! the onstitution, trial in a"sentia is authoried. Thisseems to be the theory o! the trial (ourt in its ;ay 16, 1993 order (onditioning the grant o! bail topetitioner on his arraignment.This theory is mistaen. )n the !irst pla(e, as the trial (ourt itsel! a(nowledged, in (ases where itis authoried, bail should be granted be!ore arraignment, otherwise the a((used may be

pre(luded !rom !iling a motion to 0uash. For i! the in!ormation is 0uashed and the (ase isdismissed, there would then be no need !or the arraignment o! the a((used. )n the se(ond pla(e,the trial (ourt (ould ensure the presen(e o! petitioner at the arraignment pre(isely by grantingbail and ordering his presen(e at any stage o! the pro(eedings, su(h as arraignment. +nder/ule 114, 5#b' o! the /ules on riminal $ro(edure, one o! the (onditions o! bail is that "thea((used shall appear be!ore the proper (ourt whenever so re0uired by the (ourt or these /ules,"while under /ule 116, 1#b' the presen(e o! the a((used at the arraignment is re0uired.On the other hand, to (ondition the grant o! bail to an a((used on his arraignment would be topla(e him in a position where he has to (hoose between #1' !iling a motion to 0uash and thusdelay his release on bail be(ause until his motion to 0uash (an be resolved, his arraignment(annot be held, and #5' !oregoing the !iling o! a motion to 0uash so that he (an be arraigned aton(e and therea!ter be released on bail. These s(enarios (ertainly undermine the a((useds(onstitutional right not to be put on trial e=(ept upon valid (omplaint or in!ormation su!!i(ient to(harge him with a (rime and his right to bail. G

)t is the (ondition in the ;ay 16, 1993 order o! the trial (ourt that "approval o! the bail bonds shall

be made only a!ter arraignment," whi(h the ourt o! -ppeals should instead have de(lared void.The (ondition imposed in the trial (ourts order o! ;ay 16, 1993 that the a((used (annot waivehis appearan(e at the trial but that he must be present at the hearings o! the (ase is valid and isin a((ordan(e with /ule 114. For another (ondition o! bail under /ule 114, 5#(' is that "The!ailure o! the a((used to appear at the trial without Austi!i(ation despite due noti(e to him or hisbondsman shall be deemed an e=press waiver o! his right to be present on the date spe(i!ied inthe noti(e. )n su(h (ase, trial shall pro(eed in a"sentia." 7As(

-rt. ))), 14#5' o! the onstitution authoriing trials in a"sentia allows the a((used to be absent atthe trial but not at (ertain stages o! the pro(eedings, to wit? #a' at arraignment and plea, whethero! inno(en(e or o! guilt,9G #b' during trial whenever ne(essary !or identi!i(ation purposes, 1&G and#(' at the promulgation o! senten(e, unless it is !or a light o!!ense, in whi(h (ase the a((usedmay appear by (ounsel or representative.11G -t su(h stages o! the pro(eedings, his presen(e isre0uired and (annot be waived. -s pointed out in /ora #. *endo+a,15G in an opinion by 7usti(e,later hie! 7usti(e, Dnri0ue Fernando, there (an be no trial in a"sentia unless the a((used hasbeen arraigned.

+ndoubtedly, the trial (ourt new this. $etitioner (ould delay the pro(eedings by absentinghimsel! !rom the arraignment. 2ut on(e he is arraigned, trial (ould pro(eed even in his absen(e.o it thought that to ensure petitioners presen(e at the arraignment, petitioner should be deniedbail in the meantime. The !ly in the ointment, however, is that su(h (ourt strategy violatespetitioners (onstitutional rights.e(ond. -lthough this (ondition is invalid, it does not !ollow that the arraignment o! petitioner on;ay 5@, 1993 was also invalid. ontrary to petitioners (ontention, the arraignment did notemanate !rom the invalid (ondition that "approval o! the bail bonds shall be made only a!ter thearraignment." Dven without su(h a (ondition, the arraignment o! petitioner (ould not be omitted.)n sum, although the (ondition !or the grant o! bail to petitioner is invalid, his arraignment and thesubse0uent pro(eedings against him are valid.Third. $etitioner (on(edes that the rule is that the remedy o! an a((used whose motion to 0uashis denied is not to !ile a petition !or (ertiorari but to pro(eed to trial without preAudi(e to his rightto reiterate the grounds invoed in his motion to 0uash during trial on the merits or on appeal i!an adverse Audgment is rendered against him. However, he argues that this (ase should be

treated as an e=(eption. He (ontends that the ourt o! -ppeals should not have evaded the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htm#_ftn12


9/24

issue o! whether he should be (harged under several in!ormations (orresponding to the numbero! a(ts o! (hild abuse allegedly (ommitted by him against ea(h o! the (omplainants.)n Tano v. alvador ,1@G the ourt, while holding that (ertiorari will not lie !rom a denial o! a motionto 0uash, nevertheless re(ognied that there may be (ases where there are spe(ial(ir(umstan(es (learly demonstrating the inade0ua(y o! an appeal. )n su(h (ases, the a((usedmay resort to the appellate (ourt to raise the issue de(ided against him. This is su(h a (ase.8hether petitioner is liable !or Aust one (rime regardless o! the number o! se=ual a(ts allegedly(ommitted by him and the number o! (hildren with whom he had se=ual inter(ourse, or whetherea(h a(t o! inter(ourse (onstitutes one (rime is a 0uestion that bears on the presentation o!eviden(e by either party. )t is important to petitioner as well as to the prose(ution how many(rimes there are. For instan(e, i! there is only one o!!ense o! se=ual abuse regardless o! the

number o! (hildren involved, it will not matter mu(h to the prose(ution whether it is able topresent only one o! the (omplainants. On the other hand, i! ea(h a(t o! se=ual inter(ourse with a(hild (onstitutes a separate o!!ense, it will matter whether the other (hildren are presentedduring the trial. (AAThe issue then should have been de(ided by the ourt o! -ppeals. However, instead o!remanding this (ase to the appellate (ourt !or a determination o! this issue, we will de(ide theissue now so that the trial in the (ourt below (an pro(eed without !urther delay.$etitioners (ontention is that the 15 in!ormations !iled against him allege only one o!!ense o!(hild abuse, regardless o! the number o! alleged vi(tims #!our' and the number o! a(ts o! se=ualinter(ourse (ommitted with them #twelve'. He argues that the a(t o! se=ual inter(ourse is only ameans o! (ommitting the o!!ense so that the a(ts o! se=ual inter(ourseKlas(iviousness withminors attributed to him should not be subAe(t o! separate in!ormations. He (ites the a!!idavits o!the alleged vi(tims whi(h show that their involvement with him (onstitutes an "unbroen (hain o!events," i.e., the !irst vi(tim was the one who introdu(ed the se(ond to petitioner and so on.$etitioner says that (hild abuse is similar to the (rime o! larges(ale illegal re(ruitment where

there is only a single o!!ense regardless o! the number o! worers illegally re(ruited on di!!erento((asions. )n the alternative, he (ontends that, at the most, only !our in!ormations,(orresponding to the number o! alleged (hild vi(tims, (an be !iled against him.

-rt. ))), % o! /.-. o. 316& under whi(h petitioner is being prose(uted, provides?e(. % Cild Prostitution and 0ter Se-ual A"use. 11 hildren, whethermale or !emale, who !or money, pro!it, or any other (onsideration or due tothe (oer(ion or in!luen(e o! any adult, syndi(ate or group, indulge in se=ualinter(ourse or las(ivious (ondu(t, are deemed to be (hildren e=ploited inprostitution and other se=ual abuse.The penalty o! reclusion te%poral in its medium period to reclusion

perpetua shall be imposed upon the !ollowing?. . . .#b' Those who (ommit the a(t o! se=ual inter(ourse or las(ivious (ondu(twith a (hild e=ploited in prostitution or subAe(ted to other se=ual abuse.

The elements o! the o!!ense are as !ollows? #1' the a((used (ommits the a(t o! se=ual

inter(ourse or las(ivious (ondu(tB #5' that said a(t is per!ormed with a (hild e=ploited inprostitution or subAe(ted to other se=ual abuseB and #@' the (hild, 14G whether male or !emale, is or is deemed under 1 years o! age. D=ploitation in prostitution or other se=ual abuse o((urs whenthe (hild indulges in se=ual inter(ourse or las(ivious (ondu(t #a' !or money, pro!it, or any other(onsiderationB or #b' under the (oer(ion or in!luen(e o! any adult, syndi(ate, or group.Da(h in(ident o! se=ual inter(ourse and las(ivious a(t with a (hild under the (ir(umstan(esmentioned in -rt. ))), % o! /.-. o. 316& is thus a separate and distin(t o!!ense. The o!!ense issimilar to rape or a(t o! las(iviousness under the /evised $enal ode in whi(h ea(h a(t o! rapeor las(ivious (ondu(t should be the subAe(t o! a separate in!ormation. This (on(lusion is(on!irmed by -rt. ))), %#b' o! /.-. o. 316&, whi(h provides?

tGhat when the vi(tim is under twelve #15' years o! age, the perpetratorsshall be prose(uted under -rti(le @@%, paragraph @, !or rape and -rti(le @@6o! -(t o. @1%, as amended, the /evised $enal ode, !or rape orlas(ivious (ondu(t, as the (ase may be? Pro#ided , That the penalty !orlas(ivious (ondu(t when the vi(tim is under twelve #15' years o! age shall

be reclusion te%poral in its medium periodB

>HEREORE, the de(ision o! the ourt o! -ppeals is DT -)*D and another one is/D*D/D* de(laring the orders dated ;ay 16, 1993 and ;ay 5@, 1993 o! the /egional Trialourt, 2ran(h 1&3,


10/24

venereal disease nown as gonorrhea. The poli(eman too a portion o! the substan(e emitting

!rom the body o! the de!endant and turned it over to the 2ureau o! (ien(e !or the purpose o!

having a s(ienti!i( analysis made o! the same. The result o! the e=amination showed that the

de!endant was su!!ering !rom gonorrhea.*uring the trial the de!endant obAe(ted strongly to the admissibility o! the testimony o! Oliva, on

the ground that be(ause o! her tender years her testimony should not be given (redit. The lower

(ourt, a!ter (are!ully e=amining her with re!eren(e to her ability to understand the nature o! an

oath, held that she had su!!i(ient intelligen(e and dis(ernment to Austi!y the (ourt in a((epting

her testimony with !ull !aith and (redit. 8ith the (on(lusion o! the lower (ourt, a!ter reading her

de(laration, we !ully (on(ur. The de!ense in the lower (ourt attempted to show that the venereal

disease o! gonorrhea might be (ommuni(ated in ways other than by (onta(t su(h as isdes(ribed in the present (ase, and (alled medi(al witnesses !or the purpose o! supporting the

(ontention. 7udge >obingier, in dis(ussing that 0uestion said?8e shall not pursue the re!inement o! spe(ulation as to whether or not this disease

might, in e=(eptional (ases, arise !rom other (arnal (onta(t. The medi(al e=perts, as

well as the boos, agree that in ordinary (ases it arises !rom that (ause, and i! this

was an e=(eptional one, we thin it was in(umbent upon the de!ense to bring it within

the e=(eption.The o!!ended party testi!ied that the de!endant had rested his private parts upon hers !or some

moments. The de!endant was !ound to be su!!ering !rom gonorrhea. The medi(al e=perts who

testi!ied agreed that this disease (ould have been (ommuni(ated !rom him to her by the (onta(t

des(ribed. 2elieving as we do the story told by Oliva, we are !or(ed to the (on(lusion that the

disease with whi(h Oliva was su!!ering was the result o! the illegal and brutal (ondu(t o! the

de!endant. $roo!, however, that Oliva (onstru(ted said obno=ious disease !rom the de!endant is

not ne(essary to show that he is guilty o! the (rime. )t is only (orroborative o! the truth o! Olivasde(laration.The de!endant attempted to prove in the lower (ourt that the prose(ution was brought !or the

purpose o! (ompelling h im to pay to the sister o! Oliva a (ertain sum o! money.The de!endant testi!ed and brought other hinamen to support his de(laration, that the sister o!

Oliva threatened to have him prose(uted i! he did not pay her the sum o! $6&. )t seems

impossible to believe that the sister, a!ter having be(ome (onvin(ed that Oliva had been

outraged in the manner des(ribed above, would (onsider !or a moment a settlement !or the

paltry sum o! $6&. Honest women do not (onsent to the violation o! their bodies nor those o!

their near relatives, !or the !ilthy (onsideration o! mere money.)n the (ourt below the de!endant (ontended that the result o! the s(ienti!i( e=amination made by

the 2ureau o! (ien(e o! the substan(e taen !rom his body, at or about the time he was

arrested, was not admissible in eviden(e as proo! o! the !a(t that he was su!!ering !rom

gonorrhea. That to admit su(h eviden(e was to (ompel the de!endant to testi!y against himsel!.

7udge >obingier, in dis(ussing that 0uestion in his senten(e, said?The a((used was not (ompelled to mae any admissions or answer any 0uestions,

and the mere !a(t that an obAe(t !ound on his person was e=amined? seems no more

to in!ringe the rule invoed, than would the introdu(tion in eviden(e o! stolen property

taen !rom the person o! a thie!.The substan(e was taen !rom the body o! the de!endant without his obAe(tion, the e=amination

was made by (ompetent medi(al authority and the result showed that the de!endant was

su!!ering !rom said disease. -s was suggested by 7udge >obingier, had the de!endant been

!ound with stolen property upon his person, there (ertainly (ould have been no 0uestion had the

stolen property been taen !or the purpose o! using the same as eviden(e against him. o also i!

the (lothing whi(h he wore, by reason o! blood stains or otherwise, had !urnished eviden(e o!

the (ommission o! a (rime, there (ertainly (ould have been no obAe(tion to taing su(h !or the

purpose o! using the same as proo!. o one would thin o! even suggesting that stolen property

and the (lothing in the (ase indi(ated, taen !rom the de!endant, (ould not be used against him

as eviden(e, without violating the rule that a person shall not be re0uired to give testimony

against himsel!.

The 0uestion presented by the de!endant below and repeated in his !irst assignment o! error is

not a new 0uestion, either to the (ourts or authors. )n the (ase o! Holt vs. +.. #51 +.., 54%',

;r. 7usti(e Holmes, speaing !or the (ourt upon this 0uestion, said?2ut the prohibition o! (ompelling a man in a (riminal (ourt to be a witness against

himsel!, is a proi"ition of te use of pysical or %oral co%pulsion, to e=tort

(ommuni(ations !rom him, not an e-clusion of is "ody as e#idence, !en it %ay "e

%aterial . The obAe(tion, in prin(iple, would !orbid a Aury #(ourt' to loo at a person and

(ompare his !eatures with a photograph in proo!. ;oreover we are not (onsidering

how !ar a (ourt would go in (ompelling a man to e=hibit himsel!, !or when he is

e=hibited, whether voluntarily or by order, even i! the order goes too !ar, the eviden(e i!

material, is (ompetent.The 0uestion whi(h we are dis(ussing was also dis(ussed by the supreme (ourt o! the tate o!

ew 7ersey, in the (ase o! tate #s. ;iller #31 .7. law /eports, %53'. )n that (ase the (ourt said,

speaing through its (han(ellor?)t was not erroneous to permit the physi(ian o! the Aail in whi(h the a((used was

(on!ined, to testi!y to wounds observed by him on the ba( o! the hands o! the

a((used, although he also testi!ied that he had the a((used removed to a room in

another part o! the Aail and divested o! his (lothing. The observation made by the

witness o! the wounds on the hands and testi!ied to by him, was in no sense a

(ompelling o! the a((used to be a witness against himsel!. )! the removal o! the

(lothes had been !or(ible and the wounds had been thus e=posed, it seems that the

eviden(e o! their (hara(ter and appearan(e would not have been obAe(tionable.)n that (ase also #tate #s. ;iller' the de!endant was re0uired to pla(e his hand upon the wall o!

the house where the (rime was (ommitted, !or the purpose o! as(ertaining whether or not his

hand would have produ(ed the bloody print. The (ourt said, in dis(ussing that 0uestion?)t was not erroneous to permit eviden(e o! the (oin(iden(e between the hand o! the

a((used and the bloody prints o! a hand upon the wall o! the house where the (rime

was (ommitted, the hand o! the a((used having been pla(ed thereon at the re0uest o!

persons who were with him in the house.)t may be added that a se(tion o! the wall (ontaining the blood prints was produ(ed be!ore the

Aury and the testimony o! su(h (omparison was lie that held to be proper in another (ase

de(ided by the supreme (ourt o! ew 7ersey in the (ase o! 7ohnson #s. tate #@& Eroom, .7.

>aw /eports, 531'. The de!endant (aused the prints o! the shoes to be made in the sand be!ore

the Aury, and the witnesses who had observed shoe prints in the sand at the pla(e o! the

(ommission o! the (rime were permitted to (ompare them with what the had observed at that

pla(e.)n that (ase also the (lothing o! the de!endant was used as eviden(e against him.To admit the do(trine (ontended !or by the appellant might e=(lude the testimony o! a physi(ian

or a medi(al e=pert who had been appointed to mae observations o! a person who plead

insanity as a de!ense, where su(h medi(al testimony was against ne(essarily use the person o!

the de!endant !or the purpose o! maing su(h e=amination. #$eople #s. -gustin, 199 .., 446.'

The do(trine (ontended !or by the appellants would also prevent the (ourts !rom maing an

e=amination o! the body o! the de!endant where serious personal inAuries were alleged to have

been re(eived by him. The right o! the (ourts in su(h (ases to re0uire an e=hibit o! the inAured

parts o! the body has been established by a long line o! de(isions.e proi"ition (ontained in se(tion % o! the $hilippine 2ill that a person shall not be (ompelled

to be a witness against himsel!, is si%ply a proi"ition against legal process to e-tract fro% te

defendant's o!n lips, against is !ill, an ad%ission of is guilt.;r.8igmore, in his valuable wor on eviden(e, in dis(ussing the 0uestion be!ore us, said?

)!, in other words, it #the rule' (reated inviolability not only !or his physi(al (ontrolG in

whatever !orm e=er(ised, then it would be possible !or a guilty person to shut himsel!

up in his house, with all the tools and indi(ia o! his (rime, and de!y the authority o! the

law to employ in eviden(e anything that might be obtained by !or(ibly overthrowing his

possession and (ompelling the surrender o! the evidential arti(les C a (lear reductio


11/24

ad a"surdu%. $n oter !ords, it is not %erely co%pulsion that is the ernel o! the

privilege, . . .buttesti%onial co%pulsion. #4 8igmore, se(. 556@.'The main purpose o! the provision o! the $hilippine 2ill is to proi"it co%pulsory oral

e-a%ination of prisonersbe!ore trial. or upon trial, !or the purpose o! e=torting unwilling

(on!essions or de(larations impli(ating them in the (ommission o! a (rime. #$eople #s. :ardner,

144 . ., 119.'The do(trine (ontended !or by appellant would prohibit (ourts !rom looing at the !a(t o! a

de!endant even, !or the purpose o! dis(losing his identity. u(h an appli(ation o! the prohibition

under dis(ussion (ertainly (ould not be permitted. u(h an inspe(tion o! the bodily !eatures by

the (ourt or by witnesses, (an not violate the privilege granted under the $hilippine 2ill, be(ause

it does not (all upon the a((used as a witness C it does not (all upon the de!endant !or histestimonial responsibility. ;r.8igmore says that eviden(e obtained in this way !rom the a((used,

is not testimony but his body his body itsel!. -s was said by 7udge >obingier?

The a((used was not (ompelled to mae any admission or answer any 0uestions, and

the mere !a(t that an obAe(t !ound upon his body was e=amined seems no more to

in!ringe the rule invoed than would the introdu(tion o! stolen property taen !rom the

person o! a thie!.The do(trine (ontended !or by the appellant would also prohibit the sanitary department o! the

:overnment !rom e=amining the body o! persons who are supposed to have some (ontagious

disease.8e believe that the eviden(e (learly shows that the de!endant was su!!ering !rom the venereal

disease, as above stated, and that through his brutal (ondu(t said disease was (ommuni(ated

to Oliva$a(omio. )n a (ase lie the present it is always di!!i(ult to se(ure positive and dire(t

proo!. u(h (rimes as the present are generally proved by (ir(umstantial eviden(e. )n (ases o!

rape the (ourts o! law re0uire (orroborative proo!, !or the reason that su(h (rimes are generally

(ommitted in se(ret. )n the present (ase, taing into a((ount the number and (redibility o! the

witnesses, their interest and attitude on the witness stand, their manner o! testi!ying and the

general (ir(umstan(es surrounding the witnesses, in(luding the !a(t that both parties were !ound

to be su!!ering !rom a (ommon disease, we are o! the opinion that the de!endant did, on or about

the 1%th o! eptember, 191&, have su(h relations as above des(ribed with the said

Oliva$a(omio, whi(h under the provisions o! arti(le 4@9 o! the $enal ode maes him guilty o!

the (rime o! 5a"usosdesonestos,5 and taing into (onsideration the !a(t that the (rime whi(h

the de!endant (ommitted was done in the house where Oliva$a(omio was living, we are o! the

opinion that the ma=imum penalty o! the law should be imposed. The ma=imum penalty provided

!or by law is si= years o! prisioncorreccional . There!ore let a Audgment be entered modi!ying the

senten(e o! the lower (ourt and senten(ing the de!endant to be imprisoned !or a period o! si=

years o! prisioncorreccional , and to pay the (osts. o ordered. -rellano, .7., Torres, ;apa, arson and Trent, 77., (on(ur.

G.R. No. L-21@4 A0l 26, 19@THE !EO!LE O THE !HILI!!INES, plainti!!appellee,vs.ANTONIO OTADORA, ET AL., de!endants.HILARIA CARREON, appellant.Victorino C. eleron for appellant.0ffice of te Solicitor General Feli- /autista Angelo and Assistant Solicitor General Guiller%o .orres for appellee.ENG'ON, J.

)n -ugust, 1943 in the ourt o! First )nstan(e o! >eyte, -ntonio Otadora and Hilaria arreonwere (harged with the murder o! the spouses >eon astro and -polonia arreon. Otadora

pleaded guilty, and was senten(ed to li!e imprisonment. *enying her guilt, Hilaria arreon wastried, !ound guilty and senten(ed to death and other a((essory penalties. The (ourt de(lared thatwith promises o! monetary reward, she had indu(ed -ntonio Otadora to do the illing. ;otive !orthe instigation was the grudge she bore against the de(eased spouse on a((ount o! disputeswith them over inherited property. This woman (onvi(t appealed in due time.Her attorney !iled here a voluminous brie! wherein he attempted painstaingly to brea down theposition o! the prose(ution and to e=pound the theory that -ntonio Otadora is the only personresponsible !or the slaying, and that Hilaria arreon is Aust "the un!ortunate vi(tim o! a vi(ious!rameup (on(o(ted against her." he ne(essarily had to o!!er a satis!a(tory e=planation !or the(ondu(t o! Otadora, who has pleaded guilty and has de(lared !or the prose(ution against her,e=plaining the (ir(umstan(es under whi(h she had promised to him (ompensation !or li0uidating

the un!ortunate (ouple.There is no 0uestion about these !a(ts?Darly in the morning o! 7une 16, 1943, >eon astro and his wi!e -polonia arreon were shotdead in their house in the ity o! Ormo(, >eyte. )n the a!ternoon o! 7une 51, 1943, -ntonioOtadora was arrested in Ormo( ity while preparing to es(ape to amotes )sland, ebu. Thene=t day he (on!essed in an e=traAudi(ial statement #D=hibit 1' wherein he impli(ated the hereina((used and appellant Hilaria arreon asserting that, with o!!ers o! pe(uniary gain, the latter hadindu(ed him to (ommit the (rime. On 7une 5%, 1943, a (omplaint !or double murder was !iledagainst both de!endants in the Austi(e o! the pea(e (ourt o! Ormo(, >eyte. $reliminaryinvestigation was waived and the re(ord was !orwarded to the (ourt o! !irst instan(e, where oneptember @, 1943, Otadora pleaded guilty with the assistan(e o! (ounsel. Hilaria arreonpleaded not guilty, and ased !or a separate trial, whi(h was immediately held, with Otadora asthe !irst witness !or the prose(ution.The eviden(e presented on behal! o! the $eople proved that?#1' -polonia arreon was the sister o! Hilaria. *ue to a !amily 0uarrel, -polonia !iled in -ugust,

1946, a (riminal (omplaint !or serious threats against Hilaria and her husband Fran(is(o :alos#D=hibit $1'. These were arrested and had to !ile a bond. The (ase was later withdrawn by

-polonia upon the advi(e o! !riendly mediators.)n *e(ember o! 1946, >eon astro as guardian ad lite% o! some minors surnamed arreon !ileda (ivil (omplaint !or partition o! real property and damages against Hilaria arreon. This suit wasset !or hearing on 7une 54, 1943.#5' -ntonio Otadora met Hilaria arreon sometime in -pril, 1943, through -mando:arbo.Therea!ter they (onverse on several o((asions. )n the early part o! ;ay, 1943, she saw himgoing to barrio ;ati(aa and then she told him that i! he would li0uidate the spouses >eonastro and -polonia arreon she would give him $@,&&&. He did not agree. )n the last wee o!;ay he was invited to Hilarias house. The proposal was renewed, better (onditions beingo!!ered. #1K@ o! $1&,&&& plus (arabaos, plus $@&&.' He must have demurred alleging that he hadno ade0uate weapon, Hilaria is reported to have engaged to supply it.#@' -round the !irst wee o! 7une, 1943, Hilaria arreon sent !or Otadora. he gave him therevolver D=hibit -B but the revolver turned out to be de!e(tive so he handed it ba( to Hilaria. The

latter ordered it repaired by 2enigno2altonado who had previously sold it to her. Three dayslater, 2altonado returned the gun in good (ondition with more than ten bullets, and appellant inturn delivered the weapon to Otadora who was then in her house, advising him at the same timeto (arry out soon their plan so that >eon astro may not attend the hearing o! the (ivil (ase.

-ppellant also gave Otadora the bolo D=hibit 2, a pair o! trousers o! her husband Fran(is(o:alos #D=hibit ', a hat D=hibit * and a !lashlight D=hibit D.#4' Otadora set out to do his part in the morning o! 7une 16B but -polonia was not in herresiden(e. He reported to appellant the ne=t day and the latter urged him to e=e(ute it that day,giving him $6.%& !or transportation. That night, at about one o(lo(, -ntonio (limbed up thehouse o! the astros, passing through the window. He saw them sleeping side by side. Heopened the door to the it(hen to prepare his e=it. /eturning to the pla(e where the (ouple lay,he stumbled on >eon astro, who e=(laimed, "who are youL".Otadora replied, ") am" ") donthave any purpose e=(ept you, get up and !ight." -s astro was about to stand up, Otadora !ired.

-polonia was awaened, and embra(ed her husband who meantime had !allen. Otadora shother too. The (ouple died immediately o! sho( and hemorrhage.

#%' -!ter (ommitting the murders, Otadora returned to barrio ;ati(aa intending to go to HilariashomeB but as he was nearing the it(hen, Fran(is(o :alos signalled him to go away. #He was


12/24

seen, (rossing the (orn!ield near Hilaria arreons house by 7uanita :arbo, who so testi!ied in(ourt.' Otadora went to his home in itioHubas. On 7une 5&, at a dan(e, he re(eived word !romHilaria through her husband :alos, that he was wanted by the poli(e, and that he shouldde(amp. the ne=t morning he passed by the residen(e o! Hilaria, and the latter gave him $%,plus two pa(ages o! (igarettes, adding that he should no t attempt to visit her !urther, be(auseshe was being wat(hed. The ne=t day, she again sent him $4% through -mando:arbo, whodelivered the money at the ba( o! the house o! ;enes Tahur in anang(aan. -!ter re(eivingthe money, Otadora prepared to es(ape to amotes )slands. 2ut he was (aught be!ore he (ouldrun away.The above statement o! prin(ipal !a(ts is a (ondensation o! the testimonies o! -ntonio Otadora,2enigno2altonado, -mando:arbo, -leAandro 2ensig, ;a(ario2ensig, 7uanita :arbo, and

others. )t is substantially in a((ord with the !indings o! His Honor, the trial Audge. O! (ourse it is!ounded mainly upon the de(larations o! -ntonio Otadora that ne(essarily are persuasiveinasmu(h as he himsel! admits his dire(t parti(ipation and his assertions are !ully (orroboratedby a series o! (ir(umstan(es (ompetently established.Hilaria denied (onne(tion with the assassination. -nd naturally the de!ense e=erted e!!ort todis(redit Otadoras version, by submitting the !ollowing theory?

-ntonio Otadora planned a revenge upon astro be(ause the latter as a spy (aused the deatho! his !ather ergio Otadora at the hands o! the 7apanese. He, however, !ound himsel! in thene(essity o! eliminating -polonia arreon be(ause the latter was a witness to his deed. On theother hand, -ntonio Otadora #and the other witnesses who are his relatives' also desire to taerevenge upon Hilaria arreon be(ause the latter, during the 7apanese o((upation, saved >eonastro !rom death at the hands o! the guerrillas. The de!ense says that to those who had beenpreAudi(ed by the espionage a(tivities o! >eon astro, Hilaria arreon appears to be Aust asresponsible as >eon astro.The theory (an not be law!ully a((epted. Firstly, Otadora denies that his !ather died at the hands

o! the 7apanese. e(ondly, the alleged "saving" o! >eon astro was not su!!i(iently established.>oreto ;i(abel, the superior o!!i(er o! the guerrillas, who ordered the release o! >eon astro, didnot mention Hilaria as one o! those who inter(eded !or the prisoner #p. 56, stenographi( notes'.Thirdly, nobody in his right senses holds $edro (riminally responsible !or the (rime o! 7uansimply be(ause a !ew days be!ore the (rime $edro saved 7uan !rom drowning.On the other hand, the grudge whi(h Otadora supposedly held against astro, readily e=plainswhy !or a (onsideration he undertoo to ill. )t is liewise probable that nowing su(h desire !orvengean(e, Hilaria sele(ted him to (arry out the dangerous and deli(ate Aob. -nd i! it is true thatHilaria saved >eon astro during the 7apanese o((upation, it is very liely that she hated her"ungrate!ul" brotherinlaw and sister, #who on two subse0uent o((asions brought her to (ourt',so mu(h that she hired Otadora to eliminate them.The assertions o! Otadora are de(isively rati!ied by 2enigno2altonado who swore that it wasHilaria who had pur(hased the murderous gun !rom him !or $%%, and who ordered him to !i= itBthat on the third day he returned the gun to her in her home with rounds o! ammunitionB and thatOtadora was there on that o((asion. The remars and arguments o! (ounsel on pages 395 o!

his brie! do not, in our opinion, destroy 2altonados (redibility.Then there is the witness -mando:arbo, whose brother Dsteban is married to the sister o!Hilaria, and whose sister married a younger brother o! Hilaria. -mando:arbo de(lared that hewas on !riendly terms with Hilaria, taing (are o! her !ighting (o(B that in *e(ember, 1946 in the!iesta o! $alompon, she tried to persuade him to ill the spouses astroB that he de(linedB thatshe ased him to loo !or another !or another whom she (ould hireB that he introdu(ed Hilaria to

-ntonio OtadoraB that it was he who, at the re0uest o! Hilaria, se(retly delivered $4% in paperbills o! di!!erent denominations to -ntonio Otadora a!ter the (rime was (ommitted.

-nd 7uanita :arbo, nie(e o! Hilaria arreon, (on!irmed the various meetings o! Otadora andHilaria in the latters house. -nd there is the witness ;a(ario2ensig who swore that in ;ay,1943, at Tabogo(on, Ormo( ity, during the wedding o! his brother 2enito with >uisa $ilapil in;ay, 1943, Hilaria arreon told him that i! he would ill >eon astro and -polonia arreon hewould be given money as a reward.

-gain there is the witness gt.Tomada who said that when the a((used Hilaria arreon wasarrested on 7une 5%, 1943, she was (ommitted to his (ustody be(ause there was no ade0uate

pla(e in the muni(ipal Aail !or herB that she re0uested him (on!identially to get a lo( o! hair o!

-ntonio Otadora e=plaining to him that i! that hair is burned Otadora would be(ome insane, andthere!ore would not be able to de(lare against her.Further (orroboration o! appellants (riminal (onne(tion with the bloody a!!air is the undisputedpossession by Otadora o! the pants o! Fran(is(o :alos #D=hibit ' and his hat D=hibit *. )tappears that when Fran(is(o :alos denied ownership o! the pants he was ordered to put it onBand the Audge !ound that it !itted him per!e(tly. This in(ident gave the de!ense opportunity !ore=tended argument that the (onstitutional prote(tion against sel!in(rimination had beenerroneously disregarded. 2ut we dis(over in the re(ord no timely obAe(tion upon that spe(i!i(ground. -nd it is to be doubted whether the a((used (ould bene!it !rom the error, i! any.Furthermore, and this is (on(lusive, "measuring or photographing the party is not within theprivilege" #against sel!in(rimination'. "or is the removal or repla(ement o! his garments or

shoes. or is the re0uirement that the party move his body to enable the !oregoing things to bedone." #8igmore on Dviden(e, Eol. 4, p. 3, 0uoted in 2eltran #s. amson and 7ose, %@ $hil.,%3&, %36'.)n (on(lusion, we are !ully satis!ied !rom a reading o! the whole e-pediente that the appellantindu(ed -ntonio Otadora to (ommit the double murder, and !urnished him with the deadly!irearm. he is Aust as guilty as i! she hersel! had perpetrated the murderous assaults. Theslaying is 0uali!ied by the (ir(umstan(e o! trea(hery. )t is aggravated by evident premeditationBbut !or la( o! su!!i(ient votes the appellant is senten(ed to su!!er li!e imprisonment !or ea(hmurder, #not e=(eeding 4& years, art. 3&, /ev. $enal ode', and to indemni!y the heirs o! theastros in the sum o! $4,&&&. The appealed Audgment will be thus modi!ied.*oran, C.J., 0+aeta, Pa"lo, uason, *onte%ayor, and Reyes, JJ., (on(ur.

!0+;. R+;. No. 714-A July 26, 197&ARIA ER&)DE', (omplainant,vs.LEODEGARIO D. CASTILLO, respondent.G. Viola Fernando for co%plainant.0ffice of te Solicitor6General ilado for te Go#ern%ent.e respondent in is o!n "ealf.DIA', J.:)n the (ourse o! the investigation whi(h was being (ondu(ted by the o!!i(e o! the oli(itor:eneral against the respondent, in (onne(tion with this administrative (ase, said respondent!iled, in addition to other eviden(e in support o! this de!ense, the si= letters whi(h, !or purposeso! identi!i(ation, were mared as D=hibits @5, @4, @%, @6 and @3. He then (ontended, as he now(ontinues to (ontend, that said si= letters are the (omplainants, but the latter denied it while she

was testi!ying as a witness in rebuttal. she admitted, however, that the letters mared as D=hibits@, @9 and 4& were in her own handwriting.

-s the respondent believed that the three letters admitted by the (omplainant to be hers wereinsu!!i(ient !or purposes o! (omparison with those 0uestioned in this (ase and as he wasdetermined to show that said D=hibits @, @9 and 4& were the (omplainants, he re0uired her to(opy them in her own handwriting in the presen(e o! the investigator. The (omplainant, uponadvi(e o! her attorney, re!used to submit to the trial to whi(h it was desired to subAe(t her,invoing her right not to in(riminate hersel! and alleging that D=hibits @, @9 and 4& and theother letters already in the respondents possession, were more than su!!i(ient !or what heproposed to do. The investigator, upholding the (omplainant, did not (ompel her to submit to thetrial re0uired, thereby denying the respondents petition. -s respondent did not agree to thisde(ision o! the investigator, he instituted these pro(eedings praying that the investigator and theoli(itor:eneral in whose representation he a(ted, be ordered to re0uire and (ompel the(omplainant to !urnish new spe(imens o! her handwriting by (opying said D=hibits @5 to @3 !orthat purpose.

The 0uestion raised be!ore this (ourt is not new. )n the (ase o! /eltran #s. Sa%son andJose #1959G, %@ $hil., %3&', a similar 0uestion was raised be!ore this (ourt. The respondents


13/24

therein desired to (ompel the petitioner to write by hand what was then di(tated to him. Thepetitioner, invoing the (onstitutional provision (ontained in se(tion @, paragraph @, o! the 7ones>aw whi(h reads? ". . . nor shall be (ompelled in any (riminal (ase to witness against himsel!",re!used to write and instituted prohibition pro(eedings against the therein respondents. This(ourt granted the petition and ordered the respondents to desist and abstai

Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	harrieth-abella
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Consti Cases April 21

Documents