Consti Cases for Tuesday

7/24/2019 Consti Cases for Tuesday

1/74

GUANZON VS. DE VILLA [181 SCRA 623;G.R. 80508; 30 JAN 1990]

Facts: The 41 petitioners alleged that

the "saturation drive" or "aerial target

zoning" that were conducted in their place

(Tondo Manila) were unconstitutional. They

alleged that there is no specific target

house to be search and that there is no

search warrant or warrant of arrest served.Most of the policemen are in their civilian

clothes and without nameplates or

identification cards. The residents were

rudely rouse from their sleep by banging

on the walls and windows of their houses.

The residents were at the point of high

powered guns and herded li!e cows. Men

were ordered to strip down to their briefs

for the police to eamine their tattoo

mar!s. The residents complained that

they#re homes were ransac!ed$ tossing

their belongings and destroying their

valuables. %ome of their money and

valuables had disappeared after the

operation. The residents also reported

incidents of maulings$ spotbeatings and

maltreatment. Those who were detainedalso suffered mental and physical torture to

etract confessions and tactical

informations. The respondents said that

such accusations were all lies. &espondents

contends that the 'onstitution grants to

government the power to see! and cripple

subversive movements for themaintenance of peace in the state. The

aerial target zoning were intended to flush

out subversives and criminal elements

coddled by the communities were the said

drives were conducted. They said that they

have intelligently and carefully planned

months ahead for the actual operation andthat local and foreign media oined the

operation to witness and record such

event.

Issue: hether or *ot the saturation

drive committed consisted of violation of
http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/guanzon-vs-de-villa-181-scra-623-gr.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/guanzon-vs-de-villa-181-scra-623-gr.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/guanzon-vs-de-villa-181-scra-623-gr.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/guanzon-vs-de-villa-181-scra-623-gr.html


2/74

human rights.

Held: +t is not the police action per se

which should be prohibited rather it is the

procedure used or the methods which"offend even hardened sensibilities" .,ased

on the facts stated by the parties$ it

appears to have been no impediment to

securing search warrants or warrants of

arrest before any houses were searched or

individuals roused from sleep were

arrested. There is no showing that the

obectives sought to be attained by the

"aerial zoning" could not be achieved even

as th rights of the s-uatters and low

income families are fully protected.

owever$ the remedy should not be

brought by a tazpaer suit where not one

victim complaints and not one violator is

properly charged. +n the circumstances of

this tapayers# suit$ there is no erring

soldier or policeman whom the court can

order prosecuted. +n the absence of clear

facts no permanent relief can be given.

+n the meantime where there is showing

that some abuses were committed$ the

court temporary restraint the alleged

violations which are shoc!ing to the

senses. /etition is remanded to the &T' of

Manila.

UMIL VS. RAMOS [187 SCRA 311; G.R. NO.81567; 3 OCT 1991]

Facts: 0n 1 ebruary 1233$ military

agents were dispatched to the %t. gnes

ospital$ &oosevelt venue$ 5uezon 'ity$

to verify a confidential information which

was received by their office$ about a

"sparrow man" (*/ member) who had

been admitted to the said hospital with a

gunshot wound. That the wounded man in

the said hospital was among the five (6)

male "sparrows" who murdered two (7)

'apcom mobile patrols the day before$ or

on 81 9anuary 1233 at about 17:;; o#cloc!

noon$ before a road hump along

Macanining %t.$ ,agong ,arrio$ 'aloocan

'ity. The wounded man#s name was listed

by the hospital management as "&onnie
http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/umil-vs-ramos-187-scra-311-gr-no-81567.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/umil-vs-ramos-187-scra-311-gr-no-81567.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/umil-vs-ramos-187-scra-311-gr-no-81567.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/umil-vs-ramos-187-scra-311-gr-no-81567.html


3/74

9avellon$" twentytwo (77) years old of

,loc! 1;$


4/74

The fiscal returned the records to Judge Samulde on the ground

that the transmittal of the records to his office was 3premature3

because Judge Samulde failed to include the warrant of arrest

against the accused as provided in Section ), 7ule ''% of the

'&() 7ules on riminal rocedure.

Judge Samulde sent bac5 the records to 8iscal Salvani. 9e

pointed out that under Section 0, 7ule ''%, he may issue a

warrant of arrest if he is satisfied 3that a probable cause exists

and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under

immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice, 3

implying thereby that, although he found that a probable cause

existed, he did not believe that "rangale should be immediately

placed under custody so as not to frustrate the ends of justice.

9ence, he refused to issue a warrant of arrest.

$n $ctober &, '&(0, a special civil action of mandamus wasfiled in the 7egional Trial ourt of "nti#ue by rovincial 8iscal

Salvani against Judge Samulde to compel the latter to issue a

warrant for the arrest of "rangale.

:uring the pendency of the case in the lower court, 8iscal

Salvani was replaced by 8iscal ;eopoldo f the

offense be bailable, and the defendant offers a sufficient

security, he shall be admitted to bailC otherwise he shall be

committed to prison. +General $rders D irculars, issued by

the $ffice of ?.S. Military Governor in the hilippine >slands,'&, p. 6, Amphasis supplied.4

>t was amended by "ct '&/ of the ublic ;aws enacted by the

hilippine ommission with "mendments indicated, , p.

)%=, which authoriEed every justice of the peace to conduct

such investigation and order the arrest of the accused if he

believed the complaint to be well founded.

SA. '. Avery justice of the peace in the hilippine >slands is

hereby invested with authority to ma5e preliminaryinvestigation of any crime alleged to have been committed


5/74

within his municipality, jurisdiction to hear and determine

which is by law now vested in the judges of ourts of 8irst

>nstance. >t shall be the duty of every justice of the peace,

when written complaint under oath has been made to him

that a crime has been committed within his municipality and

there is reason to believe that any person has committed the

same, which complaint the justice believes to be well

founded, or when he has 5nowledge of facts tending to show

the commission of a crime within his municipality by anyperson,to issue an order for the arrest of the accusedand

have him brought before the justice of the peace for such

preliminary examination. +Amphasis supplied.4

The rule was substantially unchanged under 7ule '( of the

7ules of ourt except that municipal judges and city fiscals

were also authoriEed to conduct the preliminary investigation of

offenses committed within their municipality or city cogniEable

by the ourt of 8irst >nstance.

?nder 7ule ''% of the '&0/ 7ules of ourt, the provincial fiscal

was added to the enumeration of persons authoriEed to conduct

a preliminary investigation.

>n the '&() 7ules on riminal rocedure, Section %, 7ule ''%,

the list grew even longer to includeF +a4 provincial or city fiscals

and their assistantsC +b4 Judges of the Municipal Trial ourts

and Municipal ircuit Trial ourtsC +c4 -ational and 7egional

state prosecutorsC and +d4 other officers authoriEed by law.*

2oth the '&/ and '&0/ 7ules of ourt provided for two +%4

stagesof the preliminary investigation, to witF +'4 the 3previous

in#uiry or examination3 of the complainant and his witnesses to

determine whether a warrant of arrest should issue against the

defendant, and +%4 the preliminary investigation proper of the

defendant himself to determine if he should be held for trial.

Thus, the preliminary investigation was defined asF

... a previous in#uiry or examination made before the arrest

of the defendant by the judge . . . for the purpose of

determining whether there is a reasonable ground to believe

that an offense has been committed and the defendant is

probably guilty thereof, so as to issue a warrant of arrest and

to hold him for trial.+Sec. ', 7ule '(, '&/ 7ules of ourt.

Amphasis supplied.4

>n Section ', 7ule ''% of the '&0/ 7ules of ourt, the distinction

between a preliminary examination and preliminary investigation

was more clearly defined by using the term 3preliminary

examination3 in Section > of the 7ule to differentiate the first

stage of the preliminary investigation +where only the

testimonies of the complainant and his witnesses were ta5en4,

from the second stage where, after the arrest of the defendant,

he was informed of the complaint against him and given a

chance to testify and present his evidence +Sec. ', 7ule ''%,

'&0/ 7ules of ourt4. The purpose of the preliminaryexamination was still to determine 3whether there is a

reasonable ground to believe that an offense has been

committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof, so that a

warrant of arrest may be issued and the accused held for trial.3

+Sec. ', 7ule ''%, '&0/ 7evised 7ules of ourt.4

>n both the '&/ and '&0/ 7ules of ourt, it was mandatory

upon the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of

the accused, if he was satisfied that the offense charged wascommitted and that the accused probably committed it.

"ccordingly, Section =, 7ule '( of the '&/ 7ules of ourt

providedF

SA. =. Warrant of arrest, when issued. @ >f the judge be

satisfied from the preliminary investigation conducted by him

that the offense complained of has been committed and that

there is reasonable ground to believe that the defendant has

committed it, he must issue a warrant or order for his arrest.

+Amphasis ours.4


6/74

Section 0, 7ule ''% of the '&0/ 7ules of ourt similary

providedF

SA. 0. Warrant of arrest, when issued. @ >f the judge be

satisfied from the preliminary examination conducted by him

or by the investigating officer that the offense complained of

has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to

believe that the accused has committed it,he must issue awarrant or order for his arrest.+Amphasis supplied.4

2ecause the arrest of the accused was mandatory, the records

to be transmitted by the investigating judge to the cler5 of the

ourt of 8irst >nstance upon the conclusion of the preliminary

investigation, included the warrant of arrest +Sec. '6, 7ule

'(,'&/ 7ules of ourtC Sec. '%, 7ule ''%,'&0/ 7evised

7ules of ourt4.

9owever, the rule on preliminary investigation underwent somemodifications in the '&() 7ules on riminal rocedure, which is

the applicable rule in this case. ?nder Section ' of the present

rule, the definition of the purpose of a preliminary investigation,

does not contemplate the issuance of a warrant of arrest by the

investigating judge or officerF

SAT>$- '. efinition. @ reliminary investigation is an

in#uiry or proceeding for the purpose of determining whether

there is sufficient ground to engender a well founded belief

that a crime cogniEable by the 7egional Trial ourt has beencommitted and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof,

and should be held for trial.

The mandatory provision that the investigating judge 3must

issue a warrant of arrest3 if he finds probable cause that the

respondent committed the crime charged, found in all previous

rules of criminal procedure, from General $rders -o. )( down

to 7ule ''% of the '&0/ 7evised 7ules of ourt, is absent in

Section ' of the '&() 7ules on riminal rocedure.

"nother significant change is that under the '&() 7ules on

riminal rocedure there is only one +'4 way of conducting a

preliminary investigation, and that is by affidavits and counter1

affidavits submitted by the parties to the investigating judge

under Section 6, 7ule ''%. $n the basis of the affidavits, the

investigating judge shall 3determine whether or not there is

sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial* +subpar. f 4.

Gone is the re#uirement in the '&/ and '&0/ 7ules of ourt

that 3he must issue a warrant or order3 for the arrest of the

defendant.

To determine whether a warrant of arrest should issue against

the accused, the investigating judge must examine the

complainant and his witnesses 3in writing and under oath ... in

the form of searching #uestions and answers.3 Bhen he is

3satisfied that a probable cause exists, and that there is a

necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody inorder not to frustrate the ends of justice,3 he may issue the

warrant as provided in Section 0, par. b, of the '&() 7ules on

riminal rocedure.

SA. 0 Bhen warrant of arrest may issue. @

+a4 2y the 7egional ourt.....

+b4 2y the Municipal Trial ourt. 1>f the municipal trial judge

conducting the preliminary investigation is satisfied after anexamination in writing and under oath of the complainant

and his witnesses in the form of searching #uestions and

answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a

necessity of placing the respondent under immediate

custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice, he shall

issue a warrant of arrest.

"s correctly argued by the petitioner Judge Samulde, three +64

conditions must concur for the issuance of the warrant of arrest.

The investigating judge mustF


7/74

+a4 have examined in writing and under oath the complainant

and his witnesses by searching #uestions and answersC

+b4 be satisfied that a probable cause existsC and

+c4 that there is a need to place the respondent under

immediatecustody in order not to frustrate the ends of

justice.

>t is an entirely new rule, and it is plain to see that it is not

obligatory, but merely discretionary, upon the investigating judge

to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused, even after

having personally examined the complainant and his witnesses

in the form of searching #uestions and answers, for the

determination of whether a probable cause exists and whether it

is necessary to arrest the accused in order not to frustrate the

ends of justice, is left to his sound judgment or discretion.

>n this particular case, since the robbery charge was the

offshoot of a boundary dispute between two property owners,

the investigating judge did not believe there was any danger of

the accused absconding before the filing of the information

against him by the fiscal, hence, he found no need to place him

under immediate custody.

The provincial fiscal anchored his action for mandamus on

Section ), 7ule ''% of the '&() 7ules on anal rocedure

which provides that upon the termination of the preliminary

investigation, the investigating judge should transmit to the

provincial fiscal +instead of the cler5 of ourt of the 8> as

provided in the '&/ and '&0/ 7ules of ourt4 the warrant of

arrest and other records of the preliminary investigation. 8rom

that he deduced that the investigating judge must issue a

warrant for the arrest of the accused upon the conclusion of the

preliminary investigation. That inference is not correct. The

provision of Section ), 7ule ''% simply means that the warrant

of arrest, if one was issued, shall be transmitted to the fiscal

with the records of the preliminary investigation. >f the

investigating judge, in the exercise of his sound discretion,

decides not to issue a warrant of arrest, then none need be

transmitted to the fiscal, and he may not be compelled by

mandamus to issue it +


8/74

24T03 of Manila# 5ranch ))# presided oer + respondent Judge

&+elardo /arit# now &ssociate Justice of the 0ourt of &ppeals. an

application1for the issuance of a search warrant# doc6eted therein as

S7&40 W&44&NT N*. 8!1"# for (*:&T(*N *; ,/ N*. 18

1. That he has +een informed and has good and

sufficient reasons to +eliee that N7M7S(*

,4?/7NT7 who ma +e found at the ,oltechnic

?niersit of the ,hilippines# &nonas St. Sta. Mesa#

Sampaloc# Manila# has in his control or possession

firearms# e@plosies handgrenades and ammunition

which are illegall possessed or intended to +e used as

the means of committing an offense which the saidN7M7S(* ,4?/7NT7 is 6eeping and concealing at

the following premises of the ,oltechnic ?niersit of

the ,hilippines# to wit>

a. *ffices of the /epartment of Militar

Science and Tactics at the ground floor

and other rooms at the ground floorA

+. *ffice of the ,resident# /r. Nemesio,rudente at ,?,# Second ;loor and other

rooms at the second floorA

$. That the undersigned has erified the report and

found it to +e a fact# and therefore# +eliees that a

Search Warrant should +e issued to ena+le the

undersigned or an agent of the law to ta6e possession

and +ring to this onora+le 0ourt the following

descri+ed properties>

a. M 1< &rmalites with ammunitionsA

+. .)8 and ."B 0ali+er handguns and pistolsA

c. e@plosies and handgrenadesA and#

d. assorted weapons with ammunitions.

(n support of the application for issuance of search warrant# ,-:t.

;lorenio 0. &ngeles# *(0 of the (ntelligence Section of 2(S&/3

e@ecuted a =/eposition of Witness= dated )1 *cto+er 198# su+scri+ed

and sworn to +efore respondent Judge. (n his deposition# ,-:t. ;lorenio

&ngeles declared# inter alia# as follows>

C> /o ou 6now ,-Maor &lladin

/imagmaliw# the applicant for a Search

WarrantD

&> Ees# sir# he is the 0hief# (ntelligence

and Special &ction /iision# Western

,olice /istrict.

C> /o ou 6now the premises of

,oltechnic ?niersit of the ,hilippines

at &nonas St.# Sta. Mesa# Sampaloc#

Manila

&> Ees# sir# the said place has +een the

su+ect of our sureillance and

o+seration during the past few das.

C> /o ou hae personal 6nowledge that

in the said premises is 6ept the following

properties su+ect of the offense of

iolation of ,/ No. 18


9/74

+e used as a means of committing an

offense>

a. M 1< &rmalites with ammunitionsA

+. .)8 and "B 0ali+er handguns and pistolsA

c. e@plosies and handgrenadesA and d. &ssorted

weapons with ammunitionsD

&> Ees sir.

C> /o ou 6now who is or who are the

person or persons who has or hae

control of the a+oe!descri+ed premisesD

&> Ees sir# it is /r. Nemesio ,rudente#,resident of the ,oltechnic ?niersit

of the ,hilippines.

C> ow do ou 6now that said propert

is su+ect of the offense of iolation of

,res. /ecree No. 18 Sir# as a result of our continuous

sureillance conducted for seeral das#

we gathered information from erified

sources that the holder of said firearms

and e@plosies as well as ammunitions

aren't licensed to possess said firearms

and ammunition. ;urther# the premises is

a school and the holders of these

firearms are not students who were not

supposed to possess firearms# e@plosies

and ammunition.

*n the same da# )1 *cto+er 198# respondent Judge issued Search

Warrant No. 8!1"# 3the pertinent portions of which read as follows>

(t appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned# after

e@amining under oath applicant &::&/(N M.

/(M&FM&:(W and his witness ;:*47N(* 0.

&NF7:7S that there are good and sufficient reasons to

+eliee 2pro+a+le cause3 that N7M7S(* ,4?/7NT7

has in his control in the premises of ,oltechnic

?niersit of the ,hilippines# &nonas St.# Sta. Mesa#

Sampaloc# Manila# properties which are su+ect of the

a+oe offense or intended to +e used as the means of

committing the said offense.

Eou are here+ commanded to ma6e an immediate

search at an time in the da or night of the premises of

,oltechnic ?niersit of the ,hilippines# more

particularl 2a3 offices of the /epartment of Militar

Science and Tactics at the ground floor and other rooms

at the ground floorA 2+3 office of the ,resident# /r.

Nemesio ,rudente at ,?,# Second ;loor and other

rooms at the second floor# and forthwith seiGe and ta6e

possession of the following personal properties# to wit>

a. M 1< &rmalites with ammunitionA

+. .)8 and ."B 0ali+er handguns and pistolsA

c. e@plosies and hand grenadesA and

d. assorted weapons with ammunitions.


10/74

and +ring the a+oe descri+ed properties to the

undersigned to +e dealt with as the law directs.

*n 1 Noem+er 198# a Sunda and &ll Saints /a# the search warrant

was enforced + some $%% W,/ operaties led + ,-0ol. 7dgar /ula

Torre# /eput Superintendent# W,/# and ,-Maor 4omeo Maganto#

,recinct 8 0ommander.

(n his affidait# 4dated $ Noem+er 198# 4icardo &+ando Eusa# a

mem+er of the searching team# alleged that he found in the drawer of a

ca+inet inside the wash room of /r. ,rudente's office a +ulging +rown

enelope with three 2)3 lie fragmentation hand grenades separatel

wrapped with old newspapers# classified + ,-Sgt. J.:. 0ruG as follows

2a3 one 213 pc.HM)) ;ragmentation hand grenade 2lie3A 2+3 one 2113

pc.HM$< ;ragmentation hand grenade 2lie3A and 2c3 one 213 pc.H

,45H"$) ;ragmentation hand grenade 2lie3.

*n < Noem+er 198# petitioner moed to quash the search warrant.

e claimed that 213 the complainant's lone witness# :t. ;lorenio 0.

&ngeles# had no personal 6nowledge of the facts which formed the

+asis for the issuance of the search warrantA 2$3 the e@amination of the

said witness was not in the form of searching questions and answersA

2)3 the search warrant was a general warrant# for the reason that it did

not particularl descri+e the place to +e searched and that it failed to

charge one specific offenseA and 2"3 the search warrant was issued in

iolation of 0ircular No. 19 of the Supreme 0ourt in that thecomplainant failed to allege under oath that the issuance of the search

warrant on a Saturda was urgent. 5

The applicant# ,-Maor &lladin /imagmaliw thru the 0hief#

(nspectorate and :egal &ffairs /iision# W,/# opposed the

motion. 6&fter petitioner had filed his repl 7to the opposition# he

filed a supplemental motion to quash. 8

Thereafter# on 9 March 1988# respondent Judge issued an

order# 9dening the petitioner's motion and supplemental motion to

quash. ,etitioner's motion for reconsideration 10was li6ewise denied in

the order 11dated $% &pril 1988.

ence# the present recourse# petitioner alleging that respondent Judge

has decided a question of su+stance in a manner not in accord with law

or applica+le decisions of the Supreme 0ourt# or that the respondent

Judge grael a+used his discretion tantamount to e@cess of

urisdiction# in issuing the disputed orders.

;or a alid search warrant to issue# there must +e pro+a+le cause#

which is to +e determined personall + the udge# after e@amination

under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he ma

produce# and particularl descri+ing the place to +e searched and the

persons or things to +e seiGed.12The pro+a+le cause must +e in

connection with one specific offense 13and the udge must# +efore

issuing the warrant# personall e@amine in the form of searching

questions and answers# in writing and under oath# the complainant andan witness he ma produce# on facts personall 6nown to them and

attach to the record their sworn statements together with an affidaits

su+mitted. 14

The =pro+a+le cause= for a alid search warrant# has +een defined =as

such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasona+l discreet

arid prudent man to +eliee that an offense has +een committed# and

that o+ects sought in connection with the offense are in the place

sought to +e searched.=

15

This pro+a+le cause must +e shown to +ewithin the personal 6nowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he

ma produce and not +ased on mere hearsa. 16

,etitioner assails the alidit of Search Warrant No. 8!1" on the

ground that it was issued on the +asis of facts and circumstances which

were not within the personal 6nowledge of the applicant and his

witness +ut +ased on hearsa eidence. (n his application for search

warrant# ,-Maor &lladin /imagmaliw stated that =he has been

informed"that Nemesio ,rudente =has in his control and possession=

the firearms and e@plosies descri+ed therein# and that he =has verified


11/74

the report and found it to be a fact.= *n the other hand# in his

supporting deposition# ,-:t. ;lorenio 0. &ngeles declared that# as a

result of their continuous sureillance for seeral das# the =gathered

informations from erified sources= that the holders of the said fire

arms and e@plosies are not licensed to possess them. (n other words#

the applicant and his witness hadno personal knowledge of the facts

and circumstances which +ecame the +asis for issuing the questioned

search warrant# but acquired knowledge thereof onl through

information from other sources or persons.

While it is true that in his application for search warrant# applicant

,-Maor /imagmaliw stated that he verified the information he had

earlier received that petitioner had in his possession and custod the t

there is nothing in the record to show or indicate how and when said

applicant erified the earlier information acquired + him as to ustif

his conclusion that hefound such information to be a fact.e might

hae clarified this point if there had +een searching questions andanswers# +ut there were none. (n fact# the records ield no questions

and answers# whether searching or not# is!a!is the said applicant.

What the records show is the deposition of witness# ,-:t. &ngeles# as

the onl support to ,-Maor /imagmaliw's application# and the said

deposition is +ased on hearsa. ;or# it aers that the 2presuma+l# the

police authorities3 had conducted continuous sureillance for seeral

das of the suspected premises and# as a result thereof# the =gathered

information from verified sources" that the holders of the su+ectfirearms and e@plosies are not licensed to possess them.

In Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance# 17this 0ourt laid the following

test in determining whether the allegations in an application for search

warrant or in a supporting deposition# are +ased on personal

6nowledge or notH

The true test of sufficienc of a deposition or affidait

to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has

+een drawn in a manner that perur could +e charged

thereon and the affiant +e held lia+le for damage

caused. The oath required must refer to the truth of the

facts within the personal 6nowledge of the applicant for

search warrant# and-or his witnesses# not of the facts

merel reported + a person whom one considers to +e

relia+le.

Tested + the a+oe standard# the allegations of the witness# ,-:t.

&ngeles# in his deposition# do not come up to the leel of facts of his

personal 6nowledge so much so that he cannot +e held lia+le

forperjurfor such allegations in causing the issuance of the

questioned search warrant.

(n the sameAlvarezcase# 18the applicant stated that his purpose for

appling for a search warrant was that> =(t had +een reported to me +

a person whom ( consider to +e relia+le that there are +eing 6ept in

said premises +oo6s# documents# receipts# lists# chits and other papersused + him in connection with his actiities as a mone lender#

challenging usurious rate of interests# in iolation of law.= The 0ourt

held that this was insufficient for the purpose of issuing a search

warrant.

(n!eople vs. #uco$19where the affidait contained an allegation

that there had +een a report to the affiant + a person whom lie

considered relia+le that in said premises were =fraudulent +oo6s#

correspondence and records#= this was li6ewise held as not sufficientfor the purpose of issuing a search warrant. 7identl# the allegations

contained in the application of ,- Maor &lladin /imagmaliw and the

declaration of ,-:t. ;lorenio 0. &ngeles in his deposition were

insufficient +asis for the issuance of a alid search warrant. &s held in

theAlvarezcase>

The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts

within the personal 6nowledge of the petitioner or his

witnesses# +ecause the purpose thereof is to conince

the committing magistrate# not the indiidual ma6ing


12/74

the affidait and see6ing the issuance of the warrant# of

the e@istence of pro+a+le cause.

5esides# respondent Judge did not ta6e the deposition of the applicant

as required + the 4ules of 0ourt. &s held in %oan v.

&onzales# 20=2m3ere affidaits of the complainant and his witnesses

are thus not sufficient. The e@amining Judge has to ta6e depositions in

writing of the complainant and the witnesses he ma produce and

attach them to the record.=

Moreoer# a perusal of the deposition of ,-:t. ;lorenio &ngeles shows

that it was too +rief and short. 4espondent Judge did not e@amine him

=in the form of searching questions and answers.= *n the contrar# the

questions as6ed were leading as the called for a simple =es= or =no=

answer. &s held in 'uintero vs. ()I#= 21the questions propounded +

respondent 7@ecutie Judge to the applicant's witness are not

sufficientl searching to esta+lish pro+a+le cause. &s6ing of leadingquestions to the deponent in an application for search warrant# and

conducting of e@amination in a general manner# would not satisf the

requirements for issuance of a alid search warrant.=

Manifestl# in the case at +ar# the eidence failed to show the e@istence

of pro+a+le cause to ustif the issuance of the search warrant. The

0ourt also notespost factothat the search in question ielded# no

armalites# handguns# pistols# assorted weapons or ammunitions as

stated in the application for search warrant# the supporting deposition#and the search warrant the supporting hand grenades were itself *nl

three 2)3 lie fragmentation found in the searched premises of the ,?,#

according to the affidait of an alleged mem+er of the searching part.

The 0ourt aails of this decision to reiterate the strict requirements for

determination of =pro+a+le cause= in the alid issuance of a search

warrant# as enunciated in earlier cases. True# these requirements are

stringent +ut the purpose is to assure that the constitutional right of the

indiidual against unreasona+le search and seiGure shall remain +oth

meaningful and effectie.

,etitioner also assails the alidit of the search warrant on the ground

that it failed to particularl descri+e the place to +e searched#

contending that there were seeral rooms at the ground floor and the

second floor of the ,?,.

The rule is# that a description of a place to +e searched is sufficient if

the officer with the warrant can# with reasona+le effort# ascertain and

(dentif the place intended .22(n the case at +ar# the application for

search warrant and the search warrant itself descri+ed the place to +e

searched as the premises of the ,oltechnic ?niersit of the

,hilippines# located at &nonas St.# Sta. Mesa# Sampaloc# Manila more

particularl# the offices of the /epartment of Militar Science and

Tactics at the ground floor# and the *ffice of the ,resident# /r.

Nemesio ,rudente# at ,?,# Second ;loor and other rooms at the

second floor. The designation of the places to +e searched sufficientl

complied with the constitutional inunction that a search warrant must

particularl descri+e the place to +e searched# een if there wereseeral rooms at the ground floor and second floor of the ,?,.

,etitioner ne@t attac6s the alidit of the questioned warrant# on the

ground that it was issued in iolation of the rule that a search warrant

can +e issued onl in connection with one specific offense. The search

warrant issued + respondent udge# according to petitioner# was issued

without an reference to an particular proision of ,/ No. 18


13/74

(n the present case# howeer# the application for search warrant was

captioned> =;or iolation of ,/ No. 18


14/74

1988 as well as Search Warrant No. 8!1" are here+ &NN?::7/

and S7T &S(/7.

The three 2)3 lie fragmentation hand grenades which# according to

4icardo E. &+ando# a mem+er of the searching team# were seiGed in

the washroom of petitioner's office at the ,?,# are ordered deliered to

the 0hief# ,hilippine 0onsta+ular for proper disposition.

%U'ERT J. $. )E'' *+,-,-/+#!".%ONORA'LE RAUL E. DE LEON5efore the 0ourt are petitions for the issuance of the e@traordinar

writs of certiorari# prohi+ition and mandamus with application for

temporar restraining order and preliminar inunction to> 213 annul

and set aside the Warrants of &rrest issued against petitioners +

respondent Judges 4aul 7. de :eon and &melita Tolentino in 0riminal

0ase No. 9B!"%"A 2$3 enoin the respondents from conducting an

proceeding in the aforementioned criminal caseA and 2)3 dismiss said

criminal case or include Jessica &lfaro as one of the accused therein.1

;rom the records of the case# it appears that on June 19# 199"# the

National 5ureau of (nestigation 2N5(3 filed with the /epartment of

Justice a letter!complaint charging petitioners u+ert We++# Michael

Fatchalian# &ntonio J. :eano and si@ 2

213 the sworn statement dated Ma $$# 199B of their principal witness#,aria #essica ,.Alfarowho allegedl saw the commission of the

crimeA72$3 the sworn statements of two 2$3 of the former housemaids

of the We++ famil in the persons of (erissa -.%osalesand,ila .

&aviolaA82)3 the sworn!statement of Carlos #. Cristobalwho alleged

that on March 9# 1991 he was a passenger of ?nited &irlines ;light

No. 8%8 +ound for New Eor6 and who e@pressed dou+t on whether

petitioner We++ was his co!passenger in the tripA 2"3 the sworn

statement ofolita )irrer# a former lie!in partner of Ferardo 5iong#

who narrated the manner of how 5iong inestigated and tried to coer

up the crime at +arA92B3 the sworn statements of)elen *ometitaand

/eofilo ,inoza# two of the iGconde maids# and the sworn statements

of(ormal 0hite# a securit guard and,anciano &atmaitan# an

engineer. The autops reportsof the ictims were also su+mitted and

the showed that 0armela had nine 293 sta+ wounds# 7strellita twele

21$3 and Jennifer nineteen 2193.10The genital e@amination of 0armela

confirmed the presence of spermatoGoa.11

5efore su+mitting his counter!affidait# petitioner We++ filed with the/*J ,anel a Motion for ,roduction &nd 7@amination of 7idence and

/ocuments for the N5( to produce the following>

2a3 0ertification issued + the ?.S. ;ederal 5ureau of

(nestigation on the admission to and sta of u+ert We++ in

the ?nited States from March 9# 1991 to *cto+er $$# 199$A

2+3 :a+orator 4eport No. SN!91!1 of the Medico :egal

*fficer# /r. ,rospero &. 0a+anaan# M./.A

2c3 Sworn Statements of Ferardo 0. 5iong 2other than his

Sworn Statement dated *cto+er # 19913A

2d3 ,hotographs of fingerprints lifted from the iGconde

residence ta6en during the inestigationA

2e3 (nestigation records of N5( on 7ngr. /anilo &guas# et al.A


15/74

2f3 :ist of names of 1)B suspects-persons inestigated + the

N5( per ,rogress 4eport dated Septem+er $# 1991 su+mitted

+ &tt. &rlis ela# Superising &gentA

2g3 4ecords of arrest# interiew# inestigation and other written

statements of Jessica &lfaro 2other than the Ma $$# 199B

Sworn Statement3 conducted + the N5( and other police

agenciesA

2h3 transmittal letter to the N5(# including the report of the

inestigation conducted + Superintendent 4odolfo 0. Sison#

4egional /eput /irector# N040A

2i3 The names of N5( officials-agents composing the Tas6

;orce Jecares# including their respectie positions and dutiesA

23 Statements made + other persons in connection with thecrime charged.

The motion was granted + the /*J ,anel and the N5( su+mitted

photocopies of the documents. (t alleged it lost the original of the &pril

$8# 199B sworn statement of &lfaro. This compelled petitioner We++ to

file 0iil 0ase No. 9B1%99 in the 4egional Trial 0ourt 24T03 of

Ma6ati# 5r.


16/74

with the N5( +efore his appointment to the +ench. The case was re!

raffled to 5ranch $"# presided + Judge &melita Tolentino who issued

new warrants of arrest against the petitioners and their co!accused. *n

&ugust 11# 199B# petitioner We++ oluntaril surrendered to the police

authorities at 0amp 4icardo ,apa Sr.# in 5icutan# Taguig. ,etitioners

Fatchalian and :eano li6ewise gae themseles up to the authorities

after filing their petitions +efore us.

(n their petitions at +ar# petitioners contend> 213 respondent Judges de

:eon and Tolentino grael a+used their discretion when the failed to

conduct a preliminar e@amination +efore issuing warrants of arrest

against them> 2$3 the /*J ,anel li6ewise grael a+used its discretion

in holding that there is pro+a+le cause to charge them with the crime of

rape with homicideA 2)3 the /*J ,anel denied them their constitutional

right to due process during their preliminar inestigationA and 2"3 the

/*J ,anel unlawfull intruded into udicial prerogatie when it failed

to charge Jessica &lfaro in the (nformation as an accused.

We find the petitions +ereft of merit.

(

,etitioners fault the /*J ,anel for its finding of pro+a+le

cause. The insist that the Ma $$# 199B sworn statement of

Jessica &lfaro is inherentl wea6 and uncorro+orated. The

hammer on alleged material inconsistencies +etween her &pril

$8# 199B and Ma $$# 199B sworn statements. The assail her

credi+ilit for her misdescription of petitioner We++'s hair as

semi!+londe. The also criticiGe the procedure followed + the

/*J ,anel when it did not e@amine witnesses to clarif the

alleged incredulities and inconsistencies in the sworn

statements of the witnesses for the N5(.

We start with a restatement of the purpose of a preliminar

inestigation. Section 1 of 4ule 11$ proides that a preliminar

inestigation should determine = . . . whether there is a

sufficient ground to engender a well!grounded +elief that a

crime cogniGa+le + the 4egional Trial 0ourt has +een

committed and that the respondent is pro+a+l guilt thereof#

and should +e held for trial.= Section ) of the same 4ule

outlines the procedure in conducting a preliminar

inestigation# thus>

Sec. ).!rocedure. H 7@cept as proided for in Section

hereof# no complaint or information for an offense

cogniGa+le + the 4egional Trial 0ourt shall +e filed

without a preliminar inestigation haing +een first

conducted in the following manner>

2a3 The complaint shall state the 6nown address of the

respondent and +e accompanied + affidaits of the

complainant and his witnesses as well as other

supporting documents# in such num+er of copies asthere are respondents# plus two 2$3 copies for the

official file. The said affidaits shall +e sworn to +efore

an fiscal# state prosecutor or goernment official

authoriGed to administer oath# or# in their a+sence or

unaaila+ilit# a notar pu+lic# who must certif that he

personall e@amined the affiants and that he is satisfied

that the oluntaril e@ecuted and understood their

affidaits.

2+3 Within ten 21%3 das after the filing of the

complaint# the inestigating officer shall either dismiss

the same if he finds no ground to continue with the

inquir# or issue a su+poena to the respondent# attaching

thereto a cop of the complaint# affidaits and other

supporting documents. Within ten 21%3 das from

receipt thereof# the respondent shall su+mit counter!

affidaits and other supporting documents. e shall

hae the right to e@amine all other eidence su+mitted

+ the complainant.


17/74

2c3 Such counter!affidaits and other supporting

eidence su+mitted + the respondent shall also +e

sworn to and certified as prescri+ed in paragraph 2a3

hereof and copies thereof shall +e furnished + him to

the complainant.

2d3 (f the respondent cannot +e su+poenaed# or if

su+poenaed# does not su+mit counter!affidaits within

the ten 21%3 da period# the inestigating officer shall

+ase his resolution on the eidence presented + the

complainant.

2e3 (f the inestigating officer +eliees that there are

matters to +e clarified# he ma set a hearing to

propound clarificator questions to the parties or their

witnesses# during which the parties shall +e afforded an

opportunit to +e present +ut without the right toe@amine or cross!e@amine. (f the parties so desire# the

ma su+mit questions to the inestigating officer which

the latter ma propound to the parties or witnesses

concerned.

2f3 Thereafter# the inestigation shall +e deemed

concluded# and the inestigating officer shall resole

the case within ten 21%3 das therefrom. ?pon the

eidence thus adduced# the inestigating officer shall

determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to

hold the respondent for trial.

Section " of 4ule 11$ then directs that =if the inestigating

fiscal finds cause to hold the respondent for trial# he shall

prepare the resolution and corresponding information. e shall

certif under oath that he# or as shown + the record# an

authoriGed officer# has personall e@amined the complainant

and his witnesses# that there is reasona+le ground to +eliee

that a crime has +een committed and that the accused is

pro+a+l guilt thereof . . .=

The need to find pro+a+le cause is dictated + the 5ill of 4ights which

protects =the right of the people to +e secure in their persons . . .

against unreasona+le searches and seiGures of whateer nature . . .= 20

&n arrest without a pro+a+le cause is an unreasona+le seiGure of a

person# and iolates the priac of persons which ought not to +e

intruded + the State.21,ro+a+le cause to warrant arrest is not an

opaque concept in our urisdiction. 0ontinuing accretions of case law

reiterate that the are facts and circumstances which would lead a

reasonabl discreet and prudent man to +eliee that an offense has

+een committed + the person sought to +e arrested.22*ther

urisdictions utiliGe the term man of reasonable caution23or the term

ordinaril prudent and cautious man.24The terms are legall

snonmous and their reference is not to a person with training in the

law such as a prosecutor or a udge +ut to the average man on thestreet.25(t ought to +e emphasiGed that in determining pro+a+le cause#

the aerage man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to

the cali+rations of our technical rules of eidence of which his

6nowledge is nil. 4ather# he relies on the calculus of common sense of

which all reasona+le men hae an a+undance.

&ppling these +asic norms# we are not prepared to rule that

the /*J ,anel grael a+used its discretion when it found

pro+a+le cause against the petitioners. ,etitioners +elittle thetruthfulness of &lfaro on two 2$3 grounds> 2a3 she allegedl

erroneousl descri+ed petitioner We++'s hair as semi!+lond and

2+3 she committed material inconsistencies in her two 2$3

sworn statement# thus>26

@@@ @@@ @@@

To illustrate# the following are some e@amples of

inconsistencies in the two sworn statements of &lfaro>


18/74

1n whether Alfaro knew Carmela before the incident in

question

;irst &ffidait> She had N*T met

0armela +efore June $9# 1991.

Second &ffidait> =( met her in a part

sometime in ;e+ruar# 1991.=

1n whether Alfaro saw the dead bodies

;irst &ffidait> She did not see the three

dead persons on that night. She ust said

=on the following da ( read in the

newspaper that there were three persons

who were 6illed . . .=

Second &ffidait> =( peeped through the

first door on the left. ( saw two +odies on

top of the +ed# +loodied# and in the floor#

( saw u+ert on top of 0armela.=

1n the alleged rape of Carmela 2izconde

;irst &ffidait> She did not see the act of

rape.

Second &ffidait> She saw u+ert We++

=with +are +uttoc6s# on top of 0armela

and pumping# her mouth gagged and she

was moaning and ( saw tears on her

ees.=

1n how 0ebb$ ejano$ and 2entura entered the

2izconde house

;irst &ffidait> =+ umping oer the

fence# which was onl a little more than

a meter high.=

Second &ffidait> The =entered the gate

which was alread open.=

1n whether Alfaro entered the 2izconde house

;irst &ffidait> She neer entered the

house.

Second &ffidait> =( proceeded to the

iron grill gate leading to the dirt

6itchen.=

(n its 4esolution# the /*J ,anel ruled that these allegedmisdescription and inconsistencies did not erode the credi+ilit

of &lfaro. We quote the pertinent ruling# viz.>27

@@@ @@@ @@@

&s regards the admissi+ilit of &lfaro's statements#

granting for purposes of argument merel that she is a

co!conspirator# it is well to note that confessions of a

co!conspirator ma +e ta6en as eidence to show the

pro+a+ilit of the co!conspirator's participation in the

commission of the crime 2see,eople s. :umahang# 9"

,hil. 1%8"3.

;urthermore# it is a well!esta+lished doctrine that

conspirac need not +e proed + direct eidence of

prior agreement to commit the crime. (ndeed# =onl

rarel would such a prior agreement +e demonstra+le

since# in the nature of things# criminal underta6ings are

onl rarel documented + agreements in writing. Thus#


19/74

conspirac ma +e inferred from the conduct of the

accused +efore# during and after the commission of the

crime# showing that the seeral accused had acted in

concert or in unison with each other# eincing a

common purpose or design.= 2&ngelo s. 0ourt of

&ppeals# $1% S04& "%$ K199$L# citations omittedA

,eople s. Molleda# 8< S04&


20/74

We note that the Ma $$# 199B sworn statement of &lfaro was gien

with the assistance of counsel28and consists of si@ 229

@@@ @@@ @@@

&ccording to Nerissa 7. 4osales# a former housemaid

of the We++ famil# on June $9# 1991# +etween >%%

o'cloc6 and 8>%% o'cloc6 in the eening# u+ert was at

home inside his room with two male isitors. She 6new

it +ecause she and her co!housemaid# :oan# were

instructed + u+ert to +ring them three glasses ofuice. (t was the last time she saw u+ert and was later

told + then 0ongressman We++ that u+ert was in the

?nited States.

While Mila S. Faiola# another former housemaid of

the We++ famil and who sered as a laundr woman#

claims# aside from corro+orating the statement of

Nerissa 4osales# that on June )%# 1991# she wo6e up at

around ">%% in the morning and as what she used to do#

she entered the rooms of the We++s to get their clothes

to +e washed. &s a matter of fact# in that earl morning#

she entered u+ert's room and saw u+ert# who was

onl wearing his pants# alread awa6e and smo6ing

while he was sitting on his +ed. She pic6ed up u+ert's

scattered clothes and +rought them together with the

clothes of the other mem+ers of the famil to the

laundr area. &fter ta6ing her +rea6fast# she +egan

washing the clothes of the We++s. &s she was washing

the clothes of u+ert We++# she noticed fresh

+loodstains in his shirt. &fter she finished the laundr#

she went to the serant's quarters. 5ut feeling uneas#

she decided to go up to the stoc6room near u+ert's

room to see what he was doing. (n the said stoc6room#

there is a small door going to u+ert's room and in that

door there is a small opening where she used to see

u+ert and his friends sniffing on something. She

o+sered u+ert was quite irritated# uneas# and wal6ed

to and from inside his room.

*n that da# she noticed u+ert left the house at around

1>%% in the afternoon and came +ac6 at around ">%% in

the same afternoon and went inside his room using the

secret door of the house. (t was the last time that she

saw u+ert until she left the We++ famil.

*n the other hand# 0arlos J. 0risto+al alleged that onMarch 9# 1991# at a+out 1%>%% in the morning# he was at

the Nino &quino (nternational &irport as he was then

scheduled to ta6e the ?nited &irlines ;light No. 8%8 at

$>%% in the afternoon for New Eor6. &t the airport's

lo++# he saw then 0ongressman ;reddie We++ with a

male companion. e greeted him and We++ answered>

=Ma+uti naman# at ito# ihahatid 6o ang ana6 6o

papuntang ;lorida.= e 6new ;reddie We++ +ecause he

often watched him then in a teleision show =0hic6s to0hic6s.= e o+sered that the man whom ;reddie We++

referred to as his son# was of the same height as

;reddie. The son referred to has fair comple@ion with

no distinguishing mar6s on his face. e 2son of We++3

was then wearing a striped white ac6et. When he and

his children were alread inside the plane# he did not

see ;reddie anmore# +ut he noticed his son was seated

at the front portion of the econom class. e neer

noticed ;reddie We++'s son upon their arrial in San

;rancisco. e claims that# while watching the teleision


21/74

program =/*NF ,?N* :(7= latel# he saw the wife

of ;reddie We++ with her lawer +eing interiewed#

and when she descri+ed u+ert as =moreno= and small

+uilt# with a height of fie feet and seen inches tall#

and who was the one who left for ?nited States on

March 9# 1991# he nurtured dou+ts +ecause such

description does not fit the phsical traits of the son of

;reddie# who left with him for ?nited States on the

same flight and date.

:olita 5irrer# alleged that she 6now Ferardo 5iong

+ecause she had an affair with him for almost three 2)3

ears and in fact# she had a child with him who is now

four 2"3 ears old. Their relationship started in

;e+ruar# 1991 until she +ro6e up with him in

Septem+er 199). She recalls that on June $9# 1991# at

around %% p.m.# 5iong inited her to pla mahong atthe canteen of a certain &ling Flo located at the +ac6 of

the ,araaque Municipal all.

&t a+out $>)%# in the earl morning of Januar )%#

1991# the radio operator of the ,araaque police told

5iong that he has a phone call. 5efore 5iong went to

the radio room# she was instructed to ta6e him oer and

after some+od won the game# she followed 5iong at

the radio room where she oerheard him uttering#=Ano3$aan3,ahirap an$ !aano$ o sige$ aantain

kita$ 1 ano3$ dilaw na ta+i$ o sige.= When he put the

phone down# 5iong told her# =,aroon lang akong

rerespondehan$ ikaw muna ang maupo= and then# he

went outside the canteen apparentl waiting for

some+od. Twent minutes later# a ta@i# colored ellow#

arried with a male passenger sitting at the +ac6seat

and par6ed near the canteen. &fter it made some signals

+ +lin6ing its headlight# 5iong rode thereat at the front

seat +eside the drier and then# the left. She was not

a+le to recogniGe the male passenger +ecause the

window of the ta@i was tinted. 5iong came +ac6 at

around >%% of the same morning and when he arried#

he immediatel washed his hands and face# and too6 his

hand6erchief from his poc6et which he threw at the

trash can. She as6ed him wh he threw his hand6erchief

and he answered# =4mp. . . amo tae.= She inquired

what happened in 5; omes and he replied# =!utang

inang mga batang ion$ pinahirapan nila ako.=

5iong later inited her for +rea6fast# +ut the first went

to his office where she o+sered him doing something

in his steel ca+inet while he appeared to +e uneas.

Moments later# Falan# another policeman of

,araaque# arried and said# =1 )iong$ ma tatlong

pata sa )F$ imbestigahan mo= to which 5iong

answered# =1o susunod na ako.= 5iong went to theoffice of 0apt. /on 5artolome who offered to

accompan him and with whom she as6ed permission

to go with them. 5efore the proceeded to the place

where the 6illings happened# she as6ed 5iong if he

6new the e@act address and the latter immediatel

responded# =Alam ko na on.= She was surprised

+ecause Falan neer told him the place of the incident.

&s soon as the arried at the iGconde's residence#5iong instructed the housemaids to contact the ictim's

relaties# while the securit guard fetched the +aranga

chairman and the president of the omeowners

&ssociation. When all these persons were alread in the

house# 5iong started recording the wounds of the

ictim. (nside the master's +edroom# she saw 5iong

too6 a watch from the ewelr +o@. 5ecause she could

not tolerate the foul odor# she and 0apt. 5artolome went

out of the room and proceeded to the dining area. *n

top of the dining ta+le# she saw the scattered contents of


22/74

a shoulder +ag. Moments later# 5iong came out from

the room and proceeded to the front door to remoe the

chain loc6A as6ed the 6es from the housemaid and it

was onl then that the main door was opened. 5iong

noticed a stone in front of the +ro6en glass of the door

and requested 0apt. 5artolome to go inside the serant's

quarters as he dou+ted the housemaids' claim that the

heard nothing unusual. ?sing the handle of his gun#

5iong +ro6e the remaining glass of the door panel.

5artolome then came out of the room and told 5iong

that he can hear the sound of the glass +eing +ro6en. &t

the garage# 5iong also noticed same mar6s on the hood

of the car.

*n the following da# at around 1$>%% noon# 5iong

arried in her house together with the iGconde

housemaids. When 5iong was preparing to ta6e a +ath#she saw him remoe from his poc6et the things she also

saw from iGconde's residence# to wit> calling cards#

drier's license# &TM card# a crossed chec6 worth

,8%#%%%.%%# earrings# a ring# +racelet# nec6lace# and the

watch he too6 from the ewelr +o@ inside the room of

the iGcondes. These ewelr items were later pawned

+ 5iong for ,$%#%%%.%% at a pawnshop in front of

0how!0how restaurant in Santos &enue# ,araaque.

The ne@t da# she saw 5iong too6 from his loc6er at the,araaque ,olice Station an imported +rown leather

ac6et# which the latter claimed to hae +een gien to

him + the person who called him up in the earl

morning of June )%# 1991.

Since then# 5iong has +een wearing said ac6et until

the +ro6e up sometime in 199). She o+sered that

5iong seemed not interested in pursuing the

inestigation of the iGconde case. (n fact# when 5iong

and this group pic6ed up Mi6e Fatchalian and +rought

him to the ,araaque ,olice Station# she was surprised

that 5iong halted the inestigation when Fatchalian

was profusel sweating while +eing interrogated. &fter

the father of Fatchalian tal6ed to 0olonel ,ureGa# the

latter called up and instructed 5iong to +ring Fatchalian

to him 20olonel ,ureGa3 and that was the last thing she

remem+ered regarding this case.

The /*J ,anel then weighed these inculpator eidence against the

e@culpator eidence of petitioners. (t ruled>30

@@@ @@@ @@@

The oluminous num+er of e@hi+its su+mitted +

respondent 0ebbto support his defense of denial and

ali+i notwithstanding# the panel# after a careful and

thorough ealuation of the records# +eliees that thecannot outweigh the eidence su+mitted + the

complainant. &li+i cannot preail oer the positie

identification made + a prosecution witness. eril#

ali+i deseres scant consideration in the face of positie

identification especiall so where the claim of ali+i is

supported mainl + friends and relaties 2,eople s.

&polonia# $)B S04& 1$" K199"LA ,eople s. :ucas# 181

S04& )1< and a long line of cases3.

Similarl# denial is a self!sering negatie which cannot

+e gien greater eidentiar weight than the declaration

of a credi+le witness who testified on affirmatie

matters 2,eople s. 0ariGo# $)) S04&


23/74

Surprisingl# &atchalian5sdefense of ali+i was not

corro+orated + :eano# whom he claimed was with

him watching ideo tapes at the Sap residence. *ther

than claiming that he =was not and could not hae +een

at or near the area of the iGconde residence at the time

of the alleged commission of the crime#= respondent

ejanoproffered no eidence to su+stantiate his claim

of ali+i.

@@@ @@@ @@@

*n the other hand# respondent We++ see6s to enhance

the accepta+ilit of his ali+i in the form of documents

tending to show that he was thousands of miles awa

when the incident occurred. We hae carefull

deli+erated and argued on the eidence su+mitted +

respondent We++ in support of his a+sence from thecountr since March 9# 1991 to *cto+er $


24/74

Tolentino issued warrants of arrest against them without

conducting the required preliminar e@amination. ,etitioners

support their stance + highlighting the following facts> 213 the

issuance of warrants of arrest in a matter of few hoursA 2$3 the

failure of said udges to issue orders of arrestA 2)3 the records

su+mitted to the trial court were incomplete and insufficient

from which to +ase a finding of pro+a+le causeA and 2"3 that

een Ferardo 5iong who was included in the (nformation as a

mere accessor had a =N* 5&(:= recommendation + the /*J

,anel. ,etitioners postulate that it was impossi+le to conduct a

=searching e@amination of witnesses and ealuation of the

documents= on the part of said udges.

The issuance of a warrant of arrest interferes with indiidual

li+ert and is regulated + no less than the fundamental law of

the land. Section $ of &rticle ((( of the 0onstitution proides>

Sec. $. The right of the people to +e secure in their

persons# houses# papers# and effects against

unreasona+le searches and seiGures of whateer nature

and for an purpose shall +e iniola+le# and no search

warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e@cept upon

pro+a+le cause to +e determined personall + the

udge after e@amination under oath or affirmation of the

complainant and the witnesses he ma produce and

particularl descri+ing the place to +e searched and the

persons or things to +e seiGed.

The aforequoted proision deals with the requirements of

pro+a+le cause +oth with respect to issuance of warrants of

arrest or search warrants. The similarities and differences of

their requirements ought to +e educational. Some of them are

pointed out + ,rofessors :a;ae and (srael# thus>32=(t is

generall assumed that the same quantum of eidence is

required whether one is concerned with pro+a+le cause to

arrest or pro+a+le cause to search. 5ut each requires a showing

of pro+a+ilities as to somewhat different facts and

circumstances# and thus one can e@ist without the other. (n

search cases# two conclusions must +e supported + su+stantial

eidence> that the items sought are in fact seiGa+le + irtue of

+eing connected with criminal actiit# and that the items will

+e found in the place to +e searched. (t is not also necessar

that a particular person +e implicated. 5 comparison# in arrest

cases there must +e pro+a+le cause that a crime has +een

committed and that the person to +e arrested committed it#

which of course can e@ist without an showing that eidence of

the crime will +e found at premises under that person's

control.= Worth to note# our 4ules of 0ourt do not proide for

a similar procedure to +e followed in the issuance of warrants

of arrest and search warrants. With respect to warrants of

arrest# section < of 4ule 11$ simpl proides that =upon filing

of an information# the 4egional Trial 0ourt ma issue a warrant

for the arrest of the accused.= (n contrast# the procedure to +efollowed in issuing search warrants is more defined. Thus#

Sections )# " and B of 4ule 1$< proide>

@@@ @@@ @@@

Sec. ).%equisites for issuing search warrant. H &

search warrant shall not issue +ut upon pro+a+le cause

in connection with one specific offense to +e

determined personall + the udge after e@amination

under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the

witnesses he ma produce# and particularl descri+ing

the place to +e searched and the things to +e seiGed.

Sec. ".-+amination of complainantArecord. H The

udge must# +efore issuing the warrant# personall

e@amine in the form of searching questions and

answers# in writing and under oath the complainant and

an witnesses he ma produce on facts personall


25/74

6nown to them and attach to the record their sworn

statements together with an affidaits su+mitted.

Sec. B.Issuance and form of search warrant. H (f the

udge is thereupon satisfied of the facts upon which the

application is +ased# or that there is pro+a+le cause to

+eliee that the e@ist# he must issue the warrant# which

must +e su+stantiall in the form prescri+ed + these

4ules.

We discussed the difference in the ,rocedure of issuing

warrants of arrest and search warrants in oliven vs.,akasiar#

33thus>

@@@ @@@ @@@

The second issue# raised + 5eltran# calls for aninterpretation of the constitutional proision on the

issuance of warrants of arrest. The pertinent proision

reads>

&rt. (((# Sec. $. The right of the people to

+e secure in their persons# houses# papers

and effects against unreasona+le

searches and seiGures of whateer nature

and for an purpose shall +e iniola+le#

and no search warrant or warrant of

arrest shall issue e@cept upon pro+a+le

cause to +e determined personall + the

udge after e@amination under oath or

affirmation of the complainant and the

witnesses he ma produce# and

particularl descri+ing the place to +e

searched and the persons or things to +e

seiGed.

The addition of the word =personall= after the word

=determined= and the deletion of the grant of authorit

+ the 19) 0onstitution to issue warrants to =other

responsi+le officers as ma +e authoriGed + law#= has

apparentl coninced petitioner 5eltran that the

0onstitution now requires the udge to personall

e@amine the complainant and his witnesses in his

determination of pro+a+le cause for the issuance of

warrants of arrest. This is not an accurate interpretation.

0hat the Constitution underscores is the e+clusive and

personal responsibilit of the issuing judge to satisf

himself of the e+istence of probable cause.In satisfing

himself of the e+istence of probable cause for the

issuance of a warrant of arrest$ the judge is not

required to personall e+amine the complainant and his

witnesses. ;ollowing esta+lished doctrine andprocedure# he shall> 213 personall ealuate the report

and the documents su+mitted + the fiscal regarding the

e@istence of pro+a+le cause and# on the +asis thereof#

issue a warrantA or 2$3 if on the +asis thereof he finds no

pro+a+le cause# he ma disregard the fiscal's report and

require the su+mission of supporting affidaits of

witnesses to aid him in arriing at a conclusions as to

the e@istence of pro+a+le cause.

Sound polic dictates this procedure# otherwise udges

would +e undul laden with the preliminar

e@amination and inestigation of criminal complaints

instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases

filed +efore their courts.

0learl then# the 0onstitution# the 4ules of 0ourt# and our case

law34repudiate the su+mission of petitioners that respondent

udges should hae conducted =searching e@amination of

witnesses= +efore issuing warrants of arrest against them. The


26/74

also reect petitioners' contention that a udge must first issue

an order of arrest +efore issuing a warrant of arrest. There is no

law or rule requiring the issuance of an *rder of &rrest prior to

a warrant of arrest.

(n the case at +ar# the /*J ,anel su+mitted to the trial court its

$

sworn statements of 0arlos 0risto+al and :olita 5irrer35as

well as the counter!affidaits of the petitioners. &pparentl# the

painsta6ing recital and analsis of the parties' eidence made in

the /*J ,anel 4eport satisfied +oth udges that there is

pro+a+le cause to issue warrants of arrest against petitioners.

&gain# we stress that +efore issuing warrants of arrest# udges

merel determinepersonall the probabilit$ not the certaint

of guilt of an accused. (n doing so# udges do not conduct a de

novohearing to determine the e@istence of pro+a+le cause.

The ustpersonall review the initial determination of theprosecutor finding a pro+a+le cause to see if it is supported +

substantial evidence. The sufficienc of the reiew process

cannot +e measured + merel counting minutes and hours.

The fact that it too6 the respondent udges a few hours to

reiew and affirm the pro+a+le cause determination of the /*J

,anel does not mean the made no personal ealuation of the

eidence attached to the records of the case.36

,etitioners' reliance on the case ofAllado vs.*iokno37is

misplaced. *urAllado ruling is predicated on the utter failure

of the eidence to show the e@istence of pro+a+le cause. Not

een the corpus delictiof the crime was esta+lished + the

eidence of the prosecution in that case. Fien the clear

insufficienc of the eidence on record# we stressed the

necessit for the trial udge to ma6e a further personal

e@amination of the complainant and his witnesses to reach a

correct assessment of the e@istence or non!e@istence of

pro+a+le cause +efore issuing warrants of arrest against the

accused. The case at +ar# howeer# rests on a different factual

setting. &s priorl discussed# the arious tpes of eidence

e@tant in the records of the case proide su+stantial +asis for a

finding of pro+a+le cause against the petitioner. The corpus

delictiof the crime is a gien fact. There is an eewitness

account of the imputed crime gien + &lfaro. The ali+i

defense of petitioner We++ is also disputed + sworn

statements of their former maids. (t was therefore unnecessar

for the respondent udges to ta6e the further step of e@amining

e+ parte the complainant and their witnesses with searching

questions.

(((

,etitioners also complain a+out the denial of their

constitutional right to due process and iolation of their right to

an impartial inestigation. The decr their alleged hast and

malicious prosecution + the N5( and the /*J ,anel. Thealso assail the preudicial pu+licit that attended their

preliminar inestigation.

We reect these contentions. The records will show that the

/*J ,anel did not conduct the preliminar inestigation with

indecent haste. ,etitioners were gien fair opportunit to proe

lac6 of pro+a+le cause against them. The fairness of this

opportunit is well stressed in the 0onsolidated 0omment of

the Solicitor Feneral# viz.>

&gain# there is no merit in this contention. ,etitioners

were afforded all the opportunities to +e heard.

,etitioner We++ actiel participated in the preliminar

inestigation + appearing in the initial hearing held on

June )%# 199B and in the second hearing on Jul 1"#

199BA and + filing a =,otion for !roduction and

-+amination of -vidence and *ocuments= on June $#

199B 2p. "# ,etition3# a =%epl to the compliance and

Comment7,anifestation to the ,otion for !roduction


27/74

and -+amination of -vidence= on Jul B# 199B 2p.

of the /*J ,anel not to issuesubpoena duces tecumto

&tt. &rturo :. Mercader# Jr.# petitioner We++ filed a

=!etition for Injunction$ Certiorari$ !rohibition and

,andamus= with the 4egional Trial 0ourt# 5ranch


28/74

Sec. ".(on8Appealable CasesA-+ceptions. H No

appeal ma +e ta6en from a resolution of the 0hief

State ,rosecutor-4egional State ,rosecutor-,roincial

or 0it ,rosecutor finding pro+a+le cause e+cept upon

showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion.

(otwithstanding the showing of manifest error or grave

abuse of discretion$ no appeal shall be entertained

where the appellant had alread been arraigned. (f the

appellant is arraigned during the pendenc of the

appeal# said appeal shall +e dismissed motu propio+

the Secretar of Justice.

An appeal7motion for reinvestigation from a resolution

finding probable cause$ however$ shall not hold the

filing of the information in court.

Sec. $. 0hen to appeal. H The appeal must +e filedwithin a period of fifteen 21B3 das from receipt of the

questioned resolution + the part or his counsel. The

period shall +e interrupted onl + the filing of a

motion for reconsideration within ten 21%3 das from

receipt of the resolution and shall continue to run from

the time the resolution dening the motion shall hae

+een receied + the moant or his counsel. 27mphasis

supplied3

Without dou+t then# the said /*J *rder No. $$) allows the

filing of an (nformation in court after the consummation of the

preliminar inestigation een if the accused can still e@ercise

the right to see6 a reiew of the prosecutor's recommendation

with the Secretar of Justice.

Ne@t# petitioners fault the /*J ,anel for not including &lfaro

in the (nformation considering her alleged conspiratorial

participation in the crime of rape with homicide. The non!

inclusion of &lfaro is anchored on 4epu+lic &ct

No.


29/74

requirements of this &ct. Nothing in this &ct shall

preent the discharge of an accused so that he can +e

used as a Witness under 4ule 119 of the 4eised 4ules

of 0ourt.

?pon qualification of &lfaro to the program# Section 1$ of the

said law mandates her non!inclusion in the criminal 0omplaint

or (nformation# thus>

@@@ @@@ @@@

Sec. 1$.-ffect of Admission of a tate 0itness into the

!rogram. H The certification of admission into the

,rogram + the /epartment shall +e gien full faith and

credit + the proincial or cit prosecutor who is

required(1/ /1 I(C6*- /4- 0I/(- I( /4-

C%I,I(A C1,!AI(/ 1% I(F1%,A/I1(and ifincluded therein# to petition the court for his discharge

in order that he can +e utiliGed as a State Witness. The

court shall order the discharge and e@clusion of the said

accused from the information.

&dmission into the ,rogram shall entitle such State

Witness to immunit from criminal prosecution for the

offense or offenses in which his testimon will +e gien

or used and all the rights and +enefits proided under

Section 8 hereof.

The alidit of these proisions is challenged + petitioner

We++. (t is urged that the constitute =. . . an intrusion into

udicial prerogatie for it is onl the court which has the power

under the 4ules on 0riminal ,rocedure to discharge an accused

as a state witness.= The argument is +ased on Section 9# 4ule

11938which gies the court the prerogatie to approe the

discharge of an accused to +e a state witness. ,etitioner's

argument lac6s appeal for it lies on the fault assumption that

the decision whom to prosecute is a udicial function# the sole

prerogatie of courts and +eond e@ecutie and legislatie

interference. (n truth# the prosecution of crimes appertains to

the e@ecutie department of goernment whose principal

power and responsi+ilit is to see that our laws are faithfull

e@ecuted. & necessar component of this power to e@ecute our

laws is the right to prosecute their iolators. The right to

prosecute ests the prosecutor with a wide range of discretion

H the discretion of whether# what and whom to charge# the

e@ercise of which depends on a smorgas+ord of factors which

are +est appreciated + prosecutors. We thus hold that it is not

constitutionall impermissi+le for 0ongress to enact 4.&. No.


30/74

ensure their appearance in inestigatie +odies-courts.=40

,etitioner We++'s challenge to the alidit of 4.&. No.


31/74

iolates due process. Thus# eoled urisprudence firming up

the prosecutor's dut to disclose to the defense e@culpator

eidence in its possession.48The rationale is well put + Justice

5rennan in)rad49H =societ wins not onl when the guilt

are conicted +ut when criminal trials are fair.= (ndeed#

prosecutors should not treat litigation li6e a game of po6er

where surprises can +e sprung and where gain + guile is not

punished.

5ut gien the right of petitioners to compel the N5( to disclose

e@culpator eidence in their faor# we are not prepared to rule

that the initial non!production of the original sworn statement

of &lfaro dated &pril $8# 199B could hae resulted in the

reasona+le li6elihood that the /*J ,anel would not hae found

pro+a+le cause. To +e sure# the N5(# on Jul "# 199B# upon

request of petitioners# su+mitted a photocop of &lfaro's &pril

$8# 199B sworn statement. (t e@plained it cannot produce theoriginal as it had +een lost. ;ortunatel# petitioners# on Jul $8#

199B# were a+le to o+tain a cop of the original from &tt.

&rturo Mercader in the course of the proceedings in 0iil 0ase

No. 9B1%99.50&s petitioners admit# the /*J ,anel accepted the

original of &lfaro's &pril $8# 199B sworn statement as a part of

their eidence.51,etitioners thus had the fair chance to e@plain

to the /*J ,anel then still conducting their preliminar

inestigation the e@culpator aspects of this sworn statement.

?nfortunatel for petitioners# the /*J ,anel still found

pro+a+le cause to charge them despite the alleged material

discrepancies +etween the first and second sworn statements of

&lfaro. ;or reasons we hae e@pounded# this finding of

pro+a+le cause cannot +e struc6 down as done with grae

a+use of discretion.52*n the other hand# the ;5( 4eport while

corro+oratie of the ali+i of petitioner We++ cannot + itself

reerse the pro+a+le cause finding of the /*J ,anel in light of

the totalit of eidence presented + the N5(.

;inall# we come to the argument of petitioner that the /*J

,anel lost its impartialit due to the preudicial pu+licit waged

in the press and +roadcast media + the N5(.

&gain# petitioners raise the effect of preudicial pu+licit on

their right to due process while undergoing preliminar

inestigation. We find no procedural impediment to its earl

inocation considering the su+stantial ris6 to their li+ert whileundergoing a preliminar inestigation.

(n floating this issue# petitioners touch on some of the most

pro+lematic areas in constitutional law where the conflicting

demands of freedom of speech and of the press# the pu+lic's

right to information# and an accused's right to a fair and

impartial trial collide and compete for prioritiGation. The

process of pinpointing where the +alance should +e struc6 has

diided men of learning as the +alance 6eeps moing either onthe side of li+ert or on the side of order as the tumult of the

time and the welfare of the people dictate. The dance of

+alance is a difficult act to follow.

(n democratic settings# media coerage of trials of sensational

cases cannot +e aoided and oftentimes# its e@cessieness has

+een aggraated + 6inetic deelopments in the

telecommunications industr. ;or sure# few cases can match the

high olume and high elocit of pu+licit that attended the

preliminar inestigation of the case at +ar. *ur dail diet of

facts and fiction a+out the case continues una+ated een toda.

0ommentators still +om+ard the pu+lic with iews not too

man of which are so+er and su+lime. (ndeed# een the

principal actors in the case H the N5(# the respondents# their

lawers and their smpathiGers H hae participated in this

media +litG. The possi+ilit of media a+uses and their threat to

a fair trial notwithstanding# criminal trials cannot +e

completel closed to the press and the pu+lic. (n the seminal


32/74

case of%ichmond (ewspapers$ Inc. v.2irginia#53it was wisel

held>

@@@ @@@ @@@

2a3 The historical eidence of the eolution of the

criminal trial in &nglo!&merican ustice demonstrates

conclusiel that at the time this Nation's organic lawswere adopted# criminal trials +oth here and in 7ngland

had long +een presumptiel open# thus giing

assurance that the proceedings were conducted fairl to

all concerned and discouraging perur# the misconduct

of participants# or decisions +ased on secret +ias or

partialit. (n addition# the significant communit

therapeutic alue of pu+lic trials was recogniGed> when

a shoc6ing crime occurs# a communit reaction of

outrage and pu+lic protest often follows# and thereafterthe open processes of ustice sere an important

prophlactic purpose# proiding an outlet for

communit concern# hostilit# and emotion. To wor6

effectiel# it is important that societ's criminal

process =satisf the appearance of ustice#= *ffutt .

?nited States# )"8 ?S 11# 1"# 99 : 7d 11# B S 0t 11#

which can +est +e proided + allowing people to

o+sere such process. ;rom this un+ro6en#

uncontradicted histor# supported + reasons as alid

toda as in centuries past# it must +e concluded that a

presumption of openness inheres in the er nature of a

criminal trial under this Nation's sstem of ustice# Cf.#

e.g.# :eine . ?nited States# )


33/74

udges hae +een undul influenced# not simpl that the might

+e# + the +arrage of pu+licit. (n the case at +ar# we find

nothing in the records that will proe that the tone and content#

of the pu+licit that attended the inestigation of petitioners

fatall infected the fairness and impartialit of the /*J ,anel.

,etitioners cannot ust rel on the su+liminal effects of

pu+licit on the sense of fairness of the /*J ,anel# for these

are +asicall un+e6nown and +eond 6nowing. To +e sure# the/*J ,anel is composed of an &ssistant 0hief State ,rosecutor

and Senior State ,rosecutors. Their long e@perience in criminal

inestigation is a factor to consider in determining whether

the can easil +e +linded + the 6lieg lights of pu+licit.

(ndeed# their $

of +ias for it does not appear that the considered an e@tra!

record eidence e@cept eidence properl adduced + the

parties. The length of time the inestigation was conducted

despite its summar nature and the generosit with which theaccommodated the discoer motions of petitioners spea6 well

of their fairness. &t no instance# we note# did petitioners see6

the disqualification of an mem+er of the /*J ,anel on the

ground of +ias resulting from their +om+ardment of preudicial

pu+licit.

(t all remains to state that the iGconde case will moe to a

more critical stage as petitioners will now hae to undergo trial

on the merits. We stress that pro+a+le cause is not snonmous

with guilt and while the light of pu+licit ma +e a good

disinfectant of unfairness# too much of its heat can +ring to

flame an accused's right to fair trial. Without imposing on the

trial udge the difficult tas6 of superising eer specie of

speech relating to the case at +ar# it +ehooes her to +e

reminded of the dut of a trial udge in high profile criminal

cases to control pu+licit preudicial to the fair administration

of ustice.55The 0ourt reminds udges that our a+ilit to

dispense impartial ustice is an issue in eer trial and in eer

criminal prosecution# the udiciar alwas stands as a silent

accused. More than conicting the guilt and acquitting the

innocent# the +usiness of the udiciar is to assure fulfillment of

the promise that ustice shall +e done and is done H and that is

the onl wa for the udiciar to get an acquittal from the +ar

of pu+lic opinion.

(N (7W W747*;# the petitions are dismissed for lac6 of

showing of grae a+use of discretion on the part of therespondents. 0osts against petitioners.

S* *4/747/.

A!#+ ! CI 64 $%IL 33 1937

Facts:*n ) June 19)%% p.m. of" June 19)

internal reenue licenses for the ears 19)) to 19)


34/74

of credit receipts# 1 +undle of stu+s of purchases of copra# $ pac6agesof correspondence# 1 receipt +oo6 +elonging to :uis ;ernandeG# 1"

+undles of inoices and other papers# man documents and loan

contracts with securit and promissor notes# B%" chits# promissornotes and stu+s of used chec6s of the ong6ong Shanghai 5an6ing

0orporation 2S503. The search for and seiGure of said articles weremade with the opposition of &lareG who stated his protest +elow the

inentories on the ground that the agents seiGed een the originals ofthe documents. &s the articles had not +een +rought immediatel to the

udge who issued the search warrant# &lareG# through his attorne#

filed a motion on 8 June 19)


35/74

caused. The affidait# which sered as the e@clusie +asis of the searchwarrant# is insufficient and fatall defectie + reason of the manner in

which the oath was made# and therefore# the search warrant and the

su+sequent seiGure of the +oo6s# documents and other papers areillegal. ;urther# it is the practice in this urisdiction to attach the

affidait of at least the applicant or complainant to the application. (t isadmitted that the udge who issued the search warrant in this case#

relied e@clusiel upon the affidait made + agent &lmeda and that hedid not require nor ta6e the deposition of an other witness. Neither

the 0onstitution nor Feneral *rders B8 proides that it is of imperatie

necessit to ta6e the depositions of the witnesses to +e presented +the applicant or complainant in addition to the affidait of the latter.

The purpose of +oth in requiring the presentation of depositions isnothing more than to satisf the committing magistrate of the e@istence

of pro+a+le cause. Therefore# if the affidait of the applicant or

complainant is sufficient# the udge ma dispense with that of other

Date post:	23-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dolores-marietta-gonzales
View:	230 times
Download:	0 times

Consti Cases for Tuesday

Documents