(Photos downloaded from www.supremecourt.gov.ph theme by slideshow.com of WordPress. Music: “Kinsman Redeemer” by Ezra Thomas from playlist of slideshow/wordpress)
[Here’s the slideshow as promised; visuals were easy; listening to each of the 80 or so unknown songs in the playlist: that took up a lot of time they were all unfamiliar except for a couple of songs. i didn’t have much choice, it was limited to a playlist; and the only known song was Paris Hilton’s “Stars are Blind” which sounded like a soft porn B-movie theme song, i would have been cited for contempt; the other songs were real indie, incomprehensible… this one seemed appropriate, see; it really took up much time choosing]
(P.S. When the song said “roses very rare…” it fell on Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales’s portrait; then it said “like the Son of David…” it landed on Justice Leo Quisumbing’s photos; i didn’t do any of that it was divine providence or law of probabilities, i didn’t storyboard it; when it said, “Lions that sleep…” it was on Justice Tony Carpio’s pictures; then on Justice Dante Tinga’s photo it said “leading who would be first”; then on Justice Presby Velasco’s picture it said “O kinsman redeemer” then finally on the Chief Justice’s portrait it said: “at the foot of your mercy, in the hands of your grace….” i didn’t even count the beats, the lyrics just rolled… anyway, hope people appreciate the amount of effort. )
Excerpts of the decision, downloaded from www.supremecourt.gov.ph
SECOND DIVISION
VICENTE P. LADLAD, G.R. Nos. 172070-72 NATHANAEL S. SANTIAGO,RANDALL B. ECHANIS, and REY CLARO C. CASAMBRE, Petitioners, – versus – SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO, SENIOR STATE PROSECUTORJOSELITA C. MENDOZA, SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR AILEEN MARIE S. GUTIERREZ,STATE PROSECUTOR IRWINA. MARAYA, and STATE PROSECUTORMERBA A. WAGA, in their capacity as members of the Department of Justicepanel of prosecutors investigating I.S. Nos. 2006-225, 2006-226 and 2006-234,JUSTICE SECRETARY RAUL M.GONZALEZ, DIRECTOR GENERALARTURO C. LOMIBAO, in his capacityas Chief, Philippine National Police,P/CSUPT. RODOLFO B. MENDOZA, JR., and P/SUPT. YOLANDA G. TANIGUE, Respondents. x- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x LIZA L. MAZA, JOEL G. VIRADOR, G.R. Nos. 172074-76 SATURNINO C. OCAMPO,TEODORO A. CASIÑO, CRISPIN B.BELTRAN, and RAFAEL V. MARIANO, Petitioners, – versus – RAUL M. GONZALEZ, in his capacity asSecretary of the Department of Justice,JOVENCITO R. ZUÑO, in his capacity asChief State Prosecutor, the Panel of Investigating Prosecutors composed of EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO, JOSELITAC. MENDOZA, AILEEN MARIE S.GUTIERREZ, IRWIN A. MARAYA andMERBA A. WAGA (Panel), RODOLFO B.
MENDOZA, in his capacity as Acting DeputyDirector, Directorate for Investigation andDetective Management (DIDM), YOLANDAG. TANIGUE, in her capacity as ActingExecutive Officer of DIDM, the DEPARTMENTOF JUSTICE (DOJ), and the PHILIPPINENATIONAL POLICE (PNP), Respondents.x- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x CRISPIN B. BELTRAN, G.R. No. 175013 Petitioner, – versus –PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, SECRETARY RAUL M. GONZALEZ,in his capacity as the Secretary of Justiceand overall superior of the Public Prosecutors,HONORABLE ENCARNACION JAJA G.MOYA, in her capacity as Presiding Judgeof Regional Trial Court of Makati City,Branch 146, and HONORABLE ELMO M. ALAMEDA, in his capacity as PresidingJudge of Regional Trial Court of Makati, Respondents. Promulgated:City, Branch 150, June 1, 2007
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. x– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.: xxxOn the Beltran Petition
The Inquest Proceeding againstBeltran for Rebellion is Void.
xxx The joint affidavit of Beltran’s arresting officers[1][15] states that the officers arrested Beltran, without a warrant,[2][16] for Inciting to Sedition, and not for Rebellion. Thus, the inquest prosecutor could only have conducted – as he did conduct – an inquest for Inciting to Sedition and no other. Consequently, when another group of prosecutors subjected Beltran to a second inquest proceeding for Rebellion, they overstepped their authority rendering the second inquest void. None of Beltran’s arresting officers saw Beltran commit, in their presence, the crime of Rebellion. Nor did they have personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that Beltran had just committed Rebellion, sufficient to form probable cause to believe that he had committed Rebellion. What these arresting officers alleged in their affidavit is that they saw and heard Beltran make an allegedly seditious speech on 24 February 2006.[3][17] xxx
For the failure of Beltran’s panel of inquest prosecutors to comply with Section 7, Rule 112 in relation to Section 5, Rule 113 and DOJ Circular No. 61, we declare Beltran’s inquest void.[4][19] Beltran would have been entitled to a preliminary investigation had he not asked the trial court to make a judicial determination of probable cause, which effectively took the place of such proceeding. xxx Rebellion under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code is committed –
[B]y rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, or any body of land, naval, or other armed forces or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.
The elements of the offense are: 1. That there be a (a) public uprising and (b) taking arms against the Government; and
2. That the purpose of the uprising or movement is either –(a) to remove from the allegiance to said Government or its laws: (1) the territory of the
Philippines or any part thereof; or (2) any body of land, naval, or other armed forces; or(b) to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers and prerogatives.[5][23]
Thus, by its nature, rebellion is a crime of the masses or multitudes involving crowd action done in furtherance of a political end.[6][24] The evidence before the panel of prosecutors who conducted the inquest of Beltran for Rebellion consisted of the affidavits and other documents[7][25] attached to the CIDG letters. We have gone over these documents and find merit in Beltran’s contention that the same are insufficient to show probable cause to indict him for Rebellion. The bulk of the documents consists of affidavits, some of which were sworn before a notary public, executed by members of the military and some civilians. Except for two affidavits, executed by a certain Ruel Escala (Escala), dated 20 Febuary 2006,[8][26] and Raul Cachuela (Cachuela), dated 23 February 2006,[9][27] none of the affidavits mentions Beltran.[10][28] In his affidavit, Escala recounted that in the afternoon of 20 February 2006, he saw Beltran, Ocampo, Casiño, Maza, Mariano, Virador, and other individuals on board a vehicle which entered a chicken farm in Bucal, Padre Garcia, Batangas and that after the passengers alighted, they were met by another individual who looked like San Juan. For his part, Cachuela stated that he was a former member of the CPP and that (1) he attended the CPP’s “10th Plenum” in 1992 where he saw Beltran; (2) he took part in criminal activities; and (3) the arms he and the other CPP members used were purchased partly from contributions by Congressional members, like Beltran, who represent party-list groups affiliated with the CPP.
The allegations in these affidavits are far from the proof needed to indict Beltran for taking part in an armed public uprising against the government. What these documents prove, at best, is that Beltran was in Bucal, Padre Garcia, Batangas on 20 February 2006 and that 14 years earlier, he was present during the 1992 CPP Plenum. None of the affidavits stated that Beltran committed specific acts of promoting, maintaining, or heading a rebellion as found in the DOJ Resolution of 27 February 2006. None of the affidavits alleged that Beltran is a leader of a rebellion. Beltran’s alleged presence during the 1992 CPP Plenum does not automatically make him a leader of a rebellion. In fact, Cachuela’s affidavit stated that Beltran attended the 1992 CPP Plenum as “Chairman, Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU).” Assuming that Beltran is a member of the CPP, which Beltran does not acknowledge, mere membership in the CPP does not constitute rebellion.[11][29] As for the alleged funding of the CPP’s military equipment from Beltran’s congressional funds, Cachuela’s affidavit merely contained a general conclusion without any specific act showing such funding. Cachuela merely alleged that “ang mga ibang mga pondo namin ay galing sa mga party list na naihalal sa Kongreso tulad ng BAYAN MUNA – pimumunuan nila SATUR OCAMPO at CRISPIN BELTRAN, x x x.”[12][30] Such a general conclusion does not establish probable cause.
In his Comment to Beltran’s petition, the Solicitor General points to Fuentes’ affidavit, dated 25 February 2006,[13][31] as basis for the finding of probable cause against Beltran as Fuentes provided details in his statement regarding meetings Beltran and the other petitioners attended in 2005 and 2006 in which plans to overthrow violently the Arroyo government were allegedly discussed, among others. The claim is untenable. Fuentes’ affidavit was not part of the attachments the CIDG referred to the DOJ on 27 February 2006. Thus, the panel of inquest prosecutors did not have Fuentes’ affidavit in their possession when they conducted the Rebellion inquest against Beltran on that day. Indeed, although this affidavit is dated 25 February 2006, the CIDG first presented it only during the preliminary investigation of the other petitioners on 13 March 2006 during which Fuentes subscribed to his statement before respondent prosecutor Velasco.
Respondent prosecutors later tried to remedy this fatal defect by motu proprio submitting to Branch 137 of the RTC Makati Fuentes’ affidavit as part of their Comment to Beltran’s motion for judicial determination of probable cause. Such belated submission, a tacit admission of the dearth of evidence against Beltran during the inquest, does not improve the prosecution’s case. Assuming them to be true, what the allegations in Fuentes’ affidavit make out is a case for Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion, punishable under Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code, not Rebellion under Article 134. Attendance in meetings to discuss, among others, plans to bring down a government is a mere preparatory step to commit the acts constituting Rebellion under Article 134. Even the prosecution acknowledged this, since the felony charged in the Information against Beltran and
San Juan in Criminal Case No. 06-452 is Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion and not Rebellion. The Information merely alleged that Beltran,
San Juan, and others conspired to form a “tactical alliance” to commit Rebellion. Thus, the RTC Makati erred when it nevertheless found probable cause to try Beltran for Rebellion based on the evidence before it. The minutes[14][32] of the 20 February 2006 alleged meeting in Batangas between members of MKP and CPP, including Beltran, also do not detract from our finding. Nowhere in the minutes was Beltran implicated. While the minutes state that a certain “Cris” attended the alleged meeting, there is no other evidence on record indicating that “Cris” is Beltran.
San Juan, from whom the “flash drive” containing the so-called minutes was allegedly taken, denies knowing Beltran.
To repeat, none of the affidavits alleges that Beltran is promoting, maintaining, or heading a Rebellion. The Information in Criminal Case No. 06-452 itself does not make such allegation. Thus, even assuming that the Information validly charges Beltran for taking part in a Rebellion, he is entitled to bail as a matter of right since there is no allegation in the Information that he is a leader or promoter of the Rebellion.[15][33] However, the Information in fact merely charges Beltran for “conspiring and confederating” with others in forming a “tactical alliance” to commit rebellion. As worded, the Information does not charge Beltran with Rebellion but with Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion, a bailable offense.[16][34]
On the Ladlad and Maza PetitionsInstead of following this procedure scrupulously, as what this Court had mandated in an earlier ruling, “so that the constitutional right to liberty of a potential accused can be protected from any material damage,”[17][38] respondent prosecutors nonchalantly disregarded it. Respondent prosecutors failed to comply with Section 3(a) of Rule 112 which provides that the complaint (which, with its attachment, must be of such number as there are respondents) be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public. Respondent prosecutors treated the unsubscribed letters of Tanigue and Mendoza of the CIDG, PNP as complaints[18][39] and accepted the affidavits attached to the letters even though some of them were notarized by a notary public without any showing that a prosecutor or qualified government official was unavailable as required by Section 3(a) of Rule 112. Further, Section 3(b) of Rule 112 mandates that the prosecutor, after receiving the complaint, must determine if there are grounds to continue with the investigation. If there is none, he shall dismiss the case, otherwise he shall “issue a subpoena to the respondents.” Here, after receiving the CIDG letters, respondent prosecutors peremptorily issued subpoenas to petitioners requiring them to appear at the DOJ office on 13 March 2006 “to secure copies of the complaints and its attachments.” During the investigation, respondent prosecutors allowed the CIDG to present a masked Fuentes who subscribed to an affidavit before respondent prosecutor Velasco. Velasco proceeded to distribute copies of Fuentes’ affidavit not to petitioners or their counsels but to members of the media who covered the proceedings. Respondent prosecutors then required petitioners to submit their counter-affidavits in 10 days. It was only four days later, on 17 March 2006, that petitioners received the complete copy of the attachments to the CIDG letters.
These uncontroverted facts belie respondent prosecutors’ statement in the Order of 22 March 2006 that the preliminary investigation “was done in accordance with the Revised Rules o[f] Criminal Procedure.”[19][40] Indeed, by peremptorily issuing the subpoenas to petitioners, tolerating the complainant’s antics during the investigation, and distributing copies of a witness’ affidavit to members of the media knowing that petitioners have not had the opportunity to examine the charges against them, respondent prosecutors not only trivialized the investigation but also lent credence to petitioners’ claim that the entire proceeding was a sham. A preliminary investigation is the crucial sieve in the criminal justice system which spells for an individual the difference between months if not years of agonizing trial and possibly jail term, on the one hand, and peace of mind and liberty, on the other hand. Thus, we have characterized the right to a preliminary investigation as not “a mere formal or technical right” but a “substantive” one, forming part of due process in criminal justice.[20][41] This especially holds true here where the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua and may be non-bailable for those accused as principals.
Contrary to the submission of the Solicitor General, respondent prosecutors’ filing of the Information against petitioners on 21 April 2006 with Branch 57 of the RTC Makati does not moot the petitions in G.R. Nos. 172070-72 and 172074-76. Our power to enjoin prosecutions cannot be frustrated by the simple filing of the Information with the trial court. On Respondent Prosecutors’ Lack of Impartiality We find merit in petitioners’ doubt on respondent prosecutors’ impartiality. Respondent Secretary of Justice, who exercises supervision and control over the panel of prosecutors, stated in an interview on 13 March 2006, the day of the preliminary investigation, that, “We [the DOJ] will just declare probable cause, then it’s up to the [C]ourt to decide x x x.”[21][42] Petitioners raised this issue in their petition,[22][43] but respondents never disputed the veracity of this statement. This clearly shows pre-judgment, a determination to file the Information even in the absence of probable cause. A Final Word
The obvious involvement of political considerations in the actuations of respondent Secretary of Justice and respondent prosecutors brings to mind an observation we made in another equally politically charged case. We reiterate what we stated then, if only to emphasize the importance of maintaining the integrity of criminal prosecutions in general and preliminary investigations in particular, thus: [W]e cannot emphasize too strongly that prosecutors should not allow, and should avoid, giving the impression that their noble office is being used or prostituted, wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends, or other purposes alien to, or subversive of, the basic and fundamental objective of observing the interest of justice evenhandedly, without fear or favor to any and all litigants alike, whether rich or poor, weak or strong, powerless or mighty. Only by strict adherence to the established procedure may be public’s perception of the impartiality of the prosecutor be enhanced.[23][44] WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petitions. In G.R. No. 175013, we SET ASIDE the Order dated 31 May 2006 of the Regional Trial Court,
Makati
City, Branch 146 and the Order dated 29 August 2006 of the Regional Trial Court,
Makati
City, Branch 150. In G.R. Nos. 172070-72 and 172074-76, we SET ASIDE the Orders dated 22 March 2006 and 4 April 2006 issued by respondent prosecutors. We ORDER the Regional Trial Court,
Makati
City, Branch 150 to DISMISS Criminal Case Nos. 06-452 and 06-944. SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBINGAssociate JusticeChairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson
CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice
Discover more from marichulambino.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
