[remrev] rule 112-113 full text

54
G.R. No. 172829 July 18, 2012 ROSA H. FENEQUITO, CORAZON E. HERNANDEZ, a! "AURO H. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners, vs. #ERNARDO $ERGARA, JR., Respondent. D E C I S I O N %ERA"TA, J.:  Assailed in the pr esent petition for review on certiorari  under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the Resolutions dated !ar"h #, $%%& and !a' $$, $%%& of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA*+.R. CR No. $#&4. -he CA Resolution of !ar"h #, $%%& disissed petitioners/ petition for review, while the CA Resolution dated !a' $$, $%%& denied petitioners/ !otion for Re"onsideration. -he present petition arose fro a "riinal "oplaint for falsifi"ation of pu0li" do"uents filed 0' herein respondent a1ainst herein petitioners with the Offi"e of the Cit' Prose"utor of !anila. On 2e0ruar' , $%%4, an Inforation for falsifi"ation of pu0li" do"uents was filed with the !etropolitan -rial Court (!e-C) of !anila 0' the Assistant Cit' Prose"utor of !anila a1ainst herein petitioners. $ On April $3, $%%4, herein petitioners filed a !otion to Disiss the Case ased on A0sen"e of Pro0a0le Cause. 3  After respondent/s C oentOpposi tion 4  was filed, the !e-C issued an Order 5  dated 6ul' #, $%%4 disissin1 the "ase on the 1round of la"7 of pro0a0le "ause.  A11rieved, respon dent, with the e8 press "onforit' of the pu0li" pros e"utor, appealed the "ase to the Re1ional -rial Court (R-C) of !anila. & On 6ul' $, $%%5, the R-C rendered 9ud1ent settin1 aside the 6ul' #, $%%4 Order of the !e-C and dire"tin1 the said "ourt to pro"eed to trial. : Petitioners then elevated the "ase to the CA via a petition for review. On !ar"h #, $%%&, the CA rendered its presentl' assailed Resolution  disissin1 the petition. -he CA ruled that the De"ision of the R-C is interlo"utor' in nature and, thus, is not appeala0le. Petitioners filed a !otion for Re"onsideration, 0ut the CA denied it in its Resolution #  dated !a' $$, $%%&. ;en"e, the instant petition 0ased on the followin1 1rounds< -he ;onora0le Court of Appeals erred in outri1htl' disissin1 the Petition for Review on the 1round that the reed' availed of 0' petitioners is iproper. Stri"t enfor"eent of the Rules a' 0e suspended whenever the purposes of  9usti"e so re=u ire. % In their first assi1ned error, petitioners "ontend that the De"ision of the R-C is final as it disposes with finalit' the issue of whether the !e-C erred in 1rantin1 their !otion to Disiss. -he Court does not a1ree. -he Court notes at the outset that one of the 1rounds relied upon 0' the CA in disissin1 petitioners / petition for review is the latter/s failure to su0it "opies of pleadin1s and do"uents relevant and pertinent to the petition filed, as re=uired under Se"tion $,  Rule 4$ of the Rules of Court. >hile petitioners filed a !otion for Re"onsideration, the', however, failed to "opl' with these re=uireents. >orse, the' did not even ention an'thin1 a0out it in the said !otion. Se"tion 3, Rule 4$ of the sae Rules provides< Se". 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. ? -he failure of the petitioner to "opl' with an' of the fore1oin1 re=uireents re1ardin1 the pa'ent of the do"7et and other lawful fees, the deposit for "osts, proof of servi"e of the petition, and the "ontents of and the do"uents whi"h should a""opan' the petition shall 0e suffi"ient 1round for the disissal thereof. !oreover, it is a settled rule that the ri1ht to appeal is neither a natural ri1ht nor a part of due pro"ess@ it is erel' a statutor' privile1e, and a' 0e e8er"ised onl' in the anner and in a""ordan"e with the provisions of law. $  An appeal

Upload: nikki-andrade

Post on 18-Feb-2018

235 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 1/54

G.R. No. 172829 July 18, 2012

ROSA H. FENEQUITO, CORAZON E. HERNANDEZ, a! "AURO H.

RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners,

vs.

#ERNARDO $ERGARA, JR., Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

%ERA"TA, J.:

 Assailed in the present petition for review on certiorari  under Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court are the Resolutionsdated !ar"h #, $%%& and !a' $$, $%%& of

the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA*+.R. CR No. $#&4. -he CA Resolution of

!ar"h #, $%%& disissed petitioners/ petition for review, while the CA

Resolution dated !a' $$, $%%& denied petitioners/ !otion for Re"onsideration.

-he present petition arose fro a "riinal "oplaint for falsifi"ation of pu0li"

do"uents filed 0' herein respondent a1ainst herein petitioners with the Offi"e

of the Cit' Prose"utor of !anila.

On 2e0ruar' , $%%4, an Inforation for falsifi"ation of pu0li" do"uents was

filed with the !etropolitan -rial Court (!e-C) of !anila 0' the Assistant Cit'

Prose"utor of !anila a1ainst herein petitioners.$

On April $3, $%%4, herein petitioners filed a !otion to Disiss the Case ased

on A0sen"e of Pro0a0le Cause.3

 After respondent/s CoentOpposition4 was filed, the !e-C issued anOrder 5 dated 6ul' #, $%%4 disissin1 the "ase on the 1round of la"7 of

pro0a0le "ause.

 A11rieved, respondent, with the e8press "onforit' of the pu0li" prose"utor,

appealed the "ase to the Re1ional -rial Court (R-C) of !anila.&

On 6ul' $, $%%5, the R-C rendered 9ud1ent settin1 aside the 6ul' #, $%%4

Order of the !e-C and dire"tin1 the said "ourt to pro"eed to trial.:

Petitioners then elevated the "ase to the CA via a petition for review.

On !ar"h #, $%%&, the CA rendered its presentl' assailed

Resolution disissin1 the petition.

-he CA ruled that the De"ision of the R-C is interlo"utor' in nature and, thus,

is not appeala0le.

Petitioners filed a !otion for Re"onsideration, 0ut the CA denied it in its

Resolution#

 dated !a' $$, $%%&.

;en"e, the instant petition 0ased on the followin1 1rounds<

-he ;onora0le Court of Appeals erred in outri1htl' disissin1 the Petition for

Review on the 1round that the reed' availed of 0' petitioners is iproper.

Stri"t enfor"eent of the Rules a' 0e suspended whenever the purposes of

 9usti"e so re=uire.%

In their first assi1ned error, petitioners "ontend that the De"ision of the R-C is

final as it disposes with finalit' the issue of whether the !e-C erred in 1rantin1

their !otion to Disiss.

-he Court does not a1ree.

-he Court notes at the outset that one of the 1rounds relied upon 0' the CA in

disissin1 petitioners/ petition for review is the latter/s failure to su0it "opies

of pleadin1s and do"uents relevant and pertinent to the petition filed, as

re=uired under Se"tion $, Rule 4$ of the Rules of Court. >hile petitioners

filed a !otion for Re"onsideration, the', however, failed to "opl' with these

re=uireents. >orse, the' did not even ention an'thin1 a0out it in the said!otion. Se"tion 3, Rule 4$ of the sae Rules provides<

Se". 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. ? -he failure of the

petitioner to "opl' with an' of the fore1oin1 re=uireents re1ardin1 the

pa'ent of the do"7et and other lawful fees, the deposit for "osts, proof of

servi"e of the petition, and the "ontents of and the do"uents whi"h should

a""opan' the petition shall 0e suffi"ient 1round for the disissal thereof.

!oreover, it is a settled rule that the ri1ht to appeal is neither a natural ri1ht nor 

a part of due pro"ess@ it is erel' a statutor' privile1e, and a' 0e e8er"isedonl' in the anner and in a""ordan"e with the provisions of law.$ An appeal

Page 2: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 2/54

0ein1 a purel' statutor' ri1ht, an appealin1 part' ust stri"tl' "opl' with the

re=uisites laid down in the Rules of Court.3 Deviations fro the Rules "annot

0e tolerated.4 -he rationale for this stri"t attitude is not diffi"ult to appre"iate

as the Rules are desi1ned to fa"ilitate the orderl' disposition of appealed

"ases.5 In an a1e where "ourts are 0edeviled 0' "lo11ed do"7ets, the Rules

need to 0e followed 0' appellants with 1reater fidelit'.& -heir o0servan"e

"annot 0e left to the whis and "apri"es of appellants.: In the instant "ase,

petitioners had all the opportunit' to "opl' with the Rules. Nonetheless, the'reained o0stinate in their non*o0servan"e even when the' sou1ht

re"onsideration of the rulin1 of the CA disissin1 their petition. Su"h o0stina"'

is in"on1ruous with their late plea for li0eralit' in "onstruin1 the Rules.

On the a0ove 0asis alone, the Court finds that the instant petition is

disissi0le.

Even if the Court 0ends its Rules to allow the present petition, the Court still

finds no "o1ent reason to depart fro the assailed rulin1 of the CA.

-he fa"tual and le1al situations in the present "ase are essentiall' on all fours

with those involved in Basa v. People. In the said "ase, the a""used were

"har1ed with swindlin1 and falsifi"ation of pu0li" do"uents. Su0se=uentl', the

a""used filed a 6oint !otion to uash on the 1round that the fa"ts "har1ed in

ea"h Inforation do not "onstitute an offense. -hereafter, the !e-C issued an

order in favor of the a""used and, a""ordin1l', =uashed the Inforations. -he

private "oplainant, with the "onforit' of the pu0li" prose"utor, filed a otion

for re"onsideration 0ut the !e-C denied it. On appeal, the R-C reversed the

order of the !e-C and dire"ted the "ontinuation of the pro"eedin1s. -he

a""used then filed a petition for review with the CA. In its assailed de"ision, the

CA disissed the petition on the 1round that the reed' of appeal fro theR-C de"ision is iproper, 0e"ause the said de"ision is a"tuall' interlo"utor' in

nature.

In affirin1 the rulin1 of the CA, this Court held that<

Petitioners erroneousl' assued that the R-C De"ision is final and

appeala0le, when in fa"t it is interlo"utor'. -hus, the' filed a petition for review

with the Court of Appeals under Se"tion 3 (0), Rule $$ of the Revised Rules

of Criinal Pro"edure, whi"h provides<8 8 8 8

(0) -he appeal to the Court of Appeals in "ases de"ided 0' the Re1ional -rial

Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review

under Rule 42 .8 8 8 8

Se"tion , Rule 4$ of the ##: Rules of Civil Pro"edure, as aended, states<

Se". . ow appeal ta!en" time for filin# . ? A part' desirin1 to appeal  fro a

de"ision of the Re1ional -rial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, a' file a verified petition for review  with the Court of Appeals, 8 8

8.

-he a0ove provisions "onteplate of an appeal fro a &'al de"ision or order

of the R-C in the e8er"ise of its appellate 9urisdi"tion.

-hus, the reed' of appeal under Rule 4$ resorted to 0' petitioners is

iproper. -o repeat, ()* RTC D*+''o ' o( &'al, -u( '(*lo+u(oy '

a(u*.

 A &'al order is one that whi"h disposes of the whole su09e"t atter or

terinates a parti"ular pro"eedin1 or a"tion, leavin1 nothin1 to 0e done 0ut to

enfor"e 0' e8e"ution what has 0een deterined. Bpon the other hand, an

order is '(*lo+u(oy if it does not dispose of a "ase "opletel', 0ut leaves

soethin1 ore to 0e done upon its erits.

-ested a1ainst the a0ove "riterion, the R-C De"ision is 0e'ond "avil

interlo"utor' in nature. I( ' **('ally a !*'al o& /*('('o* o('o (o

ua) -*+au* '( l*a3* o*()'4 o* (o -* !o* 5 5 5, i.e ., ()*

+o('ua('o o& ()* +''al /o+**!'4 u('l ()* 4u'l( o 'o+*+* o&

()* a++u*! ' !*(*'*!. Spe"ifi"all', the !e-C has 'et to arrai1n thepetitioners, then pro"eed to trial and finall' render the proper 9ud1ent.

It is a8ioati" that an order den'in1 a otion to =uash on the 1round that the

alle1ations in the Inforations do not "onstitute an offense "annot 0e

"hallen1ed 0' an appeal. -his Court 1enerall' frowns upon this reedial

easure as re1ards interlo"utor' orders. -he evident reason for su"h rule is to

avoid ultipli"it' of appeals in a sin1le a"tion. -o tolerate the pra"ti"e of

allowin1 appeals fro interlo"utor' orders would not onl' dela' the

adinistration of 9usti"e 0ut also would undul' 0urden the "ourts.# (Ephases

supplied)

Page 3: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 3/54

In the present "ase, the assailed De"ision of the R-C set aside the Order of

the !e-C and dire"ted the "ourt a quo to pro"eed to trial 0' allowin1 the

prose"ution to present its eviden"e. ;en"e, it is "lear that the R-C De"ision is

interlo"utor' as it did not dispose of the "ase "opletel', 0ut left soethin1

ore to 0e done on its erits.

In their se"ond assi1ned error, petitioners "lai that assuin1 for the sa7e of

ar1uent that the reed' the' availed of is not proper, the fa"ts of the "asewould readil' show that there e8ist 9ust and "opellin1 reasons to warrant the

rela8ation of the rules in the interest of su0stantial 9usti"e.

Petitioners "ontend that the PNP Crie a0orator' uestioned Do"uent

Report, su0itted as eviden"e 0' respondent to the prose"utor/s offi"e,

showed that the findin1s therein are not "on"lusive and, thus, insuffi"ient to

support a findin1 of pro0a0le "ause.

-he Court is not persuaded.

It is "lear fro a perusal of the "ited PNP Crie a0orator' uestioned

Do"uent Report No. %4*%3 that the do"uent e8ainer found that the

si1natures appearin1 in the =uestioned Deed of Sale as "opared to the

standard si1natures reveal diver1en"es in the anner of e8e"ution and stro7e

stru"ture whi"h isF an indi"ation that the' >ERE NO- >RI--EN G ONE

 AND -;E SA!E PERSON.$% -he Court a1rees with the prose"utor/s

pronoun"eent in its Resolution$ dated Septe0er $$, $%%3, that althou1h

the findin1s of the PNP Crie a0orator' were =ualified 0' the stateent

"ontained in the Report that no definite "on"lusion "an 0e rendered due to the

fa"t that =uestioned si1natures are photo"opies wherein inute details are not

"learl' anifested, the fa"t that an e8pert witness alread' found that the=uestioned si1natures were not written 0' one and the sae person alread'

"reates pro0a0le "ause to indi"t petitioners for the "rie of falsifi"ation of

pu0li" do"uent.

In Re'es v. Pearl0an7 Se"urities, In".,$$ this Court held<

Pro0a0le "ause, for the purpose of filin1 a "riinal inforation, has 0een

defined as su"h fa"ts as are suffi"ient to en1ender a well*founded 0elief that a

"rie has 0een "oitted and that respondent is pro0a0l' 1uilt' thereof. -he

ter does not ean a"tual and positive "ause nor does it iport a0solute

"ertaint'. It is erel' 0ased on opinion and reasona0le 0elief. Pro0a0le "ause

does not re=uire an in=uir' into whether there is suffi"ient eviden"e to pro"ure

a "onvi"tion. It is enou1h that it is 0elieved that the a"t or oission "oplained

of "onstitutes the offense "har1ed.

 A findin1 of pro0a0le "ause needs onl' to rest on eviden"e showin1 that, ore

li7el' than not, a "rie has 0een "oitted 0' the suspe"ts. It need not 0e

0ased on "lear and "onvin"in1 eviden"e of 1uilt, not on eviden"e esta0lishin1

1uilt 0e'ond reasona0le dou0t, and definitel' not on eviden"e esta0lishin1a0solute "ertaint' of 1uilt. In deterinin1 pro0a0le "ause, the avera1e an

wei1hs fa"ts and "ir"ustan"es without resortin1 to the "ali0rations of the

rules of eviden"e of whi"h he has no te"hni"al 7nowled1e. ;e relies on

"oon sense. >hat is deterined is whether there is suffi"ient 1round to

en1ender a well*founded 0elief that a "rie has 0een "oitted, and that the

a""used is pro0a0l' 1uilt' thereof and should 0e held for trial. It does not

re=uire an in=uir' as to whether there is suffi"ient eviden"e to se"ure a

"onvi"tion.$3

In the instant "ase, the Court finds no 9ustifi"ation to depart fro the rulin1 of

the R-C that the offense "har1ed was "oitted and that herein petitioners

are pro0a0l' 1uilt' thereof.

>ith respe"t to respondent/s le1al personalit' to appeal the 6ul' #, $%%4 Order 

of the !e-C, suffi"e it to sa' that the appeal filed with the R-C was ade with

the e8press "onforit' of the pu0li" prose"utor who handles the "ase.

It is wron1 for petitioners to ar1ue that it is the OS+ whi"h has authorit' to file

an appeal with the R-C.$%wphi$ Se"tion 35 (l), Chapter $, -itle III of oo7 IH

of E8e"utive Order No. $#$, otherwise 7nown as the Adinistrative Code of

#:, andates the OS+ to represent the +overnent in the Supree Courtand the Court of Appeals in all "riinal pro"eedin1s. On the other hand,

Se"tion of Presidential De"ree No. $:5, entitled Reor1aniin1 the

Prose"ution Staff of the Departent of 6usti"e and the Offi"es of the Provin"ial

and Cit' 2is"als, Re1ionaliin1 the Prose"ution Servi"e, and Creatin1 the

National Prose"ution Servi"e, whi"h was the law in for"e at the tie the

appeal was filed, provides that the provin"ial or the "it' fis"al (now referred to

as prose"utor) shall have "har1e of the /o*+u('o o& all +'*,

isdeeanors and violations of "it' or uni"ipal ordinan"es ' ()* +ou( o&

u+) /o3'+* o +'(y a! )all ()**' !'+)a4* all ()* !u('* '+'!*(

(o ()* '('(u('o o& +''al /o*+u('o.$4 In "onsonan"e with the a0ove*

=uoted provision, it has 0een held 0' this Court ()a( ()* &'+al */**( ()*

Page 4: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 4/54

%*o/l* o& ()* %)'l'//'* ' ()* /o*+u('o o& o&&** -*&o* ()* ('al

+ou( at the etropolitan trial "ourts, uni"ipal trial "ourts, uni"ipal "ir"uit

trial "ourts and the *4'oal ('al +ou(.$5 Sin"e the appeal, in the instant

"ase was ade with the R-C of !anila, it is "lear that the Cit' Prose"utor or

his assistant (in this "ase, the Assistant Cit' Prose"utor) had authorit' to file

the sae.

!oreover, petitioners/ relian"e on Presidential De"ree No. # is ispla"ed, asthe "ited provision refers onl' to "ases where the assistant fis"al or state

prose"utor/s power to file an inforation or disiss a "ase is predi"ated or

"onditioned upon the prior authorit' or approval of the provin"ial or "it' fis"al or 

the Chief State Prose"utor. -here is nothin1 in the said law whi"h provides that

in "ases of appeal an Assistant Cit' Prose"utor or a State Prose"utor a' file

the sae onl' upon prior authorit' or approval of the Cit' Prose"utor or the

Chief State Prose"utor. Stated differentl', unless otherwise ordered, an

 Assistant Cit' Prose"utor or a State Prose"utor a' file an appeal with the

R-C, =uestionin1 the disissal 0' the !e-C of a "ase for la"7 of pro0a0le

"ause, even without prior authorit' or approval of the Cit' Prose"utor or the

Chief State Prose"utor.

>;ERE2ORE, the instant petition is DENIED. -he Resolutions of the Court of

 Appeals, dated !ar"h #, $%%& and !a' $$, $%%& in CA*+.R. CR No. $#&4,

are A22IR!ED.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 181021 D*+*-* 10, 2012

#URGUND6 REA"T6 COR%ORATION, Petitioner,vs.

JOSEFA JING C. RE6ES a! SECRETAR6 RAU" GONZA"EZ o& ()*

DE%ARTENT OF JUSTICE,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

%ERA"TA, J.:

2or resolution of this Court is the Petition for Review on &ertiorari' dated

2e0ruar' 3, $%%, of petitioner ur1und' Realt' Corporation, see7in1 to

annul and set aside the De"ision  and Resolution of the Court of Appeals

(CA), dated Septe0er 4, $%%: and De"e0er $%, $%%:, respe"tivel'.

-he fa"ts follow.

Private respondent 6osefa 6in1 C. Re'es (Re'es), soetie in ##&, offered

her servi"es to petitioner as the latter/s real estate a1ent in 0u'in1 par"els of

land in Cala0a, a1una, whi"h are to 0e developed into a 1olf "ourse. Sheinfored petitioner that ore or less ten (%) lot owners are her "lients who

were willin1 to sell their properties. Convin"ed of her representations,

petitioner released the aount of P$3,4$3,3$:.5% in her favor to 0e used in

0u'in1 those par"els of land. Re'es, instead of 0u'in1 those par"els of land,

"onverted and isappropriated the one' 1iven 0' petitioner to her personal

use and 0enefit. Petitioner sent a foral deand for Re'es to return the

aount of P$3,4$3,3$:.5%, to no avail despite her re"eipt of the said deand.

 As su"h, petitioner filed a "oplaint for the "rie of Estafa a1ainst Re'es

0efore the Assistant Cit' Prose"utor/s Offi"e of !a7ati Cit'.

Re'es, while adittin1 that she a"ted as a real estate a1ent for petitioner,

denied havin1 "onverted or isappropriated the involved aount of one'.

She "laied that the said aount was used solel' for the intended purpose

and that it was petitioner who re=uested her servi"es in pro"urin1 the lots.

 A""ordin1 to her, it was upon the petitioner/s proddin1 that she was

"onstrained to "onta"t her friends who were also into the real estate 0usiness,

in"ludin1 one naed !ateo Ele9orde. She alle1ed that prior to the venture,

!ateo Ele9orde su0itted to her "opies of "ertifi"ates of title, vi"init' plans,

"adastral aps and other identif'in1 ar7s "overin1 the properties 0ein1

offered for sale and that after validatin1 and "onfirin1 the pri"es as well as

the ters and "onditions attendant to the pro9e"ted sale, petitioner instru"tedher to pro"eed with the release of the funds. -hus, she paid down pa'ents to

the landowners durin1 the onths of 2e0ruar', !ar"h, 6ul', Au1ust,

Septe0er and O"to0er of ##&. Re'es also insisted that petitioner 7new that

the initial or down pa'ent for ea"h lot represented onl' 5%J of the pur"hase

pri"e su"h that the reainin1 0alan"e had to 0e paid within a period of thirt'

(3%) da's fro the date of re"eipt of the initial pa'ent. She added that she

reinded petitioner, after several onths, a0out the atter of unpaid 0alan"es

still owin1 to the lot owners, 0ut due to la"7 of funds and non*infusion of

additional "apital fro other investors, petitioner failed to pa' the landowners

of their reainin1 unpaid 0alan"es. !eanwhile, Re'es re"eived inforation

that her su0*0ro7er !ateo Ele9orde had 0een depositin1 the involved one'

Page 5: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 5/54

entrusted to hi under his personal a""ount. On !ar"h $, $%%%, throu1h a

0oard resolution, petitioner alle1edl' authoried Re'es to institute, pro"eed,

pursue and "ontinue with whatever "riinal or "ivil a"tion a1ainst !ateo

Ele9orde, or su"h person to who she a' have delivered or entrusted the

one' she had re"eived in trust fro the fir, for the purpose of re"overin1

su"h one'. -hus, Re'es filed a "oplaint for the "rie of estafa a1ainst

!ateo Ele9orde 0efore the Cit' Prose"utor/s Offi"e of !a7ati Cit' do"7eted as

I.S. No. #**5#&*$$, and on !ar"h 3%, $%%, !ateo Ele9orde was indi"tedfor estafa.

 After a preliinar' investi1ation was "ondu"ted a1ainst Re'es, the Assistant

Prose"utor of !a7ati Cit' issued a Resolution$ dated April $:, $%%5, the

dispositive portion of whi"h reads<

In view thereof, it is ost respe"tfull' re"oended that respondent 0e

indi"ted of the "rie of Estafa defined and penalied under the Revised Penal

Code. It "ould not 0e said that she has violated the provision of PD &# for it

was not shown that the one' alle1edl' 1iven to her were funds soli"ited fro

the pu0li". et the atta"hed inforation 0e approved for filin1 in "ourt. ail

re"oendation at Php4%,%%%.%%.3

-hereafter, an Inforation for the "rie of Estafa under Arti"le 35, par. (0)

of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) was filed a1ainst Re'es and raffled 0efore

the R-C, ran"h 4#, !a7ati Cit'.

Bndeterred, Re'es filed a petition for review 0efore the Departent of 6usti"e

(DO6), 0ut it was disissed 0' the Se"retar' of 6usti"e throu1h State

Prose"utor 6oven"ito KuLo on 6une , $%%&.

 A11rieved, Re'es filed a otion for re"onsideration, and in a Resolution4 dated

6ul' $%, $%%&, the said otion was 1ranted. -he de"retal te8t of the resolution

reads<

2indin1 the 1rounds relied upon in the otion to 0e eritorious and in the

interest of 9usti"e, our Resolution of 6une , $%%& is here0' RECONSIDERED

and SE- ASIDE. A""ordin1l', the petition for review filed 0' respondent*

appellant 6osefa Re'es is here0' 1iven due "ourse and will 0e reviewed on

the erits and the "orrespondin1 resolution will 0e issued in due tie.

SO ORDERED.

On Septe0er $$, $%%&, Se"retar' of 6usti"e Raul +onale issued a

Resolution5 1rantin1 the petition for review of Re'es, the fallo of whi"h reads<

>;ERE2ORE, the assailed resolution is here0' REHERSED and SE- ASIDE.

-he Cit' Prose"utor of !a7ati Cit' is dire"ted to "ause the withdrawal of the

inforation for estafa filed in "ourt a1ainst respondent 6osefa 6in1 C. Re'es

and to report the a"tion ta7en within five (5) da's fro re"eipt hereof.

SO ORDERED.&

Petitioner filed a otion for re"onsideration, 0ut was denied 0' the Se"retar'

of 6usti"e in a Resolution dated De"e0er 4, $%%&. Eventuall', petitioner filed

a petition for certiorar i under Rule &5 of the Rules of Court with the CA. -he

latter, however, affired the =uestioned Resolutions of the Se"retar' of

6usti"e. -he dispositive portion of the De"ision dated Septe0er 4, $%%:

reads<

>;ERE2ORE, preises "onsidered, the assailed Resolutions, dated $$

Septe0er $%%& and 4 De"e0er $%%&,F 0oth rendered 0' pu0li"

respondent Se"retar' of 6usti"e, are here0' A22IR!ED in toto.

SO ORDERED.:

Its otion for re"onsideration havin1 0een denied 0' the CA in a Resolution

dated De"e0er $%, $%%:, petitioner filed the present petition and the followin1

are the assi1ned errors<

I

-;E COBR- O2 APPEAS SERIOBSG ERRED IN NO- 2INDIN+

-;A- -;E DO6 SECRE-ARG, RAB +ONKAEK, CAPRICIOBSG,

 ARI-RARIG AND >;I!SICAG DISRE+ARDED -;E EHIDENCE

ON RECORD S;O>IN+ -;E EMIS-ENCEF O2 PROAE CABSE

 A+AINS- PRIHA-E RESPONDEN- 2OR ES-A2A BNDER AR-ICE

35 (0) O2 -;E REHISED PENA CODE.

II

-;E COBR- O2 APPEAS +RIEHOBSG ERRED IN NO- 2INDIN+B- INS-EAD CONCBRRED IN >I-; -;E DO6 SECRE-ARG,

Page 6: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 6/54

RAB +ONKAEK, >;O G +RAHE ABSE O2 DISCRE-ION

 A!OBN-IN+ -O AC OR EMCESS O2 6BRISDIC-ION ;ED

-;A- NO- A O2 -;E EE!EN-S O2 ES-A2A BNDER AR-ICE

35 (0), PAR-ICBARG -;E EE!EN- O2 !ISAPPROPRIA-ION,

>ERE NO- SB22ICIEN-G ES-AIS;ED IN -;IS CASE.

III

-;E COBR- O2 APPEAS SERIOBSG ERRED IN NO- 2INDIN+

-;A- -;E DO6 SECRE-ARG, RAB +ONKAEK, AC-ED >I-;

+RAHE ABSE O2 DISCRE-ION IN ACCEP-IN+ AS -RB-; >;A-

>ERE !A--ERS O2 DE2ENSE G PRIHA-E RESPONDEN- IN

;ER COBN-ER*A22IDAHI- >;IC; S;OBD ;AHE EEN PROHEN

 A- -;E -RIA ON -;E !ERI-S.

-he petition is eritorious.

It is not disputed that de"isions or resolutions of prose"utors are su09e"t to

appeal to the Se"retar' of 6usti"e who, under the Revised Adinistrative

Code,# e8er"ises the power of dire"t "ontrol and supervision over said

prose"utors@ and who a' thus affir, nullif', reverse or odif' their rulin1s.

Review as an a"t of supervision and "ontrol 0' the 9usti"e se"retar' over the

fis"als and prose"utors finds 0asis in the do"trine of e8haustion of

adinistrative reedies whi"h holds that ista7es, a0uses or ne1li1en"e

"oitted in the initial steps of an adinistrative a"tivit' or 0' an

adinistrative a1en"' should 0e "orre"ted 0' hi1her adinistrative authorities,

and not dire"tl' 0' "ourts.%

In the present "ase, after review and re"onsideration, the Se"retar' of 6usti"ereversed the investi1atin1 prose"utor/s findin1 of pro0a0le "ause that all the

eleents of the "rie of estafa are present. Estafa, under Arti"le 35 () (0) of

the Revised Penal Code, is "oitted 0' ?

 AR-. 35. (windlin# )estafa). ? An' person who shall defraud another 0' an'

of the eans entioned herein0elow<

8 8 8 8

. >ith unfaithfulness or a0use of "onfiden"e, nael'<

(a) 8 8 8

(0) ' isappropriatin1 or "onvertin1, to the pre9udi"e of another,

one', 1oods, or an' other personal propert' re"eived 0' the offender 

in trust or on "oission, or for adinistration, or under an' other

o0li1ation involvin1 the dut' to a7e deliver' of or to return the sae,

even thou1h su"h o0li1ation 0e totall' or partiall' 1uaranteed 0' a

0ond@ or 0' den'in1 havin1 re"eived su"h one', 1oods, or otherpropert'@ 8 8 8

-he eleents are<

) that one', 1oods or other personal propert' 0e re"eived 0' the

offender in trust, or on "oission, or for adinistration, or under an'

other o0li1ation involvin1 the dut' to a7e deliver' of, or to return, the

sae@

$) that there 0e isappropriation or "onversion of su"h one' or

propert' 0' the offender, or denial on his part of su"h re"eipt@

3) that su"h isappropriation or "onversion or denial is to the

pre9udi"e of another@ and

4) that there is deand ade 0' the offended part' on the offender.

-he essen"e of estafa under Arti"le 35, par. (0) is the appropriation or

"onversion of one' or propert' re"eived to the pre9udi"e of the owner. -he

words "onvert and isappropriate "onnote an a"t of usin1 or disposin1 of

another/s propert' as if it were one/s own, or of devotin1 it to a purpose or usedifferent fro that a1reed upon. -o isappropriate for one/s own use in"ludes

not onl' "onversion to one/s personal advanta1e, 0ut also ever' attept to

dispose of the propert' of another without ri1ht.$

In reversin1 the findin1 of pro0a0le "ause that the "rie of estafa has 0een

"oitted, the Se"retar' of 6usti"e reasoned out that, theF theor' of

"onversion or isappropriation is diffi"ult to sustain and that under the "rie of 

estafa with 1rave a0use of "onfiden"e, the presuption is that the thin1 has

0een devoted to a purpose or is different fro that for whi"h it was intended

0ut did not ta7e pla"e in this "ase.$%wphi$ -he CA, in sustainin1 the

=uestioned resolutions of the Se"retar' of 6usti"e, ruled that the eleent of

Page 7: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 7/54

isappropriation or "onversion is wantin1. It further ratio"inated that the

deand for the return of the thin1 delivered in trust and the failure of the

a""used to a""ount for it, are "ir"ustantial eviden"e of isappropriation,

however, the said presuption is re0utta0le and if the a""used is a0le to

satisfa"toril' e8plain his failure to produ"e the thin1 delivered in trust, he a'

not 0e held lia0le for estafa.$%wphi$

It ust 0e ree0ered that the findin1 of pro0a0le "ause was ade after"ondu"tin1 a preliinar' investi1ation. A preliinar' investi1ation "onstitutes a

realisti" 9udi"ial appraisal of the erits of a "ase.3 Its purpose is to deterine

whether (a) a "rie has 0een "oitted@ and (0) whether there is a pro0a0le

"ause to 0elieve that the a""used is 1uilt' thereof.4

-his Court need not overephasie that in a preliinar' investi1ation, the

pu0li" prose"utor erel' deterines whether there is pro0a0le "ause or

suffi"ient 1round to en1ender a well*founded 0elief that a "rie has 0een

"oitted, and that the respondent is pro0a0l' 1uilt' thereof and should 0e

held for trial. It does not "all for the appli"ation of rules and standards of proof

that a 9ud1ent of "onvi"tion re=uires after trial on the erits.5 -he"oplainant need not present at this sta1e proof 0e'ond reasona0le dou0t.& A

preliinar' investi1ation does not re=uire a full and e8haustive presentation of

the parties/ eviden"e.: Pre"isel', there is a trial to allow the re"eption of

eviden"e for 0oth parties to su0stantiate their respe"tive "lais.

 A review of the re"ords would show that the investi1atin1 prose"utor was

"orre"t in findin1 the e8isten"e of all the eleents of the "rie of estafa. Re'es

did not dispute that she re"eived in trust the aount of P$3,4$3,3$:.5% fro

petitioner as proven 0' the "he"7s and vou"hers to 0e used in pur"hasin1 the

par"els of land. Petitioner wrote a deand letter for Re'es to return the saeaount 0ut was not heeded. ;en"e, the failure of Re'es to deliver the titles or

to return the entrusted one', despite deand and the dut' to do so,

"onstituted prima facieeviden"e of isappropriation. -he words "onvert and

isappropriate "onnote the a"t of usin1 or disposin1 of another/s propert' as if 

it were one/s own, or of devotin1 it to a purpose or use different fro that

a1reed upon.#-o isappropriate for one/s own use in"ludes not onl'

"onversion to one/s personal advanta1e, 0ut also ever' attept to dispose of

the propert' of another without ri1ht.$% In provin1 the eleent of "onversion or

isappropriation, a le1al presuption of isappropriation arises when the

a""used fails to deliver the pro"eeds of the sale or to return the ites to 0e

sold and fails to 1ive an a""ount of their wherea0outs.$ -hus, the ere

presuption of isappropriation or "onversion is enou1h to "on"lude that a

pro0a0le "ause e8ists for the indi"tent of Re'es for Estafa. As to whether the

presuption "an 0e re0utted 0' Re'es is alread' a atter of defense that "an

0e 0est presented or offered durin1 a full*0lown trial.

-o reiterate, pro0a0le "ause has 0een defined as the e8isten"e of su"h fa"ts

and "ir"ustan"es as would e8"ite the 0elief in a reasona0le ind, a"tin1 on

the fa"ts within the 7nowled1e of the prose"utor, that the person "har1ed was1uilt' of the "rie for whi"h he was prose"uted.$$ Pro0a0le "ause is a

reasona0le 1round of presuption that a atter is, or a' 0e, well founded on

su"h a state of fa"ts in the ind of the prose"utor as would lead a person of

ordinar' "aution and pruden"e to 0elieve, or entertain an honest or stron1

suspi"ion, that a thin1 is so.$3 T)* (* !o* o( *a a+(ual o /o'('3*

+au* o !o* '( '/o( a-olu(* +*(a'(y.$4 I( ' **ly -a*! o

o/''o a! *aoa-l* -*l'*&.$5 T)u, a &'!'4 o& /o-a-l* +au* !o*

o( *u'* a 'u'y '(o )*()* ()** ' u&&'+'*( *3'!*+* (o /o+u*

a +o3'+('o.$& I( ' *ou4) ()a( '( ' -*l'*3*! ()a( ()* a+( o o''o

+o/la'*! o& +o('(u(* ()* o&&** +)a4*!.$:

:HEREFORE, preises "onsidered, the present Petition is

here0' GRANTED and, a""ordin1l', the De"ision and Resolution of the Court

of Appeals, dated Septe0er 4, $%%: and De"e0er $%, $%%:, respe"tivel',

are here0'RE$ERSED and SET ASIDE. Conse=uentl', the Re1ional -rial

Court, ran"h 4#, !a7ati Cit', where the Inforation was filed a1ainst private

respondent 6osefa 6in1 C. Re'es, is here0' DIRECTED to pro"eed with her

arrai1nent.

SO ORDERED.

Page 8: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 8/54

A.. No. TJ;12;180< July =0, 2012

>Fo*ly A.. OCA I.%.I. No. 09;2179;TJ?

CIT6 %ROSECUTOR ARANDO %. A#ANADO, Coplainant,

vs.

JUDGE A#RAHA A. #A 6ONA, %*'!'4 Ju!4*, u'+'/al T'al Cou( '

C'('*, #a+) 7, #a+olo! C'(y,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

"EONARDO;DE CASTRO, J.:

-he "ase now 0efore this Court spran1 fro Criinal Case No. %#*%3*&4 : 4,

entitled People of the Philippines v. Cresen"io Palo, Sr. On !ar"h $4, $%%#,

"oplainant Cit' Prose"utor Arando P. A0anado filed the Inforation$in the

!uni"ipal -rial Court in Cities, a"olod Cit', whi"h was eventuall' raffled to

ran"h : thereof presided 0' respondent 6ud1e A0raha A. a'ona.

On April 3, $%%#, respondent issued the followin1 order in Criinal Case No.

%#*%3*&4:4 in "onne"tion with the issuan"e of a warrant of arrest a1ainst the

a""used therein<

Pursuant to Se"tion &, para1raph (a) in relation to para1raph 0, Rule $ of the

Revised Rules of Criinal Pro"edure, the Offi"e of the Cit' Prose"utor of

a"olod Cit' is here0' ordered to present additional eviden"e, relevant

re"ords and do"uents to ena0le this Court to evaluate and deterine the

e8isten"e of pro0a0le "ause, to wit<

. Cop' of the !eorandu of Preliinar' Investi1ation@

$. Resolution of the Investi1atin1 Prose"utor on Re"ord, Prose"utor

Dennis S. 6arder 6arder Resolution@

3. !eorandu of the transfer of "ase assi1nent fro desi1nated

Investi1atin1 Prose"utor to the Cit' Prose"utor@ and

4. E8hi0it to the Court, the "opies of all do"uents su0itted 0' the

"oplainant and the respondents therein for "oparison,

authenti"ation and "opleteness of the photo"opies atta"hed to the

inforation.

Coplian"e is re=uired within five (5) da's fro re"eipt of this Order.3

On April $#, $%%#, the Offi"e of the Cit' Prose"utor su0itted a "op' of the

!eorandu of Preliinar' Investi1ation and infored respondent that the

do"uents su0itted 0' the parties for preliinar' investi1ation were alread'

appended to the "oplaint, thus, ta7in1 "are of ites , $, and 4 re=uired 0'

the April 3, $%%# Order.

>ith respe"t to ite 3 thereof, "oplainant, in a letter also dated April $#,

$%%#, e8plained that there was no eorandu of transfer of the "ase fro

the investi1atin1 prose"utor, Assistant Cit' Prose"utor (ACP) Dennis S. 6arder,

to hi.4 In his aforeentioned letter, "oplainant dis"ussed that the "ase was

initiall' handled 0' ACP 6arder who found no pro0a0le "ause a1ainst

Cresen"io Palo, Sr., a""used in Criinal Case No. %#*%3*&4:4. ;owever,

"oplainant, upon review pursuant to Se"tion 4, Rule $ of the Revised

Rules of Criinal Pro"edure,5found otherwise@ that is, there was pro0a0le

"ause a1ainst Palo. -hus, "oplainant disapproved ACP 6arders Resolution

and filed the Inforation in "ourt.&

Respondent was nonetheless dissatisfied with the e8planation of the Offi"e of

the Cit' Prose"utor. In an Order dated !a' 5, $%%#,: respondent stated that

the 6arder Resolution (disissin1 the "oplaint) was part and par"el of the

offi"ial re"ords of the "ase and, for this reason, ust for part of the re"ords

of the preliinar' investi1ation. ;e further stated that 0e"ause there was a

"onfli"t 0etween 6arders and "oplainants resolutions, those do"uents

were ne"essar' in the evaluation and appre"iation of the eviden"e to esta0lish

pro0a0le "ause for the issuan"e of a warrant of arrest a1ainst Palo.

>;ERE2ORE, in view of the fore1oin1 preises, "oplainant is here0'ordered to "oplete the re"ords of this "ase 0' produ"in1 in Court this offi"ial

and pu0li" do"uent (Resolution of the Investi1atin1 Prose"utor Dennis S.

6arder), re=uired 0' the Revised Rules of Criinal Pro"edure, Rules of Court.

Coplian"e is re=uired within five (5) da's fro re"eipt hereof. 2ail not under

the pain of Contept.

On !a' , $%%#, in view of the fore1oin1 order, the Offi"e of the Cit'

Prose"utor a1ain sent a letter # e8plainin1 the ipossi0ilit' of su0ittin1 the

6arder Resolution to the "ourt. -he letter stated that the 6arder Resolution was

no lon1er part of the re"ords of the "ase as it was disapproved 0' "oplainant

and it atta"hed a letter of Chief State Prose"utor 6oven"ito KuLo whi"h reads<

Page 9: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 9/54

-his refers to 'our letter dated April , $%%. 2or 'our inforation, all

resolutions prepared 0' an Investi1atin1 Prose"utor after preliinar'

investi1ation shall for part of the re"ord of the "ase. ut if the' have 0een

disapproved 0' the Provin"ialCit' Prose"utor, the sae shall not 0e released

to the parties andor their "ounsels. -hus, onl' resolutions approved 0' the

Provin"ialCit' Prose"utor for proul1ation and release to the parties shall 0e

ade 7nown to the parties andor their "ounsel.%

Respondent did not a""ept the e8planations ade 0' the Offi"e of the Cit'

Prose"utor and insisted instead that the 6arder Resolution should for part of

the re"ords of the "ase. -hus, in an Order  dated !a' 4, $%%#, he re=uired

"oplainant to e8plain within five da's fro the re"eipt thereof wh' he should

not 0e "ited for "ontept under Se"tion 3, Rule : of the Rules of Court. $

Coplainant re"eived the aforeentioned order on !a' 5, $%%# and

re=uested for a ten*da' e8tension to "opl' with it.3

In an Order 4 dated !a' #, $%%#, respondent denied the re=uest of a ten*da'

e8tension and set the hearin1 for the "ontept "har1es on !a' $&, $%%#. ;e

li7ewise ordered the Cler7 of Court to issue a su0poena du"es te"u ad

testifi"andu to ACP 6arder dire"tin1 hi to testif' on the e8isten"e of his

resolution disissin1 the "ase a1ainst Palo and to Offi"e of the Cit'

Prose"utors Re"ords Offi"er !'rna HaLe1as to 0rin1 the entire re"ord of the

preliinar' investi1ation of the Palo "ase.

 A11rieved, "oplainant iediatel' filed a otion for inhi0ition5 a1ainst

respondent on !a' $%, $%%# "laiin1<

4. -hat Coplainant is now in a =uandar' 0e"ause despite the fa"tthat the produ"tion of the disapproved resolution is not re=uired under

Cir"ular Resolution No. $ for purposes of issuan"e of warrant of

arrest, the Court is ver' u"h interested in its produ"tion and addin1

insult to in9ur' in foistin1 to "ite in "ontept the Cit' Prose"utor for its

non*produ"tion.

5. -hat the issuan"e of said order is "apri"ious and whisi"al and

issued with 1rave a0use of dis"retion. e"ause as it appears now, the

presidin1 9ud1e is ver' u"h interested in the out"oe of this "ase,

there0' showin1 0ias and pre9udi"e a1ainst the prose"ution.&

Coplainant li7ewise filed a petition for "ertiorari with a pra'er for the issuan"e

of a teporar' restrainin1 order (-RO) to restrain respondent fro

pro"eedin1: with the !a' $&, $%%# hearin1 of the "ontept pro"eedin1s.

Coplainants pra'er for a -RO was 1ranted in an Order dated !a' $5, $%%#

0' Presidin1 6ud1e Pepito . +ellada of the Re1ional -rial Court, ran"h 53,

a"olod Cit'.

In an Order 

 dated 6une 5, $%%#, 6ud1e +ellada 1ranted the petition for"ertiorari (+ellada Order) holdin1 that<

>hen a "it' or provin"ial prose"utor reverses the investi1atin1 assistin1 "it' or

provin"ial prose"utor, the resolution findin1 pro0a0le "ause repla"es the

re"oendation of the investi1atin1 prose"utor re"oendin1 the disissal

of the "ase. -he result would 0e that the resolution of disissal no lon1er

fors an inte1ral part of the re"ords of the "ase. It is no lon1er re=uired that

the "oplaint or entire re"ords of the "ase durin1 the preliinar' investi1ation

0e su0itted to and 0e e8ained 0' the 9ud1e.

-he rationale 0ehind this pra"ti"e is that the rules do not intend to undul'

0urden trial 9ud1es 0' re=uirin1 the to 1o over the "oplete re"ords of the

"ases all the tie for the purpose of deterinin1 pro0a0le "ause for the sole

purpose of issuin1 a warrant of arrest a1ainst the a""used. >hat is re=uired,

rather, is that the 9ud1e ust have suffi"ient supportin1 do"uents (su"h as

the "oplaint, affidavits, "ounter*affidavits, sworn stateents of witnesses or

trans"ripts of steno1raphi" notes, if an') upon whi"h to a7e his independent

 9ud1ent or, at the ver' least, upon whi"h to verif' the findin1s of the

prose"utor as to the e8isten"e of pro0a0le "ause. 8 8 8.#(Ephases supplied.)

-he re"ords thereafter a7e no ention of what happened in Criinal CaseNo. %#*%3*&4:4.

On 6ul' %, $%%#, "oplainant e8e"uted the present adinistrative "oplaint

and the sae was re"eived 0' the Offi"e of the Court Adinistrator (OCA) on

 Au1ust $%, $%%#.$% Coplainant alle1ed therein that respondent was 1uilt' of

1ross i1noran"e of the law or pro"edure,$ 1ross is"ondu"t,$$ and violation of

Supree Court Cir"ular No. $ dated 6une 3%, #:.$3 ;e essentiall' asserted

that respondent undul' 0urdened hiself 0' o0sessin1 over the produ"tion of

the re"ords of the preliinar' investi1ation, espe"iall' the 6arder Resolution.

Page 10: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 10/54

Respondent, in his Coent with Counter*Coplaint for Dis0arent of

Prose"utor A0anado,$4 essentiall' reiterated the iportan"e of the 6arder

Resolution in de"idin1 whether to issue a warrant of arrest in Criinal Case

No. %#*%3*&4:4. ;e stated that the do"uent was aterial and relevant in

the proper "ondu"t of preliinar' investi1ation and the neutral, o09e"tive and

"ir"uspe"t appre"iation of the 6ud1e of the eviden"e 8 8 8 for a proper and

 9ust deterination whether pro0a0le "ause e8istsF or not for the possi0le

issuan"e of a warrant of arrest.$5  As for respondents "ounter"har1e, he

"laied "oplainant should 0e dis0arred for (a) filin1 a ali"ious and

unfounded adinistrative "oplaint@ (0) disrespe"t and diso0edien"e to 9udi"ial

authorit'@ (") violation of the san"tit' of pu0li" re"ords@ (d) infidelit' in the

"ustod' of do"uents@ and (e) is"ondu"t and insu0ordination.$&

In a Repl'$: dated O"to0er , $%%#, "oplainant veheentl' denied

respondents "har1es a1ainst hi and "laied that the' were erel' eant to

dis"oura1e hi fro pursuin1 his 9ust and valid adinistrative "oplaint.

On 2e0ruar' $, $%, the OCA su0itted its report and re"oendation.$ It

noted the 6une 5, $%%# +ellada Order whi"h held that the resolution of the"it' or provin"ial prose"utor findin1 pro0a0le "ause repla"es the

re"oendation of the investi1atin1 prose"utor. In su"h "ase, the resolution

re"oendin1 the disissal is superseded, and no lon1er fors an inte1ral

part of the re"ords of the "ase and it need not 0e anne8ed to the inforation

filed in "ourt. -hus, the OCA held that "oplainant "annot 0e held 1uilt' of

"ontept. Nevertheless, 0e"ause there was no showin1 that respondent was

otivated 0' 0ad faith and settled is the rule that the a"ts of a 9ud1e in his

 9udi"ial "apa"it' are not su09e"t to the dis"iplinar' a"tion, it re"oended that<

(a) -he adinistrative "oplaint a1ainst respondentF 0e RE*DOCE-ED as a re1ular adinistrative "ase@ and,

(0) RespondentF 0e REPRI!ANDED with S-ERN >ARNIN+ that a

repetition of the sae or siilar offenses will 0e dealt with ore

severel'.$#

>e adopt the fa"tual findin1s of the OCA 0ut find reason not to ipose the

re"oended penalt' of repriand on respondent.

>e are tas7ed to deterine whether respondent was adinistrativel' lia0le for 

1ross i1noran"e of the law, 1ross is"ondu"t and violation of Supree Court

Cir"ular No. $ dated 6une 3%, #: for re=uirin1 the Offi"e of the Cit'

Prose"utor to su0it the 6arder Resolution to the "ourt despite the reversal

thereof.

-he "ondu"t of a preliinar' investi1ation is priaril' an e8e"utive

fun"tion.3% -hus, the "ourts ust "onsider the rules of pro"edure of the

Departent of 6usti"e in "ondu"tin1 preliinar' investi1ations whenever the

a"tions of a pu0li" prose"utor is put in =uestion. An e8aination of the $%%Revised !anual for Prose"utors of the Departent of 6usti"e*National

Prose"ution Servi"e3 (DO6*NPS !anual), therefore, is ne"essar'.

-he pertinent provisions of the DO6*NPS !anual are as follows<

6. PREPARA-ION O2 -;E RESOB-ION

. >hen -here is a"7 of Pro0a0le Cause

If the investi1atin1 prose"utor does not find suffi"ient 0asis for the prose"ution

of the respondent, he shall prepare the resolution re"oendin1 the disissal

of the "oplaint.

8 8 8 8

3. 2or of the Resolution and Nu0er of Copies

-he resolution shall 0e written in the offi"ial lan1ua1e, personall' and dire"tl'

prepared and si1ned 0' the investi1atin1 prose"utor. It shall 0e prepared in as

an' "opies as there are parties, plus five (5) additional "opies.

8 8 8 8

e. Contents of the od' of the Resolution

In 1eneral, the 0od' of theF resolution should "ontain<

. a 0rief suar' of the fa"ts of the "ase@

$. a "on"ise stateent of the issues involved@

3. appli"a0le laws and 9urispruden"e@ and

Page 11: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 11/54

4. the findin1s, in"ludin1 an enueration of all the do"uentar'

eviden"e su0itted 0' the parties and re"oendations of the

investi1atin1 prose"utor.

 All aterial details that should 0e found in the inforation prepared 0' the

Investi1atin1 Prose"utor shall 0e stated in the resolution.

8 8 8 8

. -RANS!I--A O2 -;E RECO!!ENDA-ORG RESOB-ION AND

IN2OR!A-ION -O+E-;ER >I-; -;E CO!PE-E RECORD O2 -;E

CASE

-he investi1atin1 prose"utor shall forward his re"oendation and

Inforation, to1ether with the "oplete re"ords of the "ase, to the Chief State

Re1ional State Provin"ialCit' Prose"utor "on"erned within five (5) da's fro

the date of his resolution.

8 8 8 8

3. Do"uents to 0e Atta"hed to the Inforation

 An inforation that is filed in "ourt shall, as far as pra"ti"a0le, 0e a""opanied

0' a "op' of the resolution of the investi1atin1 prose"utor, the "oplainants

affidavit, the sworn stateents of the prose"utions witnesses, the

respondents "ounter*affidavit and the sworn stateents of his witnesses and

su"h other eviden"e as a' have 0een ta7en into a""ount in arrivin1 at a

deterination of the e8isten"e of pro0a0le "ause.

4. Confidentialit' of Resolutions

 All resolutions prepared 0' an investi1atin1 prose"utor after preliinar'

investi1ation, whether his re"oendation 0e for the filin1 or disissal of the

"ase, shall 0e held in stri"t "onfiden"e and shall not 0e ade 7nown to the

parties, their "ounsels andor to an' unauthoried person until the sae shall

have 0een finall' a"ted upon 0' the Chief StateRe1ional StateProvin"ialCit'

Prose"utor or his dul' authoried assistant and approved for proul1ation and

release to the parties.

8 8 8 8

. AC-ION O2 -;E C;IE2 S-A-ERE+IONA S-A-EPROHINCIA OR CI-G

PROSECB-OR ON -;E RECO!!ENDA-ORG RESOB-ION

-he Chief StateRe1ional StateProvin"ial or Cit' Prose"utor "on"erned shall

a"t on all resolutions within a period of thirt' (3%) da's fro re"eipt thereof,

e8tendi0le for another thirt' (3%) da's in "ases involvin1 "ople8 issues andor 

heav' wor7load of the head of offi"e, 0' either<

8 8 8 8

3. reversin1 the re"oendation of the investi1atin1 prose"utor, in whi"h

"ase, the Chief StateRe1ional StateProvin"ial or Cit' Prose"utor a. a' file

the "orrespondin1 Inforation in "ourt (e8"ept the Re1ional State Prose"utor)@

or 

0. dire"t an' other state prose"utor or assistant prose"utor, as the "ase a'

0e, to do so.

In 0oth instan"es, there is no ore need for the head of offi"e "on"erned to

"ondu"t another preliinar' investi1ation. (Ephases supplied.)

ased on the fore1oin1, the 1uidelines for the do"uentation of a resolution 0'

an investi1atin1 prose"utor, who after "ondu"tin1 preliinar' investi1ation,

finds no pro0a0le "ause and re"oends a disissal of the "riinal

"oplaint, "an 0e sued as follows<

() the investi1atin1 prose"utor prepares a resolution re"oendin1

the disissal and "ontainin1 the followin1<

a. suar' of the fa"ts of the "ase@

0. "on"ise stateent of the issues therein@ and

". his findin1s and re"oendations.

($) within five da's fro the date of his resolution, the investi1atin1

fis"al shall forward his resolution to the provin"ial, "it' or "hief state

prose"utor, as the "ase a' 0e, for review@

Page 12: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 12/54

(3) if the resolution of the investi1atin1 prose"utor is reversed 0' the

provin"ial, "it' or "hief state prose"utor, the latter a' file the

inforation hiself or dire"t another assistant prose"utor or state

prose"utor to do so@

(4) the resolution of the investi1atin1 prose"utor shall 0e stri"tl'

"onfidential and a' not 0e released to the parties, their "ounsels

andor an' other unauthoried person until the sae shall have 0een

finall' a"ted upon 0' the provin"ial, "it' or "hief state prose"utor or his

dul' authoried assistant and approved for proul1ation and release

to the parties@ and

(5) that the resolution of the investi1atin1 prose"utor, the "oplainant/s

affidavit, the sworn stateents of the prose"ution/s witnesses, the

respondent/s "ounter*affidavit and the sworn stateents of his

witnesses and su"h other eviden"e, as far as pra"ti"a0le, shall 0e

atta"hed to the inforation.

>e find that there is nothin1 in the DO6*NPS !anual re=uirin1 the reoval ofa resolution 0' an investi1atin1 prose"utor re"oendin1 the disissal of a

"riinal "oplaint after it was reversed 0' the provin"ial, "it' or "hief state

prose"utor.

Nonetheless, we also note that atta"hin1 su"h a resolution to an inforation

filed in "ourt is optional under the aforeentioned anual. -he DO6*NPS

!anual states that the resolution of the investi1atin1 prose"utor should 0e

atta"hed to the inforation onl' as far as pra"ti"a0le. -hus, su"h atta"hent

is not andator' or re=uired under the rules.

In view of the fore1oin1, the Court finds that respondent erred in insistin1 on

the produ"tion of the 6arder Resolution when all other pertinent do"uents

re1ardin1 the preliinar' investi1ation have 0een su0itted to his "ourt, and in

1oin1 so far as to otu proprio initiatin1 a pro"eedin1 for "ontept a1ainst

"oplainant.

;owever, not ever' 9udi"ial error is tantaount to i1noran"e of the law and if it

was "oitted in 1ood faith, the 9ud1e need not 0e su09e"ted to adinistrative

san"tion.3$ >hile "oplainant aditted that he erred in insistin1 on the

produ"tion of the 6arder Resolution despite the provisions of the DO6*NPS

!anual, su"h error "annot 0e "ate1oried as 1ross i1noran"e of the law as he

did not appear to 0e otivated 0' 0ad faith. Indeed, the rules of pro"edure in

the prose"ution offi"e were not "lear as to whether or not an investi1atin1

prose"utors resolution of disissal that had 0een reversed 0' the "it'

prose"utor should still for part of the re"ords.

Neither did respondents a"tion aount to 1ross is"ondu"t.$%wphi$ +ross

is"ondu"t presupposes eviden"e of 1rave irre1ularit' in the perforan"e of

dut'.33 In the "ase at 0ar, respondents a"t of re=uirin1 "oplainant to e8plain

wh' he should not 0e "ited in "ontept for his failure to su0it the 6arder

Resolution in "ourt was in a""ordan"e with esta0lished rules of pro"edure.

2urtherore, "oplainant did not a0use his "ontept power as he did not

pursue the pro"eedin1s in view of the !a' $#, $%%# and 6une 5, $%%#

+ellada orders.34 astl', as previousl' dis"ussed, respondent issued those

orders in 1ood faith as he honestl' 0elieved that the' were ne"essar' in the

fair and 9ust issuan"e of the warrant of arrest in Criinal Case No. %#*%3*

&4:4.

 As far as the dis0arent "har1es a1ainst "oplainant are "on"erned, under

the Rules of Court, "oplaints for dis0arent a1ainst a law'er are ordinaril'referred to an investi1ator who shall loo7 into the alle1ations "ontained

therein.35 ;owever, in the interest of e8pedien"' and "onvenien"e, as the

atters ne"essar' for the "oplete disposition of the "ounter*"oplaint are

found in the re"ords of the instant "ase, we dispose of the sae here. >e find

no erit in the "ounter"har1es. It appears fro the re"ords that "oplainants

non*su0ission of the 6arder Resolution was otivated 0' his honest 0elief

that his a"tion was in a""ord with the pro"edures in the prose"ution offi"e. It

li7ewise "annot 0e said that the f ilin1 of the present adinistrative "ase

a1ainst 6ud1e a'ona was tainted with iproper otive or 0ad faith.

 ACCORDIN+G, the "oplaint a1ainst 6ud1e A0raha A. a'ona of the

!uni"ipal -rial Court in Cities, a"olod Cit', ran"h : is DIS!ISSED.

-he "ounter*"oplaint a1ainst Cit' Prose"utor Arando P. A0anado is

li7ewise DIS!ISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Page 13: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 13/54

HEIRS OF THE LATE NESTOR 

TRIA,

Petitioners,

 

- versus -

G.R. No. 175887

 

Present:

 

CARPIO MORALES, J .,

Chairperson,

BRION,

BERSAMIN,

VILLARAMA, JR., and

SERENO, JJ .

 

ATTY. EPIFANIA OBIAS,

Respondent.

 

Prou!"ated:

 

 Nove#er $%, $&'&

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

 

DECISION

 

VILLARAMA, JR., J .:

 

Be(ore t)is Court is a petition (or revie* on +ertiorari under Ru!e % o( t)e ' Ru!es

o( Civi! Pro+edure, as aended, see/in" to reverse and set aside t)e 0e+ision 1! dated

Au"ust '%, $&&1 and Reso!ution"! dated 0e+e#er '', $&&1 o( t)e Court o( Appea!s

2CA3 in CA-4.R. SP No. 51$'&. 6)e CA denied t)e petition (or mandamus7+ertiorari

(i!ed #8 t)e petitioners *)i+) assai!ed t)e Order #! dated Mar+) $%, $&&% o( t)e O((i+e

o( t)e President 2OP3 disissin" t)e urder +)ar"e a"ainst t)e respondent.

6)e (a+tua! ante+edents are as (o!!o*s:

On Ma8 $$, '5, at around '&:&& o+!o+/ in t)e ornin" at t)e Pi!i Airport in

Caarines Sur, En"r. Nestor 6ria, Re"iona! 0ire+tor o( t)e 0epartent o( Pu#!i+

9or/s and i")*a8s 20P93, Re"ion V and +on+urrent!8 O((i+er-In-C)ar"e o( t)e

$nd En"ineerin" 0istri+t o( Caarines Sur, *as s)ot #8 a "unan *)i!e *aitin" to

 #oard )is (!i")t to Mani!a. e *as #rou")t to a )ospita! #ut died t)e (o!!o*in" da8

(ro t)e !one "uns)ot *ound on )is nape. Su#se;uent!8, t)e in+ident *as investi"ated

 #8 t)e Nationa! Bureau o( Investi"ation 2NBI3.

On Ju!8 <', '5, NBI Re"iona! 0ire+tor A!e=andro R. 6eneri(e, C)airan o( 6as/ 

>or+e 6ria, re+oended to t)e Provin+ia! Prose+utor o( Caarines Sur t)e

indi+tent o( Ro#erto O#et A+!an 8 4u!po, Juanito 6oto8 Ona 8 Masa!on"a and Att8.

Epi(ania >ann8 4on?a!es-O#ias, (or t)e urder o( En"r. 6ria.

On t)e #asis o( stateents "iven #8 t*ent8-si@ 2$13 individua!s, autops8 and

 #a!!isti+ e@aination reports, and re!evant do+uents "at)ered,% t)e NBI su#itted its

(indin"s, as (o!!o*s:

Our investi"ation dis+!osed t)at a#out t*o *ee/s #e(ore t)e in+ident

ACLAN and ONA )ad #een +ondu+tin" an a!ost dai!8 sta/eout at

t)e 0P9 $ nd En"ineerin" 0istri+t o( Caarines Sur in Sta.

E!ena, Iri"a Cit8 *)ere Re"iona! 0ire+tor 6RIA *as )o!din" o((i+e

(ro tie to tie as 0istri+t En"ineer in +on+urrent

+apa+it8. A!ternate!8 ACLAN and ONA *ou!d as/ t)e se+urit8 "uard

on dut8 i( 0ire+tor 6RIA )ad a!read8 arrived and t)e usua! da8s and

tie o( )is +oin" to t)e o((i+e. At noontie or ear!8 a(ternoon,

a(ter *aitin" vain!8 (or 6RIAs arriva!, t)e duo *ou!d !eave, ridin"

tande on a red otor+8+!e. 0urin" t)eir survei!!an+e it *as ONA

*)o (re;uent!8 sat on t)e +ou+) at t)e !o##8 o(  

t)e En"ineerin" Bui!din" *)i!e ACLAN *as *aitin" near t)eir 

otor+8+!e at t)e par/in" spa+e. At ties ONA *ou!d approa+)

ACLAN to *)isper a essa"e and t)e !atter *ou!d re!a8 t)e

essa"e to soeone e!se t)rou") a )and-)e!d radio. 6)ere *ere a!so

soe instan+es *)en ACLAN *ou!d *ait at t)e !o##8 *)i!e ONA

*as sta8in" near t)e par/ed otor+8+!e. At one instan+e an

ep!o8ee )ad noti+ed a "un tu+/ed on t)e *aist!ine o( ACLAN.

Around 5:&& o+!o+/ in t)e ornin" o( Ma8 $$, '5, ACLAN and

ONA *ere spotted in t)eir usua! p!a+es at t)e $ nd En"ineerin"

0istri+t in Iri"aCit8. ONA *as *earin" a !oose, 8e!!o* !on" s!eeved

s)irt, aon" pants and a pair o( snea/ers ACLAN *as in a *)ite

and "ra8 striped s)irt and a pair o( aon" pants. S)ort!8 #e(ore :&&

a.. on t)at da8, 6EO RDBEN CANEBA, a 0P9 ep!o8ee and

ne*!8 e!e+ted Muni+ipa! Coun+i!or o( Bu)i, Caarines Sur,

arrived. e *as *ar!8 "reeted and +on"ratu!ated #8 )is (orer +o-

ep!o8ees outside t)e en"ineerin" #ui!din". It *as at t)is point

*)en CANEBA noti+ed a an a#out % in )ei")t, sturd8, *it) sei-

+ur!8 )air, *earin" a *)ite and "ra8-striped s)irt *it) aon" pantsand a#out %& 8ears o!d. 6)e an 2!ater identi(ied t)rou") )is

 p)oto"rap) as ROBER6O ACLAN3 *as !oo/in" intense!8 at )i

and *as s)i(tin" position (ro !e(t to ri")t to "et a #etter vie* o( 

)i. O#vious!8, ACLAN *as tr8in" to (i"ure out *)et)er CANEBA

*as 0ire+tor 6RIA. A(ter a#out $& inutes, Adinistrative O((i+er 

JOSE PECDN0O announ+ed to t)ose *)o )ad soe do+uents (or 

si"nature o( 0ire+tor 6RIA to pro+eed to Pi!i Airport *)ere 6RIA

*ou!d si"n t)e #e(ore !eavin" (or Mani!a. Dpon )earin" t)is,

ACLAN and ONA !e(t )urried!8 on #oard a red otor+8+!e. No

sooner )ad ACLAN and ONA !e(t t)at CANEBA +autioned t)e

"uards to #e e@tra a!ert #e+ause )e )ad soe sense o( (ore#odin"

a#out t)at an 2re(errin" to ACLAN3.

Page 14: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 14/54

S)ort!8 a(ter '&:&& a.. on t)at da8, 0ire+tor 6RIA arrived at t)e

Airport. A(ter si"nin" soe do+uents at t)e par/in" !ot )e

 pro+eeded to*ards t)e pre-departure area on t)e se+ond (!oor o( t)e

airport #ui!din". ONA, *)o *as *aitin" on t)e stair*a8,

iediate!8 (o!!o*ed 6RIA as t)e !atter *as "oin" up t)e stairs. As

6RIA *as approa+)in" t)e pre-departure area )e *as et #8 Att8.

EPI>ANIA OBIAS *)o s)oo/ )is )ands and started +onversin"

*it) )i. It *as at t)is =un+ture t)at a "uns)ot ran" out and 6RIA

dropped !i/e a !o" on t)e (!oor, #!eedin" pro(use!8 (ro a "uns)ot

*ound at t)e #a+/ o( )is )ead. As a +ootion ensued, ONA *as

seen runnin" do*n t)e stair*a8 *)i!e tu+/in" a "un on )is

*aist!ine.Even #e(ore ONA +ou!d +oe out o( t)e door*a8, ACLAN

*as a!read8 outside t)e #ui!din", pointin" a )and"un at ever8#od8

o#vious!8 to dis+oura"e an8 attept o( pursuit *)i!e s*i(t!8

steppin" #a+/*ard to *)ere t)eir otor+8+!e *as par/ed. e t)en

(ired s)ots at an ar8 an *)o tried to +)ase ONA. 6)e ar8 an,

*)o *as t)en unared, sou")t +over #e)ind a par/ed van. ACLAN

and ONA t)en #oarded a red otor+8+!e and sped a*a8. 0ire+tor 

6RIA died (ro a !one "uns)ot *ound on )is nape at

t)e Mot)er Seton ospita! in Na"a Cit8 t)e (o!!o*in" da8.

Att8. EPI>ANIA OBIAS, on t)e ot)er )and, aditted t)at s)e *as

*it) ROBER6O OBE6 ACLAN in t)e ear!8 ornin" o( Ma8 $$,

'5 t)at at a#out :&& a.. on t)at da8 s)e *ent to t)e residen+e o( 

0ire+tor 6RIA at Li#oton, Na"a Cit8, )ad a #rie( ta!/ *it) t)e !atter 

and !e(t iediate!8.S)e a!so vo!unteered t)e in(oration t)at

ROBER6O ACLAN *as not t)e "unan *)o )ad (ired t)e (ata!

s)ot at 0ire+tor 6RIA. S)e *as a!so t)e !ast person seen ta!/in" *it)

0ire+tor 6RIA *)en t)e !atter *as "unned do*n. A pra+ti+in"

!a*8er, Att8. OBIAS a!so en"a"es )erse!( in rea! estate #usiness on

t)e side. In ' s)e )ad #ro/ered a sa!e o( rea! estate #et*een and

aon" spouses PRD0ENCIO and LORE6A JEREMIAS, as

Vendors, and Spouses NES6OR and PDRA 6RIA, as Vendees, over 

a .'1 )e+tare o( !and in Ba!atas, Na"a Cit8. It *as Att8. OBIAS*)o re+eived, (or and in #e)a!( o( t)e vendors, t)e (u!! pa8ent o( 

P$.5 Mi!!ion o( t)e sa!e (ro t)e 6RIAs *it) t)e a"reeent t)at

Att8. OBIAS *ou!d ta/e +are o( a!! !e"a! pro+esses and

do+uentations unti! t)e 0eed o( A#so!ute Sa!e is de!ivered to t)e

6RIA (ai!8. A(ter t)e deat) o( 6RIA, t)e survivin" spouse and

)eirs ade severa! attepts to +onta+t Att8. OBIAS to deand

iediate de!iver8 o( t)e deed o( sa!e, #ut t)e !atter de!i#erate!8

avoided t)e 6RIA (ai!8 and, despite ver#a! and *ritten deands,

s)e (ai!ed and re(used, as s)e sti!! (ai!s and re(uses, to (u!(i!! )er !e"a!

o#!i"ation to t)e 6RIA (ai!8. At one instan+e, a representative o( 

t)e 6RIA (ai!8 )ad +)an+ed upon Att8. OBIAS at )er residen+e and

deanded o( )er to de!iver t)e deed o( sa!e to t)e 6RIA (ai!8

iediate!8. But Att8. OBIAS rep!ied t)at 0ire+tor 6RIA )ad

a!read8 disposed o( t)e propert8 #e(ore )is deat), a +!ai t)at +an no

!on"er #e disputed #8 0ire+tor 6RIA as )is !ips )ad a!read8 #een

sea!ed (orever, e@+ept (or t)e (a+t t)at neit)er t)e survivin" spouse

nor an8one o( t)e )eirs )ad "iven an8 +onsent to t)e purported

su#se;uent sa!e.

0urin" t)e !i(etie o( 0ire+tor 6RIA, Att8. OBIAS *as one o( t)e

(re;uent visitors o( t)e 6RIA (ai!8 and )ad #een /no*n to t)e

(ai!8 e#ers as a (riend and a +!ose asso+iate o( 0ire+tor 

6RIA. et, s)e never attended t)e *a/e o( 0ire+tor 6RIA nor ade

an8 "esture o( s8pat)8 or +ondo!en+e to t)e 6RIA (ai!8 up to t)e

 present tie.5!

0urin" t)e pre!iinar8 investi"ation +ondu+ted #8 t)e O((i+e o( t)e Provin+ia!

Prose+utor, respondent (i!ed )er Counter-A((idavit den8in" t)at s)e *as in an8*a8

invo!ved *it) t)e /i!!in" o( En"r. 6ria. Respondent aditted t)at En"r. 6ria *as a

!on"tie (riend and t)at s)e *ent to )is residen+e at a#out :<& o+!o+/ in t)e ornin"

o( Ma8 $$, '5. Sin+e En"r. 6ria )ad an8 visitors at t)at tie, t)e8 =ust a"reed to see

ea+) ot)er at t)e airport !ater. Respondent denied )avin" aditted to NBI Supervisin"

A"ent 2SA3 Att8. Manue! Eduarte t)at s)e *as *it) A+!an t)en, and neit)er did s)evo!unteer t)e in(oration t)at A+!an *as not t)e tri""eran. Respondent su#itted t)e

s*orn stateent o( Ed"ar A*a, one o( t)ose *itnesses intervie*ed #8 t)e NBI, *)o

de+!ared t)at A+!an and Ona *ere at t)e Iri"a Cit8 0P9 O((i+e in t)e ornin" o( Ma8

$$, '5 at 5:&& o+!o+/ in t)e ornin". Su+) is a!so +orro#orated #8 t)e s*orn stateent

o( anot)er NBI *itness, 6)eo Ru#en Cane#a, *)o de+!ared t)at *)en )e arrived at t)e

0P9 Iri"a o((i+e at a#out 5:<& o+!o+/ in t)e ornin" o( Ma8 $$, '5, )e noti+ed t)e

 presen+e o( A+!an *)o *as supposed!8 e8ein" )i intense!8, and t)at a(ter it *as

announ+ed t)at t)ose *)o )ave soe transa+tions *it) En"r. 6ria s)ou!d =ust pro+eed to

t)e airport, Cane#a sa* A+!an *it) a +opanion !ater identi(ied as Ona, iediate!8 !e(t

t)e +opound in a otor+8+!e.$!

Respondent !i/e*ise denied t)at s)e et En"r. 6ria as t)e !atter *as approa+)in" t)e

 pre-departure area o( t)e airport and t)at s)e supposed!8 s)oo/ )is )ands. 6)e trut) is

t)at *)en s)e and En"r. 6ria et at t)e airport, t)e !atter too/ )er #8 t)e ar and !ed

)er to a p!a+e *)ere t)e8 ta!/ed. Respondent asserted t)at (ro t)e tota!it8 o( eviden+e

"at)ered #8 t)e NBI, it )as not esta#!is)ed  prima facie t)e e@isten+e o( +onspira+8 as

to ip!i+ate )er in t)e deat) o( En"r. 6ria.7!

On Ju!8 $, ', t)e O((i+e o( t)e Provin+ia! Prose+utor o( Caarines Sur 

issued a reso!ution8! dire+tin" t)e (i!in" o( an in(oration (or urder a"ainst A+!an

and Ona #ut disissin" t)e +ase (or insu((i+ien+8 o( eviden+e as a"ainst )erein

respondent, Att8. Epi(ania O#ias.

Page 15: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 15/54

Petitioners appea!ed to t)e 0epartent o( Justi+e 20OJ3 assai!in" t)e Provin+ia!

Prose+utors order to disiss t)e +)ar"e a"ainst respondent. %! On Januar8 $, $&&&,

t)en Justi+e Se+retar8 Sera(in Cuevas issued a Reso!ution1&! odi(8in" t)e Ju!8 $,

' reso!ution o( t)e Provin+ia! Prose+utor and dire+tin" t)e !atter to in+!ude

respondent in t)e in(oration (or urder (i!ed a"ainst A+!an and Ona.

6)e 0OJ a"reed *it) t)e +ontention o( petitioners t)at t)ere is inter!o+/in"

+ir+ustantia! eviden+e su((i+ient to s)o* t)at respondent +onspired *it) A+!an and

Ona in t)e /i!!in" o( En"r. 6ria. It +ited t)e (o!!o*in" +ir+ustan+es: 2'3 0espiterespondents adission re"ardin" )er (riends)ip and +!ose asso+iation *it) En"r. 6ria,

)er visit at )is )ouse ear!8 ornin" o( t)e sae da8, and )er presen+e at t)e airport

*)ere s)e et En"r. 6ria and *as t)e person !ast seen *it) )i, respondent never 

!i(ted a (in"er to )e!p En"r. 6ria *)en )e *as "unned do*n and neit)er did s)e

vo!unteer to )e!p in t)e investi"ation o( En"r. 6rias urder nor visit t)e "rievin"

(ai!8 to "ive )er a++ount o( t)e (ata! s)ootin" o( En"r. 6ria, *)i+) #e)avior ne"ates

)er +!ai o( inno+en+e 2$3 In t)e s*orn stateent o( NBI SA Manue! Eduarte, )e

de+!ared t)at respondent aditted to )i t)at s)e and A+!an *ere to"et)er *)en s)e

*ent to t)e residen+e o( En"r. 6ria at :<& in t)e ornin" o( Ma8 $$, '5 and t)at

*)i!e s)e !ater denied su+) adission and e@p!ained t)at A+!an +ou!d not )ave #een

*it) )er as t)e !atter *as at t)e 0P9 Re"iona! o((i+e at a#out 5:&& a.., su+) does not

render ipossi#!e t)e (a+t o( A+!ans presen+e at t)e residen+e o( En"r. 6ria +onsiderin"t)at t)e tie "iven *as ere appro@iation #8 respondent not to ention t)e possi#i!it8

t)at A+!an +ou!d )ave easi!8 "otten to t)e 0P9 o((i+e a(ter +oin" (ro t)e )ouse o( 

En"r. 6ria usin" t)e sae otor+8+!e *)i+) A+!an used as "et-a*a8 ve)i+!e at t)e

airport 2<3 SA Eduartes stateent +annot #e sip!8 disre"arded as )e )ad no i!! otive

to ipute upon respondent t)e said adission and 2%3 6)e dou#!e sa!e o( t)e propert8

*)erein t)e 6ria spouses a!read8 paid P$.5 i!!ion to respondent *)o #ro/ered t)e sa!e,

on!8 to se!! it to anot)er #u8er (or P<.< i!!ion, *it)out turnin" over to t)e 6ria (ai!8

t)e deed o( sa!e and )er (ai!ure to attend to t)e re"istration o( t)e !and in t)e nae o( t)e

6ria spouses t)is stron"!8 esta#!is)es t)e (a+t t)at respondent )ad t)e stron"est otive to

)ave En"r. 6ria urdered #8 A+!an and Ona *)o *ere o#vious!8 "uns (or )ire. A!so

entioned *as t)e respondents representation o( A+!an as t)e !atters de(ense !a*8er in a

(rustrated urder +ase *)i+) *as disissed. Su+) +!ient-!a*8er re!ations)ip +ou!d )avespa*ned respondents as+endan+8 over A+!an.11!

6)e 0OJ *as t)us +onvin+ed t)at t)e se;uen+e o( events and respondents

+ondu+t #e(ore, durin" and a(ter t)e /i!!in" o( En"r. 6ria undenia#!8 points to )er 

+op!i+it8 *it) A+!an and Ona. Moreover, it pointed out t)at respondents de(ense

+onsisted ere!8 o( denia! *)i+) +annot prevai! over t)e positive a!!e"ations o( 

*itnesses s)o*in" )er +op!i+it8 *it) t)e "unen in t)e perpetration o( t)e +rie. 1"!

Respondent a!on" *it) A+!an and Ona (i!ed a otion (or re+onsideration o( 

t)e 0OJs Januar8 $, $&&& reso!ution.1#! On >e#ruar8 '5, $&&&, Justi+e Se+retar8

Arteio 4. 6u;uero issued a dire+tive to State Prose+utor Jose(ino A. Su#ia *)o *ast)e A+tin" Provin+ia! Prose+utor o( Caarines Sur, to de(er, unti! (urt)er orders, t)e

(i!in" o( t)e in(oration (or t)e in+!usion o( respondent, in order not to render oot

t)e reso!ution o( t)e otion (or re+onsideration o( t)e Januar8 $, $&&& reso!ution.1'!

On Septe#er ', $&&', t)en Justi+e Se+retar8 ernando B. Pere? issued a

reso!ution den8in" respondents otion (or re+onsideration.15!

In t)e eantie, t)e in(oration +)ar"in" A+!an and Ona )as a!read8 #een

(i!ed *it) t)e Re"iona! 6ria! Court 2R6C3 o( Pi!i, Caarines Sur. Dpon re;uest

)o*ever, t)e venue *as trans(erred to t)e R6C Fue?on Cit8 #8 reso!ution o( t)is

Court in A.M. No. &&-<'%-R6C.1$!

 

Soetie in O+to#er $&&', t)e prose+ution (i!ed *it) t)e R6C Fue?on Cit8 a

Motion to Adit Aended In(oration to in+!ude respondent as one o( t)e a++used (or 

t)e urder o( 6ria.17!

On O+to#er 5, $&&', respondent (i!ed a Noti+e o( Appea! *it) t)e 0OJ under 

t)e provisions o( Adinistrative Order No. '5, series o( '5. 18! In a !etter dated

0e+e#er <, $&&' addressed to respondents +ounse!, t)e 0OJ denied respondents

noti+e o( appea! on t)e "round t)at pursuant to Meorandu Cir+u!ar No. '$11 dated

 Nove#er %, '5<, as aended #8 Meorandu Cir+u!ar No. 5 dated June <&, '<,appea!s to t)e OP *)ere t)e pena!t8 pres+ri#ed (or t)e o((ense +)ar"ed is re+!usion

 perpetua to deat), s)a!! #e ta/en #8 petition (or revie*.1%! Respondent (i!ed a otion

(or re+onsideration o( t)e denia! o( )er noti+e o( appea!."&!

It appears t)at on Januar8 $5, $&&$, t)e R6C Fue?on Cit8 issued an order 

adittin" t)e aended in(oration *)i+) in+!udes respondent. 6)e !atter t)en (i!ed

*it) t)e R6C a Motion (or Re+onsideration *it) Pra8er (or t)e Suspension o( t)e

Issuan+e o( a 9arrant o( Arrest dated >e#ruar8 $5, $&&$, a +op8 o( *)i+) *as

(urnis)ed to t)e Le"a! O((i+e o( t)e OP on Mar+) 1, $&&$."1!

On >e#ruar8 1, $&&$, t)e 0OJ denied respondents otion (or re+onsideration

statin" t)at t)e proper pro+edure is t)e (i!in" o( an appea! or petition (or revie* *it) t)e

OP and not #e(ore t)e 0OJ. en+e, t)e +ase *as +onsidered +!osed and terinated.""! o*ever, t)e 0OJ dire+ted t)e Provin+ia! Prose+utor to (or*ard t)e re+ords o( t)e

+ase to t)e OP in +op!ian+e *it) t)e Order dated O+to#er '5, $&&' o( 0eput8

E@e+utive Se+retar8 Jose 6a!e."#! It turned out t)at respondent (i!ed on O+to#er ', $&&' a

noti+e o( appea! #e(ore t)e OP 2O.P. Case No. &'-J-''53."'!

On June $, $&&<, Senior 0eput8 E@e+utive Se+retar8 9a!do F. >!ores

adopted t)e (indin"s o( (a+ts and +on+!usions o( !a* in t)e appea!ed Reso!utions

dated Januar8 $, $&&& and Septe#er ', $&&' o( t)e 0OJ, and a((ired t)e sae."5! Respondent (i!ed a otion (or re+onsideration on Septe#er ', $&&<."$!

 On 0e+e#er <, $&&<, respondent (i!ed a Supp!eenta! P!eadin" and Su#ission o(  Ne*!8 0is+overed Eviden+e."7!

Page 16: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 16/54

In )is Order dated Mar+) $%, $&&%, Presidentia! Assistant Manue! C. 0oin"o "ranted

respondents otion (or re+onsideration and reversed t)e 0OJ reso!utions. It *as )e!d

t)at ere +!ose re!ations)ip *it)out an8 +orro#orative eviden+e s)o*in" intent to

 perpetrate t)e +rie is not enou") pro#a#!e +ause. 6)e +on+!usion t)at respondent *as

t)e on!8 one interested in t)e deat) o( En"r. 6ria #e+ause o( t)e dou#!e sa!e (ro

*)i+) respondent supposed!8 *anted to "et a*a8 (ro )er o#!i"ation to t)e 6ria

spouses, *as #ased ere!8 on t)e opinion o( SA Eduarte. A!so, sin+e Mrs. Pura 6ria

aditted s)e /ne* o( t)e said transa+tion, s)e +ou!d ver8 *e!! (i!e a +ivi! +ase (or 

+o!!e+tion su+) t)at even *it) t)e deat) o( En"r. 6ria, respondent *i!! not #e a#!e to

evade )er o#!i"ation. As to t)e presen+e o( #ot) A+!an and respondent at t)e )ouse o( 

En"r. 6ria ear!8 ornin" #e(ore t)e in+ident too/ p!a+e, t)e sae *as not su((i+ient!8

esta#!is)ed, as s)o*n #8 t)e a((idavit o( >e!i@ Ca!a8a". 6)e OP t)us +on+!uded t)ere

*as no inter!o+/in" +ir+ustantia! eviden+e o( respondents a+ts #e(ore, durin" and

a(ter t)e /i!!in" o( En"r. 6ria t)at *ou!d esta#!is) +onspira+8 aon" A+!an, Ona and

respondent to +oit t)e +rie.A++ordin"!8, t)e +ase a"ainst respondent *as

disissed (or insu((i+ien+8 o( eviden+e."8!

Petitioners (i!ed a otion (or re+onsideration"%! *)i+) *as denied #8 t)e OP in its

Order #&! dated June '&, $&&%. Be(ore t)e CA, petitioners (i!ed a petition (or 

andaus7+ertiorari under Ru!e 1 o( t)e ' Ru!es o( Civi! Pro+edure, as aended.

On Au"ust '%, $&&1, t)e CA rendered t)e assai!ed 0e+ision den8in" t)e petition. On

t)e issue o( t)e a!!e"ed "rave a#use +oitted #8 t)e OP in odi(8in" t)e (indin"s o( 

t)e 0OJ instead o( orderin" t)e Se+retar8 o( Justi+e to reopen7revie* t)e +ase in

a++ordan+e *it) Meorandu Cir+u!ar No. 5, t)e CA )e!d t)at it *as not andator8

(or t)e OP to do so. As (or t)e eva!uation o( (a+tua! atters and +reden+e to #e

a++orded to t)e testionies o( respondent and )er *itnesses, t)e CA de+!ared t)at

t)ese are not proper "rounds in a petition (or +ertiorari *)i+) is +on(ined on!8 to t)e

+orre+tion o( errors o( =urisdi+tion. Neit)er *i!! andaus !ie to +ope! t)e

 per(oran+e o( a dis+retionar8 dut8 in vie* o( t)e (ai!ure o( petitioners to s)o* a +!ear 

and +ertain ri")t to =usti(8 t)e "rant o( re!ie( .#1!

6)eir otion (or re+onsideration )avin" #een denied #8 t)e CA, petitioners are no*

 #e(ore us +ontendin" t)at t)e CA ani(est!8 over!oo/ed re!evant (a+ts *)i+), i( 

 proper!8 +onsidered, *ou!d =usti(8 a di((erent +on+!usion. 6)e8 aintain t)at t)e CA

de+ision is +ontrar8 to !a* and esta#!is)ed =urispruden+e.

Petitioners ar"ue t)at sin+e t)e pre!iinar8 investi"ation and revie* o( t)e reso!ution

(indin" pro#a#!e +ause )ave a!read8 #een terinated 8ears #e(ore respondents appea!

to t)e OP -- ore so *it) t)e ear!ier denia! o( t)e said appea! (or (ai!in" to raise an8

ne* issue not raised #e(ore t)e 0OJ -- t)e a!!e"ed ne* a((idavits s)ou!d )ave #een

re(erred to t)e 0OJ (or reinvesti"ation. As to t)e a((idavits o( Ca!a8a" and Jennis

 Nidea, said *itnesses )ave not #een +on(ronted #8 t)e petitioners in vio!ation o( t)e

!atters ri")t to due pro+ess. 6)us, t)e CA de+ision a((ired t)e OPs disissa! o( t)e

+ase a"ainst respondent at t)e !eve! o( t)e 0OJ *it)out re(erra! to t)e said o((i+e and

*it)out +onsideration o( t)e penden+8 o( t)e +ase at R6C o( Fue?on Cit8, Bran+)

1. La+/in" su+) aut)orit8 on appea! to appre+iate ne*!8 su#itted a((idavits o( 

Ca!a8a" and Nidea, Presidentia! Assistant Manue! C. 0oin"o arro"ated unto )ise!( 

t)e =udi+ia! tas/ o( ana!8?in" t)e said do+uents *it)out +on(rontation o( t)e

*itnesses #8 t)e ot)er part8. >urt)er, t)e CA over!oo/ed t)e (a+t t)at su+) a((idavits

su#itted #8 respondent as ne*!8 dis+overed eviden+e *as ere!8 a p!o8 in order (or 

)er appea! to ;ua!i(8 as raisin" ne* and ateria! issues *)i+) *ere supposed!8 not

raised #e(ore t)e 0OJ.#"!

Petitioners (urt)er ar"ue t)at t)e CA s)ou!d not )ave a((ired t)e OPs disissa! o( t)e

urder +)ar"e a"ainst t)e respondent pursuant toCrespo v. Mogul ##! t)at on+e an

in(oration )as #een (i!ed in +ourt, an8 disposition o( t)e +ase as to its disissa! or t)e

+onvi+tion or a+;uitta! o( t)e a++used rests in t)e sound dis+retion o( t)e +ourt.

On t)e pro+edura! issue raised #8 t)e petitioners, *e )o!d t)at t)e OP did not err in

ta/in" +o"ni?an+e o( t)e appea! o( respondent, and t)at t)e CA !i/e*ise )ad

 =urisdi+tion to pass upon t)e issue o( pro#a#!e +ause in a petition +)a!!en"in" t)e OPs

ru!in".

Meorandu Cir+u!ar No. 5#'! provides:

@ @ @ @

 No appea! (ro or petition (or revie* o( 

de+isions7orders7reso!utions o( t)e Se+retar8 o( Justi+e on

 pre!iinar8 investi"ations o( +riina! +ases s)a!! #e entertained #8

t)e O((i+e o( t)e President, e@+ept t)ose invo!vin" o((enses

 punis)a#!e #8 reclusion perpetua to deat) *)erein ()* +(

+)/0+ 0223)2 +/) /+02) *404 *)/) (o 6/)0o32 6/)2)()

9)o/) 4) D)6+/)( o J320) +( *)/) (o /3) 36o( 0( 4)

239;) )020o(<o/)/</)2o30o(, in *)i+) +ase t)e President a8

order t)e Se+retar8 o( Justi+e to reopen7revie* t)e

+ase, provided, t)at, t)e pres+ription o( t)e o((ense is not due to !apse

*it)in si@ 213 ont)s (ro noti+e o( t)e ;uestioned

reso!ution7order7de+ision, and provided further,t)at, t)e appea! or 

 petition (or revie* is (i!ed *it)in t)irt8 2<&3 da8s (ro su+) noti+e.

en+e(ort), i( an appea! or petition (or revie* does not

+!ear!8 (a!! *it)in t)e =urisdi+tion o( t)e O((i+e o( t)e President, as

set (ort) in t)e iediate!8 pre+edin" para"rap), it s)a!! #e

disissed outri")t and no order s)a!! #e issued re;uirin" t)e

 pa8ent o( t)e appea! (ee, t)e su#ission o( appea!

Page 17: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 17/54

 #rie(7eorandu or t)e e!evation o( t)e re+ords to t)e O((i+e o( 

t)e President (ro t)e 0epartent o( Justi+e.

I( it is not readi!8 apparent (ro t)e appea! or petition (or 

revie* t)at t)e +ase is *it)in t)e =urisdi+tion o( t)e O((i+e o( t)e

President, t)e appe!!ant7petitioner s)a!! #e ordered to prove t)e

ne+essar8 =urisdi+tiona! (a+ts, under pena!t8 o( outri")t disissa! o( 

t)e appea! or petition, and no order to pa8 t)e appea! (ee or to su#it

appea! #rie(7eorandu or to e!evate t)e re+ords o( t)e +ase to t)e

O((i+e o( t)e President s)a!! #e issued un!ess and unti! t)e

 =urisdi+tiona! re;uireents s)a!! )ave #een satis(a+tori!8 esta#!is)ed

 #8 t)e appe!!ant7petitioner.

@ @ @ @ 2Ep)asis supp!ied.3

6)e o((ense (or *)i+) respondent *as +)ar"ed is punis)a#!e #8 reclusion perpetua to

deat), *)i+) is +!ear!8 *it)in t)e =urisdi+tion o( t)e OP in a++ordan+e *it)

Meorandu Cir+u!ar No. 5. Respondents appea! *as initia!!8 disissed *)en

Senior 0eput8 E@e+utive Se+retar8 9a!do F. >!ores issued t)e Reso!ution dated June

$, $&&< a((irin" in toto  t)e appea!ed reso!utions o( t)e Se+retar8 o( Justi+e and

adoptin" t)e !atters (indin"s and +on+!usions. o*ever, su#se;uent to )er (i!in" o( a

otion (or re+onsideration o( t)e said June $, $&&< Reso!ution, respondent (i!ed a

Supp!eenta! P!eadin" and Su#ission o( Ne*!8 0is+overed Eviden+e. 6)e

ar"uents o( respondent in support o( )er otion (or re+onsideration *ere du!8

+onsidered #8 t)e OP in ree@ainin" t)e appea!ed reso!utions. As t)e *ord may in t)e

se+ond para"rap) o( Meorandu Cir+u!ar No. 5 si"ni(ies, it is not andator8 (or 

t)e President to order t)e 0OJ to reopen or revie* respondents +ase even i( it raised

ne* and ateria! issues a!!e"ed!8 not 8et passed upon #8 t)e 0OJ. en+e, t)e OP

a+ted *e!! *it)in its aut)orit8 in ree@ainin" t)e erits o( respondents appea! in

reso!vin" t)e otion (or re+onsideration.

In ar"uin" t)at t)e CA "rave!8 a#used its dis+retion *)en it a((ired t)e OPs disissa!o( t)e urder +)ar"e a"ainst respondent, petitioner invo/ed our ru!in" in Crespo v.

 Mogul  t)at an8 disposition o( t)e +ase rests on t)e sound dis+retion o( t)e +ourt on+e

an in(oration )as #een (i!ed *it) it.

A re(ineent o( petitioners understandin" o( t)e Crespo ru!in" is in

order. In Crespo, *e ru!ed t)at a(ter t)e in(oration )as a!read8 #een (i!ed in +ourt, t)e

+ourts perission ust #e se+ured s)ou!d t)e (is+a! (ind it proper t)at reinvesti"ation

 #e ade. 6)erea(ter, t)e +ourt s)a!! +onsider and a+t upon t)e (indin"s and

re+oendations o( t)e (is+a!.

In Ledesma v. Court of Appeals,#5!

 *e +!ari(ied t)at t)e =usti+e se+retar8 is not pre+!uded (ro e@er+isin" )is po*er o( revie* over t)e investi"atin" prose+utor even

a(ter t)e in(oration )as a!read8 #een (i!ed in +ourt. o*ever, t)e =usti+e se+retar8s

su#se;uent reso!ution *it)dra*in" t)e in(oration or disissin" t)e +ase does not

+ause t)e +ourt to !ose =urisdi+tion over t)e +ase. In (a+t, t)e +ourt is dut8-#ound to

e@er+ise =udi+ia! dis+retion and its o*n independent =ud"ent in assessin" t)e erits

o( t)e resu!tin" otion to disiss (i!ed #8 t)e prose+ution, to *it:

9)en +on(ronted *it) a otion to *it)dra* an in(oration

on t)e "round o( !a+/ o( pro#a#!e +ause #ased on a reso!ution o( t)e

se+retar8 o( =usti+e, t)e #ounded dut8 o( t)e tria! +ourt is to a/e an

independent assessent o( t)e erits o( su+) otion. avin"

a+;uired =urisdi+tion over t)e +ase, t)e tria! +ourt is not #ound #8

su+) reso!ution #ut is re;uired to eva!uate it #e(ore pro+eedin"

(urt)er *it) t)e tria!. 9)i!e t)e se+retar8s ru!in" is persuasive, it is

not #indin" on +ourts. A tria! +ourt, )o*ever, +oits reversi#!e

error or even "rave a#use o( dis+retion i( it re(uses7ne"!e+ts to

eva!uate su+) re+oendation and sip!8 insists on pro+eedin"

*it) t)e tria! on t)e ere prete@t o( )avin" a!read8 a+;uired

 =urisdi+tion over t)e +riina! a+tion. 2Dnders+orin" supp!ied.3

>urt)er, it is *e!! *it)in t)e +ourts sound dis+retion to suspend arrai"nent to a*ait

t)e resu!t o( t)e =usti+e se+retar8s revie* o( t)e +orre+tness o( t)e (i!in" o( t)e +riina!

in(oration.#$! 6)ere are e@+eptiona! +ases, su+) as in  Dimatulac v. Villon#7! *)erein

*e )ave su""ested t)at it *ou!d )ave #een *iser (or t)e +ourt to a*ait t)e =usti+e

se+retar8s reso!ution #e(ore pro+eedin" *it) t)e +ase to avert a is+arria"e o( 

 =usti+e. Evident!8 )o*ever, t)is is not a )ard and (ast ru!e, (or t)e +ourt )as +op!ete

+ontro! over t)e +ase #e(ore it.

Petitioners ar"uent t)at t)e non-re(erra! #8 t)e OP to t)e 0OJ o( t)e appea! or otion

(or re+onsideration (i!ed #8 t)e respondent )ad deprived t)e o( t)e opportunit8 to

+on(ront and +ross-e@aine t)e *itnesses on t)ose a((idavits #e!ated!8 su#itted #8

t)e respondent is !i/e*ise untena#!e. Dnder t)e pro+edure (or pre!iinar8

investi"ation provided in Se+tion <, Ru!e ''$ o( t)e Revised Ru!es o( Criina!Pro+edure, as aended,#8!  in +ase t)e investi"atin" prose+utor +ondu+ts a )earin"

*)ere t)ere are (a+ts and issues to #e +!ari(ied (ro a part8 or *itness, t)e parties +an

 #e present at t)e )earin" but without the right to eamine or cross!eamine. 6)e8 a8,

)o*ever, su#it to t)e investi"atin" o((i+er ;uestions *)i+) a8 #e as/ed to t)e part8

or *itness +on+erned.#%! en+e, t)e non-re(erra! #8 t)e OP to t)e 0OJ o( t)e otion

(or re+onsideration o( respondent, in t)e e@er+ise o( its dis+retion, did not vio!ate

 petitioners ri")t to due pro+ess.

In reso!vin" t)e issue o( *)et)er t)e CA "rave!8 a#used its dis+retion in a((irin" t)e

OPs reversa! o( t)e ru!in" o( t)e Se+retar8 o( Justi+e, it is ne+essar8 to deterine

*)et)er pro#a#!e +ause e@ists to +)ar"e t)e respondent (or +onspira+8 in t)e urder o( 

En"r. 6ria.

Page 18: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 18/54

A prose+utor, #8 t)e nature o( )is o((i+e, is under no +opu!sion to (i!e a parti+u!ar 

+riina! in(oration *)ere )e is not +onvin+ed t)at )e )as eviden+e to prop up its

averents, or t)at t)e eviden+e at )and points to a di((erent +on+!usion. 6)e de+ision

*)et)er or not to disiss t)e +riina! +op!aint a"ainst respondent is ne+essari!8

dependent on t)e sound dis+retion o( t)e investi"atin" prose+utor and u!tiate!8, t)at

o( t)e Se+retar8 o( Justi+e.'&!

6)e (indin"s o( t)e prose+utor *it) respe+t to t)e e@isten+e or non-e@isten+e

o( pro#a#!e +ause is su#=e+t to t)e po*er o( revie* #8 t)e 0OJ. Indeed, t)e Se+retar8o( Justi+e a8 reverse or odi(8 t)e reso!ution o( t)e prose+utor, a(ter *)i+) )e s)a!!

dire+t t)e prose+utor +on+erned eit)er to (i!e t)e +orrespondin" in(oration *it)out

+ondu+tin" anot)er pre!iinar8 investi"ation, or to disiss or ove (or disissa! o( 

t)e +op!aint or in(oration *it) noti+e to t)e parties.'1! Ordinari!8, t)e deterination

o( pro#a#!e +ause is not !od"ed *it) t)is Court. Its dut8 in an appropriate +ase is

+on(ined to t)e issue o( *)et)er t)e e@e+utive or =udi+ia! deterination, as t)e +ase

a8 #e, o( pro#a#!e +ause *as done *it)out or in e@+ess o( =urisdi+tion or *it) a#use

o( dis+retion aountin" to *ant o( =urisdi+tion.

o*ever, t)is Court a8 u!tiate!8 reso!ve t)e e@isten+e or non-e@isten+e o( 

 pro#a#!e +ause #8 e@ainin" t)e re+ords o( t)e pre!iinar8 investi"ation *)en

ne+essar8 (or t)e order!8 adinistration o( =usti+e,'"! or to avoid oppression or 

u!tip!i+it8 o( a+tions.'#!

In reversin" t)e 0OJs (indin" o( pro#a#!e +ause, t)e OP (ound erit in t)e

ar"uent o( t)e respondent t)at t)e 0OJs (indin" t)at s)e *as *it) A+!an *)en s)e

*ent to t)e residen+e o( En"r. 6ria ear!8 in t)e ornin" o( Ma8 $$, '5, *as not

su((i+ient!8 esta#!is)ed. 6)e OP "ave ore *ei")t to t)e a((idavit''! o( Ca!a8a"

2atta+)ed to respondents supp!eenta! p!eadin" on otion (or re+onsideration3 --

statin" t)at A+!an *as not around *)en t)e8 and respondent, aon" ot)er visitors,

*ere at En"r. 6rias )ouse at t)at tie -- t)an t)at a++ount "iven #8 SA Eduarte *)i+)

*as un+orro#orated. As to t)e dou#!e sa!e a!!e"ed!8 +oitted #8 t)e respondent (ro

*)i+) t)e !atters stron" otive to !i;uidate En"r. 6ria *as in(erred, t)e OP (ound t)isas a ere e@pression o( opinion #8 t)e investi"ators +onsiderin" t)at En"r. 6rias

*ido*, Mrs. Pura 6ria, +ate"ori+a!!8 aditted )er /no*!ed"e o( t)e said

transa+tion. Neit)er *as t)e OP persuaded #8 t)e NBIs /iss o( deat) t)eor8 sin+e it is

 #ut a +ustoar8 *a8 o( "reetin" a (riend to s)a/e )ands and )en+e it +annot ip!8 t)at

respondent uti!i?ed t)is as a si"na! or identi(i+ation (or t)e "unan to s)oot En"r.

6ria. Respondents a!!e"ed indi((eren+e iediate!8 a(ter En"r. 6ria *as "unned do*n

*)i!e +onversin" *it) )er, *as a!so ne"ated #8 t)e a((idavit o( an ep!o8ee o( 

P)i!ippine Air Lines #ased at t)e Pi!i Airport, statin" t)at ri")t a(ter t)e in+ident too/ 

 p!a+e )e sa* respondent in t)e radio roo in s)o+/ and *as #ein" "iven *ater #8

anot)er person.

Considerin" t)e tota!it8 o( eviden+e, t)e OP *as +onvin+ed t)ere *as not)in"

suspi+ious or a#nora! in respondents #e)avior #e(ore, durin" and a(ter t)e (ata!

s)ootin" o( En"r. 6ria as to en"ender a *e!!-(ounded #e!ie( o( )er +op!i+it8 *it) t)e

/i!!in" o( En"r. 6ria, t)us:

6)e a+t o( O#ias in (ai!in" to )e!p t)e de+eased *)en t)e

!atter *as s)ot s)ou!d not #e ta/en a"ainst )er. In a tra"i+ oent

su+) as t)e in+ident, it is sa(e to assue t)at one +ou!d #e overta/en

 #8 s)o+/, "rie( or (ear espe+ia!!8 i( t)e one invo!ved is an

a+;uaintan+e or a (riend, !eavin" t)e (orer una#!e to a+t or t)in/ 

 proper!8. O#ias +ou!d )ave #een overta/en #8 s)o+/ or "rie( a/in"

)er #od8 una#!e to (un+tion or t)in/ proper!8.

Moreover, t)e a+t o( O#ias in (ai!in" to +onta+t or to visit t)e

(ai!8 o( t)e de+eased durin" t)e *a/e o( t)e !atter s)ou!d not #e

ta/en a"ainst )er. 9it) ruors +ir+u!atin" t)at s)e is a possi#!e

 priar8 suspe+t over t)e deat) o( En"r. 6ria, and to avoid an8

unne+essar8 +on(rontation *it) t)e (ai!8 o( t)e !atter, *)ose

eotions +ou!d #e un+ontro!!a#!e or aniated #8 an"er or reven"e,

O#ias a+t in /eepin" )er si!en+e and distan+e is perissive.

6)e #e)avior o( O#ias #e(ore, durin" and a(ter t)e in+ident

s)ou!d not #e ta/en a"ainst )er. It is *ort)8 to note t)at O#ias *as

+on(ronted *it) e@traordinar8 situations or +ir+ustan+es *)erein a

de(inite or +oon #e)avior +ou!d not #e easi!8 (oru!ated or 

deterined. Ones #e)avior or a+t durin" said e@traordinar8

situations s)ou!d not pre=udi+e t)e a+tor i( t)e !atter (ai!ed to a+t or 

 #e)ave in su+) a anner a++epta#!e to a!! or *)i+), upon re(!e+tion

a(ter*ards, +ou!d #e deeed t)e ore appropriate, +oon or 

a++epta#!e rea+tion.

O#ias a+tions +ou!d #e presued +oon or a++epta#!e

+onsiderin" t)e attendant +ir+ustan+es surroundin" t)e sae, and

t)e8 do not evin+e or s)o* an8 a!i+e or intent *)atsoever.'5!

6)e re!evant portion o( SA Eduartes a((idavit reads:

<. 6)at our (irst eetin" *as on or a#out '&:&& AM o( Ma8

$, '5 at our o((i+e. S)e *as a++opanied #8 a +ertain RO0EL

*)o *as introdu+ed as )er O((i+e Assistant. On said eetin" s)e

ver#a!!8 aditted t)e (a+t t)at s)e *as t)e !ast person +onversin"

*it) 0ir. 6ria *)en s)ot at t)e airport on or a#out '&:$& AM o( Ma8

$$, '5 t)at t)e s)ootin" too/ p!a+e even #e(ore )er (irst step a(ter 

t)eir s)ort ta!/, #ut s)e +ou!d not identi(8 t)e assai!ant7s #e+ause s)e

)ad #!a+/ed out or #e+ae sense!ess #e+ause o( (ear

Page 19: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 19/54

%. 6)at our se+ond eetin" *as on or a#out '':$&

AM o( Ma8 $5, '5 at our o((i+e and s)e *as a!one t)en. 6)at s)e

stood pat on )er +!ai t)at s)e *as over*)e!ed *it) (ear and

 #e+ae o#!ivious o( )er surroundin"s a(ter t)e "uns)ot t)at )it 0ir 

6RIA. 9)en as/ed a#out t)e vera+it8 o( t)e in(oration t)at s)e

*as seen at 6RIAs residen+e at Mo!ave St., Li#oton, Na"a Cit8,

Att8. O#ias aditted t)at s)e *as indeed at t)e residen+e o( 0ire+tor 

6RIA at around :<& AM o( Ma8 $$, '5, +!aiin" )er visit as

o((i+ia! atter, s)e #ein" t)e !a*8er o( t)e vi+ti in soe +ases

. 6)at (ina!!8 *e et on or a#out :&& PM o( June ', '5

at t)e restaurant o( Vi!!a Ca+eres ote!, Ma"sa8sa8 Avenue, Na"a

Cit8, upon arran"eent ade #8 our (orer Assistant Re"iona!

0ire+tor >RANCISCO >RANG OBIAS o( NBI 2no* retired3 and

(at)er-in-!a* o( Att8. >ANN OBIAS 6)at said eetin"

ateria!i?ed *)en on t)e ornin" o( t)e said date, A. FRAN= 

OBIAS 020) ) + 4) o0) +2>0(? *4 4)/ +3?4)/-0(-+*

FANNY *+2 9)0(? 060+) 0( 4) +2) o TRIA. V)/9+, 4)

2+0, FANNY 4+ +0) o 40 4+ o3/ 2326) ROBERTO

OBET ACLAN *+2 *04 4)/ + 4) /)20)() o TRIA +

+9o3 7:#& AM o( "" M+ 1%%8, 93 4) @A+( *+2 (o 4)

/0??)/+(. 0urin" t)is eetin", A66. >RANG OBIAS *as a!soaround. Att8. >ANN OBIAS said s)e *as *orried #e+ause t*o 2$3

en *)o introdu+ed t)ese!ves as NBI A"ents visited )er ot)er at

4odo(redo Re8es, Sr., 24RS3 Ra"a8, Caarines Sur, te!!in" t)e !atter 

t)at s)e, 2>ANN3 *as #ein" ta""ed as t)e (in"er 2identi(ier o( t)e

vi+ti to t)e assai!ant3 in t)e +ase o( 6RIA. 6)is atter +auses

an@iet8 to )er ot)er, s)e said. On said eetin", s)e aditted

OBE6 ACLAN *as *it) )er at t)e residen+e o( 6RIA on or a#out

:<& AM on Ma8 $$, '5, and (urt)er, t)at OBE6 ACLAN *as

a+tua!!8 at t)e Pi!i Airport on t)at ornin" #ut insisted t)at

ROBER6O OBE6 ACLAN *as not t)e tri""eran @ @ @.'$! 2Ep)asis supp!ied.3

In its Coent (i!ed #e(ore t)e CA, t)e So!i+itor 4enera! ar"ued t)at t)e

a!!e"ed inter!o+/in" +ir+ustantia! eviden+e is pure spe+u!ation. 6o render even a

 pre!iinar8 (indin" o( +u!pa#i!it8 #ased t)ereon does not sit *e!! *it) t)e +)eris)ed

ri")t to #e presued inno+ent under Se+tion '% 2$3, Arti+!e III o( t)e '5

Constitution. Moreover, t)e +ase (or t)e prose+ution ust stand or (a!! on its o*n erit

and +annot #e a!!o*ed to dra* stren"t) (ro t)e *ea/ness o( eviden+e (or t)e de(ense.'7!

Petitioners, )o*ever, aintain t)at t)e re+ords are rep!ete *it) a#undant

 proo( o( respondents +op!i+it8 in t)e urder o( En"r. 6ria. 6)e8 +ite t)e (o!!o*in"+ir+ustan+es s)o*in" t)e e@isten+e o( pro#a#!e +ause a"ainst t)e respondent: 2'3 In a

radio intervie* in Na"a Cit8 soetie in Au"ust '5, respondent aditted t)at A+!an

is )er re!ative and t)at s)e is +!ose to t)e (ai!8 o( Ona 2$3 Respondent *as present at

t)e residen+e o( En"r. 6ria in t)e ornin" o( Ma8 $$, '5 #et*een :&& to :<& a..

*it) passen"ers in )er ve)i+!e *aitin" outside, and *)en !ater s)e *as invited #8 t)e

 NBI as possi#!e *itness +onsiderin" t)at s)e *as t)e !ast person seen ta!/in" to En"r.

6ria #e(ore t)e !atter *as "unned do*n at t)e airport, respondent aditted to SA

Eduarte t)at A+!an *as *it) )er t)at ornin" at t)e residen+e o( En"r. 6ria 2<3 6)e

 pre-arran"ed si"na! provided #8 respondent *as in t)e (or o( a )ands)a/e *)i!e Ona

*as at t)e stair*a8 o#servin" t)e t*o, and t)ereupon Ona *aited (or t)e ri")t oent

to s)oot En"r. 6ria (ro #e)ind 2%3 Respondent despite )avin" +!aied to #e a (riend

o( t)e 6ria (ai!8, =ust !e(t t)e s+ene o( t)e +rie *it)out as/in" (or )e!p to render 

assistan+e to )er (a!!en (riend instead, s)e =ust #oarded t)e p!ane as i( no astoundin"

event too/ p!a+e #e(ore )er ver8 e8es *)i+) snu((ed t)e !i(e o( )er !on"tie +!ient-

(riend and 23 In a +ondu+t un#e+oin" o( >i!ipinos, respondent never #ot)ered to see

t)e "rievin" (ai!8 o( En"r. 6ria at an8tie durin" t)e *a/e, #uria! or t)erea(ter, and

neit)er did s)e "ive t)e an8 a++ount o( *)at s)e sa* durin" t)e s)ootin" in+ident,

*)i+) does not +onstitute nora! #e)avior.

Pro#a#!e +ause is de(ined as t)e e@isten+e o( su+) (a+ts and +ir+ustan+es as

*ou!d e@+ite t)e #e!ie( in a reasona#!e ind, a+tin" on t)e (a+ts *it)in t)e /no*!ed"e o( 

t)e prose+utor, t)at t)e person +)ar"ed *as "ui!t8 o( t)e +rie (or *)i+) )e *as prose+uted.'8! It is a reasona#!e "round o( presuption t)at a atter is, or a8 #e, *e!!-

(ounded, su+) a state o( (a+ts in t)e ind o( t)e prose+utor as *ou!d !ead a person o( 

ordinar8 +aution and pruden+e to #e!ieve, or entertain an )onest or stron" suspi+ion, t)at

a t)in" is so. 6)e ter does not ean a+tua! and positive +ause nor does it iport

a#so!ute +ertaint8. It is ere!8 #ased on opinion and reasona#!e #e!ie(.'%! A (indin" o( 

 pro#a#!e +ause ere!8 #inds over t)e suspe+t to stand tria! it is not a pronoun+eent o( 

"ui!t.5&!

On t)e ot)er )and, +onspira+8 e@ists *)en t*o or ore persons +oe to an

a"reeent +on+ernin" t)e +oission o( a (e!on8 and de+ide to +oit it. 51! 0ire+t

 proo( o( previous a"reeent to +oit a +rie is not ne+essar8. Conspira+8 a8 #e

s)o*n t)rou") +ir+ustantia! eviden+e, dedu+ed (ro t)e ode and anner in *)i+)t)e o((ense *as perpetrated, or in(erred (ro t)e a+ts o( t)e a++used t)ese!ves *)en

su+) !ead to a =oint purpose and desi"n, +on+erted a+tion, and +ounit8 o( interest. 5"!

9e reverse t)e OPs ru!in" t)at t)e tota!it8 o( eviden+e (ai!ed to esta#!is)

a prima facie +ase a"ainst t)e respondent as a +onspirator in t)e /i!!in" o( En"r. 6ria.

6o #e"in *it), *)et)er or not respondent a+tua!!8 +onspired *it) A+!an and

Ona need not #e (u!!8 reso!ved durin" t)e pre!iinar8 investi"ation. 6)e a#sen+e or

 presen+e o( +onspira+8 is (a+tua! in nature and invo!ves evidentiar8 atters. 6)e sae

is #etter !e(t venti!ated #e(ore t)e tria! +ourt durin" tria!, *)ere t)e parties +an addu+e

eviden+e to prove or disprove its presen+e.5#!

Page 20: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 20/54

 

Pre!iinar8 investi"ation is e@e+utive in +)ara+ter. It does not +ontep!ate a

 =udi+ia! (un+tion. It is essentia!!8 an in;uisitoria! pro+eedin", and o(ten, t)e on!8 eans

o( as+ertainin" *)o a8 #e reasona#!8 +)ar"ed *it) a +rie. 5'!  Prose+utors +ontro!

and dire+t t)e prose+ution o( +riina! o((enses, in+!udin" t)e +ondu+t o( pre!iinar8

investi"ation, su#=e+t to revie* #8 t)e Se+retar8 o( Justi+e. 6)e dut8 o( t)e Court in

appropriate +ases is ere!8 to deterine *)et)er t)e e@e+utive deterination *as

done *it)out or in e@+ess o( =urisdi+tion or *it) "rave a#use o( dis+retion. Reso!utions

o( t)e Se+retar8 o( Justi+e are not su#=e+t to revie* un!ess ade *it) "rave

a#use. 55! 

A(ter a +are(u! eva!uation o( t)e entire eviden+e on re+ord, *e (ind no su+) "rave

a#use *)en t)e Se+retar8 o( Justi+e (ound pro#a#!e +ause to +)ar"e t)e respondent

*it) urder in +onspira+8 *it) A+!an and Ona. 6)e (o!!o*in" (a+ts and +ir+ustan+es

esta#!is)ed durin" pre!iinar8 investi"ation *ere su((i+ient #asis to in+ite reasona#!e

 #e!ie( in respondents "ui!t: 2a3 Motive - respondent )ad +redi#!e reason to )ave En"r.

6ria /i!!ed #e+ause o( t)e ipendin" +riina! prose+ution (or estafa (ro )er dou#!e

sa!e o( )is !ot prior to )is deat), =ud"in" (ro t)e stron" interest o( En"r. 6rias (ai!8

to run a(ter said propert8 and7or pro+eeds o( t)e se+ond sa!e to a t)ird

 part8 2#3 Access -respondent *as +!ose to En"r. 6rias (ai!8 and (ai!iar *it) )is*or/ s+)edu!e, dai!8 routine and ot)er transa+tions *)i+) +ou!d (a+i!itate in t)e

+oission o( t)e +rie eventua!!8 +arried out #8 a )ired "unen, one o( whom

"Aclan# she and her father categorically admitted being in her company while she

visited $ngr. %ria hours before the latter was fatally shot at the airport  2+3 &uspicious

 'ehavior  --respondent *)i!e de+!arin" su+) +!ose persona! re!ations)ip *it) En"r. 6ria

and even )is (ai!8, (ai!ed to "ive an8 satis(a+tor8 e@p!anation *)8 s)e rea+ted

indi((erent!8 to t)e vio!ent /i!!in" o( )er (riend *)i!e t)e8 +onversed and s)oo/ )ands

at t)e airport. Indeed, a re!ative or a (riend *ou!d not =ust stand #8 and *a!/ a*a8

(ro t)e p!a+e as i( not)in" )appened, as *)at s)e did, nor re(use to vo!unteer

in(oration t)at *ou!d )e!p t)e aut)orities investi"atin" t)e +rie, +onsiderin" t)at

s)e is a vita! e8e*itness. Not even a +a!! (or )e!p to t)e peop!e to #rin" )er (riend

;ui+/!8 to t)e )ospita!. S)e *ou!d not even dare "o near En"r. 6rias #od8 to +)e+/ i(t)e !atter *as sti!! a!ive.

 A!! t)e (ore"oin" +ir+ustan+es, in our ind, and (ro t)e point o( vie* o(

an ordinar8 person, !ead to a reasona#!e in(eren+e o( respondents pro#a#!e

 parti+ipation in t)e *e!!-p!anned assassination o( En"r. 6ria. 9e t)ere(ore )o!d t)at t)e

OP in reversin" t)e 0OJ Se+retar8s ru!in", and t)e CA in a((irin" t)e sae, #ot)

+oitted "rave a#use o( dis+retion. C!ear!8, t)e OP and CA ar#itrari!8 disre"arded

(a+ts on re+ord *)i+) esta#!is)ed pro#a#!e +ause a"ainst t)e respondent.

 

HEREFORE, preises +onsidered, t)e petition is

)ere#8 GRANTED. 6)e 0e+ision dated Au"ust '%, $&&1 and Reso!ution

dated 0e+e#er '', $&&1 o( t)e Court o( Appea!s in CA-4.R. SP No. 51$'&

are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. 6)e Januar8 $, $&&& Reso!ution o( t)en Justi+e

Se+retar8 Sera(in Cuevas odi(8in" t)e Ju!8 $, ' reso!ution o( t)e Provin+ia!

Prose+utor o( Caarines Sur and dire+tin" t)e !atter to in+!ude respondent in t)e

in(oration (or urder (i!ed a"ainst A+!an and Ona is )ere#8 REINSTATED +(

PHELD.

 No +osts.

SO ORDERED.

Page 21: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 21/54

A.. No. TJ;07;1@@@ S*/(*-* , 2012

>Fo*ly A.. OCA I.%.I. No. 0;17@1;TJ?

GER"IE . U6 a! A. CONSO"ACION T. #ASCUG, Coplainants,

vs.

JUDGE ER:IN #. JA$E""ANA, UNICI%A" TRIA" COURT, "A

CASTE""ANA, NEGROS OCCIDENTA",Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

"EONARDO;DE CASTRO, J.:

-his adinistrative "ase arose fro a verified "oplaint for 1ross i1noran"e

of the law and pro"edures, 1ross in"opeten"e, ne1le"t of dut', "ondu"t

iproper and un0e"oin1 of a 9ud1e, 1rave is"ondu"t and others, filed 0'

Pu0li" Attorne's +erlie$ !. B' (B') and !a. Consola"ion -. as"u1 (as"u1)

of the Pu0li" Attorne's Offi"e (PAO), a Carlotta Distri"t, a1ainst Presidin1

6ud1e Erwin3 . 6avellana (6avellana) of the !uni"ipal -rial Court (!-C), a

Castellana, Ne1ros O""idental.

Pu0li" Attorne's B' and as"u1 alle1ed the followin1 in their "oplaint<

2irst, 6ud1e 6avellana was 1rossl' i1norant of the Revised Rule on Suar'

Pro"edure. Pu0li" Attorne's B' and as"u1 "ited several o""asions as

e8aples< (a) In Cri. Case No. %4*%#:, entitled People v. Cornelio, for

!ali"ious !is"hief, 6ud1e 6avellana issued a warrant of arrest after the filin1 of 

said "ase despite Se"tion & of the Revised Rule on Suar' Pro"edure@ (0)

In Cri. Case No. %4*%:5, entitled People v. Celeste, et al., for -respass to

Dwellin1, 6ud1e 6avellana did not 1rant the otion to disiss for non*"oplian"e with the upon re=uireent under Se"tions and #(a) of the

Revised Rule on Suar' Pro"edure, insistin1 that said otion was a

prohi0ited pleadin1@ (") Also in People v. Celeste, et al., 6ud1e 6avellana

refused to disiss outri1ht the "oplaint even when the sae was patentl'

without 0asis or erit, as the affidavits of therein "oplainant and her

witnesses were all hearsa' eviden"e@ and (d) In Cri. Case No. %$*%5&,

entitled People v. ope, et al., for !ali"ious !is"hief, 6ud1e 6avellana did not

appl' the Revised Rule on Suar' Pro"edure and, instead, "ondu"ted a

preliinar' e8aination and preliinar' investi1ation in a""ordan"e with the

Revised Rules of Criinal Pro"edure, then set the "ase for arrai1nent and

pre*trial, despite "onfirin1 that therein "oplainant and her witnesses had no

personal 7nowled1e of the aterial fa"ts alle1ed in their affidavits, whi"h

should have 0een a 1round for disissal of said "ase.Se"ond, 6ud1e

6avellana 1ave the ipression that he was a "o*a1ent in a suret' "opan'

with a "ertain eilani ani !anuna1 (!anuna1). 6ud1e 6avellana had

"onve'ed to the pu0li" on several o""asions that !anuna1 was in a spe"ial

position to influen"e hi in 1rantin1 provisional li0ert' to the a""used.4In

different "ases, 6ud1e 6avellana (a) instru"ted the wife of an a""used to file

the !otion to Redu"e ond prepared 0' the PAO with !anuna1, leadin1 the

wife to 0elieve that !anuna1 was a "ourt personnel, hen"e, said !otion was

never filed with the !-C and, instead of the "ash 0ond the a""used intended

to post, the a""used was released on a suret' 0ond issued 0' !anuna1s

"opan' for whi"h the a""used still had to pa' preiu@5 (0) redu"ed the 0ail

fro P 4%,%%%.%% to P 3%,%%%.%%, "onsistent with the redu"ed 0ail aount

!anuna1 instru"ted the representative of the a""used to see7, not

to P %,%%%.%% as pra'ed for 0' the PAO in the !otion for Redu"tion of ail or

to P $%,%%%.%% as re"oended 0' the Chief of Poli"e@& (") did not warn

!anuna1 a1ainst 1ettin1 involved in "ourt pro"esses as she was en1a1ed in

suret' insuran"e and did not even =uestion a "ounter*affidavit of an a""used

prepared 0' ani@:

 (d) instru"ted the relatives of the a""used to 1o to!anuna1 who 7new how to pro"ess an affidavit of desistan"e, and when said

relatives did approa"h !anuna1, the latter "har1ed the fees@ (e) did not set

the !otion to Redu"e ail for hearin1 0ut 1ranted the sae 0e"ause it was

filed 0' the intiate friend of 9ud1e who is an a1ent of suret' and too7

"o1nian"e of the aount of preiu for the suret' 0ond in deterinin1 the

aount of 0ail@# (f) denied the !otion to E8tend -ie to 2ile Counter*Affidavit

for violation of the three*da' noti"e rule, 0ut 1ranted the !otion to Redu"e ail

fa"ilitated 0' !anuna1 even when it was filed in violation of the sae

rule@% and (1) issued warrants of arrest under =uestiona0le "ir"ustan"es,

ore parti"ularl' des"ri0ed in the iediatel' su""eedin1 para1raph, in whi"h

"ases, the 0ail 0onds of the a""used were fa"ilitated 0' !anuna1.

-hird, 6ud1e 6avellana violated Se"tion &(0), Rule $ of the Revised Rules of

Criinal Pro"edure and issued warrants of arrest without propoundin1

sear"hin1 =uestions to the "oplainants and their witnesses to deterine the

ne"essit' of pla"in1 the a""used under iediate "ustod'. As a result, 6ud1e

6avellana issued warrants of arrest even when the a""used had alread'

voluntaril' surrendered or when a warrantless arrest had 0een effe"ted.

2ourth, 6ud1e 6avellana failed to o0serve the "onstitutional ri1hts of the

a""used as stated in Se"tion $(), Arti"le III of the Constitution. 6ud1e

Page 22: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 22/54

6avellana set Cri. Case No. %3*%#:, entitled People v. autista, for

preliinar' investi1ation even when the a""used had no "ounsel, and

pro"eeded with said investi1ation without inforin1 the a""used of his ri1hts to

reain silent and to have a "ounsel.

2ifth, 6ud1e 6avellana was ha0ituall' tard'. -he su0poena in Civil Case No.

%5*%%, entitled Hillanueva v. Re1alado,$ onl' stated that the hearin1 would 0e

in the ornin1, without indi"atin1 the tie. 6ud1e 6avellana failed to arrive for 

the pre*trial of the "ase set in the ornin1 of April 4, $%%5. 6ud1e 6avellana

was still a no*show when the pre*trial was reset in the ornin1 of April 5,

$%%5 and !a' 3, $%%5. 2inall', anti"ipatin1 6ud1e 6avellanas tardiness, the

pre*trial was res"heduled at <3% in the afternoon of another date.

Si8th, 6ud1e 6avellana whisi"all' or in"onsistentl' ipleented laws and

rules dependin1 on stature of the parties, persons a""opan'in1 the parties,

law'ers of the parties, and his personal relations with the partieslaw'ers.

6ud1e 6avellana, in several "ases,3 denied or refused to re"eive !otions for

E8tension of -ie to 2ile Counter*Affidavits si1ned onl' 0' the a""used, 'et in

other "ases,4 1ranted su"h otions. In another "ase,56ud1e 6avellana deniedthe !otion to E8tend -ie to 2ile Counter*Affidavit for violation of the three*

da' noti"e rule, 0ut 1ranted the !otion to Redu"e ail, whi"h was in violation

of the sae rule. 6ud1e 6avellanas in"onsistent and irre1ular rulin1 "ould 0e

due to the fa"t that the forer otion was filed 0' Pu0li" Attorne' as"u1, with

who 6ud1e 6avellana had an a8e to 1rind, while the latter otion was

fa"ilitated 0' !anuna1.

Seventh, 6ud1e 6avellana also adopted the antra that the liti1ants are ade

for the "ourts instead of "ourts for the liti1ants. In Cri. Case No. %3*%4,

entitled People v. 2erin, the a""used, assisted 0' Pu0li" Attorne' B',

pleaded 1uilt' to the "rie of attepted hoi"ide. -he a""used filed a

PetitionAppli"ation for Pro0ation, prepared 0' the PAO 0ut si1ned onl' 0' the

a""used. 6ud1e 6avellana refused to a""ept said PetitionAppli"ation and

re=uired the father of the a""used to return the PetitionAppli"ation all the wa'

fro the !-C in a Castellana to the PAO in a Carlota, despite the 1reat

distan"e 0etween these two "ities. -he PAO alread' adopted the pra"ti"e of

preparin1 the otions for e8tension of tie to file "ounter*affidavit, otions for

release of inor, or appli"ations for pro0ation, 0ut lettin1 the a""used

theselves or their parents (in "ase the a""used were inors) si1n the

otionsappli"ations, thus, ena0lin1 the PAO to serve as an' "lients as

possi0le despite the la"7 of law'ers. Su"h pra"ti"e is not prohi0ited

"onsiderin1 that under Rule 3, Se"tion 34 of the Rules of Court, a part' a'

"ondu"t his liti1ation in a uni"ipal "ourt in person, with an aid of an a1ent or

friend appointed 0' hi for the purpose or with aid of an attorne'.&

Ei1hth, 6ud1e 6avellana did not o0serve the proper pro"edure in airin1 his

"oplaints a1ainst pu0li" attorne's. 6ud1e 6avellana re0u7ed the pu0li"

attorne's in the Orders he issued. In one su"h Order,: 6ud1e 6avellana

isleadin1l' stated that Pu0li" Attorne' B' has alread' e8pressed her desire

not to attend toda's hearin1, when Pu0li" Attorne' B' a"tuall' waived her

personal appearan"e at said hearin1 as she had to attend the hearin1 of a

"riinal "ase at the !-C of Pontevedra. In another Order , 6ud1e 6avellana

reported, prior to "onfiration, that the PAO law'er refused to prepare the

otion for e8tension of tie to file "ounter*affidavit, thus, proptin1 the

a""used to hire a spe"ial "ounsel. Additionall', 6ud1e 6avellana iproperl'

filed his "oplaints a1ainst the pu0li" attorne's appearin1 0efore his "ourt with

the Departent of 6usti"e or the Distri"t Pu0li" Attorne' (DPA) of a"olod Cit',

instead of the appropriate authorities, nael', the DPA of a Carlota Cit' or the

PAO Re1ional Dire"tor. !oreover, 6ud1e 6avellana had re=uired Pu0li"

 Attorne' as"u1 to e8plain wh' she allowed the a""used in Cri. Case No.%3*%#%, entitled People v. Earnshaw, to si1n the !otion for E8tension of -ie

to 2ile Counter*Affidavits, even when she was the one who prepared said

!otion. 6ud1e 6avellana did not verif' first whether it was indeed Pu0li"

 Attorne' as"u1 who prepared the !otion in =uestion, thus, violatin1 her ri1ht

to due pro"ess. Also, 6ud1e 6avellana was alread' en"roa"hin1 upon the

doain of the PAO. It is the "on"ern of the PAO and not the "ourt as to how

the Pu0li" Attorne's Offi"e will 0e ana1ed, spe"ifi"all', what poli"ies to use

in the a""eptan"e of "ases 0rou1ht to its Offi"e, how one "ould avail of its le1al

servi"es, at what point in tie one is "onsidered a "lient of said Offi"e 8 8 8 .#

astl', to support their "oplaint, Pu0li" Attorne's B' and as"u1 atta"hed a

hand*written note$% relatin1 the o0servations of an anon'ous e0er of

6ud1e 6avellanas staff, vi<

Pa1e One

. ;onora0le 6ud1e reports to dut' at past <%% A.!. and hurriedl'

"ondu"ts preliinar' investi1ations or preliinar' e8ainations after

a7in1 part' liti1ants wait fro <%% A.!. until <%% A.!. -here had

0een o""asions when liti1ants 0e"ae ipatient for waitin1 for several

Page 23: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 23/54

hours for the 6ud1es arrival and would leave the "ourt. 6ud1e then

would fore1o the e8aination.

$. 6ud1e spends ore tie "onversin1 in "afeterias than sta' in the

"ourt. iti1ants who are in a hurr' to 1o hoe would 0rin1 the affidavits

to the "afeteria for 6ud1es si1nature.

3. !ost of the tie, in Court, in front of liti1ants as audien"e and even

while soleniin1 "ivil arria1e 6ud1e would 7eep repeatin1 these

rear7s<

I a a "riinal law'er.

I did not "oe fro the DAR or the CO!EEC.

I a an intelli1ent 6ud1e.

I a the "ounsel of the faous +ar1ar*uan1'ao and

Spider 

;unter "ases and I have "aused the e8e"ution of Col. -orres.

I a not under the !a'or or the Chief of Poli"e.

and other rear7s as if he is the onl' intelli1ent, "redi0le and

=ualified 9ud1e in the whole world.

4. 6ud1e tolerates the ne1li1en"e of dut' of his "ourt utilit' wor7er.

Said utilit' wor7er never reports to open or "lose the "ourt@ he never"leans the "ourtroo@ ost of the tie he sta's in his arao7e 0ar

whi"h is soe few eters awa' f ro the !-C of a Castellana. As a

atter of fa"t the !-C of a Castellana is the dirtiest of all the

"ourtroos in the whole provin"e.

Pa1e -wo

5. !otion for E8tension of -ie to 2ile Counter Affidavit in CC %3*%#%*

Pp. vs. Efrai Earnshaw ade 0' Att'. as"u1 was denied 0' 6ud1e

on the 1round that it was the a""used who si1ned the !otion and Att'.

as"u1 was ordered to e8plain. Other otions had 0een denied for

not eetin1 the 3*da' rule 0ut others were 1ranted.

&. !otion to Redu"e ail re"eived 0' "ourt on 6anuar' :, $%%4 was

not set for hearin1 0ut was ordered 1ranted 0e"ause it was filed 0' the

intiate friend of the 9ud1e who is an a1ent of Suret'. -his did not

eet the 3*da' rule CC %3*% Pp. vs. owell Pana1uiton for

;oi"ide.

Pa1e -hree

. Criinal Case No. %3*%$* 6ulius Hillanueva 2rustrated

;oi"ide Br1ent !otion to Sta' -ransfer to Provin"ial 6ail *

2iled $$%%4 was not heard 0ut order was issued 6anuar'

$, $%%4 also.

$. Criinal Case No. %3*%#%* Efrai Earnshaw ess Serious

Ph'si"al In9uries 6anuar' $&, $%%4 * S"heduled for

arrai1nent 0ut upon order of 6ud1e on affidavit of Desistan"eof !elanie Pa0on and !otion to Disiss was filed and "ase

disissed.

3. Deonaldo ope Case * !otion for E8tension of -ie to 2ile

Counter Affidavit dated %*3*%$ was si1ned 0' a""used

nael' Deonaldo ope, 6o9o alansa1, 6unnel 6or1e, and

ernie ello * 1ranted 0' 9ud1e.$

ased on the fore1oin1, Pu0li" Attorne's B' and as"u1 pra'ed that 6ud1e

6avellana 0e reoved fro the !-C of a Castellana.

In his Coent$$ on the "oplaint a1ainst hi, 6ud1e 6avellana dis"ounted

the alle1ations of Pu0li" Attorne's B' and as"u1 as 0aseless, untruthful,

intri1ues, ali"ious and a harassent tendin1 to intiidate hi, and

"ountered as follows<

2irst, 6ud1e 6avellana asserted that he was not 1rossl' i1norant of the rules of

pro"edure and e8plained his a"tions in parti"ular "ases< (a) In People v.

Cornelio, 6ud1e 6avellana issued a warrant of arrest for the two a""used

"har1ed with !ali"ious !is"hief in the e8er"ise of his 9udi"ial dis"retion, and

the ne"essit' of holdin1 the a""used in detention 0e"ae evident when it was

Page 24: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 24/54

revealed durin1 trial that the sae a""used were wanted for Attepted

;oi"ide in Cri. Case No. %4*%#&@ (0) In People v. Celeste, et al., 6ud1e

6avellana insisted that referral of the dispute (involvin1 an alle1ed -respass to

Dwellin1) to the upon1 -a1apaa'apa was not a 9urisdi"tional re=uireent

and the !otion to Disiss on said 1round was a prohi0ited pleadin1 under the

Revised Rule on Suar' Pro"edure@ (") Still in People v. Celeste, et al.,

6ud1e 6avellana refused to disiss outri1ht the "oplaint as pra'ed for 0'

Pu0li" Attorne' B' as the 6ud1e had to a""ord due pro"ess to the "oplainant

in said "ase@ and (d) In People v. ope, et al. another "ase for !ali"ious

!is"hief, 6ud1e 6avellana reiterated that a otion to disiss is a prohi0ited

pleadin1 under the Revised Rule on Suar' Pro"edure and added that he

"ould not disiss the "ase outri1ht sin"e the prose"ution has not 'et full'

presented its eviden"e.

Se"ond, 6ud1e 6avellana denied a"tin1 as the "o*a1ent of !anuna1. !anuna1

was an Authoried Suret' ond A1ent of Coonwealth Insuran"e and Suret'

ond Copan', a 0ondin1 "opan' dul' a""redited 0' the Offi"e of the Court

 Adinistrator (OCA). -he relationship 0etween 6ud1e 6avellana and !anuna1

was purel' on offi"ial 0usiness. -hat !anuna1 influen"ed 6ud1e 6avellana infi8in1 the aount of 0ail in several "ases was a ali"ious and deli0erate lie,

0ased on ere spe"ulation and suspi"ion. 6ud1e 6avellana had "onsistentl'

1ranted the redu"tion of the aount of 0ail to onl' :5J, and not as low as

$5J, of the aount stated in Departent Cir"ular No. # dated Au1ust $#,

$%%% of the Departent of 6usti"e (DO6). 6ud1e 6avellana even "hided Pu0li"

 Attorne's B' and as"u1 that as offi"ers of the "ourt, said pu0li" attorne's

were dut' 0ound not to deand outra1eous redu"tion of 0ail. In addition,

6ud1e 6avellana "ould not warn !anuna1 to sta' awa' fro the pro"esses

(si") preises in the Court 0e"ause ever'0od' are allowed to attend Court

pro"eedin1s unless otherwise the attendan"e of the pu0li" is

prohi0ited.$3 6ud1e 6avellana li7ewise stated that he "ould not interfere with

the pro"essin1 of suret' insuran"e and 0ond for su"h was a private atter

0etween the insuran"e and 0ondin1 "opan' and its authoried a1ents.

Referrin1 to "ase re"ords, 6ud1e 6avellana pointed out that he onl' 1ranted

the otions to redu"e 0ail that "oplied with the three*da' noti"e rule.

-hird, 6ud1e 6avellana "laied to have "ondu"ted preliinar' e8aination,

as7in1 the "oplainants and their witnesses sear"hin1 =uestions, 0efore

issuin1 warrants of arrest. A""ordin1 to 6ud1e 6avellana, he would si1n the

offi"ial for of the warrant of arrest ri1ht after the preliinar' e8aination. In

soe "ases, 6ud1e 6avellana was not aware that the a""used had alread'

voluntaril' surrendered or was alread' ta7en into "ustod' 0' virtue of a

warrantless arrest 0e"ause poli"e offi"ers did not tiel' infor the "ourt of

su"h fa"t.

2ourth, 6ud1e 6avellana did not violate the "onstitutional ri1hts of the a""used

in People v. autista. 6ud1e 6avellana ar1ued that while a 9ud1e "an as7

"larifi"ator' =uestions durin1 the preliinar' investi1ation, a preliinar'

investi1ation is andator' onl' when the law iposes the penalt' of

iprisonent of at least four 'ears, two onths, and one da'. 6ud1e 6avellana

further averred that he alwa's advised liti1ants to se"ure the servi"es of a

"ounsel or that of a pu0li" attorne' fro the PAO. ;owever, even when the

pu0li" attorne' failed or refused to appear 0efore the "ourt, 6ud1e 6avellana

still pro"eeded with his "larifi"ator' =uestions sin"e there was 'et no full 0lown

trial for whi"h the a""used alread' needed the servi"es of a "opetent law'er.

2ifth, 6ud1e 6avellana e8plained his failure to arrive for the pre*trial in

Hillanueva v. Re1alado s"heduled on April 4, $%%5. 6ud1e 6avellana averred

that he had 0een sufferin1 fro dia0etes, as evin"ed 0' his edi"al re"ords

fro the Supree Court ;ealth and >elfare Plan, and on said date, his 0loodsu1ar rose to 3%%, whi"h "aused hi to 0e lethar1i", wea7, and drows'.

Si8th, 6ud1e 6avellana repudiated the alle1ation that he applied the law and

ruled whisi"all' and in"onsistentl'. 6ud1e 6avellana asserted that he applied

the law and the rules a""ordin1 to what he 0elieves is fair, 9ust and e=uita0le in

the e8er"ise of his 9udi"ial dis"retion.$4 6ud1e 6avellana never favored

!anuna1 and in all "riinal "ases involvin1 hoi"ide, he had 1ranted the

redu"tion of 0ail toP 3%,%%%.%% (:5J of the re"oended 0ail of P 4%,%%%.%%).

Seventh, 6ud1e 6avellana aditted not a""eptin1 petitions, appli"ations, and

otions prepared 0' the PAO 0ut si1ned onl' 0' the a""used, asseveratin1

that pu0li" attorne's should affi8 their si1natures and state their Roll of

 Attorne's nu0er in ever' pleadin1 the' file in "ourt. 6ud1e 6avellana as7ed

that if all "ourts adits (si") an' pleadin1 filed 0' an' liti1ant then what will

happen to the pra"ti"e of law$5

Ei1hth, 6ud1e 6avellana ephasied that 1overnent law'ers, su"h as Pu0li"

 Attorne's B' and as"u1, are paid with peoples one', so the' should 0e

sin"ere and dedi"ated to their wor7 and, whenever possi0le, 1o the e8tra ile

to serve poor liti1ants. -hus, 6ud1e 6avellana reported Pu0li" Attorne's B'

Page 25: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 25/54

and as"u1 to hi1her PAO offi"ials to 1uide said pu0li" attorne's and not to

interfere with the perforan"e of their fun"tions.

 And ninth, 6ud1e 6avellana identified the e0er of his staff who wrote the

note "ontainin1 ore alle1ations a1ainst hi as !r. Ra' D. Pineda (Pineda),

Pro"ess Server. 6ud1e 6avellana des"ri0ed Pineda as ver' a0noral,

e""entri" and =ueer in his relationship with his fellow staff as shown 0' his

=uarrelsoe attitude and fond of in"itin1 liti1ants to "riti"ie the Cler7 of Court

and other personnel and ost of all his lo'alt' to the Offi"ial of the !uni"ipalit'

rather than to this Court 8 8 8.$& 6ud1e 6avellana "larified that he often

entioned the +ar1ar*uan1'ao idnappin1 with Dou0le !urder Case and

the Spider ;unters !ultiple !urder and !ultiple 2rustrated !urder Case not to

0oast 0ut to rela' the ipression that he eant 0usiness as Presidin1 6ud1e.

-hese "ases were du00ed as the Case of the Centur' 0' then E8e"utive

6ud1e ernardo Ponferrada of the Re1ional -rial Court of a"olod Cit' (who

later 0e"ae Deput' Court Adinistrator) 0e"ause the sae involved 0i1 tie

personalities. 6ud1e 6avellana entioned the said "ases even when

soleniin1 arria1es 0e"ause he would then 0e readin1 the ;ol' S"riptures

and he had to hi1hli1ht that he survived the trials and threats to his life0e"ause of the ;ol' i0le. 6ud1e 6avellana also did not have a Court Aide who

owned a arao7e ar whose ne1li1en"e the 9ud1e was toleratin1. Pineda was

 9ust 9ealous 0e"ause he was not desi1nated 0' 6ud1e 6avellana as A"tin1

Do"7et Cler7 in lieu of !r. Hee Ca0allero who was alread' on terinal leave

prior to retireent. 6ud1e 6avellana further narrated that he had reprianded

Pineda several ties, even in open "ourt. In one of these instan"es, it was

0e"ause Pineda su0itted a falsified inforation sheet to the Supree Court

Personnel Division, statin1 therein that he had never 0een "har1ed with a

"riinal offense, when in truth, he was previousl' "har1ed with Ph'si"al

In9ur'. 6ud1e 6avellana advised Pineda to re"tif' the latters re"ords 0'

e8e"utin1 an affidavit to 0e su0itted to the Supree Court Personnel

Division, 0ut Pineda did not heed the sae.

In the end, 6ud1e 6avellana stressed that the "har1es a1ainst hi were

0aseless and ali"ious@ and the a"ts 0ein1 "oplained of involved 9udi"ial

dis"retion and, thus, 9udi"ial in nature and not the proper su09e"t of an

adinistrative "oplaint. 6ud1e 6avellana hinted a0out a "onspira"' 0etween

the !uni"ipal !a'or, on one hand, and Pu0li" Attorne's B' and as"u1, on

the other. -he !uni"ipal !a'or was purportedl' an1r' at 6ud1e 6avellana

0e"ause the latter "aused the arrest of and heard the "ases a1ainst the

forers supporters and eplo'ees@ while Pu0li" Attorne' as"u1 was

sufferin1 fro a osin1 iti1ants S'ndroe and Prose"ution Cople8, and

was influen"in1 Pu0li" Attorne' B', a neoph'te law'er.

Conse=uentl', 6ud1e 6avellana sou1ht the disissal of the instant "oplaint

a1ainst hi.

-he Offi"e of the Court Adinistrator (OCA), in its report$: dated 6anuar' $,

$%%&, found 6ud1e 6avellana lia0le for 1ross i1noran"e of the law or pro"edure

when he did not appl' the Revised Rule on Suar' Pro"edure in "ases

appropriatel' "overed 0' said Rule@ and ($) 1ross is"ondu"t when he 1ot

involved in 0usiness relations with !anuna1, ipleented the law

in"onsistentl', and entioned his a""oplishents for pu0li"it'. -he OCA thus

re"oended that<

. -he instant adinistrative "oplaint 0e REDOCE-ED as a re1ular 

adinistrative atter@ and

$. 6ud1e Edwin . 6avellana, !-C, a Castellana, Ne1ros O""idental

0e SBSPENDED fro offi"e without salar' and other 0enefits for three(3) onths with a S-ERN >ARNIN+ that repetition of the sae or

siilar a"ts in the future shall 0e dealt with ore severel'.$

In a Resolution$# dated 2e0ruar' 5, $%%:, the Court re*do"7eted the "oplaint

as a re1ular adinistrative atter and re=uired parties to anifest their

willin1ness to su0it the "ase for resolution on the 0asis of the pleadin1s filed.

On separate dates,3% the parties anifested their willin1ness to su0it the

"ase for resolution 0ased on the pleadin1s alread' filed.

>e a1ree with the findin1s and "on"lusions of the OCA, e8"ept for the penalt'

iposed.

I

+ross I1noran"e of the aw

-he Revised Rule of Suar' Pro"edure shall 1overn the followin1 "riinal

"ases<

Page 26: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 26/54

SEC-ION . S"ope. ? -his Rule shall 1overn the suar' pro"edure in the

!etropolitan -rial Courts, the !uni"ipal -rial Courts in Cities, the !uni"ipal

-rial Courts, and the !uni"ipal Cir"uit -rial Courts in the followin1 "ases fallin1

within their 9urisdi"tion.

8 8 8 8

. Criinal Cases<

() Hiolations of traffi" laws, rules and re1ulations@

($) Hiolations of the rental law@

(3) Hiolations of uni"ipal or "it' ordinan"es@

(4) Hiolations of atas Pa0ansa ilan1 $$ (oun"in1 Che"7s aw).

(5) All other "riinal "ases where the penalt' pres"ri0ed 0' law for the

offense "har1ed is iprisonent not e8"eedin1 si8 onths, or a fine

not e8"eedin1 one thousand pesos (P ,%%%.%%), or 0oth, irrespe"tive

of other iposa0le penalties, a""essor' or otherwise, or of the "ivil

lia0ilit' arisin1 therefro< Provided, however, -hat in offenses

involvin1 daa1e to propert' throu1h "riinal ne1li1en"e, this Rule

shall 1overn where the iposa0le fine does not e8"eed ten thousand

pesos (P %,%%%.%%). (Ephasis supplied.)

-he "ases People v. Cornelio3 and People v. ope, et al.3$ pendin1 0efore

6ud1e 6avellana were 0oth for ali"ious is"hief.

-he "rie of ali"ious is"hief is "oitted 0' an' person who deli0eratel'

"auses daa1e to the propert' of another throu1h eans not "onstitutin1

arson.33 -here are spe"ial "ases of ali"ious is"hief whi"h are spe"ifi"all'

"overed 0' Arti"le 3$ of the Revised Penal Code, whi"h provides<

 AR-. 3$. Spe"ial "ases of ali"ious is"hief. ? An' person who shall "ause

daa1e to o0stru"t the perforan"e of pu0li" fun"tions, or usin1 an'

poisonous or "orrosive su0stan"e@ or spreadin1 an' infe"tion or "onta1ion

aon1 "attle@ or who "auses daa1e to the propert' of the National !useu

or National i0rar', or to an' ar"hive or re1istr', waterwor7s, road, proenade,

or an' other thin1 used in "oon 0' the pu0li", shall 0e punished<

. ' prision "orre""ional in its iniu and ediu periods, if the

value of the daa1e "aused e8"eeds ,%%% pesos@

$. ' arresto a'or, if su"h value does not e8"eed the a0ove*

entioned aount 0ut is over $%% pesos@ and

3. ' arresto enor, if su"h value does not e8"eed $%% pesos.

(Ephasis ours.)

 All other "ases of ali"ious is"hief shall 0e 1overned 0' Arti"le 3$# of the

sae Code, whi"h reads<

 AR-. 3$#. Other is"hiefs. ? -he is"hiefs not in"luded in the ne8t pre"edin1

arti"le shall 0e punished<

. ' arresto a'or in its ediu and a8iu periods, if the value

of the daa1e "aused e8"eeds ,%%% pesos@

$. ' arresto a'or in its iniu and ediu periods, if su"h valueis over $%% pesos 0ut does not e8"eed ,%%% pesos@ and

3. ' arresto enor or fine of not less than the value of the daa1e

"aused and not ore than $%% pesos, if the aount involved does not

e8"eed $%% pesos or "annot 0e estiated. (Ephasis ours.)

>ithout an' showin1 that the a""used in People v. Cornelio and People v.

ope, et al. were "har1ed with the spe"ial "ases of ali"ious is"hief

parti"ularl' des"ri0ed in Arti"le 3$ of the Revised Penal Code, then Arti"le

3$# of the sae Code should 0e applied. If the aounts of the alle1eddaa1e to propert' in People v. Cornelio and People v. ope, et

al., P &,%%%.%%34 and P 3,%%%.%%,35 respe"tivel', are proven, the appropriate

penalt' for the a""used would 0e arresto a'or in its ediu and a8iu

periods whi"h under Arti"le 3$#(a) of the Revised Penal Code, would 0e

iprisonent for two ($) onths and one () da' to si8 (&) onths. Clearl',

these two "ases should 0e 1overned 0' the Revised Rule on Suar'

Pro"edure.

6ud1e 6avellanas issuan"e of a >arrant of Arrest for the a""used in People v.

Cornelio is in violation of Se"tion & of the Revised Rule on Suar'

Pro"edure, "ate1ori"all' statin1 that the "ourt shall not order the arrest of the

Page 27: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 27/54

a""used e8"ept for failure to appear whenever re=uired. 6ud1e 6avellana

never "laied that the a""used failed to appear at an' hearin1. ;is 9ustifi"ation

that the a""used was wanted for the "rie of attepted hoi"ide, 0ein1 tried

in another "ase, Cri. Case No. %4*%#&, is totall' una""epta0le and further

indi"ative of his i1noran"e of law. People v. Cornelio, pendin1 0efore 6ud1e

6avellanas "ourt as Cri. Case No. %4*%#:, is for ali"ious is"hief, and is

distin"t and separate fro Cri. Case No. %4*%#&, whi"h is for attepted

hoi"ide, althou1h 0oth "ases involved the sae a""used. Pro"eedin1s in

one "ase, su"h as the issuan"e of a warrant of arrest, should not 0e e8tended

or ade appli"a0le to the other.

In People v. ope, et al., 6ud1e 6avellana "ondu"ted a preliinar'

investi1ation even when it was not re=uired or 9ustified.3&

-he Revised Rule on Suar' Pro"edure does not provide for a preliinar'

investi1ation prior to the filin1 of a "riinal "ase under said Rule. A "riinal

"ase within the s"ope of the Rule shall 0e "oen"ed in the followin1

anner<

SEC. . ;ow "oen"ed. ? -he filin1 of "riinal "ases fallin1 within the

s"ope of this Rule shall 0e either 0' "oplaint or 0' inforation@ Provided,

however, -hat in !etropolitan !anila and in Chartered Cities, su"h "ases shall

0e "oen"ed onl' 0' inforation, e8"ept when the offense "annot 0e

prose"uted de ofi"io.

-he "oplaint or inforation shall 0e a""opanied 0' the affidavits of the

"oplainant and of his witnesses in su"h nu0er of "opies as there are

a""used plus two ($) "opies for the "ourts files. If this re=uireent is not

"oplied with within five (5) da's fro date of filin1, the "ase a' 0e

disissed.

SEC. $. Dut' of Court. ?

(a) If "oen"ed 0' "oplaint. ? On the 0asis of the "oplaint and

the affidavits and other eviden"e a""opan'in1 the sae, the "ourt

a' disiss the "ase outri1ht for 0ein1 patentl' without 0asis or erit

and order the release of the a""used if in "ustod'.

(0) If "oen"ed 0' inforation. ? >hen the "ase is "oen"ed 0'

inforation, or is not disissed pursuant to the ne8t pre"edin1

para1raph, the "ourt shall issue an order whi"h, to1ether with "opies

of the affidavits and other eviden"e su0itted 0' the prose"ution, shall

re=uire the a""used to su0it his "ounter*affidavit and the affidavits of

his witnesses as well as an' eviden"e in his 0ehalf, servin1 "opies

thereof on the "oplainant or prose"utor not later than ten (%) da's

fro re"eipt of said order. -he prose"ution a' file repl' affidavits

within ten (%) da's after re"eipt of the "ounter*affidavits of the

defense.

SEC. 3. Arrai1nent and trial. ? Should the "ourt, upon a "onsideration of the

"oplaint or inforation and the affidavits su0itted 0' 0oth parties, find no

"ause or 1round to hold the a""used for trial, it shall order the disissal of the

"ase@ otherwise, the "ourt shall set the "ase for arrai1nent and trial.

If the a""used is in "ustod' for the "rie "har1ed, he shall 0e iediatel'

arrai1ned and if he enters a plea of 1uilt', he shall forthwith 0e senten"ed.

Se"tion , Rule $ of the Revised Rules of Criinal Pro"edure onl' re=uires

that a preliinar' investi1ation 0e "ondu"ted 0efore the filin1 of a "oplaint orinforation for an offense where the penalt' pres"ri0ed 0' law is at least four

(4) 'ears, two ($) onths and one () da' without re1ard to the fine. As has

0een previousl' esta0lished herein, the a8iu penalt' iposa0le for

ali"ious is"hief in People v. ope, et al. is 9ust si8 (&) onths.

6ud1e 6avellana did not provide an' reason as to wh' he needed to "ondu"t a

preliinar' investi1ation in People v. ope, et al. >e stress that the Revised

Rule on Suar' Pro"edure was pre"isel' adopted to proote a ore

e8peditious and ine8pensive deterination of "ases, and to enfor"e the

"onstitutional ri1hts of liti1ants to the speed' disposition of "ases.3:

6ud1e 6avellana "annot 0e allowed to ar0itraril' "ondu"t pro"eedin1s 0e'ond

those spe"ifi"all' laid down 0' the Revised Rule on Suar' Pro"edure,

there0' len1thenin1 or dela'in1 the resolution of the "ase, and defeatin1 the

e8press purpose of said Rule.

>e further a1ree with the OCA that 6ud1e 6avellana "oitted a 0latant error

in den'in1 the !otion to Disiss filed 0' the a""used in People v. Celeste, et

al. and in insistin1 that said !otion was a prohi0ited pleadin1, even thou1h the

"ase was never previousl' referred to the upon1

Page 28: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 28/54

-a1apaa'apa as re=uired 0' Se"tions and #(a) of the Revised Rule on

Suar' Pro"edure.

-he pertinent provisions of the Revised Rule on Suar' Pro"edure read<

Se". . Referral to upon. Q Cases re=uirin1 referral to the upon for

"on"iliation under the provisions of Presidential De"ree No. 5% where there

is no showin1 of "oplian"e with su"h re=uireent, shall 0e disissed without

pre9udi"e, and a' 0e revived onl' after su"h re=uireent shall have 0een

"oplied with. -his provision shall not appl' to "riinal "ases where the

a""used was arrested without a warrant.

Se". #. Prohi0ited pleadin1s and otions. Q -he followin1 pleadin1s,

otions, or petitions shall not 0e allowed in the "ases "overed 0' this Rule<

(a) !otion to disiss the "oplaint or to =uash the "oplaint or inforation

e8"ept on the 1round of la"7 of 9urisdi"tion over the su09e"t atter, or failure to

"opl' with the pre"edin1 se"tion. (Ephases ours.)

>e see no a0i1uit' in the afore=uoted provisions. A "ase whi"h has not 0een

previousl' referred to the upon1 -a1apaa'apa shall 0e disissed without

pre9udi"e. A otion to disiss on the 1round of failure to "opl' with the

upon re=uireent is an e8"eption to the pleadin1s prohi0ited 0' the Revised

Rule on Suar' Pro"edure. +iven the e8press provisions of the Revised

Rule on Suar' Pro"edure, we find irrelevant 6ud1e 6avellanas ar1uent

that referral to the upon is not a 9urisdi"tional re=uireent. -he followin1 fa"ts

are undisputed< People v. Celeste, et al. was not referred to the upon, and the

a""used filed a !otion to Disiss 0ased on this 1round. 6ud1e 6avellana

should have allowed and 1ranted the !otion to Disiss (al0eit without

pre9udi"e) filed 0' the a""used in People v. Celeste, et al.

-he Revised Rule on Suar' Pro"edure has 0een in effe"t sin"e Nove0er

5, ##. It f inds appli"ation in a su0stantial nu0er of "ivil and "riinal "ases

pendin1 0efore 6ud1e 6avellanas "ourt. 6ud1e 6avellana "annot "lai to 0e

unfailiar with the sae.

Ever' 9ud1e is re=uired to o0serve the law. >hen the law is suffi"ientl' 0asi", a

 9ud1e owes it to his offi"e to sipl' appl' it@ and an'thin1 less than that would

0e "onstitutive of 1ross i1noran"e of the law. In short, when the law is so

eleentar', not to 0e aware of it "onstitutes 1ross i1noran"e of the law.3

In A1unda' v. 6ud1e -resvalles,3# we "alled the attention of 6ud1e -resvalles to

Se"tion $ of the Revised Rule on Suar' Pro"edure whi"h states that a

patentl' erroneous deterination to avoid the appli"ation of the Revised Rule

on Suar' Pro"edure is a 1round for dis"iplinar' a"tion. >e went on further 

to interpret said provision as follows<

 Althou1h the said provision states that patentl' erroneous deterination to

avoid the appli"ation of the Revised Rule on Suar' Pro"edure is a 1round

for dis"iplinar' a"tion, the provision "annot 0e read as appli"a0le onl' where

the failure to appl' the rule is deli0erate or ali"ious. Otherwise, the poli"' of

the law to provide for the e8peditious and suar' disposition of "ases

"overed 0' it "ould easil' 0e frustrated. ;en"e, re=uirin1 9ud1es to a7e the

deterination of the appli"a0ilit' of the rule on suar' pro"edure upon the

filin1 of the "ase is the onl' 1uarant' that the poli"' of the law will 0e full'

realied. 8 8 8.4% (Ephasis ours.)

Resultantl', 6ud1e 6avellana "annot invo7e 1ood faith or la"7 of deli0erate or

ali"ious intent as a defense. ;is repeated failure to appl' the Revised Rule

on Suar' Pro"edure in "ases so o0viousl' "overed 0' the sae isdetriental to the e8pedient and effi"ient adinistration of 9usti"e, for whi"h we

hold hi adinistrativel' lia0le.

 As for 6ud1e 6avellanas refusal to disiss People v. ope, et al. and People

v. Celeste, et al., however, we e8onerate hi of the adinistrative "har1es for

the sae. 6ud1e 6avellana is "orre"t that the appre"iation of eviden"e is

alread' within his 9udi"ial dis"retion.4 An' alle1ed error he i1ht have

"oitted in this re1ard is the proper su09e"t of an appeal 0ut not an

adinistrative "oplaint. >e reind 6ud1e 6avellana thou1h to adhere "losel'

to the Revised Rule on Suar' Pro"edure in hearin1 and resolvin1 said

"ases.

II

+ross !is"ondu"t

6ud1es are en9oined 0' the New Code of 6udi"ial Condu"t for the Philippine

6udi"iar'4$ to a"t and 0ehave, in and out of "ourt, in a anner 0efittin1 their

offi"e, to wit<

Canon $

IN-E+RI-G

Page 29: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 29/54

Inte1rit' is essential not onl' to the proper dis"har1e of the 9udi"ial offi"e 0ut

also to the personal deeanor of 9ud1es.

SEC-ION . 6ud1es shall ensure that not onl' is their "ondu"t a0ove

reproa"h, 0ut that it is per"eived to 0e so in the view of a reasona0le o0server.

SEC-ION $. -he 0ehavior and "ondu"t of 9ud1es ust reaffir the people/s

faith in the inte1rit' of the 9udi"iar'. 6usti"e ust not erel' 0e done 0ut ust

also 0e seen to 0e done.

8 8 8 8

Canon 3

I!PAR-IAI-G

Ipartialit' is essential to the proper dis"har1e of the 9udi"ial offi"e. It applies

not onl' to the de"ision itself 0ut also to the pro"ess 0' whi"h the de"ision is

ade.

SEC-ION . 6ud1es shall perfor their 9udi"ial duties without favor, 0ias or

pre9udi"e.

SEC-ION $. 6ud1es shall ensure that his or her "ondu"t, 0oth in and out of

"ourt, aintains and enhan"es the "onfiden"e of the pu0li", the le1al

profession and liti1ants in the ipartialit' of the 9ud1e and of the 9udi"iar'.

8 8 8 8

Canon 4PROPRIE-G

Propriet' and the appearan"e of propriet' are essential to the perforan"e of

all the a"tivities of a 9ud1e.

SEC-ION . 6ud1es shall avoid ipropriet' and the appearan"e of ipropriet'

in all of their a"tivities.

SEC-ION $. As a su09e"t of "onstant pu0li" s"rutin', 9ud1es ust a""ept

personal restri"tions that i1ht 0e viewed as 0urdensoe 0' the ordinar'

"itien and should do so freel' and willin1l'. In parti"ular, 9ud1es shall "ondu"t

theselves in a wa' that is "onsistent with the di1nit' of the 9udi"ial offi"e.

8 8 8 8

SEC-ION . 6ud1es shall not use or lend the presti1e of the 9udi"ial offi"e to

advan"e their private interests, or those of a e0er of their fail' or of

an'one else, nor shall the' "onve' or perit others to "onve' the ipression

that an'one is in a spe"ial position iproperl' to influen"e the in the

perforan"e of 9udi"ial duties.

8 8 8 8

SEC-ION 4. 6ud1es shall not 7nowin1l' perit "ourt staff or others su09e"t to

their influen"e, dire"tion or authorit', to as7 for, or a""ept, an' 1ift, 0e=uest,

loan favor in relation to an'thin1 done or to 0e done or oitted to 0e done in

"onne"tion with their duties or fun"tions.

8 8 8 8

Canon 5

EBAI-G

Ensurin1 e=ualit' of treatent to all 0efore the "ourts is essential to the due

perforan"e of the 9udi"ial offi"e.

8 8 8 8

SEC-ION $. 6ud1es shall not, in the perforan"e of 9udi"ial duties, 0' wordsor 0' "ondu"t, anifest 0ias or pre9udi"e towards an' person or 1roup on

irrelevant 1rounds.

8 8 8 8

SEC-ION $. 6ud1es shall not, in the perforan"e of 9udi"ial duties, 0' words

or "ondu"t, anifest 0ias or pre9udi"e towards an' person or 1roup on

irrelevant 1rounds.

SEC-ION 3. 6ud1es shall "arr' out 9udi"ial duties with appropriate

"onsideration for all persons, su"h as the parties, witnesses, law'ers, "ourt

Page 30: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 30/54

staff and 9udi"ial "ollea1ues, without differentiation on an' irrelevant 1round,

iaterial to the proper perforan"e of su"h duties.

8 8 8 8

Canon &

CO!PE-ENCE AND DII+ENCE

Copeten"e and dili1en"e are prere=uisites to the due perforan"e of 9udi"ial

offi"e.

8 8 8 8

SEC-ION 5. 6ud1es shall perfor all 9udi"ial duties, in"ludin1 the deliver' of

reserved de"isions, effi"ientl', fairl' and with reasona0le proptness.

SEC-ION &. 6ud1es shall aintain order and de"oru in all pro"eedin1s

0efore the "ourt and 0e patient, di1nified and "ourteous in relation to liti1ants,

witnesses, law'ers and others with who the 9ud1e deals in an offi"ial"apa"it'. 6ud1es shall re=uire siilar "ondu"t of le1al representatives, "ourt

staff and others su09e"t to their influen"e, dire"tion or "ontrol.

6ud1e 6avellana had violated the afore=uoted "anonsstandards in several

instan"es.

6ud1e 6avellana did not adit havin1 a 0usiness relationship with !anuna1,

"ontrar' to the findin1 of the OCA. >hat 6ud1e 6avellana stated in his

Coent was that his relationship with !anuna1 was purel' on offi"ial

0usiness, sin"e !anuna1 was a dul' authoried a1ent of a "redited 0ondin1"opan'. Nonetheless, 6ud1e 6avellana, 0' referrin1 the a""used who

appeared 0efore his "ourt dire"tl' to !anuna1 for pro"essin1 of the 0ail 0ond

of said a""used, 1ave the ipression that he favored !anuna1 and

!anuna1s 0ondin1 "opan', as well as the reasona0le suspi"ion that he

0enefitted finan"iall' fro su"h referrals. 6ud1e 6avellana should ree0er

that he ust not onl' avoid ipropriet', 0ut the appearan"e of ipropriet' as

well.

!oreover, 6ud1e 6avellana was "onspi"uousl' in"onsistent in +rantin143 or

den'in144 otions for e8tension of tie to file pleadin1s whi"h were si1ned

onl' 0' the a""used. 6ud1e 6avellana reasoned in his Coent that the PAO

law'ers who prepared the otions should have si1ned the sae as "ounsels

for the a""used, 0ut this onl' e8plained 6ud1e 6avellanas denial of said

otions. It did not address wh', in other "ases, 6ud1e 6avellana had 1ranted

siilar otions si1ned onl' 0' the a""used. >ithout an' satisfa"tor' 0asis for

the differen"e in his rulin1 on these otions, 6ud1e 6avellana had a"ted

ar0itraril' to the pre9udi"e of the PAO law'ers.

6ud1e 6avellana hiself aditted that he often entioned his previous

a""oplishents as "ounsel in 0i1 and "ontroversial "ases, "laiin1 that he

onl' did so to ipress upon the parties that he eant 0usiness and that he

relied 1reatl' upon +od to survive the trials and threats to his life. >e are not

persuaded.

-he previous Code of 6udi"ial Condu"t spe"ifi"all' warned the 9ud1es a1ainst

see7in1 pu0li"it' for personal vain1lor'.45 Hain1lor', in its ordinar' eanin1,

refers to an individuals e8"essive or ostentatious pride espe"iall' in ones own

a"hieveents.4& Even no lon1er e8pli"itl' stated in the New Code of 6udi"ial

Condu"t, 9ud1es are still pros"ri0ed fro en1a1in1 in self*prootion and

indul1in1 their vanit' and pride 0' Canons (on Inte1rit') and $ (on Propriet')of the New Code.

>e have previousl' stron1l' reinded 9ud1es in that<

Canon $, Rule $.%$ of the Code of 6udi"ial Condu"t sa's in no un"ertain ters

that a 9ud1e should not see7 pu0li"it' for personal vain1lor'. A parallel

pros"ription, this tie for law'ers in 1eneral, is found in Rule 3.% of the Code

of Professional Responsi0ilit'< a law'er shall not use or perit the use of an'

false, fraudulent, isleadin1, de"eptive, undi1nified, self*laudator' or unfair

stateent or "lai re1ardin1 his =ualifi"ations or le1al servi"es. -his eans

that law'ers and 9ud1es ali7e, 0ein1 liited 0' the e8a"tin1 standards of their

profession, "annot de0ase the sae 0' a"tin1 as if ordinar' er"hants

haw7in1 their wares. As su""in"tl' put 0' a leadin1 authorit' in le1al and

 9udi"ial ethi"s, (i)f law'ers are prohi0ited fro 8 8 8 usin1 or perittin1 the use

of an' undi1nified or self*laudator' stateent re1ardin1 their =ualifi"ations or

le1al servi"es (Rule 3.%, Code of Professional Responsi0ilit'), with ore

reasons should 9ud1es 0e prohi0ited fro see7in1 pu0li"it' for vanit' or self*

1lorifi"ation. 6ud1es are not a"tors or a"tresses or politi"ians, who thrive 0'

pu0li"it'.4:

Page 31: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 31/54

6ud1e 6avellanas a"tuations as des"ri0ed a0ove run "ounter to the andate

that 9ud1es 0ehave at all ties in su"h a anner as to proote pu0li"

"onfiden"e in the inte1rit' and ipartialit' of the 9udi"iar'.4 >e "annot stress

enou1h that 9ud1es are the visi0le representations of law and 9usti"e. -he'

ou1ht to 0e e0odients of "opeten"e, inte1rit' and independen"e. In

parti"ular, uni"ipal 9ud1es are frontline offi"ers in the adinistration of 9usti"e.

It is therefore essential that the' live up to the hi1h standards deanded 0'

the Code of 6udi"ial Condu"t.4#

2or his violations of the New Code of Professional Condu"t, 6ud1e 6avellana

"oitted 1ross is"ondu"t. >e have defined 1ross is"ondu"t as a

trans1ression of soe esta0lished and definite rule of a"tion, ore

parti"ularl', unlawful 0ehavior or 1ross ne1li1en"e 0' the pu0li" offi"er.5%

-here is no suffi"ient eviden"e to hold 6ud1e 6avellana adinistrativel' lia0le

for the other "har1es a1ainst hi "ontained in the "oplaint. Get, we "all

6ud1e 6avellanas attention to several atters pointed out 0' the OCA, that if

left un"he"7ed, a' a1ain result in another adinistrative "oplaint a1ainst

the 9ud1e< () noti"es of hearin1 issued 0' 6ud1e 6avellanas "ourt ust statethe spe"ifi" tie, date, and pla"e5@ ($) in "ase 6ud1e 6avellana is una0le to

attend a hearin1 for an' reason, he ust infor his Cler7 of Court as soon as

possi0le so that the latter "an alread' "an"el the hearin1 and spare the

parties, "ounsels, and witnesses fro waitin15$@ and (3) he ust ta7e "are in

as"ertainin1 the fa"ts and a""ordin1 due pro"ess to the parties "on"erned

0efore lev'in1 "har1es of in"opeten"e or indifferen"e a1ainst the PAO

law'ers appearin1 0efore his "ourt.53

III

Penalt'

+ross i1noran"e of the law54 and 1ross is"ondu"t "onstitutin1 violations of

the Code of 6udi"ial Condu"t55 are "lassified as serious "har1es under Rule

4%, Se"tion of the Revised Rules of Court, and penalied under Rule 4%,

Se"tion (a) of the sae Rules 0'<

) Disissal fro the servi"e, forfeiture of all or part of the 0enefits as

the Court a' deterine, and dis=ualifi"ation fro reinstateent or

appointent to an' pu0li" offi"e, in"ludin1 1overnent*owned or

"ontrolled "orporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of

0enefits shall in no "ase in"lude a""rued leave "redits@

$) Suspension fro offi"e without salar' and other 0enefits for ore

than three (3) 0ut not e8"eedin1 si8 (&) onths@ or 

3) A fine of ore than P $%,%%%.%% 0ut not e8"eedin1 P 4%,%%%.%%

-he OCA re"oended that 6ud1e 6avellana 0e suspended without salar'

and 0enefits for three onths.$*vvph+$ +iven the 1ravit' and nu0er of

violations "oitted 0' 6ud1e 6avellana, we dee it appropriate to ipose

suspension without salar' and 0enefits for a period of three onths and one

da'.

>;ERE2ORE, 6ud1e Erwin . 6avellana is found +BI-G of 1ross i1noran"e

of the law and 1ross is"ondu"t. ;e is SBSPENDED fro offi"e without

salar' and other 0enefits for a period of three (3) onths and one () da' with

a S-ERN >ARNIN+ that the repetition of the sae or siilar a"ts in the future

shall 0e dealt with ore severel'. et a "op' of this De"ision 0e atta"hed to his

re"ords with this Court.

SO ORDERED.

Page 32: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 32/54

BG.R. No. 1<=0=2. O+(o-* 1<, 2002

%EO%"E OF THE %HI"I%%INES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEGUNDINO

$A"ENCIA y #"ANCA, JOHNN6 TADENA y TORDA, a!

DOINGO DERO6, JR. y SAROCA, accused-appellants.

D E C I S I O N

Per Curiam

 A""used*appellants Se1undino Halen"ia ' lan"a, 6ohnn' -adena '

-orda and Doin1o Dero', 6r. ' Saro"a were "har1ed and "onvi"ted 0' the

Re1ional -rial Court of ueon Cit' for violation of Se"tion 5 of Repu0li" A"t

(R.A.) &4$5, otherwise 7nown as the Dan1erous Dru1s A"t, for unlawfull'

sellin1 or offerin1 to sell &34.% 1ras of Psuedophedrine ;'dro"hloride whi"h

is a re1ulated dru1. -he trial "ourt senten"ed ea"h of the a""used to the

supree penalt' of death and to pa' a fine of P5%%,%%%.%%. ;en"e, the "ase is

now 0efore us on autoati" review.

It appears fro the prose"ution eviden"e that on Septe0er $$, ##, a

"onfidential inforant of the PNP Nar"oti"s +roup "onfided to the 1roup that

he was a0le to ne1otiate the pur"hase of one 7ilo of dru1s fro a "ertain

6unior and 6ohnn'. -he inforation was passed to the operatives tea leader,

Insp. Raon Arsenal and then to their "oandin1 offi"er, Supt. Arturo

Castillo. Supt. Castillo iediatel' fored a 0u'*0ust operation tea

"oposed of PInsp. Arsenal, PInsp. easa, SPO$ Estrada and SPO 2a"to.

SPO arr' 2a"to was desi1nated as the poseur 0u'er. ;e was to 0u' the one

7ilo of dru1s for the a1reed pri"e of P%%,%%%.%%. SPO 2a"to was 1iven ten

P%%.%% 0ills whi"h he used in preparin1 the 0oodle one'.F

-he tea pro"eeded to the "orner of aler and !iller Streets in San

2ran"is"o Del !onte, ueon Cit'. SPO 2a"to and the inforant waited at

the "orner of aler and !iller Streets, while the other e0ers of the tea

sta'ed a0out ten eters awa'. At a0out %<5% in the evenin1, a white

!itsu0ishi an"er with plate no. BE- 34 arrived. -he driver, 6ohnn' -adena,

"alled the inforant. -he inforant, to1ether with SPO 2a"to, approa"hed

hi. SPO 2a"to was introdu"ed 0' the inforant to 6ohnn' -adena as the

0u'er. SPO 2a"to as7ed -adena where the stuff was.-he latter replied, Its

here. ;e told hi not to worr' 0e"ause their 0oss, a "ertain Dodon1

(Se1undino Halen"ia), was present. SPO 2a"to saw three persons inside the

"ar. Halen"ia was seated 0eside the driver while their other "opanion,

Doin1o Dero', was at the 0a"7seat. -adena then as7ed SPO 2a"to a0out

the one' and the latter showed hi a plasti" 0a1 "ontainin1 the

one'. >hen SPO 2a"to as7ed -adena to show hi the stuff, Halen"ia

ordered Dero' to hand hi the 0a1 "ontainin1 the dru1s. Dero' did as

instru"ted. Halen"ia then handed the stuff to SPO 2a"to in e8"han1e for the

one'. SPO 2a"to e8ained the "ontent of the 0a1 and when he saw the

white su0stan"e inside, he s"rat"hed his head to si1nal his "opanions that

the transa"tion had 0een "onsuated. SPO 2a"to then introdu"ed hiself 

as a poli"e offi"er and 1ra00ed the "ar 7e' fro the i1nition swit"h. SPO

2a"to arrested 6ohnn' -adena while his "opanions seied the other 

a""used. -he three a""used were 0rou1ht to Cap Crae for investi1ation.$F -he su0stan"e was su0itted for e8aination at the PNP Crie

a0orator'. It tested positive for psuedo*ephedrine, a re1ulated dru1.3F

-he defense, on the other hand, alle1ed that in the evenin1 of Septe0er 

$$, ##, 6ohnn' -adena went to see Se1undino Halen"ia in Caloo"an Cit' toas7 hi if he 7new an'one who would 0e interested in 0u'in1 a ##5

!itsu0ishi an"er. Halen"ia was alle1edl' en1a1ed in the 0usiness of 0u'in1

and sellin1 used "ars. On the wa' hoe, Halen"ia rode with -adena to 1o to

a1o anta', ueon Cit'. As the' were "rossin1 an interse"tion alon1 Ili1an

Street, an Isuu van suddenl' 0lo"7ed their wa'. -he passen1ers of the van

who appeared to 0e poli"e offi"ers approa"hed the. -he' too7 Halen"ias 1un

whi"h he 0ou1ht fro a poli"e asset. -he poli"e 0rou1ht Halen"ia and -adena

to Cap Crae.-adena was pla"ed in a 9ail "ell while Halen"ia was 0rou1ht

0efore Col. Castillo. Col. Castillo showed Halen"ia a plasti" 0a1 and said that

he would use it as eviden"e a1ainst hi. Halen"ia "laied that the poli"e

auled hi and e8torted fro hi the aount of P$%,%%%.%%. -he' also too7

his ne"7la"e worth P5,%%%.%% and his wallet "ontainin1 P,$%%.%%.4F !eanwhile, Doin1o Dero' "laied that in the evenin1 of Septe0er $$,

##, he was pi"7ed up 0' the poli"e without an' reason at the house of 

Halen"ias parents.5F

On Septe0er $4, ##, Assistant Cit' Prose"utor Danilo . Har1as filed

the followin1 inforation a1ainst the a""used<

6)at on or a#out t)e $$nd da8 o( Septe#er '5 in Fue?on Cit8, P)i!ippines, t)e said

a++used, +onspirin", +on(ederatin" *it) and utua!!8 )e!pin" one anot)er, not )avin"

Page 33: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 33/54

 #een aut)ori?ed #8 !a* to se!!, dispense, de!iver, transport or distri#ute an8 re"u!ated

dru", did t)en and t)ere *i!(u!!8 and un!a*(u!!8 se!! or o((er (or sa!e 1<%.& "ras o(

*)ite +r8sta!!ine su#stan+e +ontainin" Pseudoep)edrine 8dro+)!oride *)i+) is a

re"u!ated dru".

CON6RAR 6O LA9.1

+ivin1 ore wei1ht to the testion' of the poli"e offi"ers who "ondu"ted

the 0u'*0ust operation, the trial "ourt "onvi"ted the a""used of the "rie

"har1ed. It held that the denial and ali0i of the a""used were not suffi"ient to

overturn the prose"ution eviden"e whi"h esta0lished the 1uilt of the a""used.:F -he dispositive portion of the de"ision read<

9ERE>ORE, (indin" t)at t)e prose+ution *as a#!e to esta#!is) t)e "ui!t o( t)e

a++used #e8ond reasona#!e dou#t, t)e Court )ere#8 senten+es ea+) o( t)e 2'3 to

su((er t)e pena!t8 o( 0eat) 2$3 to pa8 a (ine o( P&&,&&&.&& and 2<3 to pa8 t)e +osts.

SO OR0ERE0.5

In this appeal, a""used*appellants raise the followin1 errors<

. -he "ourt a =uo 1ravel' erred in findin1 that the 1uilt of the

a""used*appellants for the "rie "har1ed has 0een proven

0e'ond reasona0le dou0t.

$. -he "ourt a =uo 1ravel' erred in 1ivin1 wei1ht and "reden"e to the

ipro0a0le testionies of the witnesses for the prose"ution.

3. -he "ourt a =uo 1ravel' erred in findin1 that there was "onspira"'in the "ase at 0ar.#F

-he appeal is without erit.

 A""used*appellants were "au1ht in fla#rante delicto in a 0u'*0ust

operation. A 0u'*0ust operation is a for of entrapent where0' wa's and

eans are resorted to for the purpose of trappin1 and "apturin1 the

law0rea7ers in the e8e"ution of their "riinal plan. Bnless there is "lear and

"onvin"in1 eviden"e that the e0ers of the 0u'*0ust tea were inspired 0'

an' iproper otive or were not properl' perforin1 their dut', their testion'

on the operation deserves full faith and "redit. >hen the poli"e offi"ers

involved in the 0u'*0ust operation have no otive to falsel' testif' a1ainst the

a""used, the "ourts shall uphold the presuption that the' have perfored

their duties re1ularl'.%F -he trial "ourt in this "ase "orre"tl' upheld the

testion' of the prose"ution witnesses, the poli"e offi"ers who "ondu"ted the

0u'*0ust operation. It did not err in appl'in1 the presuption of re1ularit' in the

perforan"e of dut' 0' law enfor"eent a1ents. >e laid down in the "ase

of %*o/l* 3. Do'aF the test in deterinin1 the "redi0ilit' of the testion' of 

poli"e offi"ers re1ardin1 the "ondu"t of 0u'*0ust operations. -he Court said<

It is t)us iperative t)at t)e presuption, (uris tantum, o( re"u!arit8 in t)e

 per(oran+e o( o((i+ia! dut8 #8 !a* en(or+eent a"ents raised #8 t)e So!i+itor 4enera!

 #e app!ied *it) studied restraint. 6)e presuption s)ou!d not #8 itse!( prevai! over t)e

 presuption o( inno+en+e and t)e +onstitutiona!!8-prote+ted ri")ts o( t)e individua!. It

is t)e dut8 o( +ourts to preserve t)e purit8 o( t)eir o*n tep!e (ro t)e prostitution o(

t)e +riina! !a* t)rou") !a*!ess en(or+eent. Courts s)ou!d not a!!o* t)ese!ves to

 #e used as an instruent o( a#use and in=usti+e !est an inno+ent person #e ade to

su((er t)e unusua!!8 severe pena!ties (or dru" o((enses.

9e t)ere(ore stress t)at t)e o#=e+tive test in #u8-#ust operations deands t)at t)edetai!s o( t)e purported transa+tion ust #e +!ear!8 and ade;uate!8 s)o*n. 6)is ust

start (ro t)e initia! +onta+t #et*een t)e poseur-#u8er and t)e pus)er, t)e o((er to

 pur+)ase, t)e proise or pa8ent o( t)e +onsideration unti! t)e +onsuation o( t)e

sa!e #8 t)e de!iver8 o( t)e i!!e"a! dru" su#=e+t o( t)e sa!e. 6)e anner #8 *)i+) t)e

initia! +onta+t *as ade, *)et)er or not t)rou") an in(orant, t)e o((er to pur+)ase

t)e dru", t)e pa8ent o( t)e #u8-#ust one8, and t)e de!iver8 o( t)e i!!e"a! dru",

*)et)er to t)e in(orant a!one or t)e po!i+e o((i+er, ust #e t)e su#=e+t o( stri+t

s+rutin8 #8 +ourts to insure t)at !a*-a#idin" +iti?ens are not un!a*(u!!8 indu+ed to

+oit an o((ense. Criina!s ust #e +au")t #ut not at a!! +ost. At t)e sae tie,

)o*ever, e@ainin" t)e +ondu+t o( t)e po!i+e s)ou!d not disa#!e +ourts into i"norin"

t)e a++useds predisposition to +oit t)e +rie. I( t)ere is over*)e!in" eviden+e o(

)a#itua! de!in;uen+8, re+idivis or p!ain +riina! pro+!ivit8, t)en t)is ust a!so #e

+onsidered. Courts s)ou!d !oo/ at a!! (a+tors to deterine t)e predisposition o( an

a++used to +oit an o((ense in so (ar as t)e8 are re!evant to deterine t)e va!idit8 o(

t)e de(ense o( indu+eent.'$

In the "ase at 0ar, SPO 2a"to, the poseur*0u'er, 1ave the "oplete

details of how the transa"tion was "ondu"ted fro 0e1innin1 to end ** the

ne1otiation 0etween the "onfidential a1ent and the dru1 dealers, the

preparation ade 0' the 0u'*0ust tea 0efore "ondu"tin1 the operation, when

the inforant introdu"ed hi as the supposed 0u'er to the dru1 dealers, the

Page 34: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 34/54

e8"han1e of the stuff and the pa'ent 0etween the pushers and the poseur 

0u'er, and the arrest of said dru1 dealers. SPO 2a"to positivel' identified

a""used*appellants as the dru1 dealers. ;is testion' went as follows<

888 888 888

< Can 'ou re"all, !r. >itness, if 'ou reported for dut' on Septe0er $$,

##

 A< Ges, aa.

< >hat tie did 'ou report

 A< Nine o"lo"7 in the ornin1, aa.

< Now, while 'ou were on dut' was there an' spe"ifi" assi1nent 1iven to

'ou 0' 'our "hief

 A< Ges, sir.

< >hat was that assi1nent

 A< -o "ondu"t surveillan"e a1ainst dru1 traffi" in ueon Cit'.

< >as there an' spe"ifi" person who 'ou were supposed to "ondu"t

surveillan"e on De"e0er $$ ... Septe0er $$, ##

 A< Ges, aa. -he 1roup of a "ertain 6ohnn' alias Pani7i 1roup.

< And who ordered 'ou or instru"ted 'ou to "ondu"t the surveillan"e

 A< Our tea leader, Poli"e Inspe"tor Raon Arsenal.

< Now, how did 'ou 7now the 1roup of Pani=ui would 0e the su09e"t of 

surveillan"e

 A< -hrou1h our "onfidential a1ent, aa.

< >ere 'ou a0le to tal7 to this "onfidential a1ent

 A< Ges, aa.

< And what is the 1ender of this "onfidential a1ent

 A< A ale, aa.

< >hat did he tell 'ou, if an'

 A< ;e told e that he was a0le to ne1otiate the one 7ilo dru1 deal to a

"ertain 6unior and 6ohnn', aa.

< And upon re"eivin1 this inforation, what did 'ou do

 A< >e infored our tea leader, Poli"e Inspe"tor Raon Arsenal the

inforation of our "onfidential a1ent, aa.

< And what happened after 1ivin1 that inforation to 'our tea leader

 A< Our tea leader Raon Arsenal told our CO Col. Castillo a0out thatdru1 transa"tion.

< >hat happened ne8t, if an'

 A< Inspe"tor Arsenal fored a tea to "ondu"t 0u' 0ust operation.

< >as there an' 0riefin1

 A< -here was a 0riefin1 in our offi"e, aa.

< >hat was ta7en up in that 0riefin1

 A< In the 0riefin1, I would pose as poseur 0u'er.

< And how u"h were 'ou supposed to 0u'

 A< Ei1ht ;undred -housand Pesos per 7ilo, aa.

< So, what else were ta7en up durin1 the 0riefin1

Page 35: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 35/54

 A< Inspe"tor Arsenal furnished e ten (%) pie"es of One ;undred Peso*

0ill. -hen I prepared the three 0undles with nu0ers inside and a7e

it appear, paran1 tin1nan o P%%,%%%.%%, paran1 a' 0oodle sa

loo0.

< After that ... ' the wa' who are the e0ers of the tea

 A< PInsp. Arsenal, PInsp. easa, SPO$ Estrada, 'self and others.

< Gou entioned of a "onfidential inforant, was he present durin1 that

0riefin1

 A< Ges, aa.

< And after preparin1 the 0oodle one' and % pie"es of P%%*0ill, what

else happened

 A< After I prepared the 0oodle on the ni1ht, we pro"eeded to the area.

< >here is this area

 A< Corner aler and !iller Streets, San 2ran"is"o del !onte,

ueon Cit'.

< >ere 'ou a0le to rea"h the area

 A< Ges, sir.

< >hat happened ne8t if an'

 A< Around %<3% p.., $$ Septe0er ##, inutes later, around %<5%,

p., there was an autoo0ile, !itsu0ishi an"er "olor white BE- 34

arrived at the "orner of aler*!iller Streets.

< >here were 'ou at that tie when that !itsu0ishi an"er arrived

 A< I was at the "orner of aler and !iller Street.

< >ho were with 'ou at that tie

 A< Our "onfidential a1ent.

< ;ow a0out the other e0ers of the tea where were the'

 A< -he' were awa' fro us at least 3 eters ... % eters, awa' fro us.

< -en eters awa' fro 'ou

 A< Ges, sir.

< >hen this !itsu0ishi an"er arrived, what happened ne8t

 A< -he driver "alled for e and our CI, to1ether with the CI.

< And then what happened

 A< -he CI introdu"ed e as 0u'er.

< And then what happened after the CI introdu"ed 'ou to the o""upants or 

to the driver, what happened ne8t

 A< After I was introdu"ed as the 0u'er, I as7ed the driver where the stuff 

was. -he driver said, Its here and he also adonished e not to worr'

0e"ause their 0oss is there, a "ertain Dodon1, seated in front, in the

front seat 0eside the driver.

< ;ow an' o""upants were there in that !itsu0ishi an"er

 A< -hree persons, aa.

< And where was the other one

 A< One at the 0a"7 seat, aa.

< And when the driver told 'ou that his 0oss was there, a "ertain Dodon1,

what happened ne8t

 A< ;e as7ed e where was the one', and I said, Its here, and while I was

holdin1 the one' whi"h was pla"ed inside a plasti" wrap.

Page 36: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 36/54

< >hat happened ne8t

 A< I told hi to show e the stuff first 0e"ause the one' was with e.

< And what happened

 A< -he an seated in the f ront seat "alled the an at the 0a"7 and said

Dalhin o dito, 0i1a' o dito. -he person at the 0a"7 seat handed the

1reen 0a1 to the person seated in the front seat.

< And then what happened

 A< And then he handed it to e sa0a' 7aliwaan.

< >ho handed to 'ou the stuff

 A< -he an 0eside the driver.

< And when it was handed to 'ou, what did 'ou do

 A< I 1ave the one', 7aliwaan na. And then I =ui"7l' loo7ed at the stuff and

I saw that there was white su0stan"e inside so ri1ht awa' I ade the

pre*arran1ed si1nal.

< >hat was that pre*arran1ed si1nal

 A< I s"rat"hed ' head whi"h eans the deal was, the dru1 deal was

positive.

< And when 'ou s"rat"hed 'our head what did 'ou do

 A< I introdu"ed 'self to the suspe"t as a poli"e offi"er. And I 1ra00ed the

7e' of the vehi"le.

< >here was the 7e' at that tie

 A< It was a(t) the i1nition swit"h.

< And then what did 'ou do

 A< I said, Arestado 7a'o and arrested the driver.

< ' the wa', !r. >itness, where were 'ou at the tie, while 'ou were

tal7in1 with the driver

 A< eside the driver.

< -here (si") were still inside that "ar

 A< Ges, sir.

< And when 'ou told the driver, 'ou are arrested, what else happened

 A< I 1ot the 7e'.

< And then, after that

 A< I said, Arestado 7a'o.

< After that what happened

 A< !' "opanions ali1hted fro the -aaraw 2M and arrested his other 

"opanions.

< And then what happened

 A< After that we 0rou1ht the to Cap Crae, aa, for investi1ation.

< If 'ou will 0e a0le to see this driver a1ain of that vehi"le with who 'ouhad that transa"tion, will 'ou 0e a0le to identif' hi

 A< Ges, aa.

< If he is inside the "ourtroo will 'ou please point hi to us

 A< -hat one is 6ohnn' -adena (the person pointed to 0' the witness 0'

tappin1 his shoulder when as7ed to identif' hiself 1ave his nae as

6ohnn' -adena).

Page 37: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 37/54

< ;ow a0out that an who handed to 'ou that 1reen 0a1 "ontainin1 the

white su0stan"e

 A< (>itness pointin1 to a an seated inside the "ourtroo who when as7ed

to identif' hiself 1ave his nae as Se1undino Halen"ia).

< ;ow a0out the an seated at the 0a"7 of the "ar who handed the 1reen

0a1 to !r. Se1undino Halen"ia

 A< (>itness pointin1 to a an who when as7ed to identif' hiself 1ave his

nae as Doin1o Dero')

888 888 888.

SPO 2a"tos testion' withstood the ri1orous "ross*e8aination 0' the

defense "ounsel and was "orro0orated 0' SPO$ Estrada, also a e0er of 

the 0u'*0ust tea.3F

 A""used*appellants "ontend that it is in"redi0le that the alle1ed vendorsof the dru1s would readil' do 0usiness with the alle1ed poseur*0u'er who

the' et onl' on Septe0er $$, ##, "onsiderin1 that the transa"tion

involved the hu1e aount of P%%,%%%.%%. >e are not ipressed. It has 0een

shown that the appellants have previousl' ne1otiated with the "onfidential

a1ent. Prior to Septe0er $$, the' have alread' "losed the deal for the

pur"hase of dru1s for the pri"e of P%%,%%%.%%. ;en"e, it is not as if the

appellants were dealin1 with stran1ers. -he' 7new the inforant. >hen the'

et with the poseur*0u'er, the latter was a""opanied 0' the inforant who

introdu"ed the to ea"h other. Nonetheless, the Court has o0served that dru1

pushers sell their prohi0ited arti"les to an' "ustoer, 0e he a stran1er or not,

in private as well as in pu0li" pla"es, whether da'tie or ni1httie. Indeed,

dru1 pushers have 0e"oe in"reasin1l' darin1, dan1erous and openl' defiant

of the law. ;en"e, it is iaterial whether the vendor and the vendee are

failiar with ea"h other. It is onl' ne"essar' to prove the fa"t of a1reeent and

the a"ts "onstitutin1 sale and deliver' of the prohi0ited dru1s. 4F -hese fa"ts

have 0een suffi"ientl' proved in this "ase.

 A""used*appellants also ar1ue that the prose"ution has not shown 0'

"lear and "onvin"in1 eviden"e whether the sale was voluntar' or whether this

was a "ase of insti1ation. -he ar1uent deserves s"ant "onsideration. A 0u'*

0ust operation is a for of entrapent whi"h in re"ent 'ears has 0een

a""epted as a valid eans of arrestin1 violators of the Dan1erous Dru1s

aw. It is "oonl' eplo'ed 0' poli"e offi"ers as an effe"tive wa' of 

apprehendin1 law offenders in the a"t of "oittin1 a "rie. In a 0u'*0ust

operation, the idea to "oit a "rie ori1inates fro the offender, without

an'0od' indu"in1 or proddin1 hi to "oit the offense. Its opposite is

insti1ation or indu"eent, wherein the poli"e or its a1ent lures the a""used

into "oittin1 the offense in order to prose"ute hi. Insti1ation is deeed

"ontrar' to pu0li" poli"' and "onsidered an a0solutor' "ause. 5F In this "ase,

a""used*appellants, apparentl', have, for soe tie, 0een en1a1ed in dru1dealin1. -he' were in fa"t the su09e"t of a surveillan"e "ondu"ted 0' the

operatives of the PNP Nar"oti"s +roup. -he poli"e en1a1ed the servi"es of a

"onfidential inforant to lead the to transa"t with the. -he "onfidential

a1ent fa"ilitated the eetin1 of a""used*appellants and the poseur 

0u'er. ;en"e, it was not the poli"e nor the "onfidential a1ent who indu"ed

a""used*appellants to "oit a violation of the Dan1erous Dru1s aw. -he'

were alread' violatin1 the law and the poli"e onl' used the 0u'*0ust operation

to apprehend the in the a"t of unlawfull' sellin1 dru1s. -his is "ertainl' a

le1itiate entrapent operation and not insti1ation.

2inall', a""used*appellants alle1ed that the prose"ution failed to prove

the e8isten"e of a "onspira"' aon1 the three a""used, as it did not show a

"oon plan or desi1n aon1 the. A1ain, we find otherwise. -here is

"onspira"' when two or ore persons "oe to an a1reeent "on"ernin1 the

"oission of a felon' and de"ide to "oit it.&F -he e8isten"e of a

"onspira"' need not 0e proved 0' dire"t eviden"e 0e"ause it a' 0e inferred

fro the parties "ondu"t indi"atin1 a "oon understandin1 aon1

theselves with respe"t to the "oission of the "rie.Neither is it ne"essar'

to show that two or ore persons et to1ether and entered into an e8pli"it

a1reeent settin1 out the details of an unlawful s"hee or o09e"t to 0e "arried

out. It a' 0e dedu"ed fro the ode or anner in whi"h the "rie wasperpetrated or fro the a"ts of the a""used showin1 a 9oint or "oon

purpose and desi1n, "on"erted a"tion and "ounit' of interest.:F -he

e8isten"e of a "onspira"' aon1 the three a""used is ver' u"h apparent

fro the narration of SPO 2a"to a0out how the transa"tion went. Bpon the

arrival of the !itsu0ishi an"er 0earin1 plate no. BE- 34 at the "orner of 

aler and !iller Streets, the driver, -adena, "alled the inforant and SPO

2a"to, the supposed 0u'er. -adena as7ed SPO 2a"to a0out the

one'. >hen SPO 2a"to as7ed for the stuff, Halen"ia, who was o""up'in1

the front passen1er seat, ordered Dero', who was seated at the 0a"7 of the

"ar, to hand hi the 0a1 "ontainin1 the dru1s. Halen"ia 1ave the 0a1 to SPO

Page 38: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 38/54

2a"to as the latter handed hi the one'. -his deonstrates the "on"erted

effort of the three a""used in dru1 dealin1. Conspira"' aon1 the is

o0viousl' present in this "ase.

 As re1ards the penalt', the Court a1rees with the "on"lusions of the trial

"ourt, thus<

Se+tion $&, Arti+!e IV o( R.A. 1%$, as aended, provides t)at 6)e pena!ties (or

o((ense under @ @ @ Se+tions '%, '%-A, ', and '1 o( Art. III o( t)is A+t s)a!! #e app!ied

i( t)e dan"erous dru"s invo!ved is in an8 o( t)e (o!!o*in" ;uantities: 5. In t)e +ase o(

ot)er dan"erous dru"s, t)e ;uantit8 *)i+) is (ar #e8ond t)erapeuti+ re;uireents, as

deterined and prou!"ated #8 t)e 00B, a(ter +onsu!tations7)earin"s +ondu+ted (or

t)e purpose. In Se+tion ', t)e pena!t8 is reclusion perpetuato deat) and a (ine ran"in"

(ro (ive )undred t)ousand pesos to ten i!!ion pesos. 6)e +rie is a""ravated *)en

+oitted #8 an8 person or persons #e!on"in" to an or"ani?ed or s8ndi+ated +rie

"roup 2Se+tion <&, R.A. 1 and Peop!e vs. Esparas, 4.R. No. '$&&<%, Ju!8 '&,

'53. In su+) a +ase, t)e deat) pena!t8 s)a!! #e iposed. An or"ani?ed or s8ndi+ated

+rie "roup )as #een de(ined as a "roup o( t*o or ore persons +o!!a#oratin",

+on(ederatin" or utua!!8 )e!pin" one anot)er (or purposes o( "ain in t)e +oissiono( an8 +rie. 2Se+tion <&, R.A. No. 1 and Peop!e vs. Esparas, 4.R. No. '$&&<%,

Ju!8 '&, '53

IN $IE: :HEREOF, the de"ision of the Re1ional -rial Court of ueon

Cit' in Criinal Case No. #*:: is A22IR!ED.F

In a""ordan"e with Arti"le 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as aended 0'

Se"tion $5 of Repu0li" A"t No. :&5#, upon finalit' of this de"ision, let the

re"ords of these "ases 0e forwarded to the Offi"e of the President for possi0le

e8er"ise of e8e"utive "leen"'.

SO ORDERED.

Page 39: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 39/54

RODEL L ONG,

Petitioner,

 

- versus -

 

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,1!

Respondent.

G. R. No. 1%7788

 

Present:

 

CARPIO, J ., C)airperson,

BRION,

PEREH,

SERENO, and

REES, JJ. 

Prou!"ated:

 

>e#ruar8 $, $&'$

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

 

D E C I S I O N

SERENO, J.:

6)is is a Petition (or Revie* on Certiorari under Ru!e % see/in" to set aside

t)e Court o( Appea!s 2CA3 0e+ision in CA-4.R. CR No. <$'1 dated '5 >e#ruar8

$&''$ and Reso!ution dated 5 Ju!8 $&''.

 

 Statement of the Facts and of the Case

6)e (a+ts, as (ound #8 t)e Re"iona! 6ria! Court 2R6C3, *)i+) sustained t)e

version o( t)e prose+ution, are as (o!!o*s:

PO$ Eanue! L. A!te?a, *)o *as t)en assi"ned at t)e

Su#-Station ' o( t)e Na"a Cit8 Po!i+e Station as a tra((i+ en(or+er,

su#stantia!!8 testi(ied t)at on Mar+) '&, $&&< at around <:&& o+!o+/ 

in t)e ornin", )e sa* t)e a++used, *)o *as +oin" (ro t)e

dire+tion o( Pan"ani#an 0rive and "oin" to 0iversion Road, Na"a

Cit8, drivin" a otor+8+!e *it)out a )e!et t)at t)is propted )i

to (!a" do*n t)e a++used (or vio!atin" a uni+ipa! ordinan+e *)i+)

re;uires a!! otor+8+!e drivers to *ear )e!et 2si+3 *)i!e drivin"

said otor ve)i+!e t)at )e invited t)e a++used to +oe inside t)eir 

su#-station sin+e t)e p!a+e *)ere )e (!a""ed do*n t)e a++used is

a!ost in (ront o( t)e said su#-station t)at *)i!e )e and SPO'

Ra8(ord Bri!!ante *ere issuin" a +itation ti+/et (or vio!ation o( 

uni+ipa! ordinan+e, )e noti+ed t)at t)e a++used *as uneas8 and

/ept on "ettin" soet)in" (ro )is =a+/et t)at )e *as a!erted and

so, )e to!d t)e a++used to ta/e out t)e +ontents o( t)e po+/et o( )is

 =a+/et as t)e !atter a8 )ave a *eapon inside it t)at t)e a++used

o#!i"ed and s!o*!8 put out t)e +ontents o( t)e po+/et o( )is =a+/et

*)i+) *as a ni+/e!-!i/e tin or eta! +ontainer a#out t*o 2$3 to t)ree

2<3 in+)es in si?e, in+!udin" t*o 2$3 +e!!p)ones, one 2'3 pair o( s+issors and one 2'3 S*iss /ni(e t)at upon seein" t)e said +ontainer,

)e as/ed t)e a++used to open it t)at a(ter t)e a++used opened t)e

+ontainer, )e noti+ed a +artoon +over and soet)in" #eneat) it and

t)at upon )is instru+tion, t)e a++used spi!!ed out t)e +ontents o( t)e

+ontainer on t)e ta#!e *)i+) turned out to #e (our 2%3 p!asti+ sa+)ets,

t)e t*o 2$3 o( *)i+) *ere ept8 *)i!e t)e ot)er t*o 2$3 +ontained

suspe+ted shabu.<

 

Arrai"ned on $ Ju!8 $&&<, petitioner, assisted #8 +ounse!, entered a p!ea o( 

 Not "ui!t8 to t)e +)ar"e o( i!!e"a! possession o( dan"erous dru"s. Pretria! *as

terinated on $% Septe#er $&&<, a(ter *)i+), tria! ensued.

0urin" tria!, Po!i+e O((i+er < 2PO<3 Eanue! A!te?a and a (orensi+ +)eist

testi(ied (or t)e prose+ution. On t)e ot)er )and, petitioner testi(ied (or )ise!( and

raised t)e de(ense o( p!antin" o( eviden+e and e@tortion.

In its ' >e#ruar8 $&& 0e+ision, %  t)e R6C +onvi+ted petitioner o( i!!e"a!

 possession o( dan"erous dru"s +oitted on '& Mar+) $&&<. It (ound t)e

 prose+ution eviden+e su((i+ient to s)o* t)at )e )ad #een !a*(u!!8 arrested (or a tra((i+

vio!ation and t)en su#=e+ted to a va!id sear+), *)i+) !ed to t)e dis+over8 on )is person

o( t*o p!asti+ sa+)ets !ater (ound to +ontain shabu. 6)e R6C a!so (ound )is de(ense o( 

(rae-up and e@tortion to #e *ea/, se!(-servin" and unsu#stantiated. 6)e dispositive portion o( its 0e+ision )e!d:

9ERE>ORE, =ud"ent is )ere#8 rendered, (indin"

a++used RO0EL LDH 8 ON4 )*+L%  #e8ond reasona#!e dou#t (or 

t)e +rie o( vio!ation o( Se+tion '', Arti+!e II o( Repu#!i+ A+t No.

'1 and senten+in" )i to su((er t)e indeterinate pena!t8 o( 

iprisonent ran"in" (ro t*e!ve 2'$3 8ears and 2'3 da8, as

iniu, to t)irteen 2'<3 8ears, as a@iu, and to pa8 a (ine o( 

6)ree undred 6)ousand Pesos 2 <&&,&&&.&&3.₱

Page 40: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 40/54

6)e su#=e+t shabu is )ere#8 +on(is+ated (or turn over to t)e

P)i!ippine 0ru" En(or+eent A"en+8 (or its proper disposition and

destru+tion in a++ordan+e *it) !a*.

SO OR0ERE0.1

 

Dpon revie*, t)e CA a((ired t)e R6Cs 0e+ision.

On '$ Septe#er $&'', petitioner (i!ed under Ru!e % t)e instant Petition (or 

Revie* on Certiorari dated ' Septe#er $&''. In a Reso!ution dated '$ O+to#er $&'',

t)is Court re;uired respondent to (i!e a +oent on t)e Petition. On % Januar8 $&'$,

t)e !atter (i!ed its Coent dated < Januar8 $&'$.

Petitioner raised t)e (o!!o*in" "rounds in support o( )is Petition:

@0  THE SEARCH AND SEIRE OF THE

ALLEGED SBJECT SHAB IS INVALID.

@00  THE PRESMPTION OF REGLARITY IN THEPERFORMANCE OF DTY OF THE POLICE

OFFICER CANNOT BE RELIED PON IN THIS

CASE.

@000  THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALE OF

THE ALLEGED SBJECT SPECIMEN HAS BEEN

COMPROMISED.

@0  THE GILT OF THE ACCSED-PETITIONER 

AS NOT PROVEN BEYOND THE REASONABLE

DOBT (sic).

 

Petitioner +!ais t)at t)ere *as no !a*(u! sear+) and sei?ure, #e+ause t)ere *as no

!a*(u! arrest. e +!ais t)at t)e (indin" t)at t)ere *as a !a*(u! arrest *as erroneous,

sin+e )e *as not even issued a +itation ti+/et or +)ar"ed *it) vio!ation o( t)e +it8

ordinan+e. Even assuin" t)ere *as a va!id arrest, )e +!ais t)at )e )ad never 

+onsented to t)e sear+) +ondu+ted upon )i.

On t)e ot)er )and, (indin" t)at petitioner )ad #een !a*(u!!8 arrested, t)e R6C )e!d

t)us:

It is #e8ond dispute t)at t)e a++used *as (!a""ed do*n and

appre)ended in t)is +ase #8 Po!i+e O((i+ers A!te?a and Bri!!ante (or 

vio!ation o( Cit8 Ordinan+e No. 5-&'$, an ordinan+e re;uirin" t)e

use o( +ras) )e!et #8 otor+8+!e drivers and riders t)ereon in t)e

Cit8 o( Na"a and pres+ri#in" pena!ties (or vio!ation t)ereo(. 6)e

a++used )ise!( aditted t)at )e *as not *earin" a )e!et at t)e

tie *)en )e *as (!a""ed do*n #8 t)e said po!i+e o((i+ers, a!#eit )e

)ad a )e!et in )is possession. O#vious!8, t)ere is !e"a! #asis on t)e

 part o( t)e appre)endin" o((i+ers to (!a" do*n and arrest t)e a++used

 #e+ause t)e !atter *as a+tua!!8 +oittin" a +rie in t)eir presen+e,t)at is, a vio!ation o( Cit8 Ordinan+e No. 5-&'$. In ot)er *ords, t)e

a++used, #ein" +au")t in flagrante delicto vio!atin" t)e said

Ordinan+e, )e +ou!d t)ere(ore #e !a*(u!!8 stopped or arrested #8 t)e

appre)endin" o((i+ers. @ @ @.5

 

9e (ind t)e Petition to #e ipressed *it) erit, #ut not (or t)e parti+u!ar reasons

a!!e"ed. In +riina! +ases, an appea! t)ro*s t)e entire +ase *ide open (or revie* and

t)e revie*in" tri#una! +an +orre+t errors, t)ou") unassi"ned in t)e appea!ed =ud"ent,

or even reverse t)e tria! +ourts de+ision #ased on "rounds ot)er t)an t)ose t)at t)e

 parties raised as errors.

First , 4)/) *+2 (o +0 +//)2 o 6)00o()/. 9)en )e *as (!a""ed do*n (or 

+oittin" a tra((i+ vio!ation, )e *as not, ipso facto and so!e!8 (or t)is reason,

arrested.

Arrest is t)e ta/in" o( a person into +ustod8 in order t)at )e or s)e a8 #e

 #ound to ans*er (or t)e +oission o( an o((ense.'& It is e((e+ted #8 an a+tua!

restraint o( t)e person to #e arrested or #8 t)at persons vo!untar8 su#ission to t)e

+ustod8 o( t)e one a/in" t)e arrest. Neit)er t)e app!i+ation o( a+tua! (or+e, anua!

tou+)in" o( t)e #od8, or p)8si+a! restraint, nor a (ora! de+!aration o( arrest, is

re;uired. It is enou") t)at t)ere #e an intention on t)e part o( one o( t)e parties to

arrest t)e ot)er, and t)at t)ere #e an intent on t)e part o( t)e ot)er to su#it, under t)e

 #e!ie( and ipression t)at su#ission is ne+essar8.''

Dnder R.A. %'<1, or t)e Land 6ransportation and 6ra((i+ Code, t)e "enera!

 pro+edure (or dea!in" *it) a tra((i+ vio!ation is not t)e arrest o( t)e o((ender, #ut t)e

+on(is+ation o( t)e drivers !i+ense o( t)e !atter:

SEC6ION $. Confiscation of Driver-s License. La*

en(or+eent and pea+e o((i+ers o( ot)er a"en+ies du!8 deputi?ed #8

t)e 0ire+tor s)a!!, in appre)endin" a driver (or an8 vio!ation o( t)is

A+t or an8 re"u!ations issued pursuant t)ereto, or o( !o+a! tra((i+

ru!es and re"u!ations not +ontrar8 to an8 provisions o( t)is A+t,

+on(is+ate t)e !i+ense o( t)e driver +on+erned and issue a re+eipt

Page 41: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 41/54

 pres+ri#ed and issued #8 t)e Bureau t)ere(or *)i+) s)a!! aut)ori?e

t)e driver to operate a otor ve)i+!e (or a period not e@+eedin"

sevent8-t*o )ours (ro t)e tie and date o( issue o( said re+eipt.

6)e period so (i@ed in t)e re+eipt s)a!! not #e e@tended, and s)a!!

 #e+oe inva!id t)erea(ter. >ai!ure o( t)e driver to sett!e )is +ase

*it)in (i(teen da8s (ro t)e date o( appre)ension *i!! #e a "round

(or t)e suspension and7or revo+ation o( )is !i+ense.

 

Sii!ar!8, t)e P)i!ippine Nationa! Po!i+e 2PNP3 Operations Manua! '$  provides t)e

(o!!o*in" pro+edure (or (!a""in" do*n ve)i+!es durin" t)e +ondu+t o( +)e+/points:

SEC6ION . rocedure in /lagging Down or Accosting 

Vehicles 0hile in Mobile Car . 6)is ru!e is a "enera! +on+ept and *i!!

not app!8 in )ot pursuit operations. 6)e o#i!e +ar +re* s)a!!

underta/e t)e (o!!o*in", *)en app!i+a#!e: @ @ @

. I( it +on+erns tra((i+ vio!ations, iediate!8 issue a 6ra((i+

Citation 6i+/et 26C63 or 6ra((i+ Vio!ation Report 26VR3.

 Never indu!"e in pro!on"ed, unne+essar8 +onversation or 

ar"uent *it) t)e driver or an8 o( t)e ve)i+!es o++upants

 

At t)e tie t)at )e *as *aitin" (or PO< A!te?a to *rite )is +itation ti+/et,

 petitioner +ou!d not #e said to )ave #een under arrest. 6)ere *as no intention on t)e

 part o( PO< A!te?a to arrest )i, deprive )i o( )is !i#ert8, or ta/e )i into +ustod8.

Prior to t)e issuan+e o( t)e ti+/et, t)e period durin" *)i+) petitioner *as at t)e po!i+e

station a8 #e +)ara+teri?ed ere!8 as *aitin" tie. In (a+t, as (ound #8 t)e tria!

+ourt, PO< A!te?a )ise!( testi(ied t)at t)e on!8 reason t)e8 *ent to t)e po!i+e su#-

station *as t)at petitioner )ad #een (!a""ed do*n a!ost in (ront o( t)at p!a+e. en+e,

it *as on!8 (or t)e sa/e o( +onvenien+e t)at t)e8 *ere *aitin" t)ere. 6)ere *as no

intention to ta/e petitioner into +ustod8.

In 'er1emer v. McCarty,'< t)e Dnited States 2D.S.3 Supree Court dis+ussed

at !en"t) *)et)er t)e roadside ;uestionin" o( a otorist detained pursuant to a routine

tra((i+ stop s)ou!d #e +onsidered +ustodia! interro"ation. 6)e Court )e!d t)at, su+)

;uestionin" does not (a!! under +ustodia! interro"ation, nor +an it #e +onsidered a

(ora! arrest, #8 virtue o( t)e nature o( t)e ;uestionin", t)e e@pe+tations o( t)e

otorist and t)e o((i+er, and t)e !en"t) o( tie t)e pro+edure is +ondu+ted. It ru!ed as

(o!!o*s:

It ust #e a+/no*!ed"ed at t)e outset t)at a tra((i+ stop

si"ni(i+ant!8 +urtai!s t)e (reedo o( a+tion o( t)e driver and t)e

 passen"ers, i( an8, o( t)e detained ve)i+!e. Dnder t)e !a* o( ost

States, it is a +rie eit)er to i"nore a po!i+eans si"na! to stop ones

+ar or, on+e )avin" stopped, to drive a*a8 *it)out perission. @ @ @

o*ever, *e de+!ine to a++ord ta!isani+ po*er to t)e

 p)rase in t)e Miranda opinion ep)asi?ed #8 respondent. >ide!it8 to

t)e do+trine announ+ed in Miranda re;uires t)at it #e en(or+ed

stri+t!8, #ut on!8 in t)ose t8pes o( situations in *)i+) t)e +on+ernst)at po*ered t)e de+ision are ip!i+ated. 6)us, *e ust de+ide

*)et)er a tra((i+ stop e@erts upon a detained person pressures t)at

su((i+ient!8 ipair )is (ree e@er+ise o( )is privi!e"e a"ainst se!(-

in+riination to re;uire t)at )e #e *arned o( )is +onstitutiona!

ri")ts.

6*o (eatures o( an ordinar8 tra((i+ stop iti"ate t)e dan"er 

t)at a person ;uestioned *i!! #e indu+ed to spea/ *)ere )e *ou!d

not ot)er*ise do so (ree!8, Miranda v. Ari?ona, <5% D. S., at

%1. F0/2, ))(0o( o + oo/02 63/23+( o + /+0 2o6 02

6/)2360) )6o/+/ +( 9/0). 6)e vast a=orit8 o( roadside

detentions !ast on!8 a (e* inutes. A otorists e@pe+tations, *)en)e sees a po!i+eans !i")t (!as)in" #e)ind )i, are t)at )e *i!! #e

o#!i"ed to spend a s)ort period o( tie ans*erin" ;uestions and

*aitin" *)i!e t)e o((i+er +)e+/s )is !i+ense and re"istration, t)at )e

a8 t)en #e "iven a +itation, #ut t)at in t)e end )e ost !i/e!8 *i!!

 #e a!!o*ed to +ontinue on )is *a8. In t)is respe+t, ;uestionin"

in+ident to an ordinar8 tra((i+ stop is ;uite di((erent (ro

station)ouse interro"ation, *)i+) (re;uent!8 is pro!on"ed, and in

*)i+) t)e detainee o(ten is a*are t)at ;uestionin" *i!! +ontinue unti!

)e provides )is interro"ators t)e ans*ers t)e8 see/. See id., at %'.

Se+ond, 0/32+()2 +22o0+) *04 4) 60+ /+0

2o6 +/) (o 234 4+ 4) oo/02 ))2 o6)) + 4) )/o 4) 6o0). 6o #e sure, t)e aura o( aut)orit8 surroundin" an ared,

uni(ored o((i+er and t)e /no*!ed"e t)at t)e o((i+er )as soe

dis+retion in de+idin" *)et)er to issue a +itation, in +o#ination,

e@ert soe pressure on t)e detainee to respond to ;uestions. But

ot)er aspe+ts o( t)e situation su#stantia!!8 o((set t)ese (or+es.

Per)aps ost iportant!8, t)e t8pi+a! tra((i+ stop is pu#!i+, at !east to

soe de"ree. @ @ @

In #ot) o( t)ese respe+ts, 4) 323+ /+0 2o6 02 o/)

+(+o?o32 o + 2o-+) T)// 2o6, see 6err8 v. O)io, <$ D. S. '

2'153, 4+( o + o/+ +//)2. @ @ @ 6)e +oparative!8

nont)reatenin" +)ara+ter o( detentions o( t)is sort e@p!ains t)e

Page 42: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 42/54

a#sen+e o( an8 su""estion in our opinions t)at 6err8 stops are

su#=e+t to t)e di+tates o( Miranda. 6)e sii!ar!8 non+oer+ive aspe+t

o( ordinar8 tra((i+ stops propts us to )o!d t)at persons teporari!8

detained pursuant to su+) stops are not in +ustod8 (or t)e purposes o( 

Miranda.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

9e are +on(ident t)at t)e state o( a((airs pro=e+ted #8

respondent *i!! not +oe to pass. It is sett!ed t)at t)e sa(e"uards pres+ri#ed #8 Miranda #e+oe app!i+a#!e as soon as a suspe+ts

(reedo o( a+tion is +urtai!ed to a de"ree asso+iated *it) (ora!

arrest. Ca!i(ornia v. Be)e!er, %1< D. S. ''$', ''$ 2'5<3 2per 

+uria3. I( a otorist *)o )as #een detained pursuant to a tra((i+

stop t)erea(ter is su#=e+ted to treatent t)at renders )i in +ustod8

(or pra+ti+a! purposes, )e *i!! #e entit!ed to t)e (u!! panop!8 o( 

 prote+tions pres+ri#ed #8 Miranda. See Ore"on v. Mat)iason, %$ D.

S. %$, % 2'3 2per +uria3. 2Ep)asis supp!ied.3

 

6)e D.S. Court in 'er1emer  t)us ru!ed t)at, sin+e t)e otorist t)erein *as on!8

su#=e+ted to odest ;uestions *)i!e sti!! at t)e s+ene o( t)e tra((i+ stop, )e *as not att)at oent p!a+ed under +ustod8 2su+) t)at )e s)ou!d )ave #een apprised o( 

)is Miranda ri")ts3, and neit)er +an treatent o( t)is sort #e (air!8 +)ara+teri?ed as t)e

(un+tiona! e;uiva!ent o( a (ora! arrest. Sii!ar!8, neit)er +an petitioner )ere #e

+onsidered under arrest at t)e tie t)at )is tra((i+ +itation *as #ein" ade.

It a!so appears t)at, a++ordin" to Cit8 Ordinan+e No. 5-&'$, *)i+) *as vio!ated #8

 petitioner, t)e (ai!ure to *ear a +ras) )e!et *)i!e ridin" a otor+8+!e is pena!i?ed #8

a (ine on!8. Dnder t)e Ru!es o( Court, a *arrant o( arrest need not #e issued i( t)e

in(oration or +)ar"e *as (i!ed (or an o((ense pena!i?ed #8 a (ine on!8. It a8 #e

stated as a +oro!!ar8 t)at neit)er +an a *arrant!ess arrest #e ade (or su+) an o((ense.

6)is ru!in" does not ip!8 t)at t)ere +an #e no arrest (or a tra((i+ vio!ation. Certain!8,

*)en t)ere is an intent on t)e part o( t)e po!i+e o((i+er to deprive t)e otorist o( 

!i#ert8, or to ta/e t)e !atter into +ustod8, t)e (orer a8 #e deeed to )ave arrested

t)e otorist. In t)is +ase, )o*ever, t)e o((i+ers issuan+e 2or intent to issue3 a tra((i+

+itation ti+/et ne"ates t)e possi#i!it8 o( an arrest (or t)e sae vio!ation.

E)( 0 o() *)/) o *o/> 3()/ 4) +22360o( 4+ 6)00o()/ *+2 )))

+//)2) 36o( 9)0(? +??) o*( o/ + /+0 0o+0o( +( *40) +*+00(? 4)

0223+() o 402 0>), 4)( 4) /)30/))(2 o/ + +0 +//)2 *)/) (o o60)

*04.

6)is Court )as )e!d t)at at t)e tie a person is arrested, it s)a!! #e t)e dut8 o( 

t)e arrestin" o((i+er to in(or t)e !atter o( t)e reason (or t)e arrest and ust s)o* t)at

 person t)e *arrant o( arrest, i( an8. Persons s)a!! #e in(ored o( t)eir +onstitutiona!

ri")ts to reain si!ent and to +ounse!, and t)at an8 stateent t)e8 i")t a/e +ou!d #e

used a"ainst t)e.'% It a8 a!so #e noted t)at in t)is +ase, t)ese +onstitutiona!

re;uireents *ere +op!ied *it) #8 t)e po!i+e o((i+ers on!8 after  petitioner )ad #een

arrested (or i!!e"a! possession o( dan"erous dru"s.

In 'er1emer , t)e D.S. Court a!so noted t)at t)e  Miranda *arnin"s ust a!so

 #e "iven to a person appre)ended due to a tra((i+ vio!ation:

6)e purposes o( t)e sa(e"uards pres+ri#ed #8 Miranda are

to ensure t)at t)e po!i+e do not +oer+e or tri+/ +aptive suspe+ts into

+on(essin", to re!ieve t)e in)erent!8 +ope!!in" pressures "enerated

 #8 t)e +ustodia! settin" itse!(, *)i+) *or/ to underine t)e

individua!s *i!! to resist, and as u+) as possi#!e to (ree +ourts (ro

t)e tas/ o( s+rutini?in" individua! +ases to tr8 to deterine, a(ter t)e

(a+t, *)et)er parti+u!ar +on(essions *ere vo!untar8. 6)ose purposes

are ip!i+ated as u+) #8 in-+ustod8 ;uestionin" o( persons

suspe+ted o( isdeeanors as t)e8 are #8 ;uestionin" o( persons

suspe+ted o( (e!onies.

I( it *ere true t)at petitioner *as a!read8 deeed arrested *)en )e *as (!a""ed do*n

(or a tra((i+ vio!ation and *)i!e )e *aitin" (or )is ti+/et, t)en t)ere *ou!d )ave #een

no need (or )i to #e arrested (or a se+ond tiea(ter t)e po!i+e o((i+ers a!!e"ed!8

dis+overed t)e dru"sas )e *as a!read8 in t)eir +ustod8.

 Second , 4)/) 9)0(? (o +0 +//)2, 4) *+//+()22 2)+/4 4+ /)23) /o 0

*+2 0>)*02) 0)?+.

6)e (o!!o*in" are t)e instan+es *)en a *arrant!ess sear+) is a!!o*ed: 2i3 a *arrant!ess

sear+) in+identa! to a !a*(u! arrest 2ii3 sear+) o( eviden+e in p!ain vie* 2iii3 sear+) o( 

a ovin" ve)i+!e 2iv3 +onsented *arrant!ess sear+) 2v3 +ustos sear+) 2vi3 a stop

and (ris/ sear+) and 2vii3 e@i"ent and eer"en+8 +ir+ustan+es. '  None o( t)e a#ove-

entioned instan+es, espe+ia!!8 a sear+) in+ident to a !a*(u! arrest, are app!i+a#!e to

t)is +ase.

It ust #e noted t)at t)e eviden+e sei?ed, a!t)ou") a!!e"ed to #e inadvertent!8

dis+overed, *as not in p!ain vie*. It *as a+tua!!8 +on+ea!ed inside a eta! +ontainer 

inside petitioners po+/et. C!ear!8, t)e eviden+e *as not iediate!8 apparent.'1

Page 43: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 43/54

 Neit)er *as t)ere a +onsented *arrant!ess sear+). Consent to a sear+) is not to #e

!i")t!8 in(erred, #ut s)o*n #8 +!ear and +onvin+in" eviden+e.' It ust #e vo!untar8 in

order to va!idate an ot)er*ise i!!e"a! sear+) t)at is, t)e +onsent ust #e une;uivo+a!,

spe+i(i+, inte!!i"ent!8 "iven and un+ontainated #8 an8 duress or +oer+ion. 9)i!e t)e

 prose+ution +!ais t)at petitioner a++eded to t)e instru+tion o( PO< A!te?a, t)is a!!e"ed

a++ession does not su((i+e to prove va!id and inte!!i"ent +onsent. In (a+t, t)e R6C

(ound t)at petitioner *as ere!8 to!d to ta/e out t)e +ontents o( )is po+/et. '5

9)et)er +onsent to t)e sear+) *as in (a+t vo!untar8 is a ;uestion o( (a+t to #e

deterined (ro t)e tota!it8 o( a!! t)e +ir+ustan+es. Re!evant to t)is deterination

are t)e (o!!o*in" +)ara+teristi+s o( t)e person "ivin" +onsent and t)e environent in

*)i+) +onsent is "iven: 2'3 t)e a"e o( t)e de(endant 2$3 *)et)er t)e de(endant *as in

a pu#!i+ or a se+!uded !o+ation 2<3 *)et)er t)e de(endant o#=e+ted to t)e sear+) or 

 passive!8 !oo/ed on 2%3 t)e edu+ation and inte!!i"en+e o( t)e de(endant 23 t)e

 presen+e o( +oer+ive po!i+e pro+edures 213 t)e de(endants #e!ie( t)at no in+riinatin"

eviden+e *ou!d #e (ound 23 t)e nature o( t)e po!i+e ;uestionin" 253 t)e environent

in *)i+) t)e ;uestionin" too/ p!a+e and 23 t)e possi#!8 vu!nera#!e su#=e+tive state o( 

t)e person +onsentin". It is t)e State t)at )as t)e #urden o( provin", #8 +!ear and

 positive testion8, t)at t)e ne+essar8 +onsent *as o#tained, and *as (ree!8 and

vo!untari!8 "iven.' In t)is +ase, a!! t)at *as a!!e"ed *as t)at petitioner *as a!one at

t)e po!i+e station at t)ree in t)e ornin", a++opanied #8 severa! po!i+e o((i+ers.

6)ese +ir+ustan+es *ei") )eavi!8 a"ainst a (indin" o( va!id +onsent to a *arrant!ess

sear+).

 Neit)er does t)e sear+) ;ua!i(8 under t)e stop and (ris/ ru!e. 9)i!e t)e ru!e nora!!8

app!ies *)en a po!i+e o((i+er o#serves suspi+ious or unusua! +ondu+t, *)i+) a8 !ead

)i to #e!ieve t)at a +riina! a+t a8 #e a(oot, t)e stop and (ris/ is ere!8 a !iited

 prote+tive sear+) o( outer +!ot)in" (or *eapons.$&

In 2nowles v. +owa,$' t)e D.S. Supree Court )e!d t)at *)en a po!i+e o((i+er stops a

 person (or speedin" and +orrespondin"!8 issues a +itation instead o( arrestin" t)e !atter,

t)is pro+edure does not aut)ori?e t)e o((i+er to +ondu+t a (u!! sear+) o( t)e +ar. 6)e

Court t)erein )e!d t)at t)ere *as no =usti(i+ation (or a (u!!-#!o*n sear+) *)en t)e

o((i+er does not arrest t)e otorist. Instead, po!i+e o((i+ers a8 on!8 +ondu+t inia!

intrusions, su+) as orderin" t)e otorist to a!i")t (ro t)e +ar or doin" a patdo*n:

In Ro#inson, supra, *e noted t)e t*o )istori+a! rationa!es

(or t)e sear+) in+ident to arrest e@+eption: 2'3 t)e need to disar t)e

suspe+t in order to ta/e )i into +ustod8, and 2$3 t)e need to

 preserve eviden+e (or !ater use at tria!. @ @ @ But neit)er o( t)ese

under!8in" rationa!es (or t)e sear+) in+ident to arrest e@+eption is

su((i+ient to =usti(8 t)e sear+) in t)e present +ase.

9e )ave re+o"ni?ed t)at t)e (irst rationa!eo((i+er sa(et8is

 #ot) !e"itiate and *ei")t8, @ @ @ 6)e t)reat to o((i+er sa(et8 (ro

issuin" a tra((i+ +itation, )o*ever, is a "ood dea! !ess t)an in t)e +ase

o( a +ustodia! arrest. In Ro#inson, *e stated t)at a +ustodia! arrest

invo!ves dan"er to an o((i+er #e+ause o( t)e e@tended e@posure

*)i+) (o!!o*s t)e ta/in" o( a suspe+t into +ustod8 and transportin"

)i to t)e po!i+e station. %'% D. S., at $<%-$<. 9e re+o"ni?ed t)at

t)e dan"er to t)e po!i+e o((i+er (!o*s (ro t)e (a+t o( t)e arrest,

and its attendant pro@iit8, stress, and un+ertaint8, and not (ro t)e

"rounds (or arrest. Id., at $<%, n. . A /o30() /+0 2o6, o( 4)o4)/ 4+(, 02 + /)+0) 9/0) )(o3()/ +( 02 o/) +(+o?o32

o + 2o-+) T)// 2o6 . . . 4+( o + o/+ +//)2.  Ber/eer v.

M+Cart8, %15 D. S. %$&, %< 2'5%3. See a!so Cupp v. Murp)8, %'$

D. S. $', $1 2'<3 29)ere t)ere is no (ora! arrest . . . a person

i")t *e!! #e !ess )osti!e to t)e po!i+e and !ess !i/e!8 to ta/e

+onspi+uous, iediate steps to destro8 in+riinatin" eviden+e3.

T402 02 (o o 2+ 4+ 4) o()/( o/ o0)/ 2+) 02

+92)( 0( 4) +2) o + /o30() /+0 2o6. It p!ain!8 is not. See

Mis, supra, at ''& 9i!son, supra, at %'<-%'%. B3 *40) 4)

o()/( o/ o0)/ 2+) 0( 402 o()x + ;320 4) 0(0+

+00o(+ 0(/320o( o o/)/0(? + /0)/ +( 6+22)(?)/2 o3 o 

4) +/, 0 o)2 (o 9 02) ;320 4) o)( o(20)/+9 ?/)+)/

0(/320o( +)(0(? + 3 0)6) 2)+/4. Even *it)out t)e

sear+) aut)orit8 Io*a ur"es, o((i+ers )ave ot)er, independent #ases

to sear+) (or *eapons and prote+t t)ese!ves (ro dan"er. >or 

e@ap!e, t)e8 a8 order out o( a ve)i+!e #ot) t)e driver, Mis,

supra, at ''', and an8 passen"ers, 9i!son, supra, at %'% per(or a

 patdo*n o( a driver and an8 passen"ers upon reasona#!e suspi+ion

t)at t)e8 a8 #e ared and dan"erous, 6err8 v. O)io, <$ D. S. '

2'153 +ondu+t a 6err8 patdo*n o( t)e passen"er +opartent o( a

ve)i+!e upon reasona#!e suspi+ion t)at an o++upant is dan"erous and

a8 "ain iediate +ontro! o( a *eapon, Mi+)i"an v. Lon", %1< D.

S. '&<$, '&% 2'5<3 and even +ondu+t a (u!! sear+) o( t)e

 passen"er +opartent, in+!udin" an8 +ontainers t)erein, pursuant

to a +ustodia! arrest, Ne* or/ v. Be!ton, %< D. S. %%, %1& 2'5'3.

 Nor )as Io*a s)o*n t)e se+ond =usti(i+ation (or t)e aut)orit8 to

sear+) in+ident to arrestt)e need to dis+over and preserve eviden+e.

On+e Gno*!es *as stopped (or speedin" and issued a +itation, a!! t)e

eviden+e ne+essar8 to prose+ute t)at o((ense )ad #een o#tained. No

(urt)er eviden+e o( e@+essive speed *as "oin" to #e (ound eit)er on

t)e person o( t)e o((ender or in t)e passen"er +opartent o( t)e

+ar. 2Ep)asis supp!ied.3

Page 44: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 44/54

6)e (ore"oin" +onsidered, petitioner ust #e a+;uitted. 9)i!e )e a8 )ave (ai!ed to

o#=e+t to t)e i!!e"a!it8 o( )is arrest at t)e ear!iest opportunit8, a *aiver o( an i!!e"a!

*arrant!ess arrest does not, )o*ever, ean a *aiver o( t)e inadissi#i!it8 o( eviden+e

sei?ed durin" t)e i!!e"a! *arrant!ess arrest. $$

6)e Constitution "uarantees t)e ri")t o( t)e peop!e to #e se+ure in t)eir 

 persons, )ouses, papers and e((e+ts a"ainst unreasona#!e sear+)es and sei?ures. $< An8

eviden+e o#tained in vio!ation o( said ri")t s)a!! #e inadissi#!e (or an8 purpose in

an8 pro+eedin". 9)i!e t)e po*er to sear+) and sei?e a8 at ties #e ne+essar8 to t)e

 pu#!i+ *e!(are, sti!! it ust #e e@er+ised and t)e !a* ip!eented *it)out

+ontravenin" t)e +onstitutiona! ri")ts o( +iti?ens, (or t)e en(or+eent o( no statute is o( 

su((i+ient iportan+e to =usti(8 indi((eren+e to t)e #asi+ prin+ip!es o( "overnent. $%

6)e su#=e+t ites sei?ed durin" t)e i!!e"a! arrest are inadissi#!e.$ 6)e

dru"s are t)e ver8 corpus delicti o( t)e +rie o( i!!e"a! possession o( dan"erous dru"s.

6)us, t)eir inadissi#i!it8 pre+!udes +onvi+tion and +a!!s (or t)e a+;uitta! o( t)e

a++used.$1

HEREFORE, t)e Petition is GRANTED. 6)e '5 >e#ruar8 $&'' 0e+ision

o( t)e Court o( Appea!s in CA-4.R. CR No. <$'1 a((irin" t)e =ud"ent o( 

+onvi+tion dated ' >e#ruar8 $&& o( t)e Re"iona! 6ria! Court, t) Judi+ia! Re"ion,

 Na"a Cit8, Bran+) $', in Criina! Case No. R6C $&&<-&&5, is

)ere#8 REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Rode! Lu? y On" is

)ere#8 ACITTED and ordered iediate!8 re!eased (ro detention, un!ess )is

+ontinued +on(ineent is *arranted #8 soe ot)er +ause or "round.

SO ORDERED.

Page 45: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 45/54

G.R. No. 180@@1 D*+*-* 11, 201=

GEORGE ANTIQUERA y CODES, Petitioner,

vs.

%EO%"E OF THE %HI"I%%INES, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

A#AD, J.:

-his "ase is a0out a supposed warrantless arrest and a su0se=uent sear"h

propted 0' the poli"e offi"ers/ "han"e si1htin1 throu1h an a9ar door of the

a""used en1a1ed in pot session.

-he 2a"ts and the Case

On 6anuar' 3, $%%4 the se"ond Assistant Cit' Prose"utor of Pasa' Cit'

"har1ed the a""used +eor1e Codes Anti=uera and Coraon Olivena Cru

with ille1al possession of paraphernalia for dan1erous dru1s

 0efore theRe1ional -rial Court (R-C) of Pasa' Cit' in Criinal Case %4*%%%*

C2!. $ Sin"e the a""used Cru 9uped 0ail, the "ourt tried her in absentia. 3

-he prose"ution eviden"e shows that at around 4<45 a.. of 2e0ruar' ,

$%%4, PO +re1orio Re"io, PO auren"e Ca0utihan, PInsp. Eri" I0on, PO

Rodelio Rania, and two "ivilian operatives on 0oard a patrol "ar and a tri"'"le

were "ondu"tin1 a poli"e visi0ilit' patrol on David Street, Pasa' Cit', when

the' saw two unidentified en rush out of house nu0er %:*C and

iediatel' 0oarded a 9eep.

Suspe"tin1 that a "rie had 0een "oitted, the poli"e offi"ers approa"hed

the house fro where the en "ae and pee7ed throu1h the partiall' opened

door. PO Re"io and PO Ca0utihan saw a""used Anti=uera holdin1 an

iprovised tooter and a pin7 li1hter. eside hi was his live*in partner, Cru,

who was holdin1 an aluinu foil and an iprovised 0urner. -he' sat fa"in1

ea"h other at the livin1 roo. -his propted the poli"e offi"ers to enter the

house, introdu"e theselves, and arrest Anti=uera and Cru.4

>hile inspe"tin1 the iediate surroundin1s, PO Ca0utihan saw a wooden

 9ewelr' 0o8 atop a ta0le. It "ontained an iprovised 0urner, wo7, s"issors, %

sall transparent plasti" sa"hets with tra"es of white "r'stalline su0stan"e,

iprovised s"oop, and seven unused strips of aluinu foil. -he poli"e

offi"ers "onfis"ated all these and 0rou1ht Anti=uera and Cru to the Dru1

Enfor"eent Bnit of the Philippine National Poli"e in Pasa' Cit' for further

investi1ation and testin1.5

 A forensi" "hei"al offi"er e8ained the "onfis"ated dru1 paraphernalia and

found the positive for tra"es of ethaphetaine h'dro"hloride or shabu.&

 A""used Anti=uera 1ave a different stor'. ;e said that on the date and tie in

=uestion, he and Cru were asleep in their house when he was roused 0'

7no"7in1 on the door. >hen he went to open it, three ared poli"e offi"ers

for"ed theselves into the house. One of the shoved hi and said, ,-yan

!a lan#' pusher !a. ;e was hand"uffed and soeone instru"ted two of the

offi"ers to 1o to his roo. -he poli"e later 0rou1ht a""used Anti=uera and Cru

to the poli"e station and there infored the of the "har1es a1ainst the.

-he' were shown a 0o8 that the poli"e said had 0een re"overed fro his

house.:

On 6ul' 3%, $%%4 the R-C rendered a De"ision

 that found a""used Anti=ueraand Cru 1uilt' of the "rie "har1ed and senten"ed the to a prison ter

ran1in1 fro si8 onths and one da' to two 'ears and four onths, and to pa'

a fine of P%,%%%.%% ea"h and the "osts of the suit.

-he R-C said that the prose"ution proved 0e'ond reasona0le dou0t that the

poli"e "au1ht a""used Anti=uera and Cru in the a"t of usin1 shabu and

havin1 dru1 paraphernalia in their possession. Sin"e no ill otive "ould 0e

attri0uted to PO Re"io and PO Ca0utihan, the "ourt a""orded full faith and

"redit to their testion' and re9e"ted the self*servin1 "lai of Anti=uera.

-he trial "ourt 1ave no wei1ht to a""used Anti=ueras "lai of ille1al arrest,

1iven PO Re"io and PO Ca0utihans "redi0le testion' that, prior to their

arrest, the' saw Anti=uera and Cru in a pot session at their livin1 roo and in

possession of dru1 paraphernalia. -he poli"e offi"ers were thus 9ustified in

arrestin1 the two without a warrant pursuant to Se"tion 5, Rule 3 of the

Rules of Criinal Pro"edure.#

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered a De"ision% on Septe0er $,

$%%: affirin1 in full the de"ision of the trial "ourt. -he a""used oved for

re"onsideration 0ut the CA denied it. -he a""used is now 0efore this Court

see7in1 a"=uittal.

Page 46: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 46/54

T)* Iu* %**(*!

-he issue in this "ase is whether or not the CA erred in findin1 a""used

 Anti=uera 1uilt' 0e'ond reasona0le dou0t of ille1al possession of dru1

paraphernalia 0ased on the eviden"e of the poli"e offi"ers that the' saw hi

and Cru in the a"t of possessin1 dru1 paraphernalia.

Rul'4 o& ()* Cou(

-he prose"utions theor', upheld 0' 0oth the R-C and the CA, is that it was a

"ase of valid warrantless arrest in that the poli"e offi"ers saw a""used

 Anti=uera and Cru throu1h the door of their house, in the a"t of havin1 a pot

session. -hat valid warrantless arrest 1ave the offi"ers the ri1ht as well to

sear"h the livin1 roo for o09e"ts relatin1 to the "rie and thus seie the

paraphernalia the' found there.

-he prose"ution "ontends that, sin"e the seied paraphernalia tested positive

for shabu, the' were no dou0t used for so7in1, "onsuin1, adinisterin1,

in9e"tin1, in1estin1, or introdu"in1 dan1erous dru1 into the 0od' in violation ofSe"tion $ of Repu0li" A"t #&5. -hat the a""used tested ne1ative

for shabu' said the prose"ution, had no 0earin1 on the "rie "har1ed whi"h

was for ille1al possession of dru1 paraphernalia, not for ille1al use of

dan1erous dru1s. -he prose"ution added that even assuin1 that the arrest of 

the a""used was irre1ular, he is alread' "onsidered to have waived his ri1ht to

=uestion the validit' of his arrest when he voluntaril' su0itted hiself to the

"ourts 9urisdi"tion 0' enterin1 a plea of not 1uilt'.$

Se"tion 5(a), Rule 3 of the Rules of Criinal Pro"edure provides that a

pea"e offi"er or a private person a', without a warrant, arrest a person

when, in his presen"e, the person to 0e arrested has "oitted, is a"tuall'

"oittin1, or is atteptin1 to "oit an offense. -his is an arrest in

fla#rante delicto.3 -he overt a"t "onstitutin1 the "rie is done in the presen"e

or within the view of the arrestin1 offi"er.4

ut the "ir"ustan"es here do not a7e out a "ase of arrest ade in fla#rante

delicto.

. -he poli"e offi"ers "lai that the' were alerted when the' saw two

unidentified en suddenl' rush out of %: David Street, Pasa' Cit'. Sin"e the'

suspe"ted that a "rie had 0een "oitted, the natural thin1 for the to do

was to 1ive "hase to the 9eep that the two fleein1 en 0oarded, 1iven that the

offi"ers were in a patrol "ar and a tri"'"le. Runnin1 after the fleein1 suspe"ts

was the ore ur1ent tas7 0ut the offi"ers instead 1ave priorit' to the house

even when the' heard no "r' for help fro it.

$. Adittedl', the poli"e offi"ers did not noti"e an'thin1 aiss 1oin1 on in the

house fro the street where the' stood. Indeed, even as the' pee7ed throu1h

its partiall' opened door, the' saw no a"tivit' that warranted their enterin1 it.

-hus, PO Ca0utihan testified<

-;E COBR-<

? ' the wa', !r. Ca0utihan, when 'ou followed 'our "opanion towards

the open door, how was the door open >as it totall' open, or was it partiall'

open

 A ? It was partiall' open Gour ;onor.

? ' how u"h, 3, $ Onl' 0' less than one () foot

 A ? !ore or less 4 to & in"hes, Gour ;onor.

Q So )o ** you a-l* (o o, (o ** ()* '(*'o o& ()* )ou* '& ()*

!oo a oly o/* -y @ '+)* O !'! you )a3* (o /u) ()* !oo

A :* /u)*! ()* !oo, 6ou Hoo.

8 8 8 8

? >ere 'ou allowed to 9ust 1o towards the door of the house, push its door

and peeped inside it, as a poli"e offi"er

 A ? asi po na1hinala po 7ai 0a7a a'T

? Are 'ou not allowed to ? Are 'ou not re=uired to 1et a sear"h warrant

0efore 'ou "an sear"h the interior of the house

 A ? Ges, Gour ;onor.

Page 47: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 47/54

? >hat do 'ou ean 0' 'es >ould 'ou first o0tain a sear"h warrant 0efore

sear"hin1 the interior of the house

 A ? Ges, Gour ;onor.

? So wh' did 'ou not a si"F se"ure a sear"h warrant first 0efore 'ou tried to

investi1ate the house, "onsiderin1 'our adission that 'ou suspe"ted that

there was soethin1 wron1 inside the house

 A ? e"ause we saw the that the' were en1a1ed in pot session, Gour ;onor.

Q #u( -*&o* you a ()*, you u( )a! (o /u) ()* !oo '!* o/* (o

/**/ ()ou4) '( o/*'4 -*+au* you !'! o( o )a( a )a//*'4

''!*

A 6*, 6ou Hoo.5 (Ephasis supplied)

Clearl', no "rie was plainl' e8posed to the view of the arrestin1 offi"ers that

authoried the arrest of a""used Anti=uera without warrant under the a0ove*entioned rule. Considerin1 that his arrest was ille1al, the sear"h and seiure

that resulted fro it was li7ewise ille1al.& Conse=uentl', the various dru1

paraphernalia that the poli"e offi"ers alle1edl' found in the house and seied

are inadissi0le, havin1 pro"eeded fro an invalid sear"h and seiure. Sin"e

the "onfis"ated dru1 paraphernalia is the ver' corpus delicti of the "rie

"har1ed, the Court has no "hoi"e 0ut to a"=uit the a""used.:

One final note. -he failure of the a""used to o09e"t to the irre1ularit' of his

arrest 0' itself is not enou1h to sustain his "onvi"tion. A waiver of an ille1al

warrantless arrest does not "arr' with it a waiver of the inadissi0ilit' of

eviden"e seied durin1 the ille1al warrantless arrest.

:HEREFORE, the Court RE$ERSES a! SETS ASIDE the De"ision dated

Septe0er $, $%%: and Resolution dated Nove0er &, $%%: of the Court of

 Appeals in CA*+.R. CR $#3: and ACQUITS the a""used +eor1e

 Anti=uera y Codes of the "rie of whi"h he is "har1ed for la"7 of eviden"e

suffi"ient to esta0lish his 1uilt 0e'ond reasona0le dou0t.$%wphi$ -he Court

further ORDERS the "an"ellation and release of the 0ail 0ond he posted for

his provisional li0ert'.

SO ORDERED.

Page 48: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 48/54

G.R. No. 200=0< Jauay 1, 201<

%EO%"E OF THE %HI"I%%INES, Plaintiff*Appellee,vs.DONA"D $ASQUEZ y SANDIGAN DON, A""used*Appellant,

D E C I S I O N

"EONARDO;DE CASTRO, J.:

-he "ase 0efore this Court is an appeal fro the De"ision dated !a' 3, $%of the Court of Appeals in CA*+.R. CR.*;.C. No. %4$%. Said de"ision affiredwith odifi"ation the 6oint De"ision$ dated Au1ust & $%%# of the Re1ional -rialCourt (R-C) of !anila, ran"h 4, in Criinal Case Nos. #*&4:4 and #*&4:5, whi"h "onvi"ted the appellant Donald Has=ue ' Sandi1an of the"ries of ille1al sale and ille1al possession of re1ulated dru1s under Se"tions5 and & Arti"le III of Repu0li" A"t No. &4$5, as aended, otherwise 7nownas the Dan1erous Dru1s A"t of #:$.

Criinal Case No. #*&4:4 steed fro a "har1e of violation of Se"tion5 Arti"le III of Repu0li" A"t No. &4$5, as aended,3 whi"h was alle1edl'"oitted as follows<

-hat on or a0out April 3, ## in the Cit' of !anila, Philippines, the saida""used not havin1 0een authoried 0' law to sell, dispense, deliver, transportor distri0ute an' re1ulated dru1, did then and there willfull'F, unlawfull' and7nowin1l' sell or offer for sale, dispense, deliver, transport or distri0ute 45.4&1ras, 44.$: 1ras, 45.34 1ras, 5.45 1ras, 4.3$ 1ras and $%.41ras or with a total wei1ht of ->O ;BNDRED 2OR-G*SEHEN POIN-NINE-G*EI+;- ($4:.#) 1ras "ontained in si8 (&) transparent plasti" sa"hetsof white "r'stalline su0stan"e 7nown as Sha0u "ontainin1 ethaphetaine

h'dro"hloride, whi"h is a re1ulated dru1.4

Criinal Case No. #*&4:5, on the other hand, arose fro an alle1edviolation of Se"tion &, Arti"le III of Repu0li" A"t No. &4$5, asaended,5 whi"h was said to 0e "oitted in this anner<

-hat on or a0out April 3, ## in the Cit' of !anila, Philippines, the saida""used without 0ein1 authoried 0' law to possess or use an' re1ulateddru1, did then and there willfull'F, unlawfull' and 7nowin1l' have in hispossession and under his "ustod' and "ontrol .& 1ras, %.5 1ras, %.$#1ras, %.%# 1rasF, %.% 1ras, %.: 1ras, %.$ 1ras, %.$4 1ras, %.$

1ras, %.%& 1ras, %.%4 1ras, %F.5 1ras or all with a total wei1ht of fourpoint ero three 1ras of white "r'stalline su0stan"e "ontained in twelve ($)

transparent plasti" sa"hets 7nown as S;AB "ontainin1 ethaphetaineh'dro"hloride, a re1ulated dru1, without the "orrespondin1 li"ense orpres"ription thereof.&

Initiall', Criinal Case No. #*&4:5 was raffled to the R-C of !anila,ran"h $3. Bpon otion: of the appellant, however, said "ase was allowed to0e "onsolidated with Criinal Case No. #*&4:4 in the R-C of !anila,ran"h 4. On arrai1nent, the appellant pleaded not 1uilt' to 0oth

"har1es.# -he pre*trial "onferen"e of the "ases was held on 6ul' $:, ##, 0utthe sae was terinated without the parties enterin1 into an' stipulation offa"ts.%

Durin1 the trial of the "ases, the prose"ution presented the testionies of thefollowin1 witnesses< () Poli"e Inspe"tor (PInsp.) 6ean 2a9ardo, ($) PInsp.!aril'n De=uito,$ and (3) Poli"e Offi"er (PO) $ Christian-ra0ulo.3-hereafter, the defense presented in "ourt the testionies of< ()the appellant Donald Has=ue ' Sandi1an,4 ($) An1elina Are9ado,5 and (3)

 Anatolia Caredo.&

-he Prose"utions Case

-he prose"utions version of the events was priaril' drawn fro thetestionies of PInsp. 2a9ardo and PO$ -ra0ulo.

PInsp. 2a9ardo testified that in the ornin1 of April , ##, a "onfidentialinforant went to their offi"e and reported that a "ertain Donald Has=ue wasen1a1ed in ille1al dru1 a"tivit'. -his alias Don supposedl' "laied that he wasan eplo'ee of the National ureau of Investi1ation (NI). A""ordin1 to theinforant, alias Don proised hi a 1ood "oission if he (the inforant)would present a potential 0u'er of dru1s. PInsp. 2a9ardo rela'ed theinforation to Poli"e Superintendent (PSupt.) Pepito Doanta', the

"oandin1 offi"er of their offi"e. PInsp. 2a9ardo was then instru"ted to fora tea and "ondu"t a possi0le 0u'*0ust a1ainst alias Don. She fored a teaon the sae da', whi"h "onsisted of herself, PO$ -ra0ulo, PO A1ravante,PO Pedrosa, PO Sisteno, and PO De la Rosa. PInsp. 2a9ardo was thetea leader. >ith the help of the inforant, she was a0le to set up a eetin1with alias Don. -he eetin1 was to 0e held at around #<%% p.. on that da' atCind's Restaurant lo"ated in >el"oe Rotonda. She was onl' supposed toeet alias Don that ni1ht 0ut she de"ided to 0rin1 the tea alon1 for se"urit'reasons.:

 At a0out #<%% p.. on even date, PInsp. 2a9ardo and her tea went to theeetin1 pla"e with the inforant. -he e0ers of her tea positioned

theselves strate1i"all' inside the restaurant. -he inforant introdu"ed

Page 49: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 49/54

PInsp. 2a9ardo to alias Don as the 0u'er of sha0u. She as7ed alias Don if hewas indeed an eplo'ee of the NI and he replied in the affirative. -he'a1reed to "lose the deal wherein she would 0u' $5% 1ras of sha0uforP$5%,%%%.%%. -he' also a1reed to eet the followin1 da' at Cind'sRestaurant around %<%% to <%% p..

In the evenin1 of April $, ##, PInsp. 2a9ardo and her tea went 0a"7 toCind's Restaurant. Alias Don was alread' waitin1 for her outside theesta0lishent when she arrived. ;e as7ed for the one' and she replied that

she had the one' with her. She 0rou1ht five 1enuine P5%%.%% 0ills, whi"hwere inserted on top of five 0undles of pla' one' to a7e it appear that shehad P$5%,%%%.%% with her. After she showed the one' to alias Don, hesu11ested that the' 1o to a ore se"ure pla"e. -he' a1reed for the sale tota7e pla"e at around <3% to $<%% a.. on April 3, ## in front of alias Donsapartent at :&5 Halde St., Sapalo", !anila. -he tea pro"eeded to the>estern Poli"e Distri"t (>PD) Station alon1 B.N. Avenue for "oordination.

 Afterwards, the tea held their final 0riefin1 0efore the' pro"eeded to thetar1et area. -he' a1reed that the pre*arran1ed si1nal was for PInsp. 2a9ardoto s"rat"h her hair, whi"h would si1nif' that the deal had 0een "onsuatedand the rest of the tea would rush up to the s"ene. -he tea then travelledto the address 1iven 0' alias Don.#

>hen the tea arrived at the tar1et area around <5 a.. on April 3, ##,the two vehi"les the' used were par7ed alon1 the "orner of the street. PInsp.2a9ardo and the inforant wal7ed towards the apartent of alias Don andstood in front of the apartent 1ate. Around <45 a.., alias Don "ae out ofthe apartent with a ale "opanion. Alias Don deanded to see the one',0ut PInsp. 2a9ardo told hi that she wanted to see the dru1s first. Alias Don1ave her the 0i1 0rown envelope he was "arr'in1 and she "he"7ed the"ontents thereof. Inside she found a plasti" sa"het, a0out %8 in"hes in sie,whi"h "ontained white "r'stalline su0stan"e. After "he"7in1 the "ontents of theenvelope, she assued that the sae was indeed sha0u. She then 1ave the0u'*0ust one' to alias Don and s"rat"hed her hair to si1nal the rest of the

tea to rush to the s"ene. PInsp. 2a9ardo identified herself as a nar"oti"sa1ent. -he two suspe"ts tried to flee 0ut PO$ -ra0ulo was a0le to stop thefro doin1 so. PInsp. 2a9ardo too7 "ustod' of the sha0u. >hen she as7edalias Don if the latter had authorit' to possess or sell sha0u, he replied in thene1ative. PInsp. 2a9ardo put her initials 6S2 on the 1enuine P5%%.%% 0ills0elow the nae of eni1no A=uino. After the arrest of the two suspe"ts, the0u'*0ust tea 0rou1ht the to the poli"e station. -he suspe"ts ri1hts wereread to the and the' were su0se=uentl' 0oo7ed.$%

PInsp. 2a9ardo said that she found out that alias Don was in fa"t the appellantDonald Has=ue. She learned of his nae when he 0rou1ht out his NI IDwhile he was 0ein1 0oo7ed. PInsp. 2a9ardo also learned that the nae of the

appellants "opanion was Re'naldo Sis"ar, who was also arrested and

0rou1ht to the poli"e station. PInsp. 2a9ardo e8plained that after she 1ave the0u'*0ust one' to the appellant, the latter handed the sae to Sis"ar whowas present the entire tie the sale was 0ein1 "onsuated. Bpon re"eivin1the 0u'*0ust one' pla"ed inside a 1reen plasti" 0a1, Sis"ar loo7ed at the"ontents thereof and uttered o7e' na to. PInsp. 2a9ardo ar7ed the dru1spe"ien and 0rou1ht the sae to the Crie a0orator'. She wasa""opanied there 0' PO$ -ra0ulo and PO A1ravante. She handed overthe dru1 spe"ien to PO A1ravante who then turned it over to PInsp.-aduran, the forensi" "heist on dut'. -he poli"e offi"ers previousl' wei1hed

the dru1 spe"ien. -hereafter, the personnel at the "rie la0orator' wei1hedthe spe"ien a1ain. PInsp. 2a9ardo and her tea waited for the results of thela0orator' e8aination.$

PInsp. 2a9ardo further testified that the si8 plasti" 0a1s of sha0u seied durin1the 0u'*0ust operation were a"tuall' "ontained in a self*sealin1 plasti"envelope pla"ed inside a 0rown envelope. >hen the 0rown envelope was"onfis"ated fro the appellant, she put her initials 6S2 therein and si1ned it.She noti"ed that there were ar7in1s on the envelope that read DD*#3*3%3re Antonio Ro8as ' Sun1a 0ut she did not 0other to "he"7 out what the' werefor or who ade the. >hen she interro1ated the appellant a0out the 0rownenvelope, she found out that the sae was su0itted as eviden"e to the NI

Crie a0orator'. She also learned that the appellant wor7ed as a a0orator' Aide at the NI Crie a0orator'. She identified in "ourt the si8 plasti" sa"hetsof dru1s that her tea re"overed, whi"h sa"hets she also initialed and si1ned.PInsp. 2a9ardo also stated that after the appellant was arrested, PO$-ra0ulo "ondu"ted a 0od' sear"h on the two suspe"ts. -he sear"h 'ielded$ ore plasti" sa"hets of dru1s fro the appellant. -he $ sa"hets werevaried in sies and were "ontained in a white envelope. PInsp. 2a9ardo pla"edher initials and si1nature on the envelope. As to the $ sa"hets, the sae wereinitialed 0' PInsp. 2a9ardo and si1ned 0' PO$ -ra0ulo.$$

-he testion' of PO$ -ra0ulo "orro0orated that of PInsp. 2a9ardos. PO$-ra0ulo testified that in the ornin1 of April , ##, a "onfidential inforant

reported to the a0out the ille1al dru1 a"tivities of alias Don. PSupt.Doanta' then tas7ed PInsp. 2a9ardo to for a 0u'*0ust tea. PInsp.2a9ardo was a0le to set up a eetin1 with alias Don at Cind's Restaurant in>el"oe Rotonda, ueon Cit'. At that eetin1, PO$ -ra0ulo saw PInsp.2a9ardo tal7 to alias Don. PInsp. 2a9ardo later told the e0ers of the teathat she "onvin"ed alias Don that she was a 1ood 0u'er of sha0u and thelatter deanded a se"ond eetin1 to see the one'. After the initial eetin1,PInsp. 2a9ardo 0riefed PSupt. Doanta' a0out what happened. PO$-ra0ulo stated that on April $, ##, PInsp. 2a9ardo was furnished with five1enuine P5%%.%% 0ills to1ether with the 0oodle pla' one'. PInsp. 2a9ardopla"ed her initials in the 1enuine 0ills 0elow the nae eni1no A=uino, 6r.

 Afterwards, the tea left the offi"e. >hen the' arrived at Cind's Restaurant

past %<%% p.., alias Don was waitin1 outside. PInsp. 2a9ardo showed the

Page 50: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 50/54

0oodle one' to alias Don and after soe tie, the' parted wa's. PInsp.2a9ardo later told the tea that alias Don de"ided that the dru1 deal wouldta7e pla"e in front of alias Dons rented apartent on Halde St., Sapalo",!anila. After an hour, the tea went to Halde St. to failiarie theselveswith the area. -he' then pro"eeded to the >PD station to "oordinate theiroperation. -hereafter, PInsp. 2a9ardo "ondu"ted a final 0riefin1 wherein PO$-ra0ulo was desi1nated as the iediate 0a"7*up arrestin1 offi"er. -hea1reed pre*arran1ed si1nal was for PInsp. 2a9ardo to s"rat"h her hair toindi"ate the "onsuation of the deal. PO$ -ra0ulo was to si1nal the sae

to the other e0ers of the tea.$3

-he 0u'*0ust tea went to the tar1et area at around <3% to $<%% a.. on April3, ##. PInsp. 2a9ardo and the inforant wal7ed towards the dire"tion ofalias Dons apartent, while PO$ -ra0ulo positioned hiself near a par7ed

 9eepne' a0out 5 to $% eters fro the apartent 1ate. -he rest of the teapar7ed their vehi"les at the street perpendi"ular to Halde St. ater, alias Donwent out of the 1ate with another person. PO$ -ra0ulo saw alias Don1esturin1 to PInsp. 2a9ardo as if as7in1 for soethin1 0ut PInsp. 2a9ardo1estured that she wanted to see soethin1 first. Alias Don handed PInsp.2a9ardo a 0i1 0rown envelope, whi"h the latter opened. PInsp. 2a9ardo thenhanded to alias Don a 1reen plasti" 0a1 "ontainin1 the 0u'*0ust one' and

1ave the pre*arran1ed si1nal. >hen PO$ -ra0ulo saw this, he iediatel'suoned the rest of the tea and rushed to the suspe"ts. ;e was a0le tore"over the 0u'*0ust one' fro alias Dons ale "opanion. Bpon fris7in1alias Don, PO$ -ra0ulo retrieved $ pie"es of plasti" sa"hets of suspe"teddru1s. -he sae were pla"ed inside a white envelope that was tu"7ed insidealias Dons waist. PO$ -ra0ulo ar7ed ea"h of the $ sa"hets with hisinitials CH- and the date. -he poli"e offi"ers then infored the suspe"ts oftheir ri1hts and the' pro"eeded to the poli"e head=uarters in 2ort onifa"io.$4

 As re1ards the 0rown envelope that alias Don handed to PInsp. 2a9ardo, thelatter retained possession thereof. -he envelope "ontained si8 pie"es of plasti"0a1s of white "r'stalline su0stan"e. >hen the' 1ot 0a"7 to their offi"e, the

tea reported the pro1ress of their operation to PSupt. Doanta'. -hearrested suspe"ts were 0oo7ed and the re=uired do"uentations wereprepared. Aon1 su"h do"uents was the Re=uest for a0orator'E8aination of the dru1 spe"iens seied. PO$ -ra0ulo said that he wasthe one who 0rou1ht the said re=uest to the PNP Crie a0orator', alon1 withthe dru1 spe"iens.$5

PInsp. !aril'n De=uito, the forensi" "heist, testified on the results of here8aination of the dru1 spe"iens seied in this "ase. She e8plained thatPInsp. !a"ario -aduran, 6r. initiall' e8ained the dru1 spe"iens 0ut thelatter was alread' assi1ned to another offi"e. -he results of the e8aination ofPInsp. -aduran were laid down in Ph'si"al S"ien"e Report No. D*%:*#.

PInsp. De=uito first studied the data "ontained in Ph'si"al S"ien"e Report No.

D*%:*# and retrieved the sae fro their offi"e. She entered that fa"t intheir lo10oo7 RD*:*#. She then wei1hed the dru1 spe"iens and e8ainedthe white "r'stalline su0stan"e fro ea"h of the plasti" sa"hets. She e8ainedfirst the spe"iens ar7ed as A*, A*$, A*3, A*4, A*5 and A*&.PInsp. De=uitos e8aination revealed that the white "r'stalline su0stan"eswere positive for ethaphetaine h'dro"hloride.$&She also e8ained the"ontents of $ heat*sealed transparent plasti" sa"hets that also "ontained"r'stalline su0stan"es. -he $ plasti" sa"hets were ar7ed * to *$.-he white "r'stalline powder inside the $ plasti" sa"hets also tested positive

for ethaphetaine h'dro"hloride. PInsp. De=uitos findin1s were "ontainedin Ph'si"al S"ien"e Report No. RD*:*#.$:

-he prose"ution, thereafter, addu"ed the followin1 o09e"t and do"uentar'eviden"e< () photo"opies of the five ori1inal P5%%.%% 0ills$ used as 0u'*0ustone' (E8hi0its A*E)@ ($) Re=uest for a0orator' E8aination$# dated April 3,## (E8hi0it 2)@ (3) Initial a0orator' Repor t3% dated April 3, ##, statin1 thatthe spe"ien su0itted for e8aination tested positive foreth'laphetaine h'dro"hloride (E8hi0it +)@ (4) Court Order 3 datedSepte0er $, ## (E8hi0it ;)@ (5) Ph'si"al S"ien"es Report No. D*%:*#3$ dated April 3, ## (E8hi0it I)@ (&) Dru1 spe"iens A* to A*& (E8hi0its 6*O)@ (:) i1 0rown envelope (E8hi0it P)@ () Sall white envelope (E8hi0it )@

(#) Dru1 spe"iens * to *$ (E8hi0its R*CC)@ (%) Ph'si"al S"ien"esReport No. RD*:*#33 (E8hi0it DD)@ () 6oint Affidavit of Arrest34 (E8hi0it EE)@($) Pla' one' (E8hi0it 22)@ (3) oo7in1 Sheet and Arrest Report35 (E8hi0it++)@ (4) Re=uest for !edi"al E8aination3& (E8hi0it ;;)@ (5) !edi"o e1alSlip3: of Donald Has=ue (E8hi0it II)@ and (&) !edi"o e1al Slip3 of Re'naldoSis"ar (E8hi0it 66).

-he Defenses Case

 As e8pe"ted, the defense 0elied the prose"utions version of events. -heappellants 0rief 3# 0efore the Court of Appeals provides a "on"ise suar' ofthe defenses "ounter*stateent of fa"ts. A""ordin1 to the defense<

Donald Has=ue was a re1ular eplo'ee of the NI, wor7in1 as a a0orator' Aide II at the NI 2orensi"s Cheistr' Division. ;is duties at the tie in"luded0ein1 a su0poena "ler7, re"eivin1 "heistr' "ases as well as re=uests frodifferent poli"e a1en"ies to have their spe"iens e8ained 0' the "heist. ;ealso rendered da' and ni1ht duties, and durin1 re1ular offi"e hours and in thea0sen"e of the la0orator' te"hni"ian, he would wei1h the spe"iens. Assu0poena "ler7, he would re"eive su0poenas fro the trial "ourts. >hen thereis no "heist, he would 1et a Spe"ial Order to testif', or 0rin1 the dru1spe"iens, to the "ourts.

Page 51: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 51/54

On April ##, Donald Has=ue too7 his e8aination in !ana1erial Statisti"s0etween &<%% to #<%% o"lo"7 p.. -hereafter, he too7 a 9eepne' and ali1htedat Stop and Shop at uiapo. 2ro there, he too7 a tri"'"le to his house,arrivin1 at #<45 o"lo"7 that evenin1, where he saw Re'naldo Sis"ar andSonn' San Die1o, the latter a "onfidential inforant of the nar"oti"s a1ents.

On 3 April ##, at <45 o"lo"7 in the ornin1, Donalds household help, Anatolia Caredo, who had 9ust arrived fro Antipolo that tie, was eatin1 whileDonald was asleep. She heard a 7no"7 on the door. Re'naldo Sis"ar opened

the door and thereafter two ($) en entered, po7in1 1uns at Re'naldo. -he'were followed 0' three (3) others. -he door to Donalds roo was 7i"7ed downand the' entered his roo. Donald, hearin1 noise, wo7e up to see P.Insp.2a9ardo pointin1 a 1un at hi. ;e saw that there were si8 (&) poli"eensear"hin1 his roo, pi"7in1 up what the' "ould 1et. One of the opened a"a0inet and 1ot dru1 spe"iens in DonaldsF possession in relation to his wor7as a la0orator' aide. -he dru1s "ae fro two ($) "ases and ar7ed as DD*#3*3%3 owned 0' Antonio Ro8as, and DD*#&*53#$ owned 0' SPO4 Eiliano

 Anonas. -he dru1 spe"ien "ontained in the envelope ar7ed as DD*#3*3%3was intended for presentation on 3 April ##. Aside fro the dru1 spe"iens,the poli"een also too7 his 9ewelr', a H;S pla'er, and his wallet"ontainin1 P$,53%.%%.

 An1elina Are9ado, Donalds nei1h0or, witnessed the poli"een enterin1 theapartent and apprehendin1 Donald and Re'naldo fro the apartentterra"e.4% (Citations oitted.)

-he defense then offered the followin1 eviden"e< () NI Disposition2or4 dated April 3, ## (E8hi0it )@ ($) Sworn Stateent of Ida0el erna0ePa1ula'an4$ (E8hi0it $)@ (3) Photo"op' of the 0u'*0ust one'43 (E8hi0it 3)@ (4)ist of ;earin1s44 attended 0' Donald Has=ue (E8hi0it 4)@ (5) Authoriationetter 45 prepared 0' A"tin1 Deput' Dire"tor Arturo A. 2i1ueras dated !ar"h $:,## (E8hi0it 5)@ and (&) ist of Eviden"e4& ta7en 0' Donald Has=ue fro##&*## (E8hi0it &).

-he De"ision of the R-C

On Au1ust &, $%%#, the R-C "onvi"ted the appellant of the "ries "har1ed.-he R-C 1ave ore "reden"e to the prose"utions eviden"e 1iven that thepresuption of re1ularit' in the perforan"e of offi"ial dut' on the part of thepoli"e offi"ers was not over"oe. -he trial "ourt held that the appellant did notpresent an' eviden"e that would show that the poli"e offi"ers in this "ase wereipelled 0' an evil otive to "har1e hi of ver' serious "ries and falsel'testif' a1ainst hi. Also, the trial "ourt noted that the volue of the sha0uinvolved in this "ase was "onsidera0le, i.e., $4:.# 1ras and 4.%3 1ras for

ille1al sale and ille1al possession, respe"tivel'. -o the ind of the trial "ourt,

su"h fa"t helped to dispel the possi0ilit' that the dru1 spe"iens seied wereerel' planted 0' the poli"e offi"ers. 2urtherore, the R-C ruled that thepositive testionies of the poli"e offi"ers re1ardin1 the ille1al dru1 peddlin1a"tivities of the appellant prevailed over the latters 0are denials.

 Assuin1 for the sa7e of ar1uent that the appellant was erel' fraed up 0'the poli"e, the trial "ourt pointed out that<

-Fhe a""used should have reported the said in"ident to the proper authorities,

or as7ed help fro his A"tin1 Chief Ida0elF Pa1ula'an fro the NI to testif'and identif' in Court the 8ero8 "op' of the Disposition 2or whi"h she issuedto the a""used and the Affidavit dated April :, ## (8ero8 "op') e8e"uted 0'her or fro !r. Arturo A. 2i1ueras, A"tin1 Deput' Dire"tor, -e"hni"al Servi"esof the NI to testif' and identif' the etter issued 0' the said A"tin1 Deput'Dire"tor in order to "orro0orate and stren1then his testion' that he wasindeed authoried to 7eep in his "ustod' the said sha0u to 0e presented orturned over to the Court as eviden"e, and he should have filed the proper"har1es a1ainst those poli"e offi"ers who were responsi0le for su"h a"t. utthe a""used did not even 0other to do the sae. 2urther, the pie"es ofeviden"e (Disposition 2or, Affidavit of Ida0elF Pa1ula'an and etter dated!ar"h $:, ## issued 0' A"tin1 Deput' Dire"tor) presented 0' the a""used in

Court "ould not 0e 1iven wei1ht and "reden"e "onsiderin1 that the saidpersons were not presented in Court to identif' the said do"uents and thatthe prose"ution has no opportunit' to "ross*e8aine the sae, thus, it has nopro0ative value.4:

-he trial "ourt, thus, de"reed<

>;ERE2ORE, 9ud1ent is here0' rendered as follows<

. In Cri. Case No. #*&4:4, findin1 a""used, DONAD HASBEK' SANDI+AN U DON 1uilt' 0e'ond reasona0le dou0t of the "rie of 

Hiolation of Se". 5, Art. III in Relation to Se".

$ (e), (f), (), (o), Art. I of R.A. No. &4$5 and here0' senten"es hi tosuffer the penalt' of re"lusion perpetua and a fine of P5,%%%,%%%.%%@and $. In Cri. Case No. #*&4:5, 9ud1ent is here0' renderedfindin1 the a""used, DONAD HASBEK ' SANDI+AN U DON1uilt' 0e'ond reasona0le dou0t of the "rie of Hiolation of Se". &,

 Art. III in Relation to Se". $ (e*$) Art. I of R.A. &4$5 as Aended 0'atas Pa0ansa ilan1 :# and here0' senten"es hi to suffer thepenalt' of SIM (&) !ON-;S and ONE () DAG to 2OBR (4) GEARSand a fine of 2OBR -;OBSAND (P4,%%%.%%) PESOS.

Page 52: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 52/54

-he su09e"t sha0u ($4:.# 1ras and 4.%3 1ras, respe"tivel') are here0'forfeited in favor of the 1overnent and the ran"h Cler7 of Court is here0'dire"ted to deliver andor "ause the deliver' of the said sha0u to the PhilippineDru1 Enfor"eent A1en"' (PDEA), upon the finalit' of this De"ision.4

-he 6ud1ent of the Court of Appeals

On appeal,4# the Court of Appeals affired the "onvi"tion of the appellant. -heappellate "ourt ruled that the prose"ution suffi"ientl' proved the eleents of

the "ries of ille1al sale and ille1al possession of sha0u. -he testion' ofPInsp. 2a9ardo on the "ondu"t of the 0u'*0ust operation was found to 0e "lear and "ate1ori"al. As the appellant failed to addu"e an' eviden"e that tended toprove an' ill otive on the part of the poli"e offi"ers to falsel' "har1e theappellant, the Court of Appeals held that the presuption of re1ularit' in theperforan"e of offi"ial duties on the part of the poli"e offi"ers had not 0een"ontroverted in this "ase.

-he dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals de"ision stated<

>;ERE2ORE, preises "onsidered, the instant appeal is here0' DENIED.

-he Au1ust &, $%%# De"ision of the Re1ional -rial Court, ran"h 4 of the Cit'of !anila in Criinal Cases No. #*&4:4*:5, findin1 appellant DonaldHas=ue ' Sandi1an 1uilt' 0e'ond reasona0le dou0t for the "ries of Hiolationof Se"tion 5 and Se"tion &, Arti"le III of Repu0li" A"t No. &4$5 is A22IR!EDwith the !ODI2ICA-ION that in Criinal Case No. #*&4:5, appellant ishere0' senten"ed to suffer the indeterinate penalt' of si8 onths of arrestoa'or, as iniu, to two 'ears, four onths and one da' of prision"orre""ional in its ediu period, as a8iu.5%

-he Rulin1 of the Court

-he appellant appealed his "ase to this Court to on"e a1ain ipu1n his

"onvi"tion on two 1rounds< () the purported ille1alit' of the sear"h and theensuin1 arrest done 0' the poli"e offi"ers and ($) his supposed authorit' topossess the ille1al dru1s seied fro hi.5 ;e ar1ues that the poli"e offi"ersdid not have a sear"h warrant or a warrant of arrest at the tie he wasarrested. -his o""urred despite the fa"t that the poli"e offi"ers alle1edl' hadaple tie to se"ure a warrant of arrest a1ainst hi. Inasu"h as his arrestwas ille1al, the appellant avers that the eviden"e o0tained as a result thereofwas inadissi0le in "ourt. As the "orpus deli"ti of the "rie was renderedinadissi0le, the appellant posits that his 1uilt was not proven 0e'ondreasona0le dou0t. Appellant further insists that he was a0le to prove that hewas authoried to 7eep the dru1 spe"iens in his "ustod', 1iven that he wasan eplo'ee of the NI 2orensi" Cheistr' a0orator' who was tas7ed with

the dut' to 0rin1 dru1 spe"iens in "ourt.

 After an assiduous review of the eviden"e addu"ed 0' 0oth parties to this"ase, we resolve to den' this appeal.

 At the outset, the Court rules that the appellant "an no lon1er assail the validit'of his arrest. >e reiterated in People v. -apis5$ that aFn' o09e"tion, defe"t or irre1ularit' attendin1 an arrest ust 0e ade 0efore the a""used enters hisplea on arrai1nent. ;avin1 failed to ove for the =uashin1 of the inforationa1ainst the 0efore their arrai1nent, appellants are now estopped fro=uestionin1 the le1alit' of their arrest. An' irre1ularit' was "ured upon their

voluntar' su0ission to the trial "ourts 9urisdi"tion.53 e that as it a', thefa"t of the atter is that the appellant was "au1ht in fla1rante deli"to of sellin1ille1al dru1s to an under"over poli"e offi"er in a 0u'*0ust operation. ;is arrest,thus, falls within the a0it of Se"tion 5(a), Rule 354 of the Revised Rules onCriinal Pro"edure when an arrest ade without warrant is deeed lawful.;avin1 esta0lished the validit' of the warrantless arrest in this "ase, the Courtholds that the warrantless seiure of the ille1al dru1s fro the appellant isli7ewise valid. >e held in People v. Ca0u1atan55 that<

-his interdi"tion a1ainst warrantless sear"hes and seiures, however, is nota0solute and su"h warrantless sear"hes and seiures have lon1 0een deeedperissi0le 0' 9urispruden"e in instan"es of () sear"h of ovin1 vehi"les, ($)

seiure in plain view, (3) "ustos sear"hes, (4) waiver or "onsented sear"hes,(5) stop and fris7 situations (-err' sear"h), and sear"h in"idental to a lawfularrest. -he last in"ludes a valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, anarrest is "onsidered le1itiate ifF effe"ted with a valid warrant of arrest, theRules of Court re"o1nie perissi0le warrantless arrest, to wit< () arrest infla1rante deli"to, ($) arrest effe"ted in hot pursuit, and (3) arrest of es"apedprisoners. (Citation oitted.)

-hus, the appellant "annot see7 e8"ulpation 0' invo7in1 0elatedl' the invalidit'of his arrest and the su0se=uent sear"h upon his person.

>e now rule on the su0stantive atters.

-o se"ure a "onvi"tion for the "rie of ille1al sale of re1ulated or prohi0iteddru1s, the followin1 eleents should 0e satisfa"toril' proven< () the identit' of the 0u'er and seller, the o09e"t, and the "onsideration@ and ($) the deliver' ofthe thin1 sold and the pa'ent therefor.5&  As held in People v. Chua -anee,5: in a prose"ution of ille1al sale of dru1s, what is aterial is proof that thea""used peddled illi"it dru1s, "oupled with the presentation in "ourt of the"orpus deli"ti. On the other hand, the eleents of ille1al possession of dru1sare< () the a""used is in possession of an ite or o09e"t whi"h is identified to0e a prohi0ited dru1@ ($) su"h possession is not authoried 0' law@ and (3) thea""used freel' and "ons"iousl' possessed the said dru1.5

I th t 0 th t ti i f PI 2 9 d d PO$ - 0 l t d i t did thi t h l th ll t - th i d f th

Page 53: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 53/54

In the "ase at 0ar, the testionies of PInsp. 2a9ardo and PO$ -ra0uloesta0lished that a 0u'*0ust operation was le1itiatel' "arried out in the weehours of April 3, ## to entrap the appellant. PInsp. 2a9ardo, the poseur*0u'er, positivel' identified the appellant as the one who sold to her si8 plasti"0a1s of sha0u that were "ontained in a 0i1 0rown envelope for the pri"eof P$5%,%%%.%%. She li7ewise identified the si8 plasti" 0a1s of sha0u, whi"h"ontained the ar7in1s she pla"ed thereon after the sae were seied frothe appellant. >hen su09e"ted to la0orator' e8aination, the white "r'stallinepowder "ontained in the plasti" 0a1s tested positive for sha0u. >e find that

PInsp. 2a9ardos testion' on the events that transpired durin1 the "ondu"t ofthe 0u'*0ust operation was detailed and strai1htforward. She was also"onsistent and unwaverin1 in her narration even in the fa"e of the opposin1"ounsels "ross*e8aination.

 Apart fro her des"ription of the events that led to the e8"han1e of the dru1spe"iens seied and the 0u'*0ust one', PInsp. 2a9ardo further testified asto the re"over' fro the appellant of another $ pie"es of plasti" sa"hets ofsha0u. After the latter was arrested, PInsp. 2a9ardo stated that PO$ -ra0ulo"ondu"ted a 0od' sear"h on the appellant. -his sear"h resulted to the"onfis"ation of $ ore plasti" sa"hets, the "ontents of whi"h also testedpositive for sha0u. -he testion' of PInsp. 2a9ardo was apl' "orro0orated

0' PO$ -ra0ulo, whose own a""ount dovetailed the forers narration ofevents. oth poli"e offi"ers also identified in "ourt the twelve plasti" sa"hets ofsha0u that were "onfis"ated fro the appellant.

In People v. -in1 B',5# the Court e8plains that "reden"e shall 0e 1iven to thenarration of the in"ident 0' prose"ution witnesses espe"iall' so when the' arepoli"e offi"ers who are presued to have perfored their duties in a re1ularanner, unless there 0e eviden"e to the "ontrar'. In the instant "ase, theappellant failed to as"ri0e, u"h less satisfa"toril' prove, an' iproper otiveon the part of the prose"ution witnesses as to wh' the' would falsel'in"riinate hi. -he appellant hiself even testified that, not onl' did he nothave an' isunderstandin1 with PInsp. 2a9ardo and PO$ -ra0ulo prior to

his arrest, he in fa"t did not 7now the at all.&% In the a0sen"e of eviden"e ofsu"h ill otive, none is presued to e8ist.&

-he re"ords of this "ase are also silent as to an' easures underta7en 0' theappellant to "riinall' or adinistrativel' "har1e the poli"e offi"ers herein forfalsel' frain1 hi up for sellin1 and possessin1 ille1al dru1s. Su"h a ovewould not have 0een a dauntin1 tas7 for the appellant under the"ir"ustan"es. ein1 a re1ular eplo'ee of the NI, the appellant "ould haveeasil' sou1ht the help of his iediate supervisors andor the "hief of hisoffi"e to e8tri"ate hi fro his predi"aent. Instead, what the appellant offeredin eviden"e were ere photo"opies of do"uents that supposedl' showedthat he was authoried to 7eep dru1 spe"iens in his "ustod'. -hat the ori1inal

do"uents and the testionies of the si1natories thereof were not at all

presented in "ourt did nothin1 to help the appellants "ase. -o the ind of theCourt, the eviden"e offered 0' the appellant failed to persuade aid thepositive and "ate1ori"al testionies of the arrestin1 offi"ers that the appellantwas "au1ht red*handed sellin1 and possessin1 a "onsidera0le aount ofprohi0ited dru1s on the ni1ht of the 0u'*0ust operation.

It is apropos to reiterate here that where there is no showin1 that the trial "ourtoverloo7ed or isinterpreted soe aterial fa"ts or that it 1ravel' a0used itsdis"retion, the Court will not distur0 the trial "ourts assessent of the fa"ts

and the "redi0ilit' of the witnesses sin"e the R-C was in a 0etter position toassess and wei1h the eviden"e presented durin1 trial. Settled too is the rulethat the fa"tual findin1s of the appellate "ourt sustainin1 those of the trial "ourtare 0indin1 on this Court, unless there is a "lear showin1 that su"h findin1s aretainted with ar0itrariness, "apri"iousness or palpa0le error.&$

On the 0asis of the fore1oin1, the Court is "onvin"ed that the prose"ution wasa0le to esta0lish the 1uilt of the appellant of the "ries "har1ed.

-he Penalties

 Anent the proper iposa0le penalties, Se"tion 5 and Se"tion &, Arti"le III, inrelation to Se"tion $%(3) of Repu0li" A"t No. &4$5, as aended 0' Repu0li" A"t No. :&5#, state<

SEC. 5. Sale, Adinistration, Dispensation, Deliver', -ransportation andDistri0ution of Re1ulated Dru1s. * -he penalt' of re"lusion perpetua to deathand a fine ran1in1 f ro five hundred thousand pesos to ten illion pesos shall0e iposed upon an' person who, unless authoried 0' law, shall sell,dispense, deliver, transport or distri0ute an' re1ulated dru1. Notwithstandin1the provisions of Se"tion $% of this A"t to the "ontrar', if the vi"ti of theoffense is a inor, or should a re1ulated dru1 involved in an' offense underthis Se"tion 0e the pro8iate "ause of the death of a vi"ti thereof, the

a8iu penalt' herein provided shall 0e iposed. SEC. &. Possession orBse of Re1ulated Dru1s. * -he penalt' of re"lusion perpetua to death and afine ran1in1 fro five hundred thousand pesos to ten illion pesos shall 0eiposed upon an' person who shall possess or use an' re1ulated dru1without the "orrespondin1 li"ense or pres"ription, su09e"t to the provisions ofSe"tion $% hereof.

SEC. $%. Appli"ation of Penalties, Confis"ation and 2orfeiture of the Pro"eedsor Instruents of the Crie. * -he penalties for offenses under Se"tions 3, 4,:, and # of Arti"le II and Se"tions 4, 4*A, 5 and & of Arti"le III of this A"tshall 0e applied if the dan1erous dru1s involved is in an' of the followin1=uantities<

4% f i B d S ti & A ti l III f R A t N &4$5 d d th i 0l

Page 54: [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

7/23/2019 [Remrev] Rule 112-113 Full Text

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/remrev-rule-112-113-full-text 54/54

. 4% 1ras or ore of opiu@

$. 4% 1ras or ore of orphine@

3. $%% 1ras or ore of sha0u or eth'laphetaine h'dro"hloride@

4. 4% 1ras or ore of heroin@

5. :5% 1ras or ore of Indian hep or ari9uana@

&. 5% 1ras or ore of ari9uana resin or ari9uana resin oil@

:. 4% 1ras or ore of "o"aine or "o"aine h'dro"holoride@ or 

. In the "ase of other dan1erous dru1s, the =uantit' of whi"h is far0e'ond therapeuti" re=uireents, as deterined and proul1ated 0'the Dan1erous Dru1s oard, after pu0li" "onsultationshearin1s"ondu"ted for the purpose.

Otherwise, if the =uantit' involved is less than the fore1oin1 =uantities, thepenalt' shall ran1e fro prision "orre""ional to re"lusion perpetua dependin1upon the =uantit'. (Ephases supplied.)

In Criinal Case No. #*&4:4 involvin1 the "rie of ille1al sale of re1ulateddru1s, the appellant was found to have sold to the poseur*0u'er in this "ase atotal of $4:.# 1ras of sha0u, whi"h aount is ore than the iniu of$%% 1ras re=uired 0' the law for the iposition of either re"lusion perpetuaor, if there 0e a11ravatin1 "ir"ustan"es, the death penalt'.

Pertinentl', Arti"le &3&3 of the Revised Penal Code andates that when the lawpres"ri0es a penalt' "oposed of two indivisi0le penalties and there are

neither iti1atin1 nor a11ravatin1 "ir"ustan"es in the "oission of the"rie, the lesser penalt' shall 0e applied.$%wphi$ -hus, in this "ase,"onsiderin1 that no iti1atin1 or a11ravatin1 "ir"ustan"es attended theappellants violation of Se"tion 5, Arti"le III of Repu0li" A"t No. &4$5, asaended, the Court of Appeals "orre"tl' affired the trial "ourts iposition ofre"lusion perpetua. -he P5,%%%,%%%.%% fine iposed 0' the R-C on theappellant is also in a""ord with Se"tion 5, Arti"le III of Repu0li" A"t No. &4$5,as aended.

 As to the "har1e of ille1al possession of re1ulated dru1s in Criinal Case No.#*&4:5, the Court of Appeals properl' invo7ed our rulin1 in People v.-ira&4 in deterinin1 the proper iposa0le penalt'. Indeed, we held in -ira that<

Bnder Se"tion &, Arti"le III of Rep. A"t No. &4$5, as aended, the iposa0lepenalt' of possession of a re1ulated dru1, less than $%% 1ras, in this "ase,sha0u, is prision "orre""ional to re"lusion perpetua. ased on the =uantit' ofthe re1ulated dru1 su09e"t of the offense, the iposa0le penalt' shall 0e asfollows<

BAN-I-G I!POSAE PENA-G

ess than one () 1ra to 4#.$5 1ras prision "orre""ional

4#.$& 1ras to #.5% 1ras prision a'or  

#.5 1ras to 4:.:5 1ras re"lusion teporal

4:.:& 1ras to ## 1ras re"lusion perpetua(Ephases ours.)

+iven that the additional $ plasti" sa"hets of sha0u found in the possessionof the appellant aounted to 4.%3 1ras, the iposa0le penalt' for the "rieis prision "orre""ional. Appl'in1 the Indeterinate Senten"e aw, there 0ein1no a11ravatin1 or iti1atin1 "ir"ustan"e in this "ase, the iposa0le penalt'on the appellant should 0e the indeterinate senten"e of si8 onths of arrestoa'or, as iniu, to four 'ears and two onths of prision "orre""ional, asa8iu. -he penalt' iposed 0' the Court of Appeals, thus, falls within theran1e of the proper iposa0le penalt'. In Criinal Case No. #*&4:5, nofine is iposa0le "onsiderin1 that in Repu0li" A"t No. &4$5, as aended, afine "an 0e iposed as a "on9un"tive penalt' onl' if the penalt' is re"lusionperpetua to death.&5

In"identall', the Court notes that 0oth parties in this "ase aditted that theappellant was a re1ular eplo'ee of the NI 2orensi"s Cheistr' Division.Su"h fa"t, however, "annot 0e ta7en into "onsideration to in"rease thepenalties in this "ase to the a8iu, in a""ordan"e with Se"tion $4 ofRepu0li" A"t No. &4$5, as aended.&&Su"h a spe"ial a11ravatin1"ir"ustan"e, i.e., one that whi"h arises under spe"ial "onditions to in"reasethe penalt' for the offense to its a8iu period,&: was not alle1ed and"har1ed in the inforations. -hus, the sae was properl' disre1arded 0' thelower "ourts.

 All told, the Court finds no reason to overturn the "onvi"tion of the appellant.

>;ERE2ORE, the Court of Appeals De"ision dated !a' 3, $% in CA*+.R.CR.*;.C. No. %4$% is A22IR!ED. No "osts.

SO ORDERED.