Transformation Time - Real Space

GR 12134, 247 SCRA 652 (Aug 23, 1995)

Facts: On 19 June 1994, the NBI filed a letter-complaint with the DOJ charging petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian, Antonio Lejano and six others of the crime of rape with homicide. The DOJ formed a panel of prosecutors headed by Asst. Chief Prosecutor Jovencio Zuno to conduct the preliminary investigation on the killing on 30 June 1991 of Carmela Vizconde, her mother Estrellita and her sister Anne Marie Jennifer in BF Homes, Parañaque.

In the PI, the NBI submitted sworn statements of Jessica Alfaro, 2 former housemaids of the Webb family, 2 of the Vizconde maids, a security guard, and a car engineer. An autopsy report was also submitted confirming the presence of spermatozoa on Carmela. Before submitting his counter-affidavit, Hubert filed a motion for production of evidences and documents with the DOJ which was granted and the NBI reproduced it. However, the original statement of Alfaro was lost but they were able to get a copy from Atty Mercader, Jr. Hubert failed to get a copy of the FBI report. Hubert claimed that he was in the US at the time of the crime which was corroborated by evidences and testimonies.

The same was done by other accused.

The DOJ found probable cause and recommended the filing of an information for rape with homicide against the petitioners with the Parañaque RTC which was eventually presided by Judge Amelita Tolentino who issued the arrest warrants. The accused voluntarily surrendered, but in their present petition, they contend that the judge abused their discretion when they failed to conduct a PI before issuing the warrant.

ISSUE: W/N the judge should conduct its own PI before issuing a warrant of arrest.

W/N there is probable cause for the crime of rape with homicide.

W/N the warrant has been properly issued.

HELD: The investigating fiscal finds probable cause to hold respondent for trial.

He shall prepare the resolution and the information. In determining probable cause, facts and circumstances are weighed without resorting to technical rules of evidences, but rather based on common sense. Probable cause are the facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and was committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidences of guilt. In the case, the DOJ panel did not abuse its discretion when it found probable cause against the petitioners. It correctly adjudged that enough evidences had been adduced to establish cause and clarificatory hearing was unnecessary since PI is not part of trial.

Vena V. Verga 51

Before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine personally the probability, not the certainty of guilt of an accused. The DOJ‘s report satisfied both judges that there is probable cause to issue such warrants. They do not conduct a hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. They just personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidences. The fiscal need not call the wirnesses for clarificatory questioning if the evidence on hand already yields probable cause. The fact that it took respondent judges a few hours to review and affirm the probable cause determination of the DOJ panel does not mean that they made no personal evaluation of the evidences of the case.

DRILON VS. CA AND DR. AGUILA GR 115825, 258 SCRA 280 (July 5, 1996)

Facts: Godofredo Añonuevo was shot in the back by Manolo Ramos and was then brought to a hospital for treatment of head injuries. Later, he was again shot and treated after being confronted by Marcia Reyes regarding his revelation of her indebtedness secret. After which, he was taken to a poultry farm in Conception where was shot and subsequently brought to the Batangas Regional Hospital where Dr. Aguila (which was said to be an accomplice) refused to treat him. Añonuevo gave 3 statements to narrate the whole crime.

His counsel then requested petitioner DOJ Secretary Drilon to order the transfer of the PI from Batangas to the office of the State Prosecutor at the DOJ which was granted. State Prosecutor Reynaldo Lugtu conducted a PI and found a prima facie case for Kidnapping with frustrated murder against Ramos, Agapito Reyes, Marca Reyes, Egay Perez, Ariel Hubilla, Dr Aguilar and Adoracion Moraleja. An information was then filed with the Batangas City RTC.

Subsequebtly, a petition for review and reinvestigation was denied by DOJ USEC and DOJ Secretary. The case was reassigned and re-raffled to the Manila RTC.

Dr. Aguila sought prohibition with TRO and preliminary injunction to set aside the resolution of Lugtu with the CA which was granted. Unaware that the raffle had already been conducted, the accused filed a motion to hold in abeyance the issuance of a warrant of arrest and to defer the raffle with the Manila RTC.

Not knowing of the said motion, the Manila RTC issued the order of arrest. The CA enjoined the RTC from proceeding with the case. CA likewise excluded Dr Aguilar from the information having found no probable cause against him.

ISSUE: W/N the criminal prosecution can be restrained upon the claim of accused Dr. Aguila that there is no prima facie case against him.

HELD: the purpose of the PI is to establish PC, which implies probability of guilt and requires more that bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify conviction. PC should be determined in a summary but scrupulous

manner to prevent material damage to the constitutional rights of the accused and guarantees of freedom and fair play. Courts should give credence, in the absence of clear showing of arbitrariness, to the finding and determination of PC by the prosecutors in the PI, who are vested with quasi-judicial discretion in the discharge of said function. Hence, the state prosecutor did not abuse its discretion in finding PC against Dr Aguilar. The court directed his inclusion in the information and the continuance of the case.

GO VS. CA

GR 101837, 206 SCRA 138 (Feb. 11, 1992)

Facts: Rolito Go’s car nearly collided with the car of Eldon Maguan when the latter entered a one-way street in San Juan, MM. Go went to Maguan and shot him, and then he left. A security guard saw the plate number of Go’s car which the police verified that it was registered to Elsa And Go. The police also retrieved an empty shell and a round of live ammunition for a 9mm pistol. The police also obtained a facsimile of Go’s credit card which it used in a bakeshop before the incident and a positive verification by the security guard. The police conducted a manhunt. Go surrendered and was positively identified by the witnesses. A complaint for frustrated homicide was then filed with the office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. Go executed a waiver of Art 125 of the RPC to avail of a PI be Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio. Maguan died before the information could be filed. The prosecutor filed instead an information for murder with the RTC, wherein the prosecutor certified that there was no PI since Go did not waive Art 125. Counsel for petitioner then filed an omnibus motion for immediate release and proper PI alleging that no PI was conducted and the warrantless arrest was unlawful. Go’s petition for bail was approved and his release was ordered. The prosecutor filed a motion for leave to conduct PI and to suspend proceedings in the court which was granted. However, the judge recalled the bail, PI, and immediate release and set aside the case for arraignment. Petitioner was admitted at the Rizal Provincial Jail. Petitioner was arraigned and hearings were conducted. Go then filed a petition for habeas corpus in the CA which was issued. The CA also denied the deferment of the arraignment and his other motions. Hence, this petition for review.

ISSUE: W/N the warrantless arrest was lawful.

W/N petitioner effectively waived his right to PI.

DECISION: Go’s arrest took place 6 days after the shooting. The arresting officers had no personal knowledge of the facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman. The information upon which the police acted had been derived from statements of eyewitnesses. It is clear that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner. Since he had not been arrested, he was also not entitled to be released forthwith subject only to his appearing at the PI.

The prosecutor should have conducted the PI upon the filing of the complaint Vena V. Verga 52

for frustrated homicide by the police since he should have been accorded with such right without any conditions.

The court held that petitioner did not waive his right to PI. Such right is a substantive right. To deny him of such right would deprive him of his right to due process. PI is waived when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at arraignment. In the case, Go insisted on his right to PI before his arraignment. He even asked for bail in one motion. Hence, we cannot reasonably imply waiver of PI.

CRESPO VS. MOGUL

No L-53373, 151 SCRA 462 (June 30, 1987)

Facts: Asst Fiscal Proceso de Gala, with the approval of the provincial fiscal, filed an information for estafa against Mario Crespo in the circuit criminal court of Lucena City. The accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground that there was a pending petition for review with the Sec of Justice. The judge denied it but deferred the arraignment. Upon petition, the CA restrained the judge from proceeding with the arraignment until the DOJ has resolved the petition for review. The Justice Undersecretary directed the fiscal to move for the dismissal of the information for insufficiency of evidence but the judge denied it. The CA issued a TRO but later lifted it. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: W/N the TC may refuse to grant the motion to dismiss and proceed with the trial of the case despite a motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal upon order of the Sec of Justice.

HELD: Once an information is filed in court, the court’s prior permission must be secured if the fiscal wants to reinvestigate the case. Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation by the fiscal or a review by the Justice Secretary whereby a motion to dismiss was submitted to the court, the court in the exercise of its discretion may grant the motion or deny it and require that the trial on the merits proceed for the proper determination of the case. In this regard, the fiscal should continue to appear in the case although he may turn over the presentation of evidence to the private prosecutor but still under his discretion and control.

CRUZ, JR. VS. PEOPLE

GR 110436, 233 SCRA 439 (June 27, 1994)

Facts: GSIS filed 2 separate complaints against Roman Cruz, Jr., then President and General-Manager of GSIS and President of the Manila Hotel, for violation of Sec 3(e) of RA 3019. The first was filed with the Office of the

Special Prosecutor for violation of RA 3019 while the second was filed with the PCGG which was later endorsed to the Ombudsman. PCGG filed an information with the Sandiganbayan after conducting a preliminary investigation. The OSP likewise filed information for estafa through falsification of public documents with the Sandiganbayan. The OSP earlier denied the motion to dismiss by petitioner. Sandiganbayan consolidated the two cases but remanded the same to the Ombudsman for reinvestigation. During the preliminary investigation, petitioner submitted counter-affidavits and documents. The prosecutor recommended the withdrawal of the information but the Ombudsman ordered the prosecution to proceed. Petitioner filed an omnibus motion to quash the information and for the Ombudsman to conduct further proceedings but the same was denied. Hence, this petition.

Issue: W/N the Ombudsman should dismiss the information on the recommendation of the prosecutor.

W/N the records of the preliminary investigation should be reproduced.

Held: It is discretionary upon the Ombudsman if he will rely mainly on the findings of fact of the investigating prosecutor in making a review of the latter’s report and recommendation as the Ombudsman can very well make his own findings of fact. The Ombudsman does not conduct another investigation but merely determines the propriety and correctness of the recommendation of the investigating prosecutor that is, whether or not probable cause exist.

Hence, the courts should not interfere in the exercise of the Ombudsman’s discretionary power. The fact that the information filed by the ombudsman consists only of two paragraphs is not sufficient to impute arbitrariness on his part, absent a clear showing that he abused his discretion.

The court is not tasked to review in detail the evidence submitted duing the preliminary investigation. The lim case wherein it was held that if a judge relies entirely on the certification of the prosecutor , he or se has not personally determined probable cause, is not applicable in the case at bar. It is sufficient that the judge evaluates the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutin in determining probable cause.

There is no reason to deny the reproduction of the records of the preliminary investigation since there was good cause on the part of the accused for the reason that he may prepare for his defense.

DOLALAS vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN G.R. No. 118808, 265 SCRA 819 (December 24, 1996)

Facts: Judge Ana Maria I. Dolalas, Evelyn K. Obido and Wilberto B. Carriedo — Presiding Judge, Clerk of Court and Clerk II, respectively of MCTC of Kabasalan, Zamboanga del Sur, were administratively charged by respondent Vena V. Verga 53

Benjamin Villarante, Jr. for "miscarriage of justice, dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, unnecessary delay in the administration of justice and for failure to prosecute Criminal Case no. 5881 for an unreasonable length of time in the Ombudsman-Mindanao.

The letter-complaint was due to a criminal case of alarms and scandals filed against respondent by a police officer. Respondent alleged that after submitting his counter-affidavit with the court, there has been no pre-conference, arraignment or pre-trial held or conducted by the judge. He further alleged that it was maliciously filed by P/Sgt. Salutillo in connivance with petitioner judge in order to discourage the former from instituting a criminal complaint against said police officer's men for abuse of authority and police brutality with physical injury. The case was delayed due to the failure to prosecute within a reasonable time. The Graft Investigation Officer I of the Ombudsman directed petitioners to comment and denied the latter’s motion for reconsideration. Hence the petition before this Court.

Issue: W/N the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over petitioners for purposes of investigation and prosecution.

Decision: This Court agrees with petitioner-judge. The complaint against petitioner-judge before the Office of the Ombudsman is basically administrative in nature. In essence, petitioner-judge is being charged with having violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1and Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

It must be borne in mind that the resolution of the administrative charge of unduly delaying the disposition of the said criminal case involves the determination of whether, in resolving the alarms and scandals case, petitioner-judge acted in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Rules of Court and in the Administrative Circulars in pursuance of the ideals embodied in the Code of Judicial Conduct. Such is clearly an administrative matter. Unquestionably, this Court is mandated of the 1987 Constitution to assume under section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution to assume administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. Hence, the ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the case at bar.

ACOP VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN GR 120422, 248 SCRA 566 (Sep 27, 1995)

Facts: On 18 May 1995, 11 suspected members of the Kuratong Baleleng were killed in a shootout by the NCR Command, Traffic Management Command, PACC, CPDC and Criminal Investigation Command. Later, SPO2 Eduardo de los Reyes of the Central Intelligence Command exposed that there was no shootout. Then, the relatives of the slain suspects accused the policemen of

murder and asked the CHR to conduct an investigation. The Ombudsman directed petitioner Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs Casaclang to monitor the investigations by the CHR, Senate and PNP. Casaclang requested documents relative to the shootout from these bodies and agencies. SPO2 Corazon de la Cruz testified and corroborated the statements of de los Reyes.

He then created a panel of investigators which recommended the conduct of a preliminary investigation after being furnished with documents and transcripts of the Senate’s proceedings and the “After Operations Report” from PNP. He ordered petitioners to submit counter-affidavits and evidences but the latter neither complied nor moved for reconsideration. Instead, they questioned the preliminary investigation without the required preliminary evaluation in their respective petitions with the SC, which ordered both parties to comment.

However, Acting Ombudsman Villa ordered petitioner to file their counter-affidavits, which caused petitioner to cite him in contempt. Villa likewise took the petition from Casaclang who suspended the same pending resolution of the petition by the SC. Hence, this petition.

Issue: WN the Ombudsman of the OSP has jurisdiction over the complaint.

W/N the Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs may conduct PI.

Decision: Petitioners, who are PNP officers, are civilian personnel of the government. The Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs is not prohibited from performing other functions or duties affecting non-military personnel. The Ombudsman may refer cases involving non-military personnel for investigation by the Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs. Hence, there is no irregularity attending the referral by the Acting Ombudsman of the case to Casaclang who in turn created a panel of investigators.

Casaclang did not set the case for PI without the preliminary evaluation required. In the case, Casaclang issued the questioned order after the panel of investigators submitted its evaluation report. The conduct of such evaluation involves the exercise of discretion which has not been abused in the case.

Through RA 6770, the OSP was made an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman. The ombudsman was granted with the power to investigate public officers and employees over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.

The OSP is also authorized to conduct PI over criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under the supervision and control and upon the authority of the Ombudsman.

OCAMPO, IV vs. OMBUDSMAN

G.R. Nos. 103446-47, 225 SCRA 725 (August 30, 1993)

Vena V. Verga 54

Facts: Governor Mariano Ocampo III and his son, petitioner Mariano Ocampo IV, were charged with violation of Sec. 3 (h) of Republic Act. No. 3019 in two (2) separate informations filed before the Sandiganbayan. Mariano Ocampo III, then Tarlac Governor and President-Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Lingkod Tarlac Foundation, Inc. (LTFI), connived with Ocampo IV in loaning

Facts: Governor Mariano Ocampo III and his son, petitioner Mariano Ocampo IV, were charged with violation of Sec. 3 (h) of Republic Act. No. 3019 in two (2) separate informations filed before the Sandiganbayan. Mariano Ocampo III, then Tarlac Governor and President-Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Lingkod Tarlac Foundation, Inc. (LTFI), connived with Ocampo IV in loaning