You are on page 1of 3

2. Burgos v.

CA
G.R. No. 169711; February 8, 2010
Chapter 4: Preliminary Investigation
Matters on a) Bail, b) Hearing, c) OSG intervention

FACTS:

1. A number of assailants attacked the household of Sarah Marie Palma Burgos


while all were asleep, killing Sarah Burgos and her uncle Erasmo Palma. Another
uncle, Victor Palma, and a friend, Benigno Oquendo survived the attack.
2. Four months after the incident, the police arrested Cresencio Aman and Romeo
Martin who executed confessions, allegedly admitting their part in the attack.
They pointed to two others who helped them: Artemio Pong Bergonia and Danilo
Say. They also named respondent Co as the alleged mastermind of the whole
thing.
3. After 10 years (or on September 5, 2002) respondent Co surrendered to the
National Bureau of Investigation. The prosecution charged him with two counts
of murder for the deaths of Sarah and Erasmo and two counts of frustrated murder
committed against Oquendo and Victor. Upon arraignment, Co pleaded not guilty
to the charges.
4. Prosecution presented evidence against respondent Co:
First: Aman and Martins extrajudicial confessions that pointed to Co as
the one who hired them to kill David and his family
Second: Davids testimony as alleged witness to the killing of Sarah.
Aman supposedly told David later when they met that it was Co who
ordered the massacre.
Third: Police officer Leopoldo Vasquez said that his team conducted two
operations to take Co into custody. The first was in a restaurant where they
waited for him but Co got suspicious and when he saw the police. He
immediately left the restaurant, got into his car, and sped away. The police
also tried to arrest Co at his residence but the police did not find him there.
Fourth: Co also offered to settle the case.

5. RTC of Manila granted bail for Co on the ground that the evidence of guilt of
respondent Co was not strong. Among the reasons:
First: The extrajudicial confessions of Aman and Martin, apart from
having been irregularly executed, merely proved their participation in the
killing. Neither, however, claimed conspiracy with respondent Co.
Second: Davids narrations were contradictory, uncorroborated, and self-
serving, thus lacking in evidentiary weight.
Third: Police officer Vasquezs story was likewise uncorroborated.
Fourth: The prosecution failed to prove that the offer of settlement came
from Co.
6. Petitioner heirs of Sarah Burgos moved for reconsideration, this was denied.
7. Petitioner heirs of Sarah Burgos then filed for special civil action of certiorari
questioning the RTCs grant of bail to Co, with prayer for temporary
restraining order before the CA. The CA dismissed this.
CA dismissed the petition because it was filed without involving the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in violation of jurisprudence and
Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code:
Sec. 35. Powers and Functions. The Office of the Solicitor General
shall (1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court
of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its
officers in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and all other courts or
tribunals in all civil actions

ISSUE: W/N CA correctly dismissed the special civil action of certiorari for having been
filed in the name of the offended parties and without the OSGs intervention

HELD: YES.

As a general rule, the mandate or authority to represent the state lies only in the
OSG. Actions essentially involving the interest of the State, if not initiated by the
Solicitor General are, as a rule, summarily dismissed. In this case, the question of
granting bail to Co is but an aspect of the criminal action. The grant of bail or its denial
has no impact on the civil liability of Co that depends on conviction by final judgment.
Co has already been arraigned. Trial and judgment, with award for civil liability when
warranted, could proceed even in his absence. In one case cited (Narciso v. Sta. Romana-
Cruz), the SC allowed a party to challenge the trial courts order granting bail only
because the trial court gravely abused its discretion when it granted bail without
conducting any hearing at all. In this case however, the trial court took time to hear
the parade of witnesses that the prosecution presented before reaching the
conclusion that the evidence of guilt of respondent Co was not strong.

WHEREFORE, petition is DENIED and CA decision is AFFIRMED.

Prepared by Maria Cervero

You might also like