You are on page 1of 77


II. CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL searched and the persons or things to be

Section 1. Definition of arrest. — Arrest is the
Art. 124. Arbitrary detention. — Any public taking of a person into custody in order that he
officer or employee who, without legal grounds, may be bound to answer for the commission of
detains a person, shall suffer; an offense. (1)

1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum Section 2. Arrest; how made. — An arrest is
period to prision correccional in its minimum made by an actual restraint of a person to be
period, if the detention has not exceeded three arrested, or by his submission to the custody of
days; the person making the arrest.

2. The penalty of prision correccional in its No violence or unnecessary force shall be used
medium and maximum periods, if the detention in making an arrest. The person arrested shall
has continued more than three but not more not be subject to a greater restraint than is
than fifteen days; necessary for his detention. (2a)

3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.
has continued for more than fifteen days but not — A peace officer or a private person may,
more than six months; and without a warrant, arrest a person:

4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention (a) When, in his presence, the person to be
shall have exceeded six months. arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense;
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or
any other ailment requiring the compulsory (b) When an offense has just been committed,
confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be and he has probable cause to believe based on
considered legal grounds for the detention of personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
any person. that the person to be arrested has committed it;
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, who has escaped from a penal establishment or
liberty, or property without due process of law, place where he is serving final judgment or is
nor shall any person be denied the equal temporarily confined while his case is pending,
protection of the laws. or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects Republic Act No. 7438 April 27, 1992
against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS
to be determined personally by the judge after WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING,
examination under oath or affirmation of the DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES
and particularly describing the place to be FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of the presence of any of the parents, elder
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal
assembled:: mayor, the municipal judge, district school
supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as
Section 1. Statement of Policy. – It is the chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial
policy of the Senate to value the dignity of every confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in
human being and guarantee full respect for any proceeding.
human rights.
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained
Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, under the provisions of Article 125 of the
Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Revised Penal Code, or under custodial
Duties of Public Officers.– investigation, shall be in writing and signed by
such person in the presence of his counsel;
(a) Any person arrested detained or under otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and
custodial investigation shall at all times be of no effect.
assisted by counsel.
(f) Any person arrested or detained or under
(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by
acting under his order or his place, who arrests, or conferences with any member of his
detains or investigates any person for the immediate family, or any medical doctor or
commission of an offense shall inform the latter, priest or religious minister chosen by him or by
in a language known to and understood by him, any member of his immediate family or by his
of his rights to remain silent and to have counsel, or by any national non-governmental
competent and independent counsel, preferably organization duly accredited by the Commission
of his own choice, who shall at all times be on Human Rights of by any international non-
allowed to confer privately with the person governmental organization duly accredited by
arrested, detained or under custodial the Office of the President. The person's
investigation. If such person cannot afford the "immediate family" shall include his or her
services of his own counsel, he must be spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child,
provided with a competent and independent brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild,
counsel by the investigating officer.lawphi1Ÿ uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or
(c) The custodial investigation report shall be
reduced to writing by the investigating officer, As used in this Act, "custodial investigation"
provided that before such report is signed, or shall include the practice of issuing an
thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained "invitation" to a person who is investigated in
does not know how to read and write, it shall be connection with an offense he is suspected to
read and adequately explained to him by his have committed, without prejudice to the liability
counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.
the investigating officer in the language or
dialect known to such arrested or detained Section 3. Assisting Counsel. – Assisting
person, otherwise, such investigation report counsel is any lawyer, except those directly
shall be null and void and of no effect affected by the case, those charged with
whatsoever. conducting preliminary investigation or those
charged with the prosecution of crimes.
(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a
person arrested, detained or under custodial The assisting counsel other than the
investigation shall be in writing and signed by government lawyers shall be entitled to the
such person in the presence of his counsel or in following fees;
the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in


(a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos commission of an offense if the latter cannot
(P150.00) if the suspected person is chargeable afford the services of his own counsel.
with light felonies;lawphi1©alf
(b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or
(b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos prohibits any lawyer, any member of the
(P250.00) if the suspected person is chargeable immediate family of a person arrested, detained
with less grave or grave felonies; or under custodial investigation, or any medical
doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by
(c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos him or by any member of his immediate family
(P350.00) if the suspected person is chargeable or by his counsel, from visiting and conferring
with a capital offense. privately with him, or from examining and
treating him, or from ministering to his spiritual
The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid needs, at any hour of the day or, in urgent
by the city or municipality where the custodial cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of
investigation is conducted, provided that if the imprisonment of not less than four (4) years nor
municipality of city cannot pay such fee, the more than six (6) years, and a fine of four
province comprising such municipality or city thousand pesos (P4,000.00).lawphi1©
shall pay the fee: Provided, That the Municipal
or City Treasurer must certify that no funds are The provisions of the above Section
available to pay the fees of assisting counsel notwithstanding, any security officer with
before the province pays said fees. custodial responsibility over any detainee or
prisoner may undertake such reasonable
In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial measures as may be necessary to secure his
investigation shall be conducted and the safety and prevent his escape.
suspected person can only be detained by the
investigating officer in accordance with the Section 5. Repealing Clause. – Republic Act
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal No. No. 857, as amended, is hereby repealed.
Code. Other laws, presidential decrees, executive
orders or rules and regulations, or parts thereof
Section 4. Penalty Clause. – (a) Any arresting inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are
public officer or employee, or any investigating repealed or modified accordingly.
officer, who fails to inform any person arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation of his Section 6. Effectivity. – This Act shall take
right to remain silent and to have competent and effect fifteen (15) days following its publication
independent counsel preferably of his own in the Official Gazette or in any daily
choice, shall suffer a fine of Six thousand pesos newspapers of general circulation in the
(P6,000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not Philippines.
less than eight (8) years but not more than ten
(10) years, or both. The penalty of perpetual Approved: April 27, 1992.lawphi1Ÿ
absolute disqualification shall also be imposed
upon the investigating officer who has been
previously convicted of a similar offense.

The same penalties shall be imposed upon a
public officer or employee, or anyone acting G.R. No. L-37007 July 20, 1987
upon orders of such investigating officer or in his
place, who fails to provide a competent and RAMON S. MILO, in his capacity as Assistant
independent counsel to a person arrested, Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan, and
detained or under custodial investigation for the ARMANDO VALDEZ,petitioners,

Mendoza and Rodolfo Mangsat alias Rudy. herein (SGD. October 12. Third Judicial District. an information for Arbitrary Detention was filed against Juan On April 4. The undersigned Assistant Provincial Petitioner Assistant Provincial Fiscal Ramon S. Sr. Tomas Milo filed an opposition thereto. in his capacity as Pangasinan conspiring." Dagupan City. SALANGA. 1973. was crime of ARBITRARY DETENTION. Pangasinan. SR. CALDONA respondent.. Sr. Tuvera filed a motion to quash Tuvera. Tomas Mendoza and Rodolfo the information on the ground that the facts Mangsat. confederating Judge of the Court of First Instance of and helping one another. J. respondent Judge Angelito C. Cpl. including respondent Juan The facts are as follows: Tuvera. All the accused. Fiscal accuses Juan Tuvera. 1973. willfully. Arbitrary Detention is committed by a public accused Juan Tuvera.2 Mendoza and Pat. without legal grounds. this petition. GANCAYCO. with deliberate 2. (Emphasis supplied. respondents.. Rodolfo Mangsat.. Bertillo Bataoil and one Dianong. all of Manaoag. D-529 entitled "The People of the Philippines versus Juan Tuvera. 1972. at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening. Sr. maltreated one Armando Valdez by 1... Sr. and JUAN TUVERA. namely Juan Tuvera.. did. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. intent to deprive said Armando Valdez of his constitutional liberty. a barrio officer who. unlawfully and feloniously. That he detains a person. Salanga granted the motion to quash in an That on or about the 21st day of April order dated April 25. 2018 IACJUCO 4 ANGELITO C. blows and immediately thereafter.P. et al. Sr. Sr. in barrio Baguinay. Sr. members of the police force of Mangsat.) This is a petition for review on certiorari of an order of the Court of First Instance of CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 124 of the Pangasinan.. The issue is whether a barrio Assistant Provincial Fiscal captain can be charged of arbitrary detention. 1973. Sr. in the Court of First Instance of charged do not constitute an offense and that Pangasinan. there. of the Finding that respondent Juan Tuvera. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27.. following: Jr.. accused Barrio 3. .C. Case No. Hence. That the detention is without legal captain Juan Tuvera.. which reads as follows: the proofs adduced at the investigation are not sufficient to support the filing of the information. with the aid of some other person. Pangasinan. Manaoag. then and Pangasinan (Branch IV). were arraigned and pleaded not guilty.: Pangasinan for about eleven (11) hours. granting the motion to quash the information filed by accused Juan Tuvera. without legal grounds. in Criminal R. 1972. detains a captain. lodge and lock said Armando Valdez inside the municipal jail of Manaoag. not a public officer who can be charged with committed as follows: Arbitrary Detention. On October 12.1 The elements of this crime are the private persons. Tomas grounds.) VICENTE C. That the offender is a public officer or hitting with butts of their guns and fists employee.

Granting that it barrio lieutenant.11 and that the proper charge was No doubt the last two elements of the crime are Illegal Detention and Not Arbitrary Detention.m.. Gellada.4 In U. bound and tied his houseboy Sixto arrested. with the help of Filoteo was Tuvera. agents of the law. they Apparently. 5 released by the justice of the peace because he had not committed any crime. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. who are members of the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. it was not he who detained and Gentugas with a rope at around 6:00 p.S.9 (5) That he is not information do not constitute the elements of connected directly or indirectly in the Arbitrary Detention. nor jail duties of a barrio captain include the following: .. has nothing to officials were convicted of Arbitrary Detention.12 present.14 do with the same because he is not in any way connected with the Police Force of In U. Juan Tuvera.13 Martin Salibio. to have conspired with Cpl.3 that is.15 Geronimo Gellada. Mangsat. a barrio captain is a public officer who can be Long before Presidential Decree 299 was liable for the crime of Arbitrary Detention. if Armando Valdez was ever told him that he was under arrest. authority. The two public hours. The only question is whether or not Tuvera. administration of the Manaoag Police Force. 3590. Manaoag. vs.16 Judge Salanga. Braganza. Sr. Sr. Pangasinan. vs.8 (4) That he had nothing to do with the offense. Sixto authority vested in him as a mere Barrio was detained during the whole night and until Captain of Barrio Baguinay. We disagree. a barrio 1972 were not yet considered as persons in captain. There. The Information charges Tuvera. Gellada was In line with the above finding of respondent convicted of Arbitrary Detention.6 (2) That he is neither a peace officer which was sustained by respondent Judge.m. arrested Father Feliciano Gomez when the former made this finding in the while he was in his church. 299 police force of Manaoag. 9:00 a. a barrio Respondent Judge Salanga did not consider lieutenant. They made him pass questioned order: through the door of the vestry and afterwards took him to the municipal building.10 (6) That barrio captains on April 21. barrio lieutenants (who were later named barrio captains and now barangay The public officers liable for Arbitrary Detention captains) were recognized as persons in must be vested with authority to detain or order authority. private respondent Tuvera asserts that the motion to quash was properly Under Republic Act No. is nor a policeman. the judges or mayors. The priest had jailed and detained more than six (6) not committed any crime. that the facts alleged in the detention of petitioner Valdez. a municipal private respondent Tuvera as such public officer councilor. and Hilario Braganza. In various cases. them as persons in authority. this Court deemed the detention of persons accused of a crime.7 (3) That he was not a public that the facts charged do not constitute an official. of the next day when he was ordered Pangasinan. Pangasinan in that Barrio Captain and Heads of Barangays detaining petitioner Valdez for about eleven (11) were decreed among those who are persons in hours in the municipal jail without legal ground. and jailed him because he has no such delivered him to the justice of the peace. who ordered Valdez Soliman. signed into law. and convicted Such public officers are the policemen and other them of Arbitrary Detention. Mendoza authority and that it was only upon the and Pat. otherwise known sustained for the following reasons: (1) That he as The Revised Barrio Charter. 2018 IACJUCO 5 The ground relied upon by private respondent and detain petitioner Valdez as a mere barrio Tuvera for his motion to quash the information captain.S. a Manaoag. Sr. the powers and did not have the authority to make arrest..

Professor Jose M.28 Matters of defense cannot be like placing the offenders under surveillance and proved during the hearing of such a motion. vs. This order. to the full force of law. which are operative within the barrio.31 lawphi1 chargeable with Arbitrary Detention. is a final order. only be raised as a defense at the trial as they For public disorder therein. such well. As constitute an offense cannot allege new facts such. in resolving a motion to quash.26 and that he only this to say about the above-mentioned powers accompanied petitioner Valdez to town for the and duties of a Barrio Captain. both must be and are given order granting a motion to quash.30 this Court held that a motion to quash "He is a peace officer in the barrio considered on the ground that the facts charged do not under the law as a person in authority. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. he as a barrio captain. cannot consider facts contrary "In the event that there be a disturbing act to to those alleged in the information or which do said public order or a threat to disturb public not appear on the face of the information. prescription. he may subject them as extinction of criminal liability. persuading them. Sr. who act with abuse of their lower court's granting of the motion to quash functions. 2018 IACJUCO 6 to look after the maintenance of public order in respondent Tuvera himself admitted that with the barrio and to assist the municipal mayor and the aid of his rural police. there is no doubt that a barrio. may be guilty of this crime. can be held liable for Arbitrary Detention. organize and lead an emergency group whenever the same may be necessary for the Next. Aruego has Manaoag Police Force. to wit: latter's personal safety.) those alleged in the complaint.29 In the case of U. denial. where possible.. It is not merely Noteworthy is the fact that even private interlocutory and is therefore immediately .19and to Sr. contends maintenance of peace and order within the that the motion to quash was validly granted as barrio. private respondent claims that by the and mayors. the case was dismissed or mayors would show that they are similar to otherwise terminated without his express those of a barrio captain23 except that in the consent. and former jeopardy. to behave except where the Rules expressly permit. the municipal councilor in charge of the district could have led the arrest of petitioner Valdez. unlike one of the authority to detain or order detention. An peace and order. case of the latter.18 to enforce all laws and ordinances barrio captain. private respondent Tuvera. It is accepted that other public officers like judges Lastly. he may make arrest and detain persons not only different but diametrically opposed to within legal limits. but when necessary. like private respondent Tuvera. his territorial jurisdiction is smaller.S. have repeatedly held that Courts. He may take preventive measures information.20 the facts and evidence on record show that there was no crime of Arbitrary Detention. Perez. This rule admits of only one exception and that is when such One need not be a police officer to be facts are admitted by the prosecution. We blame him. what can the barrio captain do? is because a motion to quash is a hypothetical Understandably.27 "Upon the barrio captain depends in the main Suffice it to say that the above allegations can the maintenance of public order in the barrio.21 (Emphasis supplied. he first resorts to peaceful admission of the facts alleged in the measures.17 to look after the general welfare of the From the foregoing.24 in the performance of their duties in such barrio.22 A jeopardy has already attached in his favor32 on perusal of the powers and function vested in the ground that here.25 that In his treatise on Barrio Government Law and he only sought the aid and assistance of the Administration. inevitably people traverse what is alleged in the Information. Having the same duty of maintaining Respondent's contention holds no water.

1972. applying the provision of indeterminate sentence law. finding the guilt of accused Ruben Burgos sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt.: questioned Order of April 25. No pronouncement as Judicial Region. as maximum penalty. dated September 23. 11 th for further proceedings. caliber . convicting defendant. and General Order No. in view of the foregoing.R. 6.appellant Ruben Burgos y Tito of The crime of Illegal Possession of SO ORDERED.38. with his consent but at his instance. in relation to General Order No. No. Digos. the Petition for certiorari is GRANTED. 9. with accessory penalties. as minimum penalty. as provided for by law. Firearms in Furtherance of Subversion.69221) is hereby vs. plaintiff.. appellee. as aforementioned. L-68955 September 4. of Presidential Decree No. dated September 22. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. pursuant to sub- paragraph B. JR.33 WHEREFORE. 1972. D-529 is hereby set aside. The accused cannot claim double RUBEN BURGOS y TITO. 7. As a result of this judgment. The GUTIERREZ. to be disposed of in . 2018 IACJUCO 7 appealable. Smith and Wesson. Davao del Sur to costs. and considering that the firearm subject of this case was not used in the circumstances as embraced in paragraph I thereof. 8. with Serial No. J. 9. ordered confiscated in favor of the government. 885. defendant- jeopardy as the dismissal was secured not only appellant. 1986 subject firearm involved in this case (Homemade revolver. accused Ruben Burgos is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal maximum. of the offense charges . 1973 in Criminal Case No. the G. Let this This is an appeal from the decision of the case be remanded to the appropriate trial court Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur. to reclusion perpetua. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE. in relation further to Presidential Decree No. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. pursuant to Presidential Decree No.

necessary license. Davao del Sur intent to possess and without the Constabulary Headquarters. authorities at about 9:00 o'clock the above. refused. and performance of his subversive arrived at Tiguman. Through the testimony of Pat. make Smith and Wesson. control and custody one (1) homemade revolver. Philippines. stationed at Digos. which firearm one (1) chopa of rice and one was issued to and used by the peso (P1. a information. May 13. 1982. to arrest accused Ruben knowledge. with accused was asked to contribute Serial No.named accused with A. voluntarily surre0ndered to the within the jurisdiction of this Court. caliber . carry firearm against his life.M. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. permit or stating that he was forcibly authority issued by the proper recruited by accused Ruben government agencies. collection of contributions from the brother of accused. (PC). unlawfully and threatening him with the use of feloniously keep. as his accused at Tiguman. possess. on the the Republic of the Philippines following day. Pepito Bioco. Davao del Sur. The team left the was used by the accused in the headquarter at 1:30 P. a joint team of PC- subversive organization INP units. and there wilfully. (TSN. 2018 IACJUCO 8 accordance with law.. at more or tasks such as the recruitment of less 2:00 o'clock PM where New Members to the NPA and through the help of Pedro Burgos. del Sur.00) per month. Davao del means. contribution to the NPA TSN. and which firearm Burgos. Cesar Masamlok personally and Digos. The information charged the defendant. Hearing-October 14. 1982). 1982). Digos. Davao That in the afternoon of May 13. upon receipt of said People's Army (NPA). his area of 5. one 1982 and thereabout at Tiguman. composed of fifteen organized for the purpose of (15) members. at Digos. if he and have in his possession. . 8. 1982. . Likewise. in the decision of the lower court as follows: leaflets and/or propaganda seized are ordered disposed of in xxx xxx xxx accordance with law. of which the accused had Sur. .M. pages 6-7. who was plowing his field. did then Burgos as member of the NPA. Romeo appellant with the crime of illegal possession of Taroy. the team was members. and Sgt. on May 12. CONTRARY TO LAW. page Davao del Sur. Along with his recruitment. able to locate accused. Hearing-October 14. operations by one Alias Commander Pol for the New Immediately. it appears that by virtue of firearm in furtherance of subversion in an an intelligent information obtained information which reads as follows: by the Constabulary and INP units.69221. The evidence for the prosecution is summarized the subversive documents. was through lawless and violent dispatched at Tiguman. headed by Captain overthrowing the Government of Melchesideck Bargio. .38.

Leninismo Kaisipang Masamlok. the latter in the liquidation of target pointed to a place below their personalities. Bioco then verified the place Davao del Sur. he has to join their Mao qqqZedong dated December group otherwise. Then Sgt. 72. Caliber . as his contribution to their prosecution. Exhibit "B" for the him. a pamphlet companions. (TSN. Pinapatnubayan ng Accused and his companions told Marxismo. Mayor Llanos and Barangay Captain of Tienda Aplaya Digos. March 7. At first accused denied Jimenez. and called him cogon grass and likewise downstair. 1982. Thereupon. Because Habagatang Mindanao. an the ground. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. team. page 8. Bioco asked accused about recovery. accused recovered documents consisting told Masamlok. pages 1-16. 1980. attend a seminar scheduled on April 19. example was the killing of the late Hearing-October 14. he should "D" for the prosecution. Pat. their purpose was of notebook colored maroon with to ask rice and one (1) peso from spiral bound. and April 1981 issue. opposed to NPA house where a gun was buried in Ideological movement. March of the threat to his life and family. Pahayagan ng Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas. pointed by accused's wife and dug Hearing-October 14. he and his family 31. after which he recovered the firearm. 71. when confronted with latter was caned by the team and the firearm Exhibit "A". marked as Exhibit Accused then told him. accompanied by his pile of qqqcogon at a distance of companions Landrino Burgos. (TSN. subversive documents Davao del Sur. is now a member. covers entitled Ang Bayan. the grounds. the Accused. former NPA convert was presented. Along with this invitation.1982). went to his house at about accordingly verified beneath said 5:00 o'clock P. Hearing-January 4. He was also warned and another pamphlet Asdang not to reveal anything with the Pamantalaang Masa sa government authorities. accused pulled gut from . 2018 IACJUCO 9 Right in the house of accused. Cesar Masamlok. upon question profounded team leader of the sparrow unit of by Sgt. as reported by Cesar same as issued to him by Nestor Masamlok. will be killed. 1982). accused Ruben which he allegedly kept in a stock Burgos. 1983). pages including the front and back 70. who declared that on After the recovery of the firearm. in his former accused likewise pointed to the residence at Tiguman Digos. readily admitted the his firearm. a the prosecution. after its Pat. 1972. consisting of Cesar Masamlok joined the group. (TSN. allegedly later. the NPA of which he consisting of eight (8) leaves. otherwise known as a possession of said firearm but certain Alias Pedipol. responsible the wife of the accused.38 To prove accused's subversive revolver. marked as Exhibit "C". three (3) meters apart from his Oscar Gomez and Antonio house. marked as Exhibit "A" for activities. ten (10) pages. Taroy Burgos. Alejandro Buncalan with New People's Army.M.

to confession. emphasizing that those who Anyog. 1982. Atty. they will be killed. Anyog assisted accused in Accused. Exh. statement. realizing that accused was not That he encouraged the group to represented by counsel. then finally shouted. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. Landrino confession of accused Ruben Burgos. Antonio the subscription of th extra-judicial Burgos. "C". 1983) that marked as Exhibit "A" for the prosecution. he administered accused Ruben Burgos. resulting to the deletion of the NPA will be victorious. who likewise expounded remain silent. documents. On May 12. . question No. Cesar and 74. Masamlok likewise Identified the by an inserted certification of Atty. Jamper and Oscar him his constitutional rights to Gomez. right to counsel and their own opinions about the NPA. Digos. to assist already members of the NPA. and accused in the subscription of his if they reveal to the authorities. The first speaker was accused Ruben Burgos.38 caliber revolver seminar that a certain Tonio which Masamlok really saw. (TSN. Davao del by his father. the allegations of his extra-judicial 76 and 77. and "D" for indicating his having understood.January 4. Sur. 1983). alias Pedipol and one Burgos. Oscar Gomez. accompanied Constabulary. showed to the reading of his confession from the audience pamphlets and English to Visayan language. pages 72. pamphlets as those marked as Anyog and signature of accused. 2018 IACJUCO 10 his waistline a . 19 of the document. the prosecution. being Burgos. Fiscal Lovitos. for the subscription of his together with his companions. which make him the members. however. who said very Appearing voluntarily in said distinctly that he is an NPA office. 1983) Fiscal Lovitos. right to answer any question It was also announced in said propounded or not. Hearing-January 4. Isabel Ilan and Ayok Ides went to the house of accused and Assistant Provincial Fiscal Panfilo attended the seminar. the prosecution. pages 75. 1982. consisting of five (5) pages. Masamlok surrendered to Captain Bargio of the Provincial On April 19. marked as Exhibit "E " for alias Jamper. Hearing-January 4. as Hearing. will be responsible for the only about two (2) meters away collection of the contribution from from accused. before accused Other speakers in said meeting signed his statement. explained to were Pedipol. whose office is adjacent to attended the seminar were the Fiscal's Office. pages 78-79. while talking. (TSN. extra-judicial statement. Matuguil Masamlok. 73. exhibits "B". overthrow the government. (TSN. 1982. as previously Headquarters of the Philippine invited. easily Identified said firearm. Those Lovitos was presented t prove that present in the seminar were: on May 19. assure the unity of the civilian. Masamlok. requested the services of Atty.

At senses. the ordeals he was subjected. with only evidence. that among the lists of firearm holders in Davao del Sur. pain and/or From his farm. 1745. wished him to admit nearing November 15. he was Presidential Decree No. Sgt. and arrived there at about repeated after recovery of his 3:00 o'clock. he was investigated to decision as follows: obtain his admission. subjected to further prolong (sic) torture and physical agony. 2018 IACJUCO 11 With the aid of Atty. whom he said he similar cycle. described Constabulary. mauling. (TSN. Davao del in detail how he was tortured and Sur. his eyes were prosecution formally closed its covered with wet black cloth with case and offered its exhibits. crying and with Headquarter. Davao he fell unconscious and again del Sur. which the accused. after recovery of his was listed in the name of accused consciousness. whom he cannot Identify undergoing the same torture and . Philippine emotional attachment. nothing He said. terribly irritating with pungent pain. hitting him on the left possession by accused of the and right side of his body which subject firearm. 1982. 1983) Fiscal Lovitos. without the presence of military authorities. Epifanio rendered him unconscious. Comabig in-charge of firearms Accused in an atmosphere of and explosives. intercepted only whenever the PC Barracks at Digos. after soldiers. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. NCO tersed solemnity. page 14 1. was presented and testified. from May 13 and 14. because they were wearing a accused signed his confession in civilian attire. Anyog and Hearing-June 15. brought him to 1982. the defendant-appellant's version of the case against him is stated in the All along. where he was were sent outside the cubicle of detained with respect to the Fiscal Lovitos while waiting for the subject firearm. making his entire body. On the other hand. Because of his refusal accused Finally. in order to prove illegal was mauled. 1982) but accused denied its ownership. but in the PC barracks. investigator. particularly his penis and testicle. the military ordeal was repeatedly done in personnel.M. (TSN. about 8:00 o'clock P. neither was his confronted with subject firearm. despite objection blindfold. pungent effect on his eyes. Anyog. cannot recognize. He which were all admitted in was undressed. overruled. the presence of Atty. The process of beating. he was again Ruben Burgos. pungent water poured in interposed by counsel for his body and over his private accused.. which was accordingly parts. Digos. in the evening. on the same date. he was investigated by Finally on May 15. name included among the lists of Exhibit "A". for him to admit and persons who applied for the when he repeatedly refused to licensing of the firearm under accept as his own firearm. After the above-testimony the Accused said. The investigation was conducted who escorted the accused. pages 36-40.

Salvador being involved in any subversive qqqGalaraga was presented. contrary.. 2018 IACJUCO 12 physical ordeal he was seriously above-questions embraced in the warned. She likewise stated that her and/or contents of his alleged son. the mauling house for treatment. 42. of accused. etc. by force and violence To support accused's denial of the exerted over his person. being a carpenter Honorata Arellano appeared and and farmer thereat. but said charge was and commentary in details. however. as a law abiding citizen Arellano ahas Inday Arellano. 38. but accused she meet the accused nor able to was made to sign his affidavit talk with him. the allegations Court. that the 128-129. Constabulary. he was not personally denial to the truth of his alleged aware of any subversive activities extra-judicial confession. Philippine the torture inflicted on him. (TSN. Davao del Sur. Hearing-May 18. (TSN. he will be accused. (TSN. unfortunately examination. 44. by way of explanation Sur. consisting of five (5) pages. involving Honorata reputation. and no longer able to NPA personalities. To support denial of accused of Davao del Sur. involving her to such salvaged. he can personally attest along with qqqs answers to those to his good character and questions. as Jamper. accused admitted because on the date referred on ownership of subject firearm. who activities. attributed likewise charged for subversion his answers to those questions filed in the Municipal Trial Court of involuntarily made only because Digos. if he will still adamantly numbers allegedly stated in the refuse to accept ownership of the extrajudicial confession of subject firearm. was extrajudicial statement. April 28. 1983) prosecution. threat and intimidation of likewise dismissed for lack of his person and family. and also to support his declared. Hearing-May 18. admitted being of the administering officer. charge against him. who. (TSl pages declared categorically. 45. pages 141-148. Digos. 1982. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. as a result sufficient evidence to sustain his of unbearable excruciating pain conviction. pages 118- marked as Exhibit "E" for the 121. including the certification She. Hearing-June 15. 35. 43. said of his barrio. he cannot Identify and was able to 1983) obtain his admission of the subject firearm. 46 and 47. pages 121-122. familiar with one Oscar Gomez. On the 41. Anthony. and dismissed without reaching the going one by one. and member of his barrio. and that she was personally 1983) charged with subversion in the Office of the Provincial In addition to how he described Commander. Hearing-May 18. Digos. 1983) . he was subjected by an in relation to her cross- investigator. neither did and torture stopped. bear any further the pain and Pol. Barangay Captain of Tiguman. were not true agony. but was of fear. Rogelio Arellano. being his neighbor particularly questions Nos. none of the persons mentioned came to her After his admission. Davao del accused.

reflected in examination. was II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN presented and who testified that HOLDING THE SEARCH IN THE the subject firearm was left in their HOUSE OF ACCUSED- house by Cesar Masamlok and APPELLANT FOR FIREARM one Pedipol on May 10. or in November 15. They were the ones APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND who buried it.D. 1983) confiscation of a firearm and documents allegedly found therein conducted in a lawful On cross-examination. 1982). evidence of the prosecution. to support accused's WARRANT TO BE LAWFUL. and that they will leave it III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN behind. 1983) police authorities went to the house of Ruben Burgos for the purpose of arresting him upon After the above-testimony. 'under the Revised Administrative Code. and valid manner? Does the evidence even if Masamlok during the sustaining the crime charged meet the test of recovery of the firearm. 2018 IACJUCO 13 He however. she said. information given by Cesar Masamlok that the accused through counsel formally accused allegedly recruited him to join the New rested his case in support of People's Army (NPA). was proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt? wearing a mask. that there were a lot the manifestation of counsel for of arrests made by the authorities accused. 4. 25. 1983) activities but they were released and were not formally charged in Accused-appellant Ruben Burgos now raises Court because they publicly took the following assignments of error. 6 AND 7 firearm neither did she report the matter to the authorities. She said. p. his wife. HOLDING THAT (SIC) THE Hearing-May 18. No. pages 113-114. was not in VIOLATION OF P. the alternative for violation merely of simple illegal possession of Article IV. and TSN. temporarily for them to HOLDING ACCUSED- claim it later. 61. Urbana Burgos. 1982. p. (TSN. as amended . to wit: their oath of allegiance with the government. by Republic Act No. (TSN. denial of the subject firearm. page 6. in his barrio involving subversive Hearing-May 18. (TSN. the search of his house and the subsequent page 24. they did not have any accused's through counsel warrant of arrest or search warrant with them manifestation for the demurrer to (TSN. I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN 134. 1982. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. It WITHOUT VALID WARRANT TO was night time. alleging that it was not in order. in relation to page 136. the accused. the gun. admitted in cross. when the two left BE LAWFUL. 1983) ARREST OF ACCUSED- APPELLANT WITHOUT VALID Finally. she can still Identify him. October 14. for fear of Was the arrest of Ruben Burgos lawful? Were the life of her husband. November 22. pages 133. 9 IN their house at that time and that RELATION TO GENERAL she did not inform him about said ORDERS NOS. The records of the case disclose that when the Hearing-November 22. her REASONABLE DOUBT FOR husband. Section 3 of the Constitution provides: firearm. (TSN.

except upon probable cause to be Landynski in his authoritative work determined by the judge. but not necessarily thereto confined. who has escaped from a penal establishment or There the state. provides the protected area. United a) When the person to be arrested has States. his house. papers and effects. is his The Court stated that even if there was no castle. (Cf. 2018 IACJUCO 14 The right of the people to be government. 47). could fitly be authorized by law. value the privacy of home and and particularly describing the person and to afford its place to be searched. or is about to is sought to be guarded is a man's commit an offense in his presence. p. only in the choice of who shall be welcome but likewise in the kind of c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner objects he wants around him. that haven of refuge. and effects against dwelling and to respect the unreasonable searches and privacies of his life. This Court only under stringent procedural explained in Villanueva vs. In b) When an offense has in fact been committed. primarily one's exceptions as follows: home. or such (Search and Seizure and the other responsible officer as may Supreme Court [1966]. seizures of whatever nature and Schmerber v. The constitutional provision is a safeguard and that his privacy must not be against wanton and unreasonable invasion of disturbed except in case of the privacy and liberty of a citizen as to his overriding social need. after characterize this constitutional examination under oath or right as the embodiment of a affirmation of the complainant and 'spiritual concept: the belief that to the witnesses he may produce. a recognition of a constitutionally Section 6 * of the Rules of Court. which is called upon secure in their persons. to refrain from any invasion of his papers. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. the long reach of government is no legs than to value human dignity. the fact that unwarranted intrusion by "the authorities received an urgent report of . 384 US for any purpose shall not be 757 [1966].' (Ibid. 116 US 616. Thus is outlawed any warrant for the arrest of Burgos. 385 US 293 [19661) What committed. however place where he is serving final judgment or powerful. and then person. In the same vein. (Cf. prerogative to choose who is allowed entry to his residence. and no search warrant or v. the traditional formulation. Brennan. houses. is actually committing. however humble. and Boyd violated. United States. Rule 113. and the constitutional protection against persons or things to be seized. Hoffa v. 345) why this right is so important: The trial court justified the arrest of the accused- It is deference to one's personality appelant without any warrant as falling under that lies at the core of this right. 630 warrant of arrest shall issue [1886]). for in confinement to another. Querubin (48 SCRA safeguards. does not as such have temporarily confined while his case is pending access except under the or has escaped while being transferred from one circumstances above noted. his and he has reasonable ground to believe that individuality can assert itself not the person to be arrested has committed it. one of the instances when arrests may be but it could be also looked upon as validly made without a warrant. J. California.

There is no such personal knowledge in this In this case. subversive documents would become an incident to a lawful arrest as provided by Rule The Solicitor General is of the persuasion that 126. poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted. is lawfully within manifestly unnecessary as provided by the the ambit of Section 6-A of Rule 113 of the Rules Rule. generally committing any act which could be described as nothing that happened or is discovered subversive. the accused was arrested on the case. That a crime has actually been committed committing. it came in its entirety from Masamlok led the authorities to suspect that the the information furnished by Cesar Masamlok. 2018 IACJUCO 15 accused's involvement in subversive activities warrants of arrest is strictly construed. 859). 80 be undisputed. ascertained. A person charged with an offense He submits that. The right of a person to be secure against any More important. Neither was he unlawful at the moment it is made. which states: the arrest may still be considered lawful under Section 6(b) using the test of reasonableness. he was not the lips of a frightened wife cannot make the in actual possession of any firearm or arrest lawful. The subsequent recovery of the subject firearm on the basis of information from At the time of the appellant's arrest. or is about to commit an offense is an essential precondition. The suspect that a crime may have been committed. we find no compelling reason unreasonable seizure of his body and any for the haste with which the arresting officers deprivation of his liberty is a most basic and sought to arrest the accused. Section 12. if indeed they had . The conclusions reached by the trial court are however. Whatever knowledge was possessed by sole basis of Masamlok's verbal report. The statute or rule which they failed to first go through the process of allows exceptions to the requirement of obtaining a warrant of arrest. To do so would infringe upon personal liberty If the arrest is valid. If an arrest without warrant is subversive document. (Sayo v. Any from a reliable source (report of Cesar exception must clearly fall within the situations Masamlok) the circumstances of his arrest. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. the information given by Cesar may be searched for dangerous Masamlok was sufficient to induce a reasonable weapons or anything which may ground that a crime has been committed and be used as proof of the that the accused is probably guilty thereof. The test of reasonable ground Phil. plowing his field at afterwards can make it lawful. reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. the arresting officers. applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. It is not enough to must have personal knowledge of that fact. when securing a warrant would be absurd or is even without judicial warrant. commission of the offense. is first. accused had committed a crime. the consequent search and and set back a basic right so often violated and seizure of the firearm and the alleged so deserving of full protection. He was. A crime Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113. Chief of Police. in fact. The fruit of a the time of the arrest. offense must also be committed in his presence The fact of the commission of the offense must or within his view. They were still The location of the firearm was given by the fishing for evidence of a crime not yet appellant's wife. We cannot liberally construe the rule on of Court and applicable jurisprudence on the arrests without warrant or extend its application matter. it is not enough that there is erroneous." beyond the cases specifically provided by law. In arrests without a warrant under Section 6(b). the officer must in fact or actually have been committed arresting a person who has just committed. We fail to see why fundamental one.

but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search . Zerbst 304 compulsion for him to state truthfully his charges U. As pointed out by Justice Laurel in the when you went case of Pasion Vda. present in his house 770). or that consent was given by the accused to be searched simply because he A None Sir. warrant? and lastly. failed to object. 1180. the Q Ruben Burgos courts do not place the citizen in was then plowing the position of either contesting an his field? officer's authority by force. 80 Phil. or waiving his constitutional rights. (TSN. 2018 IACJUCO 16 reasonable ground to believe that the accused or seizure is not a consent or an had truly committed a crime. there is no showing that the pp. As the constitutional guaranty his house. 24.S. 458). the need to That the accused-appellant was not apprised of go through the process of securing a search any of his constitutional rights at the time of his warrant and a warrant of arrest becomes even arrest is evident from the records: more clear. that Q Neither were you the person involved had knowledge. . you were not armed with Neither can it be presumed that there was a an arrest warrant? waiver. Locsin (supra) there? xxx xxx xxx A But he was twenty meters away from .. The arrest being A CALAMBA: unlawful. A Yes Sir. The arrest of the accused while he was plowing his field is illegal. We apply the rule that: "courts indulge every The basis for the action taken by the arresting reasonable presumption against waiver of officer was the verbal report made by Masamlok fundamental constitutional rights and that we do who was not required to subscribe his not presume acquiescence in the loss of allegations under oath. Garcia v. but is merely a showing that there was a real apprehension that demonstration of regard for the the accused was on the verge of flight or supremacy of the law. de Garcia V. secondly.J. (56 C." (Johnson v. actual or armed with a search constructive. 1982). Burgos was not a search therein (Magoncia v. To constitute a waiver. October 14. There was no fundamental rights. Palacio. the search and seizure which transpired afterwards could not likewise be Q When you went to deemed legal as being mere incidents to a valid the area to arrest arrest. of the existence of such a right. The fact that the accused failed to object to the entry into his Q As a matter of house does not amount to a permission to make fact. is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citizen. under pain of criminal prosecution. it must appear first that the right exists. 689). Consequently. that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right (Pasion Vda. Likewise. 65 Phil. There is no invitation thereto. escape. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. whereabouts of the accused were unknown. 1181). Ruben Burgos. de A No Sir. p. Locsin. .

it should be recalled his rights under the that the accused was never informed of his constitution constitutional rights at the time of his arrest. 2018 IACJUCO 17 Q When you called A It was buried for Ruben Burgos down in his horse. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. surrender that firearm. point to where it was buried? Q And that you told him that Masamlok A Yes Sir. constitutional right against self-incrimination under Sec. pp. and alleged subversive documents. of Burgos you did not remind him of Assuming this to be true. stated that it was the accused himself who voluntarily pointed to the place where the Q In your interview alleged subversive documents were hidden. denied but when Sgt. . Hearing-October 14. So considering that he that when the accused allegedly admitted was purposely ownership of the gun and pointed to the location under arrest? of the subversive documents after questioning. 20 of Art. 1982) Q What did you tell him? Considering that the questioned firearm and the alleged subversive documents were obtained in A That we received violation of the accused's constitutional rights information that you against unreasonable searches and seizures. implicated him? (TSN. The officers cellophane. Any A Yes Sir. Burgos did not A Yes Sir. I dug the who testified that the accused readily admitted firearm which was ownership of the gun after qqqs wife pointed to wrapped with a the place where it was buried. . 25-26. it have a firearm.. the his wife told him that prosecution presented the two arresting officers it is buried. first he There is another aspect of this case. the gun was not to counsel. Buncalan In proving ownership of the questioned firearm interviewed his wife. . the admissions were obtained in violation of the A I did not. IV of the Bill of Rights Q As a matter of winch provides: fact. you interviewed him? Q As a matter of fact. he denied that he has ever a gun? No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. A No Sir. and to be informed of in his possession? such right. you follows that they are inadmissible as evidence. person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall Q As a matter of have the right to remain silent and fact.

He knew his Cesar Masamlok.He was a confessed Huk under Furtherance of Subversion is the testimony of detention at the time. Consequently. The case against appellant is he subscribed under oath to his statement at the built on Ternura's testimony. . the credibility the findings of the trial testimonies of the arresting officers as to the court are entitled to great respect admissions made by the appellant cannot be upon appeal for the obvious used against him. fate depended upon how much he cooperated with the authorities. true that the trial court found Masamlok's As in the case of Rodrigo de testimony credible and convincing. . and Fiscal's Office was too late. . Cabrera (100 considered as proceeding from a SCRA 424): totally unbiased source. . CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. whose testimony We are not necessarily bound by the credibility discounted for the same reason. and third degree measures may reversals of convictions upon not have been supported by reliable evidence appeal. The accused-appellant was not accorded his The situation under which Cesar Masamlok constitutional right to be assisted by counsel testified is analogous to that found in People vs. . xxx xxx xxx appellant. . It cannot cure the absence of credence can be accorded to him. actuations The trial court validly rejected the extra-judicial and deportment of the witnesses confession of the accused as inadmissible in during the trial. . . As stated in People vs. counsel at the time of the custodial investigation The first consideration is that said when the extrajudicial statement was being testimony stands uncorroborated. and the alleged subversive documents inadmissible in evidence against the accused. trial court. we Jesus. taken. However. to help the accused when . . xxx xxx xxx In the instant case.Time and again we have stated evidence obtained in violation of this right is that when it comes to question of inadmissible in evidence. which the trial court attaches to a particular that of Ternura cannot be witness. Masamlok's testimony was totally uncorroborated. We find the testimony of Masamlok inadequate who were then engaged in a to convict Burgos beyond reasonable doubt. Considering that . The lower Capadocia (17 SCRA 98 1): court correctly pointed out that the securing of counsel. Anyog. We must reject the but the failure to present the investigator who findings of the trial court where the conducted the investigation gives rise to the record discloses circumstances of "provocative presumption" that indeed torture weight and substance which were and physical violence may have been not properly appreciated by the committed as stated. 2018 IACJUCO 18 The Constitution itself mandates that any . reason th+at it was able to observe the demeanor. . Ternura was the only witness who testified on the mimeographing With the extra-judicial confession. violence. the firearm. Atty. . . It is vigorous anti-dissident campaign.. It could have no the issue hinges on how much palliative effect. But we have also evidence. during the custodial interrogation. The court stated that the appellant's said that this rule is not absolute having been exhaustively subjected to physical for otherwise there would be no terror. the only remaining proof to sustain the charge of Illegal Possession of Firearm in . incident.

where authorities in their legitimate efforts to maintain after stressing that accusation is peace and national security. It can not be said that his amounted to a crime. 1983) who could have Nazareno. Lopez.' temptation to be exaggerated and even (Ibid. Masamlok may be considered as an perpetrate the act but that it interested witness. 74 present during the alleged NPA seminar of April SCRA 205. 83. Even as we reiterate the need for all reliance can be placed on People freedom loving citizens to assist the military v. People v. constrained to rule that the military in Davao del Sur where there the evidence presented by the prosecution is appears to be a well-organized plan to insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused overthrow the Government through armed beyond reasonable doubt. 80 SCRA 484. SCRA 126. Ramirez. January 4. Baia (34 against duly constituted authorities has resulted SCRA 347): in unfortunate levels of violence and human suffering publicized all over the country and It is evident that once again. 78 SCRA 513. People v. and subversive activities or actually engaged in People vs. People vs. the prosecution never 697). People v. 19. Isabel Ilan and Ayok Ides (TSN. the rebels. The proof against him must survive the test of reason. Gabiana. 117 SCRA 260. January charged. Poblador. We are aware of the serious problems faced by This Court is. that not only did he 4. 1982 i. synonymous with guilt. People v. account. People vs. it was SCRA 538. it should always be should the sentence be one of remembered that whatever action conviction. People v. p. 74. Quiazon. abroad. Cf.Matuguil 76 SCRA 634. People corroborated Cesar Masamlok's testimony that vs. It is thus required that is taken must always be within the every circumstance favoring his framework of our Constitution and innocence be duly taken into our laws. Alvarez.e. Enrile (1 21 law. we must also not. p. What is testimony is free from the opportunity and required then is moral certainty. The open defiance As held in the case of People vs. therefore. according to the fundamental remember the dictum in Morales vs. 2018 IACJUCO 19 Masamlok surrendered to the military certainly the strongest suspicion must not his fate depended on how eagerly he be permitted to sway judgment. Masamlok's father . The that on the defendant could be laid trade-off appears to be his membership in the the responsibility for the offense Civil Home Defense Force. People v. struggle and replace it with an alien system based on a foreign ideology. 1983). Ibanga 124 SCRA subversive acts. Dramayo (42 SCRA 59). 64 freedom.. 55 fabricated for it was intended to secure his SCRA 81. cooperated with the authorities. Otherwise. People the accused used the gun in furtherance of v. Godov Despite the fact that there were other persons 72 SCRA 69. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. 64. . presented any other witness. the crime had been committed the subversives. Masamlok. 569) when this Court stated: made clear: 'Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal While the government should could arrive at a conclusion that continue to repel the communists. 69 SCRA 144. (TSN. Gabilan 115 SCRA 1. Joven. and precisely by the person on trial the lawless with an the means at under such an exacting test its command. he The conscience must be satisfied would also be charged with subversion.

MANOLITA O. REX D. HON. RAMOS.R. vs. G. vs. GEN. G. RENATO DE SO ORDERED. GEN. 8. ANONUEVO and RAMON CASIPLE. the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. DE VILLA. UMIL.R. FIDEL V.R. petitioners. respondents. 1990 The subject firearm involved in this case IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR (homemade revolver. and Commanding Officer. with Serial No. respondents. 2018 IACJUCO 20 Violations of human rights do not help in overcoming a rebellion. ANONUEVO and RAMON CASIPLE. and disposed of in accordance with law. No. S/SGT.R. WHEREFORE. 1990 AMELIA ROQUE and WILFREDO BUENAOBRA. MAJ. BRIG. FELICITAS V. 1990 . Smith and HABEAS CORPUS OF ROBERTO UMIL. A cavalier attitude towards constitutional liberties and protections will only fan the increase of subversive activities instead of containing and suppressing them. GEN. RAMOS. FIDEL V. 83162 July 9. LT. RAMON MONTANO. DOMINGO T. PIAD. G. VILLA. RENATO DE VILLA and GEN. on grounds of reasonable doubt. Quezon City. vs. 81567 July 9. SESE. 84581-82 July 9. Nos.38. respondents. BRIG. GEN. 84583-84 July 9.69221) and the ROLANDO DURAL and RENATO alleged subversive documents are ordered VILLANUEVA. GEN. ARNOLD DURIAN. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE. COL. RENATO S. caliber . Cost de oficio. No. EVARISTO CARINO. of the crime with which he has been charged. The accused-appellant is hereby ACQUITTED. PC-INP Detention Center. petitioners. Camp Crame. T/SGT. DOMINGO T. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. COL. G. DURAL. Nos. RAMON MONTANO. petitioners. 1990 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ATTY. NICANOR P. CONRADO DE TORRES. Wesson.

Campbell-Castillo for petitioners in person to be arrested has G. vs. 85727 July 9. — A peace officer or a private person may. JACINTO contentions of the parties in their respective MEDINA. COL. committed. No.R. 86332 July 9. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE. respondents. Sy. petitioners as they have been legally arrested and are detained by virtue of valid G. Barbara Anne C. Raneses. No. is actually committing. arrest a person: & Association for petitioner in G. 1990 informations filed in court against them.R.R. GEN. Metro Manila. (a) When. ALFREDO warrant and. investigation was first conducted. petitioner. Taquio without a warrant. which have been HERCULES CATALUNA. respondents. The are eight (8) petitioners for habeas BRIG. the respondents vs. informations filed against them are null and void. 86332. LIM. MAURO have not been illegally arrested nor arbitrarily AROJADO. which provides: Efren H. 2018 IACJUCO 21 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR The Solicitor General for the respondents. HABEAS CORPUS OF: DEOGRACIAS ESPIRITU.R. Esguerra.R. so that the vs. Banzuela. The arrest of a person without a warrant of 84581-82. Valmonte for petitioners in G. Ricardo C. HABEAS CORPUS OF VICKY A. VIRGILIO A. No. COL. Mercado for petitioners in G. and P/SGT. ALFREDO S. The Court has carefully reviewed the Muntinglupa. COL. P/SGT. arrest or previous complaint is recognized in law.R. deprived of their constitutional right to liberty. Migallos arrest may be effected are clearly spelled out in and Agripino G. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. 5. and it finds that the persons detained LEVI SOLEDAD. Miralles. corpus filed before the Court. praying for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. that no preliminary NAZARENO. cases do not warrant their release on habeas 81567. No. Morga for petitioners in G. PER CURIAM: OCAYA. in his presence. NESTOR consolidated because of the similarity of issues MARIANO. In their respective Returns. amended. The occasions or instances when such an Ramon S. Flores. the Josefina G. 1990 respondents to produce the bodies of the persons named therein and to explain why they IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR should not be set at liberty without further delay. ordering the respective G. petitioner. corpus. 84583-84. P/SGT. as Nos. OCAYA AND DANNY RIVERA. THE STATION COMMANDER OF THE MUNTINGLUPA POLICE STATION. unlawful as their arrests were made without NAZARENO. No.R. of habeas corpus is not available to the RICARDO REYES. respondents. Mercado for petitioner in G. No. raised. when lawful. uniformly assert that the privilege of the writ BRIG. . P/SGT. pleadings. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. GEN. Sec. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR The petitioners counter that their detention is HABEAS CORPUS OF NARCISO B. ELADIO TAGLE. Section 5. 85727.R. petitioner. Nos. and that the circumstances attending these Efren H. warrant. Arrest without 83162.

Ramos). under as Ronnie Javelon. the Regional (a) and (b) hereof. Quezon City. Carlos any case. case is pending. or on 4 February 1988. was stated by Rolando Dural was positively identified by this Court in the case of People vs. In G. escaped from a penal establishment or place where he A brief narration of the facts and events is serving final judgment or surrounding each of the eight (8) petitions is in temporarily confined while his order. a Section 5 paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule 113 of member of the NPA liquidation squad. and fired at the two (2) CAPCOM soldiers To hold that no criminal can. at the mercy of City Fiscal who conducted an inquest and the shrewdest. No. Rolando Dural was referred to the Caloocan to a large extent. viz. or on 31 January 1988. Hospital in Roosevelt Avenue. the person Intelligence Operations Unit of the Capital arrested without a warrant shall be Command (RIOU-CAPCOM) received forthwith delivered to the nearest confidential information about a member of the police station or jail. 81567 (Umil vs. as amended. for security reasons. Rolando Dural and the person making the arrest has personal was transferred to the Regional Medical knowledge of the facts indicating that the person Services of the CAPCOM. when apprehended. is justified responsible for the killing of two (2) CAPCOM when the person arrested is caught in flagranti soldiers the day before. and he shall NPA Sparrow Unit (liquidation squad) being be proceeded against in treated for a gunshot wound at the St. arrested has committed it. the Rules of Court. searched for the evidence and tokens of his crime without a As a consequence of this positive identification. Section 7. Upon verification. it was found that the wounded person. thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court of and the most depraved of Caloocan City an information charging Rolando Dural alias Ronnie Javelon with the crime of .R. the record In cases falling under paragraphs shows that. The rationale behind While confined thereat. so that their arrests without a warrant were clearly justified.. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. who was listed in the hospital records An arrest without a warrant of arrest. on 1 February 1988. further. lawful arrests. detained by virtue of arrested is a prisoner who has valid informations filed against them in court. would be to leave society. in many instances. (c) When the person to be and that they are. in the act of committing an offense. (b) When an offense has in fact The record of the instant cases would show that just been committed. be arrested and Pabon and CIC Renato Manligot. delicto. the most expert. had freshly indicating that the person to be committed or were actually committing an arrested has committed it. is actually Rolando Dural. without warrant. and offense. in seated inside the car identified as T/Sgt. In view of this verification. and he has the persons in whose behalf these petitions personal knowledge of facts for habeas corpus have been filed. warrant. facilitating their escape offense. Agnes accordance with Rule 112. Bagong Barrio. Caloocan or when an offense has just been committed City. in Macanining Street. 2018 IACJUCO 22 or is attempting to commit an criminals. or has escaped while being transferred from one I confinement to another. Kagui eyewitnesses as the gunman who went on top Malasugui 1 thus: of the hood of the CAPCOM mobile patrol car.

his arrest prosecuting them in court for a without warrant is unjustified. are all in the nature of February 1988. insofar as Umil and Villanueva are jurisdiction. As stated overt acts of violence against by the Court in an earlier case: government forces. C-30112 and no they were initially arrested illegally bail was recommended. it clearly appears that he furtherance of the rebellion. The crimes of defendant. them apart from the common offenses. The petition for habeas and existing jurisprudence in our corpus. 2045. the occasion thereof. Rolando Dural was arrested for being usual procedure in the a member of the New Peoples Army (NPA)." The case was docketed the claim of the petitioners that therein as Criminal Case No. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. or any other . Jr. Meanwhile. than for the said offense for his arrest came a day after the purpose of immediately said shooting incident. since the writ of habeas 2. or for committing non-violent acts but in As to Rolando Dural. Thereafter. Nor the course of an armed conflict. aside from their On 26 February 1988. on 6 February 1988. to was he arrested just after the commission of the quell the rebellion. or incident and Renato Villanueva. The Court issued the thereto. as and in fact. therefore. 2018 IACJUCO 23 "Double Murder with Assault Upon Agents of From the facts as above-narrated. who. of the original information. The crimes of rebellion. the arrest of judge of the existence of probable Rolando Dural without warrant is justified as it cause before the issuance of a can be said that he was committing an offense judicial warrant of arrest and the when arrested. Subversion requires the determination by a being a continuing offense. need not follow the However. Obviously. the charges for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act arrest of the herein detainees was had been filed against them. at the filing insurrection or rebellion. is now moot and academic and is accordingly dismissed. the parties were continuing offenses which set heard on 15 February 1988. conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes. conspiracy or proposal to commit bailable. concerned. statutory offense. on behalf of Roberto Umil. On 15 February 1988. however. therefore. or in connection therewith writ of habeas corpus on 9 February 1988 and under Presidential Proclamation the respondents filed a Return of the Writ on 12 No. The arrest of persons involved corpus does not lie in favor of an accused in a in the rebellion whether as its criminal case who has been released on bail. without basis in law the information was amended to include. Seemingly. Roberto essentially involving a massive Umil and Renato Villanueva posted bail before conspiracy of nationwide the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City where magnitude. Persons in Authority. Clearly then. The arrest. Rolando Dural. is was not arrested while in the act of shooting the more an act of capturing them in two (2) CAPCOM soldiers aforementioned. an prosecution of offenses which outlawed subversive organization. subversion. the absence such crimes. granting of bail if the offense is subversion. and crimes or offenses committed of a judicial warrant is no legal in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith impediment to arresting or constitute direct assaults against the State and capturing persons committing are in the nature of continuing crimes. Bernardo Itucal. was still unidentified. 2 fighting armed elements. and they were well within the bounds of the law accordingly released. is. a petition and other crimes and offenses for habeas corpus was filed with this Court on committed in the furtherance.

is also justified. which is used Whether. "Ka Miller". Bureau. shows that the criminal a member of the National United Front case filed against Rolando Dural and Bernardo Commission. Jr.R. Quezon. was The record.3 Constantino and other members of the rebel group. whatever may be said Philippines (CPP) and the New Peoples Army about the manner of his arrest. and in the occupied by Renato Constantino located in the judgment of guilty pronounced by Villaluz Compound. The "Ka Totoy". most assuredly so in When apprehended at the house of Renato case of invasion.. their persons and detaining them Metro Manila. in which." was tried in and admitted ownership of subversive the court below and at the conclusion thereof. Molave St. and To this he pleaded not guilty. He also pointed to a certain house trial followed. vs. Dural is now serving the sentence imposed upon him by the trial court.. Thus. If killing and other acts II of violence against the rebels find justification in the exigencies of In G. Amelia Roque. It is enough to pursuance of the rebellious say that such irregularities are not movement. Sorsogon and Lopez. Rolando which she had no permit or authority to possess. upon the other hand. Wilfredo while any of these contingencies Buenaobra admitted that he was an NPA continues cannot be less justified. De Villa). a staff member was actually in court in the of the Communications and Transportation custody of the law on March 29. we find no error. Marikina the court. for "Double Murder. personally before the court. Rolando Dural and Caloocan City. a staff member in charge of when a complaint sufficient in form finance. who had surrendered to of U. the Constantino writ of habeas corpus or now has house was placed under military surveillance a civil action for damages against and on 12 August 1988. moreover. courier and he had with him letters to Renato . in charge of finance. Metro Manila. Itucal. he could have been released on a In view of these revelations. 84581-82 (Roque vs. "Ka Ted". 27 June 1988. Heights. He identified some of his fact remains that the defendant former comrades as "Ka Mong". etc. merely seizing Constantino in Marikina Heights. She was also in possession of Bernardo Itucal. "Ka Nelia". insurrection. the armed hostilities which is of the arrest of Amelia Roque and Wilfredo essence of waging a rebellion or Buenaobra.S. the writ The record of these two (2) cases shows that on of habeas corpus is no longer available to him. a For. Marikina. pursuant to a search the person who arrested him we warrant issued by Judge Eutropio Migrino of the . if there were as a safehouse of the National United Front irregularities in bringing him Commission (NUFC) of the CPP-NPA. as held in the early case member of the NPA. 2018 IACJUCO 24 milder acts but equally in need not inquire. Jr. the (NPA) in Metro Manila.. told military agents about the operations of the Communist Party of the In this case. an NPA courier from and substance was read to him. government and duly constituted authorities. Marikina. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. one Rogelio Ramos y Ibanes. without warrant. Wilson: 4 the military authorities. or documents found in the house of her sister in on 17 August 1988. The arrest or capture sufficient to set aside a valid is thus impelled by the exigencies judgment rendered upon a of the situation that involves the sufficient complaint and after a very survival of society and its trial free from error. Nos. were found guilty of the ammunition and a fragmentation grenade for charge and sentenced accordingly.

d) Fifty-six (56) live ammunition for Cal.45. vouchers. . at 69 Geronimo g) One (1) Regulated power supply 220V AC. radio and other captain of the place. which was granted. When questioned. Acting on the lead provided as to the whereabouts of Amelia Roque. to "Ka Bing & Co.56 (3) Handwritten letter addressed mm. bank deposit he admitted that he was a staff member of the books. Amelia day (12 August 1988). and other Criminal Investigation Service. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. Lopez..380 ACT/9mm Model PPK/8 SN: 260577 & 2605778. St. After identifying themselves as military agents j) Voluminous Subversive documents. rounds of live ammunition for a cal. Renato Constatino could not conducted a search in the presence of the produce any permit or authority to possess the occupants of the house and the barangay firearms. although found ledgers. Hence. . he also admitted that he is known Security Group (CSG). for investigation. he Camp Crame. sister of Amelia Roque alias "Ka Nelia". 5. Wilfredo Buenaobra Roque and the other occupants of the house arrived at the house of Renato Constantino in were brought to the PC-CIS Headquarters at the Villaluz Compound. and At about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of the same a fragmentation grenade. communications equipment. he refused to another safehouse of the NUFC/CPP. and executive committee of the NUFC and a ranking subversive documents as well as live member of the International Department of the ammunition for a . a search of the a regular member of the CPP/NPA and that he house was conducted at about 5:00 o'clock in went to the place to deliver letters to "Ka Mong". the h) One (1) Antennae (adjustable). Roque. the military agents When confronted.38 SPL Winchester. 19 rounds of live ammunition for an M16 Rifle. Quezon. (2) Handwritten letter addressed to "ROD from VIC (Schell datre)" c) Two (2) fragmentation hand grenades. e) Five (5) live ammunition for Cal. he was brought to the CIS Headquarters for The military agents found the place to be investigation. by a combined team of the referring to Renato Constatino. to "Suzie" from "Vic". 11 Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP)." dated August 11. and after seeking permission to search the place. They give a written statement. folders. 1988. When accosted. place at about 11:00 o'clock in the morning. In the course of the as "Ka Miller" and that he was from Barangay search. On further District (CIS-NCD) and the Constabulary questioning. They arrived at the i) One (1) Speaker with cord ALEXAR. 2018 IACJUCO 25 Regional Trial Court of Pasig. one Jesus D. . military agents went to the given address the next day (13 August 1988). Caloocan City. 1988. 1988. National Capital members of the rebel group. journals. Olba. As a result. dated August 11.380. readily admitted to the military agents that he is Amelia Roque admitted to the investigators that . ammunition. computer diskettes. dated August 11. Quezon City. the afternoon. from A & Co. Also found Buenaobra's possession was a f) One (1) ICOM VHF FM Radio Transciever SN: piece of paper containing a written but jumbled 14903 telephone number of Florida M. the following articles were found and San Pedro. b) One (1) Cal. Among the items taken under proper receipt: taken from him were the following: a) One (1) Colt M16A1 long rifle with defaced (1) Handwritten letter addressed serial number.

Both are admittedly members of the On 15 August 1988. they had a bag containing of PD 1866 was filed with the Regional Trial subversive materials. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. 7. without warrant.65 Pietro Barreta Commission (NUFC) of the CPP was not SN. At the articles: hearing of the case. The arrest without warrant of Roque was identified as "Ka Ted". however. which about 7:30 o'clock in the evening of 13 August is docketed therein as Criminal Case No.65 containing ten (10) live ammunition of same The contention of respondents that petitioners caliber.R.00. and both carried firearms Court of Caloocan City. Hence. which An information for violation of the Anti. occupants of the house were released from the arrest of Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon custody. corpus was filed before this Court on behalf of Found in their possession were the following Amelia Roque and Wilfredo Buenaobra. A18868 last digit tampered controverted or traversed by said petitioners.65 MOD 83 2C academic. caliber. Casiple. C-1196. with one (1) magazine containing The contention must be deemed admitted. C. Casiple arrived at the house of Renato Constatino at Marikina Heights. Only the petition of Amelia Roque Pistol SN: 001412 with one (1) remains for resolution. the petition for habeas corpus filed on his behalf is now moot and b) One (1) Cal. information for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act was filed against Amelia Roque before the The record of these two (2) cases shows that at Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City. 1988. when to the Caloocan City Fiscal for inquest after apprehended in the house of Renato which an information charging her with violation Constatino. 5 As five (5) live ammunition of same officers and/or members of the NUFC-CPP. without warrant. Amelia Roque was brought standing committee of the NUFC and. When frisked. According. without license to possess them. As a result. The case is docketed them to be loaded guns. in possession of ammunitions had previously surrendered to the military. . Anonuevo and Ramon 150458. the agents found of Marikina. 7. Marikina. was still under surveillance by military agents. by their comrades who apprehension. Quezon documents City. Subversion Act was filed against Wilfredo The military agents noticed bulging objects on Buenaobra before the Metropolitan Trial Court their waist lines. a petition for habeas brought to PC Headquarters for investigation. Nos. 84583-84 (Anonuevo vs. Bail was were asked to show their permit or license to set at P4. they were On 24 August 1988. Domingo Anonuevo was Dural. 2018 IACJUCO 26 the voluminous documents belonged to her and III that the other occupants of the house had no knowledge of them. possess or carry firearms and ammunition. Anonuevo and Casiple therein as Criminal Case No. but they could not produce any. Another possess or carry. Metro Manila. the said other In G. magazine for Cal. 7. and Ramon Casiple as additionally justified as she was. their arrest. The case is docketed and ammunition for which they had no license to therein as Criminal Case No. at the time of "Ka Totoy" of the CPP. Roque and Buenaobra are officers and/or members of the National United Front c) One (1) Cal. Domingo T. was justified for the same reasons earlier stated vis-a-vis Rolando At the PC Stockade. Ramos). Wilfredo Buenaobra manifested his desire to stay in the a) Voluminous subversive PC-INP Stockade at Camp Crame. is also justified under the rules.000. 23715.

as amended. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. reads: identical certifications. ask for a Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple were carrying preliminary investigation with the unlicensed firearms and ammunition in their same right to adduced evidence in person when they were apprehended. without a preliminary the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised investigation having been first conducted. a petition for habeas as amended. waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. as follows: Sec. On 24 August 1988. a alleging that the said Anonuevo and Casiple responsible person of his choice. If the case has been filed in court without a preliminary investigation The petitioners' (Anonuevo and Casiple) claim having been first conducted. but he must sign a recommended. On 30 investigation must be terminated August 1988. the prosecutor made Rules of Court. 74386 proper officer in accordance with ad 74387. Rule 112 of the 1985 without a warrant for an offense Rules on Criminal Procedure. and after the respondents inception. the record of the been first conducted. with the assistance corpus was filed with this Court on behalf of of a lawyer and in case of non- Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple. he that the informations filed against them are null may apply for bail as provided in and void for having been filed without prior the corresponding rule and the hearing and preliminary investigation. as . as amended. refused to sign a waiver of of an information. party or arresting officer or person. has not made and signed a waiver peace officer or fiscal without a of the provisions of Art. Rule 112 of the filed against them. 7. The cases are preliminary investigation by a docketed therein as Criminal Cases Nos. The filing Casiple. the that they were unlawfully arrested because accused may within five (5) days there was no previous warrant of arrest. the parties were heard. after which Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple However. is Penal Code. 125 of the preliminary investigation having Revised Penal Code. No bail was this Rule. that cognizable by the Regional Trial no preliminary investigation was Court the complaint or information conducted because the accused may be filed by the offended party. 7. 2018 IACJUCO 27 On 15 August 1988. respectively. Sec. Metro Manila. before the filing of such were charged with violation of Presidential complaint or information. his favor in the manner prescribed in this Rule. on the basis investigation and other documentary evidence of the affidavit of the offended were forwarded to the Provincial Fiscal at Pasig. When accused lawfully This is to certify that the accused arrested without a warrant. 7. There is also no merit in the contention that the informations filed against them are null and void The petitioners Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon for want of a preliminary investigation. the Decree No. were unlawfully arrested without a warrant and Notwithstanding such waiver. In the informations sanctioned by the Rules. had filed a Return of the Writ. who conducted an inquest. Metro Manila. the Court issued the writ within fifteen (15) days from its of habeas corpus. availability of a lawyer. — has been charged in accordance When a person is lawfully arrested with Sec. however. is from the time he learns of the filing without merit The record shows that Domingo of the information. 1866 before the Regional Trial person arrested may ask for a Court of Pasig.

CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. It was alleged Buenaobra. . Memorandum. the found in their possession when they were arrest without warrant. 2018 IACJUCO 28 amended. Domingo Anonuevo. as amended. Aguirre). 73447.R. Phase II. illegal arrest. on the other hand. investigation after the informations had been filed against them in court. waive the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. conducted a search of a cause the said arresting officers in these cases house located at Block 19. and Amelia Roque IV claim that the firearms. however. that Vicky Ocaya was evidence presented. the arresting officers in these believed to be occupied by Benito Tiamson. 83162 (Ocaya vs. armed with a search warrant issued by Judge On the other hand. case is docketed therein as Criminal Case No. 7.00 each on result. with this Court on behalf of the case of petitioners Roque. Vicky Ocaya arrived in a car driven by Anonuevo and Casiple say. To reiterate. agents of the PC Intelligence and The petitioners. Metro Manila. as pointed brought to the PC Headquarters for out by the Solicitor General. of Vicky Ocaya is arrested. . Vicky Ocaya and Danny Rivera. was The Solicitor General. Rule Nor did petitioners ask for a preliminary 112 of the Rule of Court. in his Consolidated released from custody. was the lawful search and detained. Metro Manila. No. has been Green Heights. any evidence to support their aforesaid claim. In the course of the bounty hunters for. aptly observes: On 17 May 1988. The record of this case shows that on 12 May 1988. as counsel for the petitioners search. "there is absolutely Danny Rivera. ammunition and subversive documents alleged to have been In G. there is arrested in flagranti delicto so that her arrest reasonable ground to believe that without a warrant is justified. Anonuevo and therein that Vicky Ocaya was illegally arrested Casiple. a petition for habeas . pistol inquest that petitioners are on the 'AFP Order of were found in the car of Vicky Ocaya.000. did not belong to them. When Vicky Ocaya could not petitioners is not a product of a witch hunt or a produce any permit or authorization to possess fishing expedition. an information charging her surveillance of NPA safehouses pointed to by with violation of PD 1866 was filed with the no less than former comrades of the petitioners Regional Trial Court of Pasig. Marikina. Metro Manila. however. since she had with her "planted" by the military agents to justify their unlicensed ammunition when she was arrested. the focal point in corpus was filed. military at the residence of Renato . Subversive documents and nothing in the evidence submitted during the several rounds of ammunition for a . Besides. that based on the It would appear.'" 6 On the other hand. but were justified under the Rules. the arrest of the investigation. shown.45 cal. cases do not appear to be seekers of glory and head of the CPP-NPA. Vicky Ocaya and Danny Rivera were their heads. The petitioners Vicky Ocaya. . and denied the right to a and seizure conducted by the preliminary investigation. The in the rebel movement. Petitioners cannot V now claim that they have been deprived of their constitutional right to due process. Marikina to accuse the petitioners falsely. Danny Rivera. have not introduced Investigation of the Rizal PC-INP Command. As a Battle with a reward of P150. pursuant to Sec. no evil motive or ill-will on Eutropio Migrino of the Regional Trial Court of the part of the arresting officers that would Pasig. investigation was conducted because she was and that the accused is probably arrested without a warrant and she refused to guilty thereof. but the result of an in-depth the ammunition. Ramon Casiple. No preliminary the crime has been committed.

nobody Casiple? Must this Honorable has disputed the fact that the Court yield to Anonuevo and residence of Constantino when Casiple's flimsy and bare raided yielded communication assertion that they went to visit equipment. Constantino and Buenaobra. Metro Manila. especially considering that at the time of Subsequently. in that or fishing expedition on the part of Buenaobra did come to that the military. Would it be unreasonable for the military agents to believe that . events in question. incriminatory four hours after the arrest of evidence. under the time. Constantino's residence The raid at Constantino's considering that Constatino's residence. organizations. arrested thereat? The military agents working on the As to petitioner Roque. barely two hours the former has the phone number after the raid and Constantino's of the latter. Not In all the above incidents. He acted suspiciously paper taken from Buenaobra's and when frisked and searched by possession? Petitioners Roque the military authorities. connection with Roque. That raid produced such as petitioners Anonuevo and positive results. no ordinary letters. firearms and Constantino.e. Because True enough. Buenaobra admitted respondents maintain that they that he is a NPA courier and was acted reasonably. as even a cursory reading would show. firearms. only that. ammunitions and/or subversive petitioners Anonuevo and Casiple documents were found in their arrived at Constantino's place. Molave St. to date. petitioner Buenaobra jumbling Roque's telephone arrived at Constantino's number as written on a piece of residence. place? Was it unreasonable under depth military surveillance the circumstances. reasonably conducted a was Buenaobra who provided the "stake-out" operation whereby leads on her identity? It cannot be some members of the raiding denied that Buenaobra had team were left behind the place. found in and Buenaobra have not offered his person were letters. less than twenty petitioner's arrest. was it information provided by unreasonable for the military Constantino that other members authorities to effect her arrest of his group were coming to his without warrant considering that it place. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. Marikina are among those expected to visit Heights. Why the necessity of arrest. as well as Saudi Arabia on the day they were subversive documents. on the part of coupled with the leads provided by the military agents. i.. 2018 IACJUCO 29 Constantino at Villaluz petitioners Anonuevo and Casiple Compound. possession. not to frisk and former members of the search anyone who should visit underground subversive the residence of Constantino. They are any plausible reason so far. Marikina. who was to leave for ammunitions. was not a witch hunting information was true. there to deliver the letters to place and circumstances of the Constantino. It was a result of an in.

Further. charging him with violation of Art.R. headed by Col. were arrested in such time. who is detained by virtue of The respondents also claim that the petitioner an Information for Violation of Article 142 of the was lawfully arrested without a judicial warrant Revised Penal Code (Inciting to Sedition) filed of arrest since petitioner when arrested had in with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Lim). 8 of the but he gave the lawmen the slip. the Code (Inciting to Sedition). Ricardo announced the formation of the Reyes. When he asked for the warrant Medardo Roda and also of arrest. neither taking their snacks nor Investigation Division of the Western Police innocently visiting a camp. He was brought to Police Station No. Maria Paz Lalic. Cresenciano A. Policemen waited for petitioner outside the National Pres Club in order to investigate him. when arrested. docketed therein IV as Criminal Case No. their demands to lower the prices of spare parts. but District under Police Capt. 142 of the Revised Penal In. an and operators to go on nationwide association of drivers and operators of public strike on November 23. is fact just committed an offense in that in the similarly not warranted. during a press conference at the National Press Club. bodily lifted him and placed him in their Alliance Drivers Association to go owner-type jeepney. He was thereafter brought . No. Sta. be allowed to 23. release on habeas corpus of the petitioner Deogracias Espiritu. 88-683-85. and Valencia Street. The record of the case shows that the said petitioner is the General Secretary of the Deogracias Espiritu through tri- Pinagkaisahang Samahan ng Tsuper at media was heard urging all drivers Operators Nationwide (PISTON). he was immediately place of PISTON president put under arrest. Manila. The respondents claim however. organized for force the government to give into their mutual aid and protection. 2018 IACJUCO 30 Petitioners. we heard of persons wanted to hire his jeepney. that the involving utmost secrecy and detention of the petitioner is justified in view of comprehensive conspiracy. G. restrained and and circumstances. to service vehicles in the Philippines. Then.. Manila seen at about 5:00 o'clock that afternoon at a where he was interrogated and detained. 8 accompany him. the Information filed against him before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. but the men did not accede to his request and hurriedly sped away. He demanded that his on nationwide strike on November sister. Sta. were to the General Assignment Section. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. while he was from detention of the president of sleeping in his home located at 363 Valencia the PISTON (Pinag-isang St. the men. from which deprived of his liberty. Mesa. commodities. Mesa. was brought before the respondent Lim and. Petitioner claims that at about 5:00 o'clock in the water and the immediate release morning of 23 November 1988. 9 He was next Western Police District at Blumentritt. 85727 (Espiritu vs. the said respondent ordered his arrest and detention. 1988. 1988. he was awakened by his Samahan ng Tsuper Operators sister Maria Paz Lalic who told him that a group Nationwide). 7 one can reasonably conclude tat they were up to a sinister plot. Manila where he was heard to say: there and then. afternoon of 22 November 1988. gathering of drivers and symphatizers at the at about 9:00 o'clock of the same morning. When he Deogracias Espiritu taking the went down to talk to them. he corner of Magsaysay Blvd. place Cabasal where he was detained.

10 (emphasis supplied) by the trial court in an order dated 10 January 1989. parts. Metro Commander). we find the amount of February 1989. the Court issued the writ of habeas corpus. 731. may not be released on habeas corpus. Obviously. earlier The police finally caught up with the petitioner filed by his co-accused. Upon questioning. even as the motion to post bail. was on 23 November 1988. Branch of Rule 113. we One of the suspects in the killing was Ramil will not disturb the same. ordering said court to hear the case on 30 that the petitioner is detained by virtue of a valid January 1989 and thereafter resolve the information filed with the competent court. but the motion was denied na. picked up Narciso Nazareno II. Romulo Bunye without warrant. questioning and brought to police headquarters after which an Information for violation of Art. upon the facts and the law. Molina and Mendiola Regional Trial Court of Biñan. As held in People vs. Laguna are based Streets in Alabang.000. Sec. No. Metro gobyerno ni Cory ang gusto nating Manila.00 only.00) excessive Regional Trial Court of Biñan. Rule 113. it appearing that the said Narciso VII Nazareno is in the custody of the respondents by reason of an information filed against him In G. Ancheta: 12 questioning. and two (2) others. resolution denying the petition for habeas corpus. Rules pointed to Narciso Nazareno as on of his of Court after he was positively implicated by his companions in the killing of the said Romulo co-accused Ramil Regala in the killing of Bunye II.R. In view thereof. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. The by said Narciso Nazareno (presumably because record of this case shows that at about 8:30 of the strength of the evidence against him). one Romulo Bunye II was killed by a group of The findings of the Presiding Judge of the men near the corner of T. 1989. bilihin at and pagpapalaya sa ating pinuno na si Ka On 7 January 1989. and after investigation by the police and brought him to the police headquarters for authorities. He may. Narciso Nazareno filed a Roda hanggang sa magkagulo motion to post bail. 5(b). Muntinglupa. Metro Manila. On 13 January 1989. Station with the Regional Trial Court of Makati. he petition. Laguna. Laguna issued a and we reduce it to P10. Since the arrest of the petitioner without a returnable to the Presiding Judge of the warrant was in accordance with the provisions Regional Trial Court of Biñan. Regal warrant pursuant to Sec. 86332 (Nazareno vs. or on 1 recommended. The case is docketed therein as pagbaba ng halaga ng spare Criminal Case No. we also find no merit in the Manila which had taken cognizance of said case submission of Narciso Nazarenothat he was and had. Evidently. However. the arrest of Regal who was arrested by the police on 28 Nazareno was effected by the police without December 1988. denied the motion for bail filed illegally arrested and is unlawfully detained.000. a petition for habeas 142 of the Revised Penal Code was filed against corpus was filed with this Court on behalf of him before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. He was invited for granted by the same trial court. 2018 IACJUCO 31 Bukas tuloy ang welga natin. the police officers. Ramil Regala. Manuel Laureaga. 5(b) of the Rules of Court and 24. the evidence of petitioner's guilt is strong because on 3 January . Consequently. kasali sila. however be released upon posting bail as At the conclusion of the hearing. in fact. o'clock in the morning of 14 December 1988. at hindi tayo titigil with the killing of Romulo Bunye II was filed with hanggang hindi binibigay ng the Regional Trial Court of Makati. an information charging Narciso sumagot na ang Cebu at Bicol na Nazareno. the Presiding Judge of the the recommended bail (P60. 11 Narciso Nazareno and on 13 January 1989.

considered. This. abandon its making the arrest has reasonably pronouncement in Ilagan vs. no compelling reason to be restrained of his liberty is in the abandon the said doctrine. judgment or order or to shall anything in this rule be held take cognizance of the case. had jurisdiction or process. 13 that a sufficient grounds to believe the writ of habeas corpus is no longer available existence of an act having the after an information is filed against the person characteristics of a crime and that detained and a warrant of arrest or an order of the same grounds exist to believe commitment. The people. render the abandonment. or order. When writ is allowed or action. It is based upon custody of an officer under express provision of the Rules of Court and the process issued by a court or judge exigencies served by the law. of the Ilagan case doctrine is not judgment. but rather. 14 The petitioners detained participated therein. The answer and the better practice writ shall not be allowed. The fears or by virtue of a judgment or order expressed by the petitioners are not really of a court of record. petitioners assert. the person shall not be court which issued the process. or if the would be. — If it appears that the person alleged to We find. judgment. has no place under the present democratic It is to be noted that. that if a person alleged to be restrained doctrine makes possible the arrest and of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under detention of innocent persons despite lack of process issued by a court judge. and that the unremediable. with a view to its issue the process. Rule 102. and that the evidence against them. most often. criminal charges have been filed in fundamental. Nor not to issue the process. Enrile. in all the petitions here dispensation and collides with the basic. judgment or discharged by reason of any order of commitment or before whom the informality or defect in the detained person is charged. discharge authorized. stands as providing that: an obstacle to the freedom and liberty of the people and permits lawless and arbitrary State Sec. As the Court sees it. not to limit the function of the habeas jurisdiction appears after the writ corpus to a mere inquiry as to whether or not the is allowed. (emphasis supplied) crime. and constitutional rights of the the proper courts against the petitioners. Section 4. is issued by the court where said that the person sought to be information has been filed. as the . or make the order. imprisonment under lawful the indubitable existence of a judgment. and. 2018 IACJUCO 32 The obligation of an agent of to authorize the discharge of a authority to make an arrest by person charged with a convicted reason of a crime. For the detention to be perfectly legal. able to hide behind the protective mantle of the Rules of Court. we refer to petitioner's plea for the the agent or person in authority Court of re-examine and. re- court or judge had jurisdiction to examination or reappraisal. the writ of habeas the criminal information in the courts of law to be corpus will not be allowed. which was handed down during the past dictatorial regime to VIII enforce and strengthen said regime. of if such person is before the court that the military authorities file charged before any court. does not of an offense in the Philippines or presuppose as a necessary of a person suffering requisite for the fulfillment thereof. it is court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the only after a petition for habeas corpus is filed process or make the order. 4. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. the the answer. as amended is quite explicit in said doctrine. however. thereafter. it is sufficient that At this point. claim that the said ruling. Petitioners point out that the said rule is.

Tacloban City sent a team to the island of Daram. Mayor of Daram. the Office of the 15 Jr. where they saw July 10. 2018 IACJUCO 33 Court itself states in Morales. J. Samar." This is exactly what the Court has Philippines. Jr. Lim). On October 28. vs. conniving. unidentified persons.R. 2002. satisfied. G. The team was escorted by SPO3 This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Andres B. without any SO ORDERED.m. the above-named accused. Scaler Wenifredo Maniscan. and SPO1 Rufo Rules of Court.000. 2003 Office No. "in all petitions for habeas Ombudsman filed the following Information corpus the court must inquire into every phase against Benito Astorga. with Elpidio E. Western Samar to conduct intelligence gathering and forest protection BENITO ASTORGA. Wenifredo Maniscan.000. DENR P10. This is what should Honorable Court. legal and valid grounds thereby restraining and depriving them of their personal liberty for nine (9) hours. The team was PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. composed of Forester II Moises dela Cruz. seeking the reversal of a Capoquian.2 On September 1. No." and "only after such a scrutiny can That on or about the 1st day of September. but without exceeding three (3) days. After . 8. Renato ordered reduced from P60. who were WHEREFORE. Province of Samar. Employees.. 1998. who are herein referred to under fictitious names JOHN DOES. respondent. as well as a number of his men for moment petition was taken into custody up to Arbitrary Detention: the moment the court passes upon the merits of the petition. for petitioner's provisional liberty is hereby Moises dela Cruz. 154130 October 1. all cases involving deprivation Daram. and aspect of petitioner's detention-from the Samar. by not allowing them to leave the place. its Resolutions dated September 28. No costs. and Tree Marker Crisanto Pelias. campaign against illegal logging. CONTRARY TO LAW. No. 85727 (Espiritu vs.00 to Militante and Crisanto Pelias. Daram. a henceforth be done in all future cases of habeas public officer. two yacht-like boats being constructed. and within the jurisdiction of this done in the petitions at bar. as team leader. the petitions are hereby armed with firearms of different calibers. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. operations in line with the government’s vs. the bail bond unlawfully and feloniously detain Elpidio Simon. did then and there willfully. to the courts for their immediate scrutiny and confederating and mutually helping with disposition.R. at clause of our Constitution has in fact been the Municipality of Daram. except that in deliberate intent. Forest Ranger DECISION Renato Militante. at the Municipality of Daram. 24986. being the Municipal Mayor of corpus. dated July 5.3 Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No.: Protection and Law Enforcement Section. petitioner. and for sometime subsequent thereto. In Short. Enrile. with DISMISSED. Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) G.1 as well as The team stopped at Brgy. Simon. 1997. in such capacity and committing of individual liberty should be promptly brought the offense in relation to office. the court satisfy itself that the due process 1997. 2001. Cinco.00. 2001 and Western Samar at 2:00 p. Chief of the Forest YNARES-SANTIAGO. Bagacay.

)12 Simon then tried to reiterate his request for permission to leave. unahon an mga dagko. "Diri kamo maka uli yana kay dad on ko Mayor Astorga to try and explain the purpose of kamo ha Daram. Don’t you know that I can declare this a lasted between 7:00-8:00 p.)10Simon then asked Mayor En route to Brgy." (You cannot go home now because I twice on the shoulder by Mayor Astorga. Manungca. do not bring it to Samar because I will not tolerate it here.7At this. at which the team spotted two more boats being Mayor Astorga retorted that they would not be constructed in the vicinity of Brgy. SPO3 succeeded in irking Mayor Astorga. Militante returned to their boat for the purpose of you start with the big-time. wherein he pleaded not guilty to saying. they met dida ha Bagacay puwede ko liwat ipadakop an Mayor Astorga. and the meal box. Ano.. The misencounter. his people at the DENR in Catbalogan to inform them of the team’s whereabouts. 2018 IACJUCO 34 consulting with the local barangay officials. who will bring you to Daram. Kon DENR’s service pump boat and proceeded to madakop niyo an mga dagko. the help).m. misencounter?)6 Mayor Astorga then ordered Militante. Simon Complainants filed a criminal complaint for tried to explain to Astorga the purpose of his arbitrary detention against Mayor Astorga and team’s mission. guns pointed at the team members. the team kamo puwede ha akon. when the team was finally allowed to men were armed with M-16 and M14 rifles. 2000. allowed to go home and that they would instead Daram. adding." (If you really want to confiscate anything. "Kon magdakop Maniscan and Militante disembarked from the man la kamo. Sta.)13 pag-uli ha Tacloban. and . and SPO1 Capoquian. akon. a banca arrived bearing ten (10) men.17 At the trial. and leave. I will Astorga. the presentation of whereabouts and so that you cannot ask for Simon’s testimony was not completed. Lucob-Lucob. There. addressed the team. Samar. be brought to Daram. "Kong siga kamo ha certain Michael Figueroa. para didto kita mag uro their mission.11 Mayor Astorga then prompting them to stop and investigate. or between 5:00-6:00 leave the barangay. SPO3 p. Astorga to allow the team to go home. at the request of Mayor boats of Figueroa at Brgy.15On the other hand.m. Bagacay. between 4:30-5:00 p." (If you are tough guys left Brgy." (I can make you swim back to team had dinner with Mayor Astorga and Tacloban.18 However.4 in Leyte. Maniscan and SPO1 Capoquian were someone to fetch "reinforcements. The a. accompanied by dela Cruz.. di ka maaram nga natupa ako? Natupa baya ako.8 He then took out his handheld his men. However.16 1awphi1. an kan Figueroa the site of the boat construction. which led to the filing of the above- ICOM radio. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. Diri kamo The team was brought to a house where they makauli yana kay puwede kame e charge ha were told that they would be served dinner. bis diri prosecution presented the testimonies of SPO1 kamo maka aro hin bulig. since Leyte ayaw pagdad-a dinhi ha Samar kay diri Figueroa was not around at the time. Simon was suddenly slapped hard istorya. allowed to go down from the house. Mayor Astorga was subsequently arraigned on Mayor Astorga forcibly grabbed Simon’s radio. "Maupay nga waray kamo radio bis diri the offenses charged. After conversing with the mayor. saying. Don’t you know that I can box? I can several others at a long table. approached said.14 After dinner.m. the somabut an iyo opisina kon hain kamo." (It’s better if you have Capoquian and SPO3 Cinco. Bagacay. Suddenly. We will have many exclaimed.m. but not to five (45) minutes later.nét they promptly surrounded the team. Rita. as well as their no radio so that your office would not know your Joint Affidavit. who angrily Cinco. If you confiscate the fetching Simon. Cinco and the rest just sat in the house until 2:00 some of them dressed in fatigue uniforms. "Puwede ko kamo papaglanguyon things to discuss there." and forty.5 surrender mine. saying that he was going to contact quoted Information. which just When Simon. July 3. Thus.9 Mayor Astorga again slapped the right team learned that the boats belonged to a shoulder of Simon. Samar.

he 5. the Sandiganbayan to prove that fear was in fact instilled in the promulgated its Decision. thereby surmises and conjectures and.28 Furthermore. That the offender is a public officer or months of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) employee.19 that the mere presence of armed men at the scene does not qualify as competent evidence On July 5. the members of the team sent that restraint was employed upon the persons of by the DENR RSOG executed a Joint Affidavit the team members."32 The detention Penal Code. Hence. worse. the records are bereft of any allegation on petitioner assigns a sole error for review: the part of petitioner that his acts were spurred by some legal purpose. was thus without legal grounds. because the victim was a Desistance. The trial court grievously erred in finding the admitted that his acts were motivated by his accused guilty of Arbitrary Detention as defined "instinct for self-preservation" and the feeling and penalized under Article 124 of the Revised that he was being "singled out. Acosta. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. That the detention is without legal grounds. to the extent that as follows: they would feel compelled to stay in Brgy. and this was similarly denied in a public officer or employee. judgment is hereby rendered finding accused BENITO Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public ASTORGA Y BOCATCAT guilty of Arbitrary officer or employee who. Instead. wherein the Also. September 28. year and eight (8) months of prision correctional as maximum. 2. that the offender is a also filed. and in the absence of any mitigating detains a person. petitioner’s innocence of the crime charged.29 WHEREFORE. at the time he committed the Sandiganabayan in a Resolution dated acts assailed herein.1. 2001.25 In the case of People v. notwithstanding the Affidavit of Desistance executed by the five (5) complaining witnesses What remains is the determination of whether or wherein the latter categorically declared not the team was actually detained. However. That he detains a person. On the contrary. he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of four (4) 1. 2002. applying the are: Indeterminate Sentence Law. he claims of Desistance. 200123 was of Arbitrary Detention. 200121 which was denied by the That petitioner.30The elements of the crime or aggravating circumstances. the first element Reconsideration dated October 24. was then Mayor of Daram. the present petition.31 The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated July 11. satisfying the third element enumerated above. without legal grounds. 2001. Hence. Detention. SO ORDERED. disposing of the case minds of the team members. we found establish the required quantum of evidence to the accused-appellant therein guilty of prove the guilt of the accused.24 present.22 A Second Motion for Samar is not disputed.27Petitioner asserts that nowhere in boy of tender age and he was warned not to the records of the case is there any competent leave until his godmother.20 3. premises considered. Lucob-Lucob. 2018 IACJUCO 35 none of his fellow team members came forward evidence that could sufficiently establish the fact to testify. is undeniably Resolution dated July 10.26 especially in kidnapping despite the lack of evidence to show light of the fact that the private complainants that any physical restraint was employed upon executed a Joint Affidavit of the victim. based on mere speculations.33 which Petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to involved the illegal detention of a child. the accused- .

37 This refusal other official of Daram.35 we held that. The intent to prevent the departure of the in establishing the intent to deprive the victim of complainants and witnesses against their will is his liberty. it was held that an affidavit of threats to kill her should she do so. there are no such kill or similar threats. Cortez. looking for her cousin was to kill him on sight. Thus. in People v. If the acts and admissions to the contrary. pointing out that the of the armed men. Lucob- In the case of People v. such as by threats to by the judge. then the victim is.nét This conclusion is supported purposes. such as the allegations that the incident was the The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and result of a misunderstanding and that the team illegal detention is that the curtailment of the acceded to Mayor Astorga’s orders "out of victim’s liberty need not involve any physical respect." all armed with implemented through the support of the local military-issue rifles. had returned. Inspite of their pleas. we concluded that fear has been known create doubts as to the truth of the testimony to render people immobile and that appeals to given by the witnesses at the trial and accepted the fears of an individual. suffice it found outside talking to the owner of the house to say that the principles governing the use of where she had been taken. it is not necessary that the offended thus clear. At the time of her Regarding the Joint Affidavit of Desistance rescue. the offended party in said case was executed by the private complainants. had earlier announced that their intention in There must be other circumstances which.38 Given such circumstances. Here.34 minds of the team members. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. not the kidnappers knew where she resided and they sole consideration that can result in acquittal.1awphi1. but also the evident effect Sandiganbayan’s reliance on the testimony of . for all intents and case.41 The Joint Affidavit actuations of the accused can produce such of Desistance of the private complainants is fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to evidently not a clear repudiation of the material paralyze the latter. We ruled desistance is merely an additional ground to therein that her fear was not baseless as the buttress the defenses of the accused. party be kept within an enclosure to restrict her freedom of locomotion.39 It was not just the presence trial court to the evidence. detained against his will. She explained that such instruments in the adjudication of other she did not attempt to leave the premises for crimes can be applied here. by one of its latter paragraphs. the to prove our sincerity and improving DENR witnesses and the complainants were not relations with the local Chiefs Executive and allowed by petitioner to go home. when coupled with the retraction or desistance.36 made in the Joint Affidavit of Desistance. he was practically a these gunmen had on the actions of the team captive in the sense that he could not leave which proves that fear was indeed instilled in the because of his fear to violate such instruction." are belied by petitioner’s own restraint upon the victim’s person. but a mere expression of the lack of movements in accordance with the wishes of interest of private complainants to pursue the the accused. to the extent that the victim points alleged in the information and proven at is compelled to limit his own actions and the trial. 2018 IACJUCO 36 appellant. Lucob.42 we give credence to SPO1 Capoquian’s statement that it was not "safe" to refuse Mayor Petitioner also assails the weight given by the Astorga’s orders. who proceeded to encircle officials for the betterment of the residence living the team. the restraint resulting from 11. the belated claims of actual force or violence. fear that the kidnappers would make good their Ballabare.40 Indeed. are equivalent to the use circumstances. to the extent that they felt compelled to stay in Brgy. much dependent on government support. That this affidavit was executed by us if only fear is evident. weapons pointed at the complainants conditions who are facing difficulties and are and the witnesses. Islands so that DENR was quickly followed by the call for and arrival of programs and project can be effectively almost a dozen "reinforcements. which reads: In the case at bar. Thus.

SPO1 imposing the indeterminate penalty of four (4) Capoquian witnessed all the circumstances months of arresto mayor. as minimum.43 He also makes choice. which has a range of one remarks. encircled by the men dressed in fatigues and Hence.50 SPO1 Capoquian gave illegal detention committed by government similar testimony. the Sandiganbayan was correct in wielding M-16 and M-14 rifles. Petitioner submits that it is unclear whether the Before closing. given a complainants in the case.46 He lower in degree. or arresto mayor in its minimum heard all of Mayor Astorga’s threatening and medium periods.51 much of the fact that prosecution witness SPO1 Capoquian was allegedly "not exactly privy to. for the reason Astorga and their departure early the following that SPO1 Capoquian is not one of the private morning to "enjoy the place" and that. which has a range of four (4) Astorga’s claim that SPO1 Capoquian was "not months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four exactly privy" to what transpired between Simon (4) months. Fugoso.45 Nothing in the case at bar Thus. and accused. SPO3 Cinco clearly called for the intensification of efforts towards and categorically denied that they were simply bringing them to justice: "whiling away the time" between their dinner with Mayor Astorga and their departure early the The provisions of law punishing arbitrary or following morning. saying that they did not use officers form part of our statute books even the time between their dinner with Mayor before the advent of American sovereignty in . Applying the Indeterminate and himself is belied by the evidence. petitioner is entitled to a Capoquian testified that he accompanied Simon minimum term to be taken from the penalty next when the latter went to talk to petitioner. misapprehended or misinterpreted. we affirm the judgment of the prompts us to deviate from this doctrine. Sandiganbayan finding petitioner guilty beyond the fact that SPO1 Capoquian is not one of the reasonable doubt of Arbitrary Detention. Petitioner argues that he was denied the "cold and knowledgeable of. they would have gone home."44 court. Mayor minimum period. as a trial 1997. Indeed. is not an idle arbiter during a trial.47 He was with Simon when they were (1) month and one (1) day to four (4) months.52 been overlooked. words of Justice Perfecto in his concurring Lucob-Lucob or whether they had simply opinion in Lino v. Article private complainants is completely irrelevant. 2018 IACJUCO 37 SPO1 Capoquian is misplaced. Furthermore. correccional. SPO1 Sentence Law. to one which led to the Arbitrary Detention of the team (1) year and eight (8) months of prision at the hands of Mayor Astorga. from their alleged magistrate and advocate when he propounded ‘confrontation. It can propound clarificatory questions to witnesses in It is a time-honored doctrine that the trial court’s order to ferret out the truth. Elpidio E. because the between herein accused and the DENR team ponente of the assailed decision acted both as leader Mr. where the detention has not exceeded requires damning testimony to be exclusively three days. Simon. the Sandiganbayan. it may not be amiss to quote the team was in fact prevented from leaving Brgy.48 In sum.’ until they left Barangay Lucob. "very extensive clarificatory questions" on the Lucob in the early morning of 2 September witnesses. 124 (1) of the Revised Penal Code provides Neither penal law nor the rules of evidence that. what exactly transpired neutrality of an impartial judge".49 On the contrary. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. as maximum. Surely. the penalty shall be arresto mayor in supplied by the private complainants in cases of its maximum period to prision correccional in its Arbitrary Detention. The impartiality of factual findings are conclusive and binding upon the court cannot be assailed on the ground that appellate courts unless some facts or clarificatory questions were asked during the circumstances of weight and substance have trial. wherein he decried decided to "while away the time" and take the impunity enjoyed by public officials in advantage of the purported hospitality of the committing arbitrary or illegal detention.

The same provisions continue in the statute books of the free and sovereign Republic of the Philippines. It is high time that every one must do his duty. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 24986. dated July 5. Even under the Japanese regime they were not repealed. continued in effect under the Commonwealth. and that prosecuting officers should not answer with cold shrugging of the shoulders the complaints of the victims of arbitrary or illegal detention. and the complaints often heard of violations of said provisions. Only by an earnest enforcement of the provisions of articles 124 and 125 of the Revised Penal Code will it be possible to reduce to its minimum such wanton trampling of personal freedom as depicted in this case. the petition is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. in view of the foregoing. to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional. This notwithstanding. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27.53 WHEREFORE. 2018 IACJUCO 38 our country. is AFFIRMED in toto. they remained in effect under American rule. without prejudice to the detainees’ right to the indemnity to which they may be entitled for the unjustified violation of their fundamental rights. as minimum. The responsible officials should be prosecuted. Those provisions were already in effect during the Spanish regime. as maximum. without fear or favor. 2001 finding petitioner BENITO ASTORGA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Arbitrary Detention and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor. it is very seldom that prosecutions under them have been instituted due to the fact that the erring individuals happened to belong to the same government to which the prosecuting officers belong. . Costs de oficio.

or their informed of the caused of his detention and shall equivalent. NOW. orders. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of. 272 July 25. do hereby order: Sec. respectively). The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or 2. 2018 IACJUCO 39 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. and confer at any time with his attorney or or their equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours. 3815) otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code. issuances. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained punishable by light penalties. for counsel. 3. (As amended by E. the person detained shall be Executive Order are hereby repealed or informed of the cause of his detention and shall modified accordingly. AQUINO. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. persons to the proper judicial authorities. 1. Nos. and thirty-six (36) hours. thirty (30) days following its publication in the Nov. President of the Philippines. 2. 59 and 272. for crimes or be allowed. for crimes or In every case. for crimes or offenses Art. — eighteen (18) be allowed upon his request. or their equivalent. This Executive Order shall take effect counsel. AS AMENDED WHEREAS. it is imperative that a reasonable and sufficient period be given within which to conduct adequate and thorough investigation of persons detained for some legal grounds. lawphi1. in the interest of public safety and order. DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED employee who shall detain any person for some PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person AUTHORITIES to the proper judicial authorities within the period of twelve (12) hours. eighteen (18) hours. for crimes or employee who shall detain any person for or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such penalties. or their equivalent. rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with this In every case. THEREFORE. Article one hundred twenty-five of Act Numbered Three Thousand Eight Hundred Fifteen (Act No.O. or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties. 1986 and July 25. Sec. Official Gazette. or their article shall be imposed upon the public officer equivalent. I. or their equivalent. All laws. 125. is hereby further amended to read as follows: "Art. 1987. to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or Sec. the person detained shall be offenses punishable by light penalties. CORAZON C. for crimes or offenses The penalties provided in the next preceding punishable by correctional penalties. upon his request. to communicate offenses punishable by correctional penalties. as amended. 7. twelve (12) hours. 1987 FURTHER AMENDING ARTICLE 125 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. ." crimes.

provincial or regional official of a Section 27 of this Act. Sundays.In arrest of those suspected of the crime of the event of an actual or imminent terrorist terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism attack. nineteen hundred and concerned shall. this 25th day of July. Period of Detention in the Event of enforcement personnel: Provided. the written notice Council has taken custody of a person charged shall be served at the residence of the judge with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the nearest the place where the accused was crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall. the persons they have arrested and presented complaint or information may be filed by a before him or her. AN ACT TO SECURE THE STATE AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE FROM TERRORISM Immediately after taking custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of SEC. suspects may not be detained for more must result from the surveillance under Section than three days without the written approval of a 7 and examination of bank deposits under municipal. or law SEC. having been duly the arrest is made during Saturdays. city. 19. to inquire of them the reasons prosecutor without need of such investigation why they have arrested the person and provided an inquest has been conducted in determine by questioning and personal accordance with existing rules. deliver said charged or twelve (12) years of imprisonment shall be suspected person to the proper judicial authority imposed upon the police or law enforcement within a period of three days counted from the personnel who fails to notify and judge as moment the said charged or suspected person Provided in the preceding paragraph. The a peace office directly with the proper court on judge shall then submit a written report of what the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or he/she had observed when the subject was arresting officer or person. and taken into custody by the said police. 9372 March 6. any police or law of apprehension or arrest: Provided . 2018 IACJUCO 40 DONE in the City of Manila. — When a person is lawfully ascertain the identity of the police or law arrested without a warrant involving an offense enforcement personnel and the person or which requires a preliminary investigation. before detaining the person eighty-seven. suspected of the crime of terrorism. . moral or complaint may be filed by the offended party or psychological torture by whom and why. SEC 7 RULES OF COURT or office nearest the place where the arrest took place at any time of the day or night. who. the Judicial Warrant of Arrest. In the absence observation whether or not the suspect has or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor. among other things. brought before him to the proper court that has jurisdiction over the case of the person thus arrested. The judge shall forthwith submit his/her report within three calendar days from Republic Act No. authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism holidays or after office hours. The police or law enforcement personnel in the year of Our Lord. detained. . When accused lawfully arrested the duty of the judge. That the an Actual or Imminent Terrorist Attack.That where enforcement personnel. present him or her before any judge at the latter's residence RULE 112.The provisions of police or law enforcement personnel shall notify Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to the in writing the judge of the court nearest the place contrary notwithstanding. Human Rights Commission or judge of the . arrested. 2007 the time the suspect was brought to his/her residence or office. the been subjected to any physical. It shall be Section 7. 18. Period of Detention Without terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. to without warrant. without incurring any criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper The penalty of ten (10) years and one day to judicial authorities. has been apprehended or arrested.


municipal, regional trial court, the This case has not been decided before this time
Sandiganbayan or a justice of the Court of because there was not a sufficient number of
Appeals nearest the place of the arrest. If the Justices to form a quorum in Manila, And it had
arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, to be transferred to the Supreme Court acting in
holidays or after office hours, the arresting division here in Baguio for deliberation and
police or law enforcement personnel shall bring decision. We have not until now an official
the person thus arrested to the residence of any information as to the action taken by the office
of the officials mentioned above that is nearest of the city fiscal on the complaint filed by the
the place where the accused was arrested. The Dumlao against the petitioners. But whatever
approval in writing of any of the said officials night have been the action taken by said office,
shall be secured by the police or law if there was any, we have to decide this case in
enforcement personnel concerned within five order to lay down a ruling on the question
days after the date of the detention of the involved herein for the information and guidance
persons concerned: Provided, however, That in the future of the officers concerned.
within three days after the detention the
suspects, whose connection with the terror The principal question to be determined in the
attack or threat is not established, shall be present case in order to decide whether or not
released immediately. the petitioners are being illegally restrained of
their liberty, is the following: Is the city fiscal of
manila a judicial authority within the meaning of
the provisions of article 125 of the Revised
G.R. No. L-2128 May 12, 1948 Penal Code?

MELENCIO SAYO and JOAQUIN Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code provides
MOSTERO, petitioners, that "the penalties provided in the next
vs. proceeding article shall be imposed upon the
THE CHIEF OF POLICE and THE OFFICER IN public officer or employee who shall detain any
CHARGE OF MUNICIPAL JAIL, BOTH OF person for some legal ground and shall fail to
CITY OF MANILA,respondents. deliver such person to the proper judicial
authorities within the period of six hours."
Enrique Q. Jabile for petitioners.
Acting City Fiscal A. P. Montesa, Assistant City Taking into consideration the history of the
Fiscal Arsenio Nañawa and D. Guinto Lazaro for provisions of the above quoted article, the
respondents. precept of our Constitution guaranteeing
individual liberty, and the provisions of Rules of
FERIA, J.: Court regarding arrest and habeas corpus, we
are of the opinion that the words "judicial
Upon complaint of Bernardino Malinao, authority", as used in said article, mean the
charging the petitioners with having committed courts of justices or judges of said courts vested
the crime of robbery, Benjamin Dumlao, a with judicial power to order the temporary
policeman of the City of Manila, arrested the detention or confinement of a person charged
petitioners on April 2, 1948, and presented a with having committed a public offense, that is,
complaint against them with the fiscal's office of "the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as
Manila. Until April 7, 1948, when the petition may be established by law". (Section 1, Article
for habeas corpus filed with this Court was VIII of the Constitution.)
heard, the petitioners were still detained or
under arrest, and the city fiscal had not yet Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code was
released or filed against them an information substantially taken from article 202 of the old
with the proper courts justice. Penal Code formerly in force of these Islands,
which penalized a public officer other than a


judicial officer who, without warrant, "shall arrest Without such warrant of commitment, the
a person upon a charge of crime and shall fail to detention of the person arrested for than six
deliver such person to the judicial authority hours would be illegal and in violation of our
within twenty four hours after his arrest." There Constitution.
was no doubt that a judicial authority therein
referred to was the judge of a court of justice Our conclusion is confirmed by section 17, Rule
empowered by law, after a proper investigation, 109 of the Rules of court, which, referring to the
to order the temporary commitment or detention duty of an officer after arrest without warrant,
of the person arrested; and not the city fiscals or provides that "a person making arrest for legal
any other officers, who are not authorized by law ground shall, without unnecessary delay, and
to do so. Because article 204, which within the time prescribed in the Revised Penal
complements said section 202, of the same Code, take the person arrested to the
Code provided that "the penalty of suspension proper court or judge for such action for they
in its minimum and medium degrees shall be may deem proper to take;" and by section 11 of
imposed upon the following persons: 1. Any Rule 108, which reads that "after the arrest by
judicial officer who, within the period prescribed the defendant and his delivery to the Court, he
by the provisions of the law of criminal shall be informed of the complaint or information
procedure in force, shall fail to release any filed against him. He shall also informed of the
prisoner under arrest or to commit such prisoner substance of the testimony and evidence
formally by written order containing a statement presented against him, and, if he desires to
of the grounds upon which the same is based." testify or to present witnesses or evidence in his
favor, he may be allowed to do so. The
Although the above quoted provision of article testimony of the witnesses need not be reduced
204 of the old Penal Code has not been to writing but that of the defendant shall be taken
incorporated in the Revised Penal Code the in writing and subscribed by him.
import of said words judicial authority or officer
can not be construed as having been modified And it is further corroborated by the provisions
by the mere omission of said provision in the of section 1 and 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of
Revised Penal Code. Court. According to the provision of said section,
"a writ of habeas corpus shall extend any
Besides, section 1 (3), Article III, of our person to all cases of illegal confinement or
Constitution provides that "the right of the detention by which any person is illegally
people to be secure in their persons...against deprived of his liberty"; and "if it appears that the
unreasonable seizure shall not be violated, and person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is
no warrant [of arrest, detention or confinement] in the custody of an officer under process
shall issue but upon probable cause, to be issued by a court or judge, or by virtue of a
determined by the judge after the examination judgement or order of a court of record, and that
under oath or affirmation of the complaint and the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the
the witness he may produce." Under this process, render judgment, or make the order,
constitutional precept no person may be the writ shall not be allowed. "Which a contrario
deprived of his liberty, except by warrant of sensu means that, otherwise, the writ shall be
arrest or commitment issued upon probable allowed and the person detained shall be
cause by a judge after examination of the released.
complainant and his witness. And the judicial
authority to whom the person arrested by a The judicial authority mentioned in section 125
public officers must be surrendered can not be of the Revised Penal Code can not be construed
any other but court or judge who alone is to include the fiscal of the City of Manila or any
authorized to issue a warrant of commitment or other city, because they cannot issue a warrant
provisional detention of the person arrested of arrest or of commitment or temporary
pending the trial of the case against the latter. confinement of a person surrendered to legalize


the detention of a person arrested without necessary information against the accused if the
warrant. (Section 7, Rule 108; Hashim vs. result of the investigation so warrants, and
Boncan, 40 Off. Gaz. 13th Supp., p.13; Lino vs. obtaining from the court a warrant of arrest or
Fugoso, L-1159, promulgated on January 30, commitment of the accused.
1947, 43 Off. Gaz., 1214). The investigation
which the city of fiscal of Manila makes is not the When a person is arrested without warrant in
preliminary investigation proper provided for in cases permitted bylaw, the officer or person
section 11, Rule 108, above quoted, to which all making the arrest should, as abovestated,
person charged with offenses cognizable by the without unnecessary delay take or surrender the
Court of First Instance in provinces are entitled, person arrested, within the period of time
but it is a mere investigation made by the city prescribed in the Revised Penal Code, to the
fiscal for the purpose of filing the corresponding court or judge having jurisdiction to try or make
information against the defendant with the a preliminary investigation of the offense
proper municipal court or Court of First Instance (section 17, Rule 109); and the court or judge
of Manila if the result of the investigation so shall try and decide the case if the court has
warrants, in order to obtain or secure from the original jurisdiction over the offense charged, or
court a warrant of arrest of the defendant. It is make the preliminary investigation if it is a
provided by a law as a substitute, in a certain justice of the peace court having no original
sense, of the preliminary investigation proper to jurisdiction, and then transfer the case to the
avoid or prevent a hasty or malicious proper Court of First Instance in accordance
prosecution, since defendant charged with with the provisions of section 13, Rule 108.
offenses triable by the courts in the City of
Manila are not entitled to a proper preliminary In the City of Manila, where complaints are not
investigation. filed directly with the municipal court or the
Court of First Instance, the officer or person
The only executive officers authorized by law to making the arrest without warrant shall
make a proper preliminary investigation in case surrender or take the person arrested to the city
of temporary absence of both the justice of the fiscal, and the latter shall make the investigation
peace and the auxiliary justice of the peace from above mentioned and file, if proper, the
the municipality, town or place, are the corresponding information within the time
municipal mayors who are empowered in such prescribed by section 125 of the Revised Penal
case to issue a warrant of arrest of the caused. Code, so that the court may issue a warrant of
(Section 3, Rule 108, in connection with section commitment for the temporary detention of the
6, Rule 108, and section 2 of Rule 109.) The accused. And the city fiscal or his assistants
preliminary investigation which a city fiscal may shall make the investigation forthwith, unless it
conduct under section 2, Rule 108, is the is materially impossible for them to do so,
investigation referred to in the proceeding because the testimony of the person or officer
paragraph. making the arrest without warrant is in such
cases ready and available, and shall,
Under the law, a complaint charging a person immediately after the investigation, either
with the commission of an offense cognizable by release the person arrested or file the
the courts of Manila is not filed with municipal corresponding information. If the city fiscal has
court or the Court of First Instance of Manila, any doubt as to the probability of the defendant
because as above stated, the latter do not make having committed the offense charged, or is not
or conduct a preliminary investigation proper. ready to file the information on the strength of
The complaint must be made or filed with the the testimony or evidence presented, he should
city fiscal of Manila who, personally or through release and not detain the person arrested for a
one of his assistants, makes the investigation, longer period than that prescribed in the Penal
not for the purpose of ordering the arrest of the Code, without prejudice to making or continuing
accused, but of filing with the proper court the the investigation and filing afterwards the proper

and their release is the necessary information. for the purpose of determining the complied with the mandate of article 125 by criminal liability of an officer detaining a person delivering the petitioners within six hours to the for more than six hours prescribed by the office of the city fiscal. A peace officer has no power or authority to arrest a person without a warrant upon complaint of the offended party or any other person. after due investigation. after the latter had been illegally detained for days or weeks without any process issued by a court or judge. Penal Code. Of ruling on the matter in believing that he had course. without making any pronouncement as to the responsibility of the officers who intervened in the detention of the petitioners. he becomes convinced that the accused is guilty of the offense charged. virtue of a process issued by a competent court of justice. in the absence of a clear cut to obtain or secure a warrant of his arrest. may not. find sufficient ground for filing an information or prosecuting the person arrested and release him. a fortiori a police officer has no authority to arrest and detain a person charged with an offense upon complaint of the offended party or other persons even though. In view of all the foregoing. to order the arrest even if he finds. To consider the city fiscal as the judicial authority referred to in article 125 of the Revised SO ORDERED. What he or the complainant may do in such case is to file a complaint with the city fiscal of Manila. such as the time of a complaint against them with the city fiscal. that there is a probability that a crime has been committed and the accused is guilty thereof. after investigation. the means of ignored the fact that the petitioners were being communication as well as the hour of arrested actually detained when the said policeman filed and other circumstances. would be to authorize the detention of a person arrested without warrant for a period longer than that permitted by law without any process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. we surrender and the material possibility for the hold that the petitioners are being illegally fiscal to make the investigation and file in time restrained of their liberty. If the City Fiscal has no authority. must be taken into hereby ordered unless they are now detained by consideration. The city fiscal. or directly with the justice of the peace courts in municipalities and other political subdivisions. and he has not. 2018 IACJUCO 44 information against him with the court. and the latter might have Revised Penal Code. after due investigation. except in those cases expressly authorized by law. for the policeman Dumlao may have . in order acted in good faith. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27.

a capital offense. 1965. And then. November 8 was ARTHUR MEDINA Y YUMUL. or thereafter release him. it was not an easy Warden of Caloocan City. G. Petitioner claims violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Arraigned. the case against was originally arbitrary. J. At 2. on November 7. They are separate they were promptly committed to jail. The fact however is that he was not released. where to locate and the certainty of locating those officers and On application for habeas corpus. In MARCELO F. on November 10 when the information against him for murder actually was in court.m. petitioner. and capital offense. These are considerations At about 12:00 p. First to be considered is the charge of arbitrary detention. allegedly as one of those responsible for the following arrest. From the time of petitioner's arrest at 12:00 o'clock p. Simply because at the inception Medina and his co-accused stood trial — which detention was wrong is no reason for letting has not yet terminated. because he is charged with a against petitioner Arthur Medina y Yumul.m. over 75 hours have elapsed. 2018 IACJUCO 45 1. on November 10. and November 9 vs. detention under a valid First Instance of Rizal. JR. At about 3:40 p. on November 7 to 3:40 p. draft the information and search Federico Magdangal for petitioner. concepts. Because. by now. No. docket the case and have the order of commitment SANCHEZ.R. stock should be taken of the fact that November 7 was a Sunday. 1965. The arresting officer's duty under the law1 was either to deliver him to the proper judicial authorities within 18 hours. By court order. anterior thereto another.. respondent. The crime — for which petitioner is detained — is murder. docketed as Criminal information is one thing. presence. matter for a fiscal to look for his clerk and stenographer. The facts are: employees could very well compound the fiscal's difficulties. arbitrary detention Case No.m. he and thereafter incarcerated in the Caloocan City was brought to court on the very first office day jail. November 7.: prepared. C-1197 of said court. (election day) was also an official holiday. declared an official holiday. OROZCO. Such detention remains Antonio Olivar y Flores and Alexander Enriquez unaffected by the alleged previous arbitrary y Raginio in the Caloocan branch of the Court of detention. Nor could discharge from custody. 1966 But. Acting City these three no-office days. No bail was 1965. L-26723 December 22. be about 9:00 o'clock in the morning of the same justified even on the assumption that detention day. petitioner go scot-free after the serious charge of murder has been clamped upon him and his . 1965 upon a murder indictment. who forthwith conducted Petitioner at present is jailed because of the a preliminary investigation in petitioner's court's order of commitment of November 10.m. an information for murder was filed provided for him. and get Francisco A. for the Judge to have him act thereon. the clerk of court to open the courthouse. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. For.2 death of one Marcelo Sangalang y Diwa which occurred on October 31. Medina and two others for Sangalang's murder was referred to a fiscal. 1965 in said city. sufficient enough to deter us from declaring that petitioner Arthur Medina y Yumul was arrested Arthur Medina was arbitrarily detained. Garcia for respondent.

5 and the question of lack of preliminary investigation is well nailed down.6 These are matters to be inquired into by the trial court. the petition own making cannot be oppressive to him. It could even be waived. Upon the other hand. Other than that SO ORDERED averment in the petition herein. And again. all on petition of counsel for the accused. 1966 was recalendared for December 6. 5. Besides. 1965. on April 14. fiscal before the criminal charge against him was registered in court.3 Thus. Thereafter. not this Court. 1965 he moved the office of the city fiscal for a reinvestigation of his case. 1966. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. 1966 on motion of defendant Alexander Enriquez with the conformity of petitioner's counsel. Then. Indeed. Delay of his illegal. The first is petitioner of the right to speedy trial.7 for habeas corpus came too late. the proper forum before which absence of preliminary investigation should be ventilated is the Court of First Instance. 1966. As unavailing is petitioner's claim that no petitioner Arthur Medina y Yumul at liberty is preliminary investigation was conducted by the hereby denied. 1966. Costs against petitioner. thence to February 28. the case against him proceeded to trial. Absence of preliminary investigation does not go to the jurisdiction of the court but merely to the regularity of the proceedings. 1965. In this factual environment. Reason is not wanting for this view. is confirmed by the fact that on November 12. petitioner has nothing whatsoever to show for it. Finally. 1965 was postponed to December 20. the assertion that such investigation was made on the very day of petitioner's arrest and in his presence. 2018 IACJUCO 46 detention ordered by the court.4 For the reasons given. 1966 was transferred to September 6. the hearing on September 6. the hearing scheduled on July 26. on motion of petitioner's counsel. 1966. to March 14. the petition herein to set 3. it is frequently waived. The cry of deprivation of a speedy trial merits but scant consideration. including petitioner. we do not see denial to . And that reinvestigation was held on December 1. but the second is not. Add to all of these the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The arraignment of petitioner set for December 1. petitioner's counsel moved to reset the date of hearing on the merits. not an appellate court. 4.

8 her daughter Gayle4 . JR. recommended the dismissal of the criminal Medical Certificate issued from complaint filed by petitioner against herein Don Vicente Sotto Memorial private respondents for violation of Article 125 of Medical Center. his NATIVIDAD. 1997.: Bgy. 19982 which denied his motion for On September 10. GICAYARA. Upon initial investigation of the GONZAGA-REYES. 1997. petitioner was 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan. 1999 unlawfully. reads as follows: On September 26. Exploitation and Discrimination an order. Cebu City is the Revised Penal Code for delay in the delivery hereto attached. 1997. wrote the Chief of Police of Liloan demanding the immediate release of petitioner considering The pertinent facts leading to the filing of the that the latter had "failed to deliver the detained petition at bar are as follows: Jasper Agbay to the proper judicial authority within thirty-six (36) hours from September 7. and the Order of April 13. Metro Cebu issued abuse. Brgy. another. did then and there. On September 7. SPO4 NEMESIO AMIGABLE GICAYARA. 134503 July 2. 1997. the 7th Municipal "Special Protection of Children Against Child Circuit Trial Court of Liloan. JOAN A. filed against petitioner and Jugalbot before the or on September 17. petitioner. AGBAY manipulating to finger the THE HONORABLE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN vagina of GAYLE FATIMA FOR THE MILITARY."3 The following day. companion block the sight of the SOLOMON. Liloan. committing petitioner to 1997. 1997. Metro Cebu.6 detained at the Liloan Police Station. was arrested and letter and continued to detain petitioner. Mrs. feloniously and G. willfully.7 Five (5) days later. Catarman. while accused JASPER vs. a Complaint for violation of R. 7610 was the jail warden of Cebu City. insofar as pertinent. The complaint. conspiring. No. the On September 12. petitioner. the above- named accused."5 Private respondents did not act on this a certain Sherwin Jugalbot. 7610. Metro Cebu for an alleged violation of R. and SPO2 ELEAZAR M. respondent. Catarman. Private Complainant. counsel for petitioner reconsideration. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. helping with one JASPER AGBAY. J. Philippines and within the Preliminary Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. accused SHERWIN JUGALBOT This petition for certiorari seeks to nullify the was released and accused Resolution of the Deputy Ombudsman for the JASPER AGBAY is presently Military dated 19 January 19981 which detain Liloan Police Station Jail. denominated as "Detention During the Act. confederating. Captain of Bgy. while on board a tricycle going their destinations. of detained persons. 2018 IACJUCO 47 That on the 7th day of September 1997 at Sitio Bonbon. Metro ordered released by the said court after he had Cebu by one Joan Gicaraya for and in behalf of posted bond.R. together with 1997. Pendency of the Case". petitioner filed a complaint for delay in the delivery of detained persons against herein private respondents . or on September 8.A.A.

THE SAID November 10. DISCRETION IN NOT HOLDING THAT IT IS BEYOND ITS Forward the record of this case to COMPENCE TO DETERMINE the Provincial Fiscal's Office for WHETHER OR NOT THE appropriate action. it is alleged by petitioner that on BEFORE IT. 1998 THAT THE MCTC. HENCE. and which issued the DISCRETION IN NOT HOLDING questioned Resolution dated January 19. COMPOSTELA HAS IN FACT NO Series of 1995. this petition for certiorari. it is hereby recommended that an THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT INFORMATION be filed against GRAVELY ABUSED ITS the two aforenamed accused. Salomon and other unidentified police officers 14. SPO2 Eleazar M.10 MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT OF LILOAN- By virtue of Memorandum Circular No. 125. Jr. OF THE the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN Visayas.. . MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. HENCE. before OCTOBER 1995. 1997. private respondents before the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas was transferred to III. WHEREFORE. finding probable cause for the crime in Violation of II. "PROPER JUDICIAL 1998. Republic Act 7610.A. CIRCULAR BEING Metro Cebu issued a resolution containing the UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND following dispositive portion: ILLEGAL. the 7th MCTC of Liloan. IS NOT THE motion was denied in an Order dated April 13. REVISED PENAL CODE AND.9 IN HOLDING THAT IT HAS COMPETENCE TO ACT ON THE Regarding the complaint for violation of R. NULL AND VOID. dated 10 October 1995 of the JURISDICTION TO TRY THE Office of the Ombudsman. SERIES OF 1995. it was this office which THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT acted on the complaint. 14. GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN RELYING ON IV. ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE 7610. DATED 10 stationed at the Liloan Police Substation. WHILE recommending its dismissal against herein HAVING AUTHORITY TO private respondents. AUTHORITY " CONTEMPLATED IN ARTICLE 125 OF THE Hence. Petitioner moved for CONDUCT A PRELIMINARY reconsideration of this Resolution but this INVESTIGATION. now denominated as GRAVELY ABUSED ITS OMB-VIS-CRIM-97-0786. INVESTIGATION DID NOT INTERRUPT THE PERIOD THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT PRESCRIBED BY ART. 2018 IACJUCO 48 SPO4 Nemesio Natividad. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. Thus. the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military for its proper disposition. THE FILING OF THE The grounds relied upon in the present COMPLAINT BEFORE IT FOR petition12 are as follows: THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING A PRELIMINARY I.11 the case for delay CASE FILED AGAINST HEREIN in delivery filed by petitioner against herein PETITIONER.

personnel. In this There is no dispute as to the civilian character light. the Office. Article XVI. Petitioner also functions or duties" as Congress questions the constitutionality of Memorandum may prescribe through legisiation. 11.1âwphi1. 6770 of our police force. Circular No. has mandated the establishment of "one police force. in provides: Section 6. has no competence or jurisdiction to act Ombudsman "may exercise such on his complaint against private respondents other powers or perform such who are members of the PNP. Structural be national in scope and civilian Organization. the petitioners. R. by virtue of the description of the As previously established. DISCRETION IN HOLIDING violates the latter's civilian character. The authority and 697513 is categorical in describing the civilian responsibility for the character of the police force.A. 14 insofar as it purports to vest the Therefore. one being the deputy for the military establishment. 2018 IACJUCO 49 THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT for the Military with jurisdiction to investigate GRAVELY ABUSED ITS complaints against members of the PNP. On the contrary. Police." Likewise. Section 11 of R.A. a review of the relevant On the first issue. nothing can prevent Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Military Congress from giving the Affairs with jurisdiction to investigate all cases Ombudsman supervision and against personnel of the Philippine National control over the Ombudsman's Police. the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military. which shall Sec. mandate of the in vesting the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman Office of the . CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. this Court DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT held that: THE DUTY OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS TO FILE THE The deliberations on the Deputy NECESSARY COMPLAINT IN for the military establishment do COURT WAS FULFILLED WHEN not yield conclusive evidence that THEY FILED A FORMAL such deputy is prohibited from COMPLAINT ON 8 SEPTEMBER performing other functions or 1997 WITH THE 7TH MCTC OF duties affecting non-military LILOAN-COMPOSTELA.16 In that case. 14. petitioner argues that due to Constitutional provisions reveal the civilian character of the Philippine National otherwise.14The only question exercise of the now is whether Memorandum Circular No. No. the TO THE ISSUE OF CRIMINAL issue as to whether the Deputy Ombudsman for LIABILITY OF PRIVATE the Military has the authority to investigate RESPONDENTS FOR DELAY IN civilian personnel of the government was THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED resolved in the affirmative in the case of Acop v. — character (emphasis supplied). THAT THE ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF As opined by the Office of the Solicitor General DETENTION IS IRRELEVANT in its Comment dated 7 December 199815. The 1987 Constitution. who were members of the Philippine V. Office of the Ombudsman. National Police questioned the jurisdiction of the Deputy Ombudsman to investigate the alleged THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT shootout of certain suspected members of the GRAVELY ABUSED ITS "Kuratong Baleleng" robbery gang. PERSONS.nêt deputies.

policy of the Constitution and of R. argues that the ruling a member of the military establishment. However. in turn. of his power of supervision and control over the said Office. Designation of Petitioner's arguments do not convince as there Investigators and is no basis for the distinction. as in this case. state certain cases. Prosecutors. Sec. prosecutor or the or lawyer in the government Those designated or service to act as special investigator or deputized to assist prosecutor to assist in the investigation and him herein shall be prosecution of certain cases. The cited case is determinative of the issue.A. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. "applies only to isolated or shall have individual cases involving non-military supervision and personnel referred by the Ombudsman to the control of the said Deputy for Military Affairs" and does not apply Office.17 Said contentions are misplaced. when. 15. 31. maintain the civilian character of the police force therefore. This doctrine. 1999. is simply assist in the exercising the power vested in the Ombudsman investigation and "to utilize the personnel of his office and/or prosecution of designate or deputize any fiscal. petitioner. there is a wholesale or indiscriminate referral of such cases to the While Section 31 thereof declares: Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs in the form of an Office Memorandum Circular. is by no means dated February 1. 14 violates the clear intent and by the Deputy for Military Affairs. deputize any fiscal. the Ombudsman may refer cases involving non. 2018 IACJUCO 50 Ombudsman and for at bar18. under his absent any grave abuse of discretion. who petitioner argues. Petitioner states that the doctrine laid the discharge of its down in the said case is simply that "the powers and Ombudsman may refer cases involving non- functions shall be military personnel for investigation by the vested in the Deputy for Military Affairs. The in the Acop case is not on all fours with the case said Office was established "to extend the Office . 6975 to In these cases at bench. The Deputy Ombudsman for the Military. created a panel of investigators. in issuing state prosecutor to Memorandum Circular No." This Court. no irregularity attended and "would render nugatory and meaningless the referral by the Acting the distinction between cases involving civilian Ombudsman of the Kurutong and military personnel and the creation of Baleleng case to respondent separate divisions of the Ombudsman."19 Casaclang who. Petitioner further argues that Memorandum military personnel for investigation Circular No. — The Ombudsman may There is no basis in the above-cited decision to utilize the personnel limit the referral of cases involving non-military of his office and/or personnel to the Deputy Ombudsman for designate or Military Affairs to isolated or individual cases. may not supervision and enterfere with the exercise by the Ombudsman control. The Office of the Ombudsman. Ombudsman. Accordingly. in his Reply to Comment despite his designation as such.

petitioner was arrested and the 1987 Constitution as the "eyes and ears of detained at the Liloan Police Station on 7 the people"21 and "a champion of the citizen.A. — The petitioner argues. a including the Deputy Ombudsman for the criminal complaint or information should be filed Military owe their allegiance to the people and with the proper judicial authorities within thirty ordinary citizens. This describes the Ombudsman and his deputies as crime carries a penalty of reclusion temporalin "protectors of the people." Thus.A. Sec. Under these circumstances. when the Judge- punishable by light penalties. Art. 2018 IACJUCO 51 of the Ombudsman to the military establishment hours. Office. first and its medium period to reclusion perpetua. or Constitution were aware that the creation of the their equivalent. an foremost. XI of the 1987 Constitution 7610. 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan. person for some legal ground and upon the lapse of the thirty-six hours given to the shall fail to deliver such person for arresting officers to effect his delivery to the the proper judicial authorities proper Regional Trial Court. As such. Thus. It must be borne in mind that the Office of the Ombudsman was envisioned by the framers of In the case at bar. petitioner argues. for crimes or offenses just as it champions the common people against punishable by correctional bureaucratic indifference". 12. was unnecessary. The other issues raised by petitioner concerns the application of Art. or Designate of the 7th MCTC issued a their equivalent. to communicate Armed Forces20. Joan Gicaraya. and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel. Metro Cebu. a penalties provided in the next surplusage which did not interrupt the period preceding article shall be imposed prescribed by Art. it is clearly not a part of the six (36) hours of his arrest. private within the period of: twelve (12) respondents were already guilty of violating Art. filed a detract from or violate the civilian character of complaint on 8 September 1997 against the police force when precisely the Office of the petitioner for violation of R. of the President as Commander-In-Chief of the upon his request. the person detained constitutionally should be performed by the shall be informed of the cause of President. eighteen (18) Commitment Order on September 12. 125. 12524 considering that under upon the public officer or the Rules it is the Regional Trial Court which has employee who shall detain any jurisdiction to try the case against him. 1997. he . Delay in the delivery of investigation as the MCTC has no jurisdiction to detained persons to the proper try the offense. military. hours. to perform functions which In every case. The Office was penalties. 7610 before the Ombudsman is a civilian office. might be in derogation of the powers his detention and shall be allowed. for crimes or offenses 125. or their equivalent. for obtain redress for their grievances against crimes or offenses punishable by higher authorities and the drafters of the afflictive or capital penalties. 125 of the Revised Penal Petitioner contends that the act of private Code which provides as follows: complainant in filing the complaint before the MCTC was for purposes of preliminary Art. We fail to see how the assumption of jurisdiction by the said office over the As borne by the records before us the mother of investigation of cases involving the PNP would private complainant. afflictive penalty. and intended to help the "ordinary foot soldiers" to thirty-six hours (36) hours. specifically section 5 (b) thereof23. This act of private complainant judicial authorities. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. which is seemingly independent of the President.22" September 1997 for an alleged violation of R. the Ombudsman and his deputies.

30" petitioner. 171 SCRA Liloan-Compostela. the Supreme Court and investigation if the evidence against said person warrants. it punishes public officials or enunciated in Sayo vs. as in the instant Ombudsman for the Military in its 13 April 1998 case. in the exercise of its power to conduct preliminary Art. More Neither can petitioner rely on the doctrine specifically. In Sayo.25 Petitioner takes great pains in arguing that when In addressing the issue. 125 of the Revised Penal Code is intended investigations. the Office of the Deputy a municipal trial court judge. even made a pronouncement that the delivery of a detained person "is a legal one and consists The words "judicial authority" as contemplated in making a charge or filing a complaint against by Art. The continued or commitment while in the instant case." . CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. 125 mean "the courts of justices or the prisoner with the proper justice of the peace judges of said courts vested with judicial power or judge of Court of First Instance in provinces. performs a non-judicial function as an exception argues that while a municipal court judge may to his usual duties. barely 20 hours after the 39. that the city fiscal is not the proper retains the authority to issue an order of release judicial authority referred to in Art. he is Order. conducts a preliminary investigation. is a proper judicial authority as to prevent any abuse resulting from confining a contemplated by Art. Chief of Police. corresponding complaint in court was "fulfille by petitioner cites the cases of Sangguniang respondent when the formal complaint was filed Bayan ng Batac. misplaced. for his part. investigation is conducted by a judge. stated that the duty of filing the not acting as a judge but as a fiscal. 260 on September 8. In support. The cited cases of Sangguniang Bayan and Castillo dealt with the issue of The core issue is whether the filing of the whether or not the findings of the Municipal complaint with the Municipal Trial Court Court Judge in a preliminary investigation are constitutes to a "proper judicial authority" as subject to review by provincial and city fiscals. petitioner opines. he still Phil. supra."26 The Solicitor General. Furthermore. there was already compliance with the very purpose and intent of Petitioner's reliance on the cited cases is Art. Chief of Police of Manila. some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such the complainant was filed with the city fiscal of person to the proper judicial authorities within Manila who could not issue an order of release the periods prescribed by law. to order the temporary detention or confinement and in filing by the city fiscal of an information of a person charged with having committed a with the corresponding city courts after an public offense. Ilocos Norte vs. person without informing him of his offense and without permitting him to go on bail28. complaint with the MCTC. Villaluz. where it was held that "when a preliminary arrest of herein complainant of September 7. upon the filing of the applicable. 2018 IACJUCO 52 was acting contrary to law since by then there other such inferior courts as may be established was no basis for the continued detention of by law. and Castillo vs. 80 exception to his normal judicial duties. the conduct preliminary investigations as an ruling in Sayo v. power to issue such an order. 12527. 125. 125 is or commitment. this Court authorities29. to whether or not a municipal trial court. 1997 with the 7th MCTC of SCRA 561. Albano." Thus. he 1997. As such. the detention of the accused becomes illegal upon complaint was filed with a judge who had the the expiration of the periods provided for by Art. in 125 without such detainee having been the Resolution denying the Motion for delivered to the corresponding judicial Reconsideration of the Sayo case31. 862. contemplated by Art. employees who shall detain any person for since the facts of this case are different. 125 of the Revised Penal There was no pronoucement in these cases as Code. that is.

we note that it was the mother of private complainant who filed the complaint against petitioner with the 7th MCTC of Liloan. upon the filing of the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court. 1998 Order of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. In contrast with a city fiscal. 1998 Resolution and the April 13. If tere was any error in this procedure. the intent behind art. . Furthermore. private respondents should not be held liable. 125 is satisfied considering that by such act. WHEREFORE. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. retains the power to issue an order of release or commitment32. Petitioner himself acknowledged this power of the MCTC to order his release when he applied for and was granted his release upon posting bail34. he may be released on bail33. petitioner's argument that the controversial orders issued by the MCTC are contrary' to law does not give rise to criminal liability on the part of the respondents. We agree with the postion of the Ombudsman that such filing of the complaint with the MCTC interrupted the period prescribed in said Article. upon his application with the court. the very purpose underlying Article 125 has been duly served with the filing of the complaint with the MCTC. Finally. finding no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the assailed January 19. knowing fully well that a complainant was a already filed with it. Thus. Metro Cebu. it is undisputed that a municipal court judge. the detained person is informed of the crime imputed against him and. even in the performance of his function to conduct preliminary investigations. the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition. In the same manner. Respondent police officers may have rendered themselves open to sanctions if they had released petitioners without the order of the court. 2018 IACJUCO 53 The power to order the release or confinement of an accused is determinative of the issue.

was identified by one of the police And.38 cal. the "Joint- From the respective pleadings2 of the parties. Ilocos Sur. at about 4:30 p. Election Code in relation to the JEFFREY T.R. P/INS. the arresting officers National Police stationed at the Municipality of brought the petitioners to the Provincial Santa. SPO1 FRANKLIN D. Ilocos Sur. Nos. 3. Criminal Case No. before whom a Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code (Delay in "Joint-Affidavit" against them was the delivery of detained persons) against private subscribed and sworn to by the arresting respondents herein. JR. vs. judgment for that of the Office of the Ilocos Sur. 12272. petitioner May 2001 (a Sunday and the day before Soria was released upon the order of . PO2 FLORANTE B.: 4. Police Station. respondents. we reaffirm the time-honored officers to have a standing warrant of practice of non-interference in the conduct of arrest for violation of Batas Pambansa preliminary investigations by our prosecutory Blg. members of the Philippine officers. GOROSPE.m. Affidavit" was filed and docketed. imprisonment of not less than one [1] CARDENAS. It was at the Ombudsman in its finding of lack of probable Santa Police Station that petitioner Bista cause made during preliminary investigation. 2005 ammunition. REGACHO.22 cal. From there. 14 May 2001. Petitioners. (f) of the Omnibus Deputy Ombudsman for Military. SPO1 ALFREDO B.m. the following facts appear to be indubitable: 6. ALVIAR.1 contend precisely that the public 14 May 2001 (Monday and election day). 3328 (which carries the penalty of PO3 JAIME D. J. respondents herein – officers of the Office of the petitioners were brought to the residence Ombudsman – gravely abused their discretion of Provincial Prosecutor Jessica Viloria in in dismissing the complaint for violation of San Juan. Ilocos Sur. The next day. SPO2 ROLANDO G. RODOLFO SORIA and EDIMAR 2. year but not more than six [6] years). On or about 8:30 in the evening of 13 same day. ANIANO DESIERTO in his capacity as penalty of prision correccional in its Head of the Office of the Ombudsman. Commission on Election Resolution No. revolver with ammunition. LAZARO. HON. revolver (a crime which carries with it the HON. 153524-25 January 31. Yet again. we are tasked to substitute our petitioners were detained at the Santa. of for certiorari. maximum period) and for violation of ORLANDO C. cal. petitioners were arrested without a warrant by respondents police officers for alleged illegal possession of firearms and G. and there at about 6:00 p. PO1 JOSEPH A. 2018 IACJUCO 54 the 14 May 2001 Elections3 ). At about 6:30 in the evening of the 1. petitioners. BENAZA. yet again.. Prosecutor’s Office in Vigan. Immediately after their arrest. CHICO-NAZARIO. CASIMIRO in his capacity as Article 261 par. alleged illegal possession of . Ilocos Sur. Petitioner Soria was arrested for BISTA. thru a special civil action 5. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. docketed as discretion on their part. 9mm and a . Petitioner Bista was arrested for alleged illegal possession of sub- DECISION machine pistol UZI. CABAYA and SPO4 PEDRO PAREL. 6 issued by the Municipal Trial Court bodies absent a showing of grave abuse of (MTC) of Vigan.

for crimes or offenses Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. 2268-N and No. Petitioner Bista posted bail and an Order of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code states: Temporary Release was issued thereafter. Ilocos Sur. or their equivalent. were filed counsel. upon his request. At 4:30 in the legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person afternoon of the same day (15 May to the proper judicial authorities within the period 2001). thus. judicial authorities. criminal complaints or Criminal Cases No. . docketed as Criminal Case No. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. while respective submissions. It is not under dispute that the alleged crimes for which petitioner Soria was arrested without 9. Possession of Firearms and Ammunition and violation of Article 261 par. at around 2:00 in the filed their motion for reconsideration afternoon. 2018 IACJUCO 55 Prosecutor Viloria to undergo the 11. From the time of petitioner dismissing the complaint for violation of Soria’s detention up to the time of his Art. At 5:00 in the or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital afternoon. eighteen (18) hours. respectively. 2268-N. On 08 June 2001. informations for Illegal penalties. punishable by light penalties. 12. (f) of the In every case. or their equivalent. Pambansa Blg. 125 of the Revised Penal Code for release. He was detained for 26 days. petitioner Bista was brought which was denied for lack of merit in the before the MTC of Vigan. for crimes Narvacan. and already elapsed. 125 of the Revised Penal for 36 hours without criminal complaints or Code against herein private information having been filed with the proper respondents. 4413-S. or their 4th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of equivalent. second assailed Resolution dated 25 where the case for violation of Batas March 2002. 6 was pending. for crimes or offenses was filed against petitioner Bista with the punishable by correctional penalties. twenty-two (22) hours had lack of merit. At this point in time. to communicate docketed as Criminal Cases No. petitioners filed which petitioner Bista was arrested are with the Office of the Ombudsman for punishable by afflictive or capital penalties. After considering the parties’ requisite preliminary investigation. petitioner Bista was warrant are punishable by correctional penalties released upon filing of bail bonds in or their equivalent. information should be filed with the proper 4413-S. On 04 March 2002. the person detained shall be Omnibus Election Code in relation to informed of the cause of his detention and shall COMELEC Resolution No. Ilocos Sur. an information for Illegal of: twelve (12) hours. 125. Neither is it in dispute that the alleged crimes for 10. and thirty-six (36) hours. On 15 May 2001. thus. be allowed. Ilocos Sur. Art. 2269-N and confer at any time with his attorney or and No. he could only be detained violation of Art. 3328. or Military Affairs a complaint-affidavit for their equivalent. On 15 August 2001. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. no order of release penalties provided in the next preceding article was issued in connection with petitioner shall be imposed upon the public officer or Bista’s arrest for alleged illegal employee who shall detain any person for some possession of firearms. the Office of the petitioner Bista was brought back and Ombudsman rendered the first assailed continued to be detained at the Santa Joint Resolution dated 31 January 2002 Police Station. .The 8. petitioners then 7. in the Regional Trial Court at Narvacan. judicial authorities within 18 hours of his arrest.

Jr.12 Indeed. The complaint/information in courts in cases of information was filed at 4:30 p.. the thus: arresting officers delivered petitioners well within the allowable time.m. should not be petitioners maintain that the filing of the included in the computation of the period information in court against petitioner Bista did prescribed by law for the filing of not justify his continuous detention. election day or a special holiday.14 Military . Hence. The arresting officer’s duty under the law dismissing for lack of probable cause the was either to deliver him to the proper judicial complaint against private respondents. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. . 2001 at about 6:30 p. Ilocos Sur. there could authorities following the rulings in Agbay v. Statutory construction has it that if a by reason of passion or hostility.1awphi1. 125 Phil.m.. attributed to herein public respondents. it is alleged that equivalent to an excess or lack of public respondents gravely erred in construing jurisdiction. 3328 were filed with the prosecutor within the period fixed by law. or thereafter release him.nét The abuse of discretion Article 1254 as excluding Sundays. it is evident that public respondents did not abuse their discretion in . 2018 IACJUCO 56 The sole bone of contention revolves around the Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious proper application of the 12-18-36 periods." 2001 but the orders for his release were issued (Medina vs. we did hold in Medina v.) In the by the Regional Trial Court and Municipal Trial instant case. Chief of Police of of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code cannot Manila7 and on commentaries8 of jurists to be said to have been conjured out of thin air as bolster their position that Sundays.5 Public respondents..11 and People v. Their on the other hand. . 200[1] at he be charged with violation of Article 4:30 p. filing of the informations with the proper judicial Prosecutor Jessica [Viloria]. can be attempts at interpretation. 313. holidays and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an election days in the computation of the periods evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to prescribed within which public officers should perform a duty enjoined by law. it must be given its literal meaning and applied without any No grave abuse of discretion. while it appears that the Court of Narvacan. holidays and it was properly backed up by law and election days are excluded in the computation of jurisprudence. only on May 15. an respect specifically to petitioner Bista.6 and Sayo v. of 15 May warrantless arrests. As aptly pointed out by the respondents insofar as the complaint of Rodolfo Soria is concerned. or to act at all in deliver arrested persons to the proper judicial contemplation of law as where the power is authorities as the law never makes such exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner exception. if no charge is filed by the Resolution No. the Regional Trial Court and Municipal Trial Court of arresting officer must release the detainee lest Narvacan. The fact however is that he was not . Ilocos Sur. relied on the cases of Medina disposition of petitioners’ complaint for violation v. Acosta. by duty of the arresting officers ended upon the the respondents. authorities within 18 hours.9 hence. Orosco.m. as directed by Prov. In addition to the foregoing arguments and with based on applicable laws and jurisprudence. From a study of the opposing views advanced Jr. he had already been released the day 125. Public respondents ratiocinated the periods provided in Article 125. as defined. Orozco.15 that — by the parties. be no arbitrary detention or violation of Article Deputy Ombudsman for the 125 of the Revised Penal Code to speak of. With and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part respect specifically to the detention of petitioner of the public officer concerned which is Soria which lasted for 22 hours. only on 08 June complaints against Soria for Illegal Possession 2001. Orozco. it being a "no-office day. They argued that based on law and of Firearm and Violation of COMELEC jurisprudence.10 Public respondents countered that the before or on May 14.13 statute is clear and unequivocal.

Ilocos Sur. Further action. however. Ilocos Sur prepared. where to locate and the (Annexes "J" and "K". it was not an easy Regional Trial Court and Municipal Trial Court of matter for a fiscal to look for his clerk and Narvacan. sufficient enough to deter us from declaring that The complaints against him was (sic) Arthur Medina was arbitrarily detained. the means of The above disposition is in keeping with Agbay communication as well as the hour of arrest and v.G. The duty of the detaining officers is deemed complied with upon the filing And. These are considerations circumstances? The answer is in the negative. Deputy Ombudsman for the other circumstances.P. the intent behind consideration. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. will not prosper because the running of the complaint with the MCTC. over 75 Release. on May 15. 2018 IACJUCO 57 released. stock should be taken of the fact that November 7 was a Sunday. he could only be hours have elapsed. of the complaints. he has a standing warrant of . the very purpose underlying Article against the respondents for Violation of Article 125 has been duly served with the filing of the 125. must be taken into with the Municipal Trial Court. Blg. already been filed in Court. For. . 125 is satisfied considering that by such act. Complaint-Affidavit). upon the filing of the complaint the necessary information. 3328 were filed with the these three no-office days. Of course. .m. draft the information and search (Annexes "G" and "I". Thus. . discussed above. 2001. on orders of the the case and have the order of commitment RTC and MTC of Narvacan. for the purpose of determining the authority (People v. on November 7 to 3:40 p. such as the time of Military.17 for more than six hours prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. wherein we ordained that – 18 surrender and the material possibility for the fiscal to make the investigation and file in time . Acosta [CA] 54 O. public respondents Petitioner himself acknowledged this power of acted well within their discretion in ruling thus: the MCTC to order his release when he applied for and was granted his release upon posting In the same vein. like issuance of a Release Order. released if he has no other pending criminal case requiring his continuous detention. at about 2:00 p. November 8 was The criminal Informations against Bista for declared an official holiday. RPC and COMELEC (election day) was also an official holiday. he may be released on bail. on May 15. In Resolution No. Moreover. and November 9 Violations of Article 125. and get Edimar Bista) but he was released from the clerk of court to open the courthouse. the complaint of Edimar Bista bail. day). 6 and it was only 12:00 o’clock p. the detained person is informed of the crime As to the issue concerning the duty of the imputed against him and. that he was on November 10 when the information against able to post bail and secure an Order of him for murder actually was in court. criminal liability of an officer detaining a person 4739). But. Was uncertainty of locating those officers and there a delay in the delivery of detained person employees could very well compound the to the proper judicial authorities under the fiscal’s difficulties. . Chief of Police of Manila16 -. he seasonably filed in the court of justice within the was brought to court on the very first office day thirty-six (36)-hour period prescribed by law as following arrest. And then. Obviously. docket detention only on June 8. Furthermore. We agree with the thirty-six (36)-hour period prescribed by law for position of the Ombudsman that such filing of the filing of the complaint against him from the the complaint with the MCTC interrupted the time of his arrest was tolled by one day (election period prescribed in said Article. Complaint-Affidavit of for the Judge to have him act thereon. 2001. 2001 stenographer. From the time of petitioner’s arrest at arrest for Violation of B. in Sayo v. Art.m.m. then rests upon the judicial . upon his application arresting officer after the information has with the court.

— The penalties determination that the facts on hand do not provided for in Article 124 shall be imposed make out a case for violation of Article 125 of upon any public officer or employee who delays the Revised Penal Code. there being no grave SO ORDERED. 126. 2018 IACJUCO 58 All things considered. abuse of discretion. and to the trial court may not be bound. shall expel any person from wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutorial the Philippine Islands or shall compel such powers. the courts will be swamped with cases if they will have to review the exercise of discretion on the part of fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time the latter decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant. unless clothed with citizen. The right of the people to case. virtually free from legislative. the petition dated 27 May 2002 is hereby B. Delaying release. We are correccional shall be imposed upon any public mindful that the Constitution and RA 6770 officer or employee who. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. or decisions. The Joint Resolution dated 31 January 2002 and the Art. SEC 7 CONSTITUTION Moreover. as a matter of documents. as well as to Ombudsman. to order an acquittal. the provided by law. Violation of domicile. a preliminary investigation is in effect a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of the SECTION 7. 127. subject to such limitations as may be grave abuse of discretion. transactions. functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it. the Court shall policy development.19 (Emphasis supplied) WHEREFORE. No costs. or judicial intervention. ART III. premises considered. of the Ombudsman absent any compelling reason. This policy is based on constitutional. government research data used as basis for finds the case dismissible. Art. shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who. — The penalty of prision statutory and practical considerations. prisoner. not being authorized by judicial .net for the period of time specified therein the performance of any judicial or executive order As we have underscored in numerous decisions for the release of a prisoner or detention -. Hence. VIOLATION OF DOMICILE DISMISSED for lack of merit. — The penalty Order dated 25 March 2002 of the Office of the of prision correccional in its minimum period Ombudsman are hereby AFFIRMED. in order to insulate it from outside pressure and improper influence. using professional judgment. and papers pertaining to official law. Expulsion. In much the same way. or unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner or the We have consistently refrained from interfering proceedings upon any petition for the liberation with the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of such person. Sufficient proof of the guilt of the accused information on matters of public concern shall must be adduced so that when the case is tried. we have no choice but to defer to the Office of the Ombudsman’s Art.l^vvphi1. Access to official records. shall be afforded the respect such findings. 128. if the acts. executive person to change his residence. not being thereunto endowed the Office of the Ombudsman with a authorized by law. Otherwise. be recognized.

CONSTI ART III SECTION 2. having legally procured the same. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or HON. — In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other offense. ROBERT P. DIOKNO. shall enter any dwelling against the will of RULES OF COURT RULE 126 SEC 8 the owner thereof. SECTION 3. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained. or leave the premises. safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed BROOKS. Search of house. papers. shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. houses.R. BECK. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. No. petitioners. National . Art. room. (1) The privacy of communication G. or having surreptitiously premise to be made in presence of two entered said dwelling. and being required to witnesses. or consent of such owner. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. JOHN J. BROOKS and KARL by law. L-19550 June 19. any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any If the offense be committed in the night-time. JOSE LUKBAN. in his capacity as the preceding section shall be inadmissible for SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. search papers or other effects found therein without the previous Section 8. in his capacity as Acting Director. (7a) search made by the offender. — No search of a house. 2018 IACJUCO 59 order. any purpose in any proceeding. or member of his family or in the absence of the if any papers or effects not constituting evidence latter. STONEHILL. 129. or. the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. vs. or when public HARRY S. 1967 and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court. shall refuse to do so.000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause. the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding P1. JOSE W. two witnesses of sufficient age and of a crime be not returned immediately after the discretion residing in the same locality. room. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable.

5 directed to the any peace officer. respondents-prosecutors business transactions including alleged. filed against them. (3) the warrants Meer. Meer and Meer and Juan T. of the Rules of Court. PLANA and MANUEL VILLAREAL. David for were issued to fish evidence against the petitioners. papers. a writ of preliminary injunction be Prosecutors — several judges2 — hereinafter issued restraining Respondents-Prosecutors. Solicitor Camilo D. Municipal Court of Manila. in accordance with Section 3. any. the effects seized are as "the subject of the offense. and ASST. Municipal Court of the Revised Penal Code. 6 (1) that the contested search warrants disbursements receipts. Internal Revenue (Code) and JUDGE AMADO ROAN. residences. particularity the documents. Poblador. JUDGE Alleging that the aforementioned search HERMOGENES CALUAG. Upon application of the officers of the prohibition. balance sheets are valid and have been issued in accordance and profit and loss statements and with law. journals." which is PROSECUTORS PEDRO D. and to seize and take possession of their agents or representatives to return to the following personal property to wit: petitioners herein. if Bobbins (cigarette wrappers). Padua for respondents. 1962. referred to as Respondents-Judges — issued. REYES. in the deportation cases already corporations of which they were adverted to. typewriters. were actually seized. to decision be rendered quashing the contested search the persons above-named and/or the search warrants and declaring the same null premises of their offices. regardless of the alleged illegality of offense. their agents and /or representatives from using on different dates. Quiason and seized were not delivered to the courts that Solicitor C. stolen or admissible in evidence against herein embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the petitioners. said CONCEPCION. described in the applications adverted to above EFREN I. officers. financial records. and Castro. issued the warrants. FISCAL MANASES G. Alafriz. receipts. inter alia: (1) they do not describe with of Quezon City. in any event. things and cash moneys seized or vouchers. (5) the documents. and government named on the margin1 — prayed that. portfolios. .: petitioners filed with the Supreme Court this original action for certiorari. Tariff and JR. aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. in due course. to be disposed of in accordance with law — on March 20. SPECIAL means of committing the offense. (2) that the defects of said warrants. Rule 67. and Constitution and the Rules of Court — JUDGE DAMIAN JIMENEZ. correspondence. warehouses and/or and void. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. and other documents and/or papers showing all In their answer. confiscated under the search warrants in ledgers. present case. de seizures were made in an illegal manner." Manila. thereafter. and commanding the respondents. Court of First warrants are null and void. Cruz and Nazareno and warrants. as "violation of Central Bank Laws." or "used or intended to be used as the the aforementioned searches and seizures. (4) the searches and Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. as contravening the Instance of Rizal-Quezon City Branch. C. Municipal Court because.J. JUDGE ROMAN CANSINO. and (3) that. the documents. 2018 IACJUCO 60 Bureau of Investigation. mandamus and injunction. books and things to be seized. Assistant Solicitor General Frine C. Customs Laws. (2) cash money. journals. credit question. and that. Books of accounts. not mentioned in the Paredes. were cured by petitioners' consent. papers and cash money Zaballero. respondents.3 a total of 42 search warrants the effects seized as aforementioned or any against petitioners herein4 and/or the copies thereof. CENZON. pending final disposition of the hereinafter referred to as Respondents.

1962. lifted the writ of preliminary injunction cannot be availed of by third previously issued by this Court. that the Government's action in gaining possession of papers belonging . insofar thereby the constitutional rights of or any as the papers. therefore. if any. 11 Indeed. the documents. nor could they claim for of the aforementioned corporations. United As regards the first group. was with reference to the rights of another. . this Court issued the writ of to the corporation did not relate to nor did preliminary injunction prayed for in the petition. if unlawful. and whatever the offices they hold 2d. since the right In connection with said documents. 12 thereby. and (b) themselves the benefits of the Fourth those found and seized in the residences of Amendment.1äwphï1. could not affect the Thus. and things seized constitutional rights of defendants whose under the alleged authority of the warrants in property had not been seized or the question may be split into two (2) major groups.C. for alleged unlawful search and seizure the simple reason that said corporations have does not extend to the personal their respective personalities.9 and that the objection to an unlawful herein. (A Guckenheimer of stock or of the interest of each of them in said & Bros. by resolution dated June 29. a question of the lawfulness of a seizure documents and things found and seized in the can be raised only by one whose rights residences of petitioners herein. but. to whom the seized effects in question. separate and defendants but distinct from the personality of herein embraces only the corporation whose petitioners. papers. when its violation. 789. 2018 IACJUCO 61 On March 22. the injunction the other defendants.) therein may be. 501. Emphasis supplied. that the question of the assail the legality of the contested warrants and admissibility of the evidence based on an of the seizures made in pursuance thereof. it has question is in the negative. papers and to object to the admission of said papers in things. papers and the party whose rights have been impaired things seized in the residences of petitioners thereby. United States. 786. privacy of whose homes had not been namely: (a) those found and seized in the offices disturbed. seized from the offices and premises of the corporations adverted to above. regardless of the amount of shares property was taken. namely: (1) whether the search warrants corporations. Next. papers and things against petitioners herein.8 Indeed. in parties. we hold that States (C. and may not be invoked by the made under the authority thereof. . CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. such a seizure. are valid or corporate officers in proceedings against them not.A. It petitioners herein have no cause of action to follows. vs. the aforementioned resolution of June search and seizure is purely personal and 29. and the searches and seizures belong. they were the rights of from the offices of the corporations above the corporation and not the rights of mentioned are concerned. two (2) important questions need be evidence belongs exclusively to the settled. documents and things seized one were invaded. petitioners herein. it is clear that was maintained as regards the papers. 1962.ñët . . petitioners herein may effect. If these However. Co. papers were unlawfully seized and the writ was partially lifted or dissolved. it affect the personal defendants. it is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by With respect to the documents. Remus vs. Certainly. 511. [1925] 3 F. . corporations.7 have been invaded. 1962. and (2) if the answer to the preceding in their individual capacity. 10 Consequently. . restraining herein Respondents- not validly object to the use in evidence against Prosecutors from using them in evidence them of the documents.)291 F. papers and things may be used in evidence against petitioners herein. whether said been held: documents.

it was impossible for the and seized. to committed in connection with the disputed be determined by the judge in the manner set search warrants. namely: (1) that no Such is the seriousness of the irregularities warrant shall issue but upon probable cause. and (2) that the warrant amend Section 3 of Rule 122 of the former shall particularly describe the things to be Rules of Court 14 by providing in its counterpart. when the party in power seized. As a matter of business transactions including fact. that this Court deemed it fit to forth in said provision. for the same Books of accounts. 2018 IACJUCO 62 Petitioners maintain that the aforementioned of Central Bank Laws. specific offense." Tariff and Customs Laws. feels that the minority is likely to wrest it. and outlaw the so-called general warrants. presupposes the introduction of competent vouchers." — as alleged in the aforementioned effected upon the authority there of are null and applications — without reference to any void." Not satisfied with this qualification. or journals. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. correspondence. It would be the legal heresy. in times searched. the same were issued upon applications stating that Court added thereto a paragraph. petitioners. therein made of the effects to be searched for As a consequence. Two points must be stressed in connection with this constitutional mandate. for it would place the sanctity of the and seizures shall not be violated. seized. balance sheets allege any specific acts performed by herein and related profit and loss statements. houses. the offense. ledgers. The averments thereof with warrants was compounded by the description respect to the offense committed were abstract. papers. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code. Tariff and Customs Laws. and fundamental rights guaranteed in our effects against unreasonable searches Constitution. violating a given documents and/or papers showing all provision of our criminal laws. to convict anybody of a "violation . the seizures Code. Indeed. This is after examination under oath or precisely the evil sought to be remedied by the affirmation of the complainant and the constitutional provision above quoted — to witnesses he may produce. even though by legal means. and other committed specific omissions. under the Revised Rules of Court 15 that "a search warrant shall not issue but upon None of these requirements has been complied probable cause in connection with one specific with in the contested warrants. and no domicile and the privacy of communication and warrants shall issue but upon probable correspondence at the mercy of the whims cause. credit has performed particular acts. In this connection. journals. financial records. no specific offense had been alleged in the application for the contested search said applications. the applications involved in this case do not disbursement receipts. proof that the party against whom it is sought receipts. to wit: judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause. to be determined by the judge caprice or passion of peace officers. the determinate provision of said laws or 13 Constitution provides: To uphold the validity of the warrants in question The right of the people to be secure in would be to wipe out completely one of the most their persons." In other The grave violation of the Constitution made in words. typewriters. directing that the natural and juridical person therein named "no search warrant shall issue for more than one had committed a "violation of Central Ban Laws. portfolios. search warrants are in the nature of general Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal warrants and that accordingly. It is not particularly describing the place to be difficult to imagine what would happen. and the persons or things to be of keen political strife. of the highest order.

resistance. Respondents-Prosecutors maintain If letters and private documents can thus that.19 common-law action for damages against the searching officer. procured the issuance of the search warrant and broadened in subsequent decisions on the against those assisting in the execution of an same Federal Court. we such searches and seizures. even if the searches and seizures under be seized and held and used in evidence consideration were unconstitutional. the reason for the same unlawful conduct. 1). Upon mature deliberation. and. the Federal Supreme Court had already declared: Relying upon Moncado vs. so far as those thus placed taken in the Moncado case must be abandoned. . In earlier times whether the transactions were legal or illegal. decisions thereon.): seizure. Today we once again examine the Wolf's constitutional documentation of However. but. and such other legal remedies as may be provided by other laws. are led by it to is the only practical means of enforcing the close the only courtroom door remaining constitutional injunction against unreasonable open to evidence secured by official searches and seizures.18 as tending to defeat its major objective: the elimination of general warrants. admissible in evidence against petitioners declaring his rights to be secure against herein. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. but that is true no aforementioned corporations. the warrants authorized the search for acquired. In fact. the against a citizen accused of an offense. without liability to an unlawful Ohio (supra. documents. constable has blundered. reserved to all persons as a specific guarantee against that very As we understand it. over thirty (30) years before. not only reiterated. is that exclusion is the only and seizure of records pertaining to all business practical way of enforcing the transactions of petitioners herein. are concerned. whatever their longer. which has been unlawfully seizures in violation of the Constitution is. thus openly contravening the explicit which itself controls the seizing officials. the action of trespass against the The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all offending official may have been records of the petitioners and the protection enough. 2018 IACJUCO 63 Thus." 16 upon the theory are not to be aided by the sacrifice of that the constitutional prohibition against those great principles established by unreasonable searches and seizures is years of endeavor and suffering which protected by means other than the exclusion of have resulted in their embodiment in the evidence unlawfully obtained. papers and things thus seized are the protection of the 4th Amendment. most common law jurisdictions have the right of privacy free from already given up this approach and eventually unreasonable state intrusion. People's Court (80 Phil. that the criminal should not be courts and their officials to bring the guilty allowed to go free merely "because the to punishment. also. 20After reviewing previous illegal search. In the language of lawlessness in flagrant abuse of that Judge Learned Hand: basic right. is of no are unanimously of the opinion that the position value. praiseworthy as they are. against the party who This view was. The efforts of the common law rule. their criminal punishment. might as well be stricken Said position was in line with the American from the Constitution. regardless of constitutional privilege. 17 such as the fundamental law of the land. however. . realizing that this dozen years on our books. Only in case the prosecution nature. . and after its adopted the exclusionary rule. command of our Bill of Rights — that the things knows that it cannot profit by their wrong to be seized be particularly described — as well will that wrong be repressed. We hold that all exclusion of evidence competent as evidence obtained by searches and such. in Mapp vs. . said Court held.

and. the exclusion of the evidence Since the Fourth Amendment's right of which an accused had been forced to privacy has been declared enforceable give by reason of the unlawful seizure. Weeks and Silverthorne law enforcement is entitled. but also. the non-exclusionary rule is contrary. was not susceptible of founded on reason and truth. it is reality to withhold its privilege and enforceable against them by the same enjoyment. the cases of this Court to remain an empty promise. In short. we can no evidence seized in violation of its longer permit it to be revocable at the provisions. in the to that proposition. Because it as we have seen. to the spirit of the essential part of the right to privacy — be constitutional injunction against unreasonable also insisted upon as an essential searches and seizures. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. therefore constitutional in applicable to the States through the Due origin. Our decision. important constitutional privilege. . if the ingredient of the right newly recognized applicant for a search warrant has competent by the Wolf Case. To be sure. inadmissible in a could not tolerate denial of its most State. against the States. . the admission evidence to establish probable cause of the of the new constitutional Right by Wolf commission of a given crime by the party . to the Cases. gives to the destruction by avulsion of the sanction individual no more than that which the upon which its protection and enjoyment Constitution guarantees him to the police had always been deemed dependent officer no less than that to which honest under the Boyd. then just as without the Weeks compel respect for the constitutional rule the assurance against unreasonable guaranty in the only effectively available federal searches and seizures would be way — by removing the incentive to "a form of words. The right to when name of law enforcement itself. namely. . in extending the courts. that judicial integrity so necessary substantive protections of due process to in the true administration of justice. conceptual nexus with the freedom from Having once recognized that the right to all brutish means of coercing evidence as privacy embodied in the Fourth not to permit this Court's high regard as Amendment is enforceable against the a freedom "implicit in the concept of States." valueless and disregard it" ." At the time that the Court against rude invasions of privacy by state held in Wolf that the amendment was officers is.) searches — state or federal — it was logically and constitutionally necessarily Indeed. and that the right to be secure ordered liberty. Only last year the Court itself sanction of exclusion as it used against recognized that the purpose of the the Federal Government. Even Wolf "stoutly adhered" whim of any police officer who. underserving of mention in a perpetual charter of inestimable human liberties. 2018 IACJUCO 64 by that same authority. To against the States through the Due hold otherwise is to grant the right but in Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Were it exclusionary rule to "is to deter — to otherwise. so The ignoble shortcut to conviction left too. without that rule the freedom from open to the State tends to destroy the state invasions of privacy would be so entire system of constitutional restraints ephemeral and so neatly severed from its on which the liberties of the people rest. we can no longer permit that right Process Clause. all constitutionally unreasonable (emphasis ours. had steadfastly held is enforceable in the same manner and to that as to federal officers the Fourth like effect as other basic rights secured Amendment included the exclusion of the by its Due Process Clause. Therefore. chooses conceded operatively enforceable to suspend its enjoyment. that the exclusion doctrine — an not only to the letter.

in inconsistent with the theory now advanced by general. one must not lose sight submitted in support of said motion. hence. power. House No. and Room No. Colorado Street. for the exclusion of the documents. the Moncado case must be. dated June 29. Brook. then it is not regarding their alleged possession of and possible for the Judge to find that there is control over the aforementioned records. should be included among the three (3) residences of herein petitioners. have of the fact that the psychological and moral sufficiently established the facts or conditions effect of the possibility 21 of securing their contemplated in the cases relied upon by the conviction. not in their explanation (not justification) for its issuance is petition or amended petition herein. are residences of herein petitioners. Upon the other hand. 1436. respectively. we are not satisfied that do not have. it being best to In their Motion for Reconsideration and leave the matter open for determination in Amendment of the Resolution of this Court appropriate cases in the future. we do not deem it necessary to express our opinion thereon. and other effects under their exclusive that the writs prayed for are granted. 22 comply with the requirements of the fundamental law. Then. those belonging to the minority could not possibly abuse a power they Upon the other hand. any rate. preliminary injunction heretofore issued. John J. but in the the necessity of fishing evidence of the Motion for Reconsideration and Amendment of commission of a crime. that the warrants for the search of Army-Navy Club. this fishing the Resolution of June 29. that petitioners' theory. no justification for and effects. then. Dewey Boulevard. Harry S. In other words. committed By agents of the party in petitioners herein. At had been committed. expedition is indicative of the absence of said theory would appear to be readjustment of evidence to establish a probable cause. 2008. however. But. certainly. The only possible thereof. or allegations overlooks the fact that violations thereof are. Robert P. that the writ of Karl Beck. contain either constitutional guarantee under consideration. no such competent evidence. 1962. or searches or seizures would suffice to protect the submitted in support thereof. to warrant application of the views power of the party for whose benefit the illegality therein expressed. insofar as possession and control. that the searches and seizures Stonehill. 1962. should we agree thereto. We hold. papers probable cause. therefore. as premises considered in said Resolution as specified in the Resolution of June 29. that the doctrine adopted in House No. papers and other effects seized in connection with the documents. too. 1962. that followed in said petitions. Regardless of the handicap under the allegations of said petitions said motion for which the minority usually — but. Brooks and therein made are illegal. then rulings of the federal courts of federal courts of there is no reason why the applicant should not the United States. papers and the offices of the corporations above referred to other effects thus seized in said residences of include personal belongings of said petitioners herein petitioners is hereby made permanent. inconsistent allegations. is watered down by the pardoning petitioners. some prosecution of those who secure an illegal of the affidavits or copies of alleged affidavits search warrant and/or make unreasonable attached to said motion for reconsideration. and that. 304 of the abandoned. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. in the records. papers and other effects so which they have a standing under the latest seized in the aforementioned residences are . 81 and 91 of Carmen Apartments. reconsideration. has Been Advanced. and the contents of the understandably — finds itself in prosecuting aforementioned affidavits and other papers agents of the majority. null and void. petitioners allege that Rooms Nos. as it is hereby. 2018 IACJUCO 65 against whom the warrant is intended. furthermore. to suit the approach intimated in the Resolution sought to Moreover. the theory that the criminal be reconsidered and amended. for. and. if he has We note. and the alleged "personal" nature the issuance of the warrant.

SR.. vs.. Wigberto E. as it is hereby... JOSE BURGOS. without special pronouncement as to costs. THE CHIEF. ET AL. 1984 JOSE BURGOS. as regards the documents. Lorenzo M. INC. PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY. offices and other premises enumerated in the same Resolution. THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL. JR. THE CHIEF OF STAFF. ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES. No. G. It is so ordered. THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER. BAYANI SORIANO and J. Augusto Sanchez. Joker P. that the aforementioned motion for Reconsideration and Amendment should be. Martiniano Vivo. Jejomar Binay and Rene Saguisag for petitioners. petitioners. The Solicitor General for respondents. PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY COMMAND. Tañada.R. respondents. denied. Tañada. . 2018 IACJUCO 66 concerned. BURGOS MEDIA SERVICES. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. papers and other effects seized in the twenty-nine (29) places. Arroyo. and that the petition herein is dismissed and the writs prayed for denied. L-64261 December 26.

Quezon Avenue.. or successors" be enjoined from using the articles thus seized as evidence against Respondents likewise urge dismissal of the petitioner Jose Burgos. RMS to this Court without having previously sought Building. et al. Road 3. AFP. 1983 or after the lapse of a In our Resolution dated June 21.022782 of the stress is laid on the fact that while said search Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. petition on the ground that petitioners had come Quezon City. Presidential Security Command. It is respondents. "particularly the Chief Legal de Ordoveza v. 1983.: manifested that respondents "will not use the aforementioned articles as evidence in the Assailed in this petition for certiorari prohibition aforementioned case until final resolution of the and mandamus with preliminary mandatory and legality of the seizure of the aforementioned prohibitory injunction is the validity of two [2] articles. 1983. Jr. rendered moot and academic. . 1 instant petition impugning the same was filed only on June 16. Raymundo. and the other petition on ground of laches. 2018 IACJUCO 67 ESCOLIN. J.. and office and printing Court. negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time. procedural flaw notwithstanding. books and other written literature issues raised not to mention the public interest alleged to be in the possession and control of generated by the search of the "We Forum" petitioner Jose Burgos. substitute require it. respondents were required to answer the petition. Q. 1983.. whenever the purposes of justice assistants. while opposing petitioners' prayer for a abandoned it or declined to assert it. which was televised in Channel 7 and the "We Forum" newspaper. Vda. the entitled People v. on do that which. period of more than six [6] months. should have filed a motion to quash said machines. motor warrants in the court that issued them. the City Fiscal its rules or to except a particular case from its of Quezon City. the prayer search warrants issued on December 7. 4 "it is always in the Officer. The plea for preliminary mandatory and Laches is failure or negligence for an prohibitory injunction was set for hearing on unreasonable and unexplained length of time to June 28. 5 writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. petitioners.". widely publicized in all metropolitan dailies. respondents. and 784 Units C & D. subordinates. impugning the validity of the warrants before this were searched. we take publication and distribution of the said cognizance of this petition in view of the newspapers. warrants were issued on December 7. The existence of this special circumstance justifies Petitioners further pray that a writ of preliminary this Court to exercise its inherent power to mandatory and prohibitory injunction be issued suspend its rules.. 1982. by exercising due diligence. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. . and that Mr. Quezon City. the quashal of the search warrants before business addresses of the "Metropolitan Mail" respondent judge. 3 But this vehicles and other articles used in the printing. the power of the court [Supreme Court] to suspend Judge Advocate General. Jose Burgos. were seized. 19. Jr. respectively. publisher-editor of offices. In the words of the revered for the return of the seized articles. paraphernalia. 1982 for preliminary prohibitory injunction was by respondent Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano. operation. before and "We Forum" newspapers. under which the Respondents would have this Court dismiss the premises known as No. Justice Abad Santos in the case of C. later reset to July 7. as well as numerous papers. equipment. 1983. Considerable accused in Criminal Case No. warranting a presumption that At the hearing on July 7. Indeed. seriousness and urgency of the constitutional documents. the Solicitor the party entitled to assert it either has General. could motion of the Solicitor General in behalf of or should have been done earlier. Project 6. Jr. subalterns. their representatives. Executive Judge of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal [Quezon City]." 2 With this manifestation.

respondent judge of Col. Road 3. 123-124. assailed in this petition.e.022872. 3. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. 4. On the contrary. has become a matter of advanced by petitioners to nullify the search executive benevolence or warrants in question. Q. Search Warrants No. it was because they do whatever he pleases with them. Jr. Objection is months. Answer. 20- encouraged to hope that the latter 82[b] were used to search two distinct places: would yield the desired results. within legal tried at first to exhaust other bounds. The fact that he has used them as remedies. Officer of the Presidential Security Command. Balbino V.6 This objection. i. Quezon City and 784 Units C & D. from release of public funds to release of detained persons from Several and diverse reasons have been custody. p. thereby refuting the charge of as they now do [p. seized property. Rule to President Marcos. largesse 1.. 20-82[a] and No. Abadilla and his Chief Intelligence and Legal witnesses. documents in Criminal Case No. may properly be considered moot and the return at least of the printing academic. sent a letter constitutional provision as wen as Sec. as petitioners themselves conceded equipment and vehicles. Jr. error in judgment. Respondents also submit the theory that since 1983. more than half a year after petitioner Jose Burgos. laches against them. had used and the petitioners' premises had been marked as evidence some of the seized raided. he is now estopped from challenging the validity of The climate of the times has given the search warrants. 2018 IACJUCO 68 Petitioners. And after during the hearing on August 9. as soon as they could. 19. counsel Antonio Coronet asking however. [pp. Jr. no ground to punish or chastise them for an Quezon City. Diego. Petitioners fault respondent judge for his Hence. petitioners finally decided interposed to the execution of Search Warrant to come to Court. as mandated by the above-quoted like Fiscal Flaminiano. We do not follow the logic petitioners no other choice. The events of the past evidence does not and cannot in any way affect eleven fill years had taught them the validity or invalidity of the search warrants that everything in this country. alleged failure to conduct an examination under petitioners. upon suggestion of oath or affirmation of the applicant and his persons close to the President. respectively. RMS Building. No. These documents lawfully had waited this long to bring their belong to petitioner Jose Burgos. witnesses. Road 3. This assertion is based on that . examination had indeed been conducted by through Col. No. We find listed therein. Quezon Avenue. was Although the reason given by petitioners may allegedly keeping and concealing the articles not be flattering to our judicial system. If they of respondents. that an such a letter had been sent. 1. 19. through 126 of the Rules of Court . the explained the reason for the delay in the filing of extrajudicial efforts exerted by petitioners quite the petition thus: evidently negate the presumption that they had abandoned their right to the possession of the Respondents should not find fault. Project 6. and he can case to court. they were further 2. Manifestation] with the fact that the Petition was filed on June 16. 1983. 20-82[b] at the latter address on the ground Rollo] that the two search warrants pinpointed only one place where petitioner Jose Burgos. Project 6. After waiting in vain for five [5] Quezon City. No. in their Consolidated Reply.

20. to wit: City. — A search warrant may typographical error. This seized is stolen property. were seized. keeping and concealing the same enumerates the personal properties that may be at 19 Road 3. place that respondent judge had in mind when he issued Warrant No. Another ground relied upon to annul the states: search warrants is the fact that although the warrants were directed against Jose Burgos. Personal Property to be The defect pointed out is obviously a seized. have arisen by reason of the typographical error and is more apparent than real. 2018 IACJUCO 69 portion of Search Warrant No. 20-82 [b]. the addresses of the places sought to be searched were specifically set forth in the [b] Property stolen application. articles b belonging to his co-petitioners being used as instruments and Jose Burgos. the judge who issued the warrant intended the therefore. 2. of the offense. stolen would seem to be especially true where the property must be owned by one other than the executing officer is the affiant on whose affidavit person in whose possession it may be at the the warrant had issued. Precisely. Quezon City. It may or may not be owned by him. Jr. And it has sufficient that the person against whom the also been said that the executing officer may warrant is directed has control or possession of look to the affidavit in the official court file to the property sought to be seized. In with sufficient particularity. and it is building described in the affidavit." 8 to the articles and property seized under the warrants.D. Quezon seized under a search warrant. the ambiguity that might fruits of the offense. means of committing the crime of Burgos Media Services. subversion penalized under P. Quezon Avenue. Sr. Sec.82[b] [c] Property used or was applied for was 728 Units C & D. Which have been used. Jr. The above rule does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the In the determination of whether a search person against whom the search warrant is warrant describes the premises to be searched directed. and since it was Col. is of no consequence. as petitioner resolve an ambiguity in the warrant as to the Jose Burgos. Abadilla or embezzled and himself who headed the team which executed other proceeds or the search warrants. 885 as amended and he is Section 2.. was alleged to have in relation place to be searched. 7 Obviously this is the same offense. and are alone. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. . Project 6. Besides. under subsection [b] of the above-quoted the executing officer's prior knowledge as to the Section 2.82[b] which 3. 20. RMS intended to be used Building. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. one of the properties that may be place intended in the warrant is relevant. which as the means of address appeared in the opening paragraph of committing an the said warrant. and when he knows that time of the search and seizure. The fact is that the place for which Search Warrant No. Inc. two search be issued for the search and warrants were applied for and issued because seizure of the following personal the purpose and intent were to search two property: distinct premises. it has been held "that fact. Ownership. It would be quite absurd and illogical for respondent judge to have issued two [a] Property subject warrants intended for one and the same place. Bayani Soriano and the J. Necessarily.

Metrocom. equipment and other paraphernalia. or such conspiracy with. directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works" are considered immovable property. Mere generalization will susceptible to seizure under a search warrant. that the error for respondent judge to have done so. . stating with particularity the case. The questioned search warrants were issued possession or has in his control printing by respondent judge upon application of Col. the machineries in question. petitioners do not claim to be materials. 1982. Bereft of such particulars as would justify the application for the search warrants on a finding of the existence of probable cause. affirmation of the complainant and receptables. and no search warrant mentioned and the articles and things above- or warrant of arrest shall issue described were used and are continuously except upon probable cause to be being used for subversive activities in determined by the judge. statement contained in the joint affidavit of Article IV of the 1973 Constitution which Alejandro M. v. Abadilla's application that petitioner "is in 5. Tango. the broad statement in Col. as of the Metrocom Intelligence and Security amended . Abadilla Intelligence Officer of the publications and other documents which were P. Thus. Gutierrez and Pedro U. We find petitioners' thesis impressed with merit. instruments or implements the witnesses he may produce. after disputed warrants. not suffice. 2018 IACJUCO 70 4. Abadilla which conducted a does not satisfy the requirements of probable surveillance of the premises prior to the filing of cause. said allegation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant and it was a grave It is contended by petitioners. In Davao Sawmill Co. . 3. this Court ruled that facts and circumstances which would lead a machinery which is movable by nature becomes reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe immobilized when placed by the owner of the that an offense has been committed and that the tenement. as in the case at bar. This being the specification. against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the publication of subversive In the case at bar.C. news Rolando N. Under Article 415[5] of the examination under oath or Civil Code of the Philippines. December 7." 12 is a mere conclusion of law and Group under Col. Gutierrez and Pedro U. Castillo9 where this Probable cause for a search is defined as such legal provision was invoked.. while in fact alleged subversive material he has published or bolted to the ground remain movable property is intending to publish. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. "machinery.. but not so when objects sought in connection with the offense placed by a tenant. 11 members punishable under Presidential Decree 885. provides: "that the evidence gathered and collated by our unit clearly shows that the premises above- SEC.. property or plant. intended by the owner of the tenement for an and particularly describing the industry or works which may be carried on in a place to be searched and the building or on a piece of land and which tend persons or things to be seized.10 The application was used and are all continuously being used as a accompanied by the Joint Affidavit of Alejandro means of committing the offense of subversion M. And person having only a temporary right. the application the owners of the land and/or building on which and/or its supporting affidavits must contain a the machineries were placed.. Tango. unless when the search warrant applied for is directed such person acted as the agent of the owner. Neither is there merit in petitioners' assertion other responsible officer as may that real properties were seized under the be authorized by law. abovementioned documents could not have provided sufficient basis for the finding of a Equally insufficient as basis for the probable cause upon which a warrant may determination of probable cause is the validly issue in accordance with Section 3. or any other are in the place sought to be searched. however. usufructuary. and to promote the objective of.

paper. Another factor which makes the search warrants under consideration constitutionally 5] TOYOTA Hi-Lux." 13 Movement. NKA 892. 17 The subversive organization known as description of the articles sought to be seized . In Alvarez v. objectionable is that they are in the nature of pick-up truck with general warrants. tape recorders. of the existence of with Plate No. leaflets. 14 the Constitution requires no particularly. 2018 IACJUCO 71 illegal organizations such as the Light-a-Fire Movement for Free Philippines. books. ink. which the issuance of a search warrant may be colored yellow with justified. cards. paraphernalia." was declared void by the U. less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon 1] Toyota-Corolla. In like any and all documents manner. equipment.S. and." As couched. letters and connectionwith the violation of SDC 13-3703 or facsimile of prints related to the otherwise" have been held too general. directions to "seize any evidence in communication. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. and General Statutes [the statute dealing with the other publication to promote the crime of conspiracy]" was held to be a general objectives and piurposes of the warrant. more he may produce. photo In Stanford v. Court of First Plate No. white with Plate No. because the purpose thereof is to Plate No. cabinets. NBS probable cause. after examination under oath or FORUM" and other subversive affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses materials and propaganda. communications/recording records.. the quoted 524. memoranda. portion of a search warrant which authorized the seizure of any "paraphernalia which could be 2] Subversive documents. and therefore invalid. NKV 969 convince the committing magistrate. and Light-a-Fire Movement and April 6 April 6 Movement. In mandating that "no warrant shall issue except 3] Motor vehicles used in the upon probable cause to be determined by the distribution/circulation of the "WE judge. the "WE FORUM" newspaper and Supreme Court for being too general. colored case. and that "WE FORUM" newspaper. pamphlets. used to violate Sec. Instance. and. recordings and other dictaphone and the like used written instruments concerning the Communist and/or connected in the printing of Party in Texas. Movement." 1] All printing equipment. PBP 665. averment in said joint affidavit filed before respondent judge hardly meets the test of 4] TOYOTA- sufficiency established by this Court in Alvarez TAMARAW. pictures. lists. 54-197 of the Connecticut pamphlets. receipts. State of Texas 16 the search (equipment. The search warrants describe Plate No.. 15 this Court ruled that "the oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within 2] DATSUN pick-up the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his colored white with witnesses. typewriters. warrant which authorized the search for "books. Movement for Free Philippines. . not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the 3] A delivery truck issuance of the warrant. tables. NGV 427 the articles sought to be seized in this wise: with marking "Bagong Silang.

President which authorizes "the sequestration of the Marcos turned down the property of any person. 19 petitioners' freedom to express themselves in print.. were discontinued. This state of being is patently anathematic That the property seized on December 7. Minister Romulo stated: have been sequestered under Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 21 of National Defense. 1983. recommendation of our authorities engaged in subversive activities against the to close the paper's printing government and its duly constituted authorities facilities and confiscate the . with the further result that the the equipment and all materials in printing and publication of said newspapers the premises. when than President Marcos himself denied the "Officers of the Crown were given roving request of the military authorities to sequester commissions to search where they pleased in the property seized from petitioners on order to suppress and destroy the literature of December 7. according to security. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. Cendana. As a consequence of the search We Forum offices in Quezon City and seizure. subject to the law. 1982. 2018 IACJUCO 72 under the search warrants in question cannot be the absence of any implementing rules and characterized differently. alert had not been sequestered is further confirmed and even militant press is essential for the by the reply of then Foreign Minister Carlos P. 2. 18 and constitutes a virtual denial of discretion of the court. Information Minister Gregorio S. U. 1982 issue of history: the era of disaccord between the Tudor the Daily Express. the U. As heretofore stated. if sequestration could validly be effected in view of . the premises searched were the business and printing offices of the On the basis of court orders. in accordance with implementing rules and equipment and materials it regulations as may be issued by the Secretary uses. Contrary to reports.S. as amended. political enlightenment and growth of the Romulo to the letter dated February 10. Congressman Tony P. Hall addressed to President Marcos. expressing alarm over the Respondents would justify the continued sealing "WE FORUM " case. natural or artificial. Cendaña said that because of the Such closure is in the nature of previous denial the newspaper and its restraint or censorship abhorrent to the freedom equipment remain at the disposal of the press guaranteed under the fundamental of the owners. 1983 of citizenry. in the December 10. 20 In this reply dated of the printing machines on the ground that they February 11. Thus: dissent both Catholic and Puritan Reference herein to such historical episode would not be The President denied a request relevant for it is not the policy of our government flied by government prosecutors to suppress any newspaper or publication that for sequestration of the WE speaks with "the voice of non-conformity" but FORUM newspaper and its poses no clear and imminent danger to state printing presses. In the Stanford case.S." It is doubtful however.. regulations promulgated by the Minister of National Defense. 1982 to a democratic framework where a free. "Metropolitan Mail" and the "We Forum government agents went to the newspapers. 885. Supreme Courts calls to mind a notable chapter in English Besides. these premises were padlocked and took a detailed inventory of and sealed. it was reported that no less Government and the English Press.

shall of civil or political rights. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. without legal ground. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the CONSTI ART III SECTION 5. public officer or employee who shall hinder any person from joining any lawful association or CRIMES AGAINST RELIGIOUS WORSHIP from attending any of its meetings. Search by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful Warrants Nos. — SECTION 6. or of the press. No costs. or prohibiting the and worship. 133. The free SECTION 5. The prayer for a writ of be provided by law. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS rights. interruption and policy development. The right of the people to thereunder are hereby ordered released to information on matters of public concern shall petitioners. or shall dissolve the same. Interruption of religious worship. the penalty shall be prision CONSTI ART IIII SECTION 4. transactions. shall forever be allowed. 1982 are be impaired except in the interest of national hereby declared null and void and are security. The liberty of abode and of The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum changing the same within the limits prescribed period to prision correccional in its minimum . subject to such limitations as may be penalty of prision correccional in its minimum provided by law. as may accordingly set aside. No law shall be correccional in its medium and maximum passed abridging the freedom of speech. sectors. shall be afforded the dissolution of peaceful meetings. any petition to the religion. including prohibit or interrupt the holding of a peaceful those employed in the public and private meeting. No law shall be government for redress of grievances. 131. be recognized. public safety. The right of the people. and papers pertaining to official SO ORDERED. religious test shall be required for the exercise without discrimination or preference. Neither shall the right to travel respondent judge on December 7. Prohibition. acts.chanrobles virtual law library Art. and to documents. 2018 IACJUCO 73 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING. to form unions. as well as to government research data used as basis for Art. 20-82[a] and 20-82[b] issued by order of the court. The free exercise and preference. 132. or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall The same penalty shall be imposed upon a not be abridged. mandatory injunction for the return of the seized articles is hereby granted and all articles seized SECTION 7. or public health. either alone disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any or together with others. — The penalty of prision correccional in its The same penalty shall be imposed upon any minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall prohibit or public officer or employee who shall prevent or hinder any person from addressing. without discrimination or free exercise thereof. forever be allowed. No law shall be made respecting exercise and enjoyment of religious profession an establishment of religion. No enjoyment of religious profession and worship. — The citizen. made respecting an establishment of religion. of periods.chanrobles virtu If the crime shall have been committed with violence or threats. shall SECTION 8. or decisions. Access to official records. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. expression. Offending the religious feelings. associations. Art. period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who. authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances.

the crowd became the faithful. Province of Laguna. JOSE M.R.: members of the Iglesiani Cristo. 1939 before the microphone because the wire connecting it was abruptly disconnected. even if a minister was then preaching (“that Jesus PEOPLE VS. A religious meeting is an Crispin Oben for appellant.G. THE PEOPLE OF THE ISSUE: Whether or not the meeting was a PHILIPPINES. HELD: The meeting here was not a religious ceremony. MANDORIAO. page 81: rally at a public place in Baguio. 2018 IACJUCO 74 period shall be imposed upon anyone who. was not able to speak G. was demon. About 200 people attended the meeting. No. unruly. a complaint was performed acts or uttered words offensive to the filed of the following tenor: feelings of the faithful.R. appellant. or to perform religious services in No appearance for plaintiff-appellee. celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. and that the Pope is the Commander of expounding on his topic to the effect that Christ Satan are notoriously offensive to the feelings of is not God. that all the members of the were outsiders and curious listeners. page 80: When the application of the Iglesiani Cristo was to hold the meeting at a public place and the permit expressly stated that the purpose was to hold a religious rally. in a upon an object of veneration. Assuming that the rally was a religious of the peace court of the municipality of ceremony. Being. BAES.A. No. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. the appellant cannot be said to have Lumban. Christ was not God but only a man”). rally was to persuade new converts to their 45780. what was held on that occasion was not a religious ceremony. about 50 of whom Remarks that those who believed that Christ is were members of the Iglesiani Cristo but the rest God are anti-Christ. L-46000 May 25. “assemblage of people meeting for the purpose Guillermo B. Guevarra for defendants- of performing acts of adoration to the Supreme appellees. The rally was attended by persons who are not members C. appellee. The facts are the following: In the justice religion. Reyes Book II. JR. There was no place devoted to religious worship or during the object of veneration at the meeting. a minister of Iglesiani Cristo. or . 4619 of the sect. recognition of God as an object of worship…” The meeting here was not limited to the CONCEPCION.. While Roman Catholic Church are marked by the Salvio. 51 O. but only man. FACTS: The Iglesiani Cristo held a religious Reyes Book II. The act complained of must be directed against a dogma or ritual. religious ceremony. vs. Mandoriao however. The supposed This appeal was given due course by the Court prayers and singing of hymns were merely of First Instance of Laguna by virtue of a writ incidental because the principal object of the of mandamus issued by this court in G. Some people urged Mandoriao to go up the stage and have a debate with Salvio. J.

BAES churchyard belonging to the Church. and funeral of one belonging to the Church of within the jurisdiction of this court. and criminally caused the funeral to pass. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. at about 9 o'clock accused with having caused. while holding the the Church. in open light of anything constituting a religious disregard of the religious feelings of the dogma.m. the fiscal." The mere act of causing the passage through the (Sgd. unlawfully. 1937. of veneration by the faithful. willfully. Philippines. the offense funeral of one who in life was called consists in that the corpse was that of Antonio Macabigtas. An act committed in grave faithful when a person ridicules or makes profanation of the place. threats of physical violence by the commenting on the article. through force and consent of the owner. At most they might to the said Church and is devoted to the be chargeable with having threatened the religious worship thereof.. or with having passed opposition of the undersigned through a private property without the complainant who. of Parish Priest the funeral of one who in life belonged to Complainant the Church of Christ. The accused pleaded not guilty and waived the Sustaining the foregoing motion. neither offends nor ridicules the religious feelings of those (Here follow the affidavit and the list of who belong to the Roman Catholic witnesses. provincial fiscal may have full knowledge of the facts and of the witnesses who could testify . dismissed the case. the Province of Laguna. 1937. the court by an preliminary investigation. 2018 IACJUCO 75 The undersigned Parish Priest of the thereon.) Church.A. The undersigned is of the opinion that the as it in fact passed. instead of filing the municipality of Lumban. works or scoffs at anything Catholics of this municipality. and in devoted to religious ceremonies. Laguna. through the fact act imputed to the accused does not chruchyard fronting the Roman Catholic constitute the offense complained of Church. "Church of Christ". intimidation and threats. The said priest charges the That on April 14. the complainant filed a sworn another information for the crime found to have statement regarding other points so that the been committed by the accused. against the parish priest. Before the case was order of August 31. which churchyard belongs to the considering the spirit of article 133 of the said Church. in accordance with one who belonged to the Church of the rites of religious sect known as the Christ. remanded to the Court of First Instance of reserving. was compelled to allow the say: "An act is said to be notoriously funeral to pass through the said offensive to the religious feelings of the churchyard. in this municipality of Lumban. Alejandro Lacbay and Bernardo del Rosario with an offense The complainant is the parish priest of against religion committed as follows: the Roman Catholic Church of Lumban.) JOSE M. to the fiscal the right to file Laguna. plays violation of article 133 of the Revised with or damages or destroys any object Penal Code. charges motion for dismissal: Enrique Villaroca. however. Justice Albert. Apparently. Province of corresponding information. force. which churchyard belongs Revised Penal Code. through a. upon being duly sworn. the Christ to pass through the churchyard of aforesaid accused. put in the following Laguna. has this to accused. Upon the remand of the case to the Roman Catholic Church in the parish and court.

the fiscal. the plaintiff appealed. as may be course by the court by virtue of an order of this proper. the Catholics. pursuant to section 29 of General court. We believe that such appeal. as they are alleged. in his aforesaid motion. Epifanio Nanoy. CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. those professing another faith. therefore. Had the fiscal not omitted this essential part. also a member of said feelings of those who profess a certain religion. No. 10365-CR accused. the court held that he was only guilty of ground of the motion is indefensible. entered with uplifted of is offensive to the religious feelings of the hands. over the objection of the parish priest Ponente: Santiago B. After complained of took place. second place. although  While the congregation of the Assembly hypothetically. penalized in article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. In the in its chapel. who was allegedly acts complained of do not constitute the crime drunk. judged only according to the feelings of the  LevitaLepura ran away from Nanoy. but omits an essential part thereof. and is devoted to the religious services of said alias Nanie (02-24-1972) church. entered into the chapel of the defined and penalized by article 133 of the congregation of the Assembly of God while it Revised Penal Code. complaint. approached LevitaLapura. congregation. and should the fiscal file an information  Accused was charged with the crime of alleging the said facts and a trial be thereafter offending religious feelings penalized held at which the said facts should be under Art. not one of fact. 133 of the RPC. The appealed order is based upon the motion to The appealed order is reversed and the fiscal is dismiss filed by the fiscal. The motion of God was having its afternoon services raises a question of law. accused EpifanioNanoy. People of the Philippines vs. but must admit them. ran out of the church and the religious services denies that the unlawful act committed by the accused had offended the religious feelings of were discontinued. held the accused and led while not otherwise offensive to the feelings of him outside the church. Orders. 2018 IACJUCO 76 From this order. We. the court may find the alleged that he had the intention of accused guilty of the offense complained of. and it is through this churchyard that the GR No. to wit. that the churchyard belongs to the church. 58. he would not have come to the conclusion that the SHORT STORY: Nanoy.  The other members of the sect also ran take the view that the facts alleged in the out of the church and the religious complaint constitute the offense defined and services were discontinued. He was charged with the the Catholics of the municipality in which the act crime of offending religious feelings. J. is a question of fact which must be song leader. Buslon. which that of coercion. was having its afternoon services and attempted to grab the song leader. or . and attempted to grab her. and through force and intimidation. the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the without pronouncement as to the costs. As the unjust vexation fiscal was discussing the sufficiency of the facts FACTS: alleged in the complaint. for it is possible that certain acts may offend the Romeo Zafra. whether or of the act complained who was drunk. caused to Action: APPEAL from a judgment of the MTC of pass the funeral of one under the rites of the Jetafe. Bohol religious sect known as the Church of Christ. everyone Moreover. As a result. The complaint conclusively established. or that of trespass under article appeal was denied but thereafter given due 281 of the Revised Penal Code. This officer questions ordered to comply with his duty under the law. he cannot deny any of them. Catholics and not those of other faithful ones.

 WON the offense was unjust vexation. RULES  Art. shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. . CRIM LAW 2I JANUARY 27. WON the TC erred in convicting Nanoy of disturbance or interruption of a religious ceremony. ISSUE/S 1. in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony. Decision MODIFIED. Neither did he cause such a serious disturbance as to interrupt or disturb the services of the said congregation.  Accused appealed. That he had no intention of interrupting the services was shown by the fact that appellant allowed himself to be led outside the church by ZomeoZafra. RPC and sentenced him to 10 months and 21 days of imprisonment. Accused-appellant guilty  Trial court found Nanoy guilty of of only unjust vexation and sentenced to pay a disturbance or interruption of a religious fine of Php100 with subsidiary imprisonment in ceremony. 133. ANALYSIS 1. penalized under A153 of the case of insolvency. plus a fine of Php50 with subsidiary imprisonment in the case of insolvency. Offending the religious feelings.  There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful. The appellant did NOT perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. YES. 2018 IACJUCO 77 stopping the said rite in an unholy CONCLUSION/HELD/DISPOSITIVE: manner. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisioncorreccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who. arguing that the offense. if any is unjust vexation.