Professional Documents
Culture Documents
176830;
FEBRUARY 11, 2014)
CASE DIGEST: SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, Petitioner, vs. HON.
EPHREM S. ABANDO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Hilongos, Leyte, Branch 18, CESAR M.
MERIN, in. his capacity as Approving Prosecutor and Officer-
in-Charge, ROSULO U. VIVERO, in his capacity as
Investigating Prosecutor, RAUL M. GONZALEZ, in his capacity
as Secretary of the Department of Justice, Respondents.
From 1985 to 1992, at least 100 people had been abducted, hog-tied,
tortured and executed by members of the CPP/NPA/NDF pursuant to
Operation VD.
The Information was filed before the (RTC) of Hilongos, Leyte, Branch
18 (RTC Hilongos, Leyte) presided by Judge Ephrem S. Abando (Judge
Abando).
Petitioner Ocampo argued that a case for rebellion against him and 44
others (including petitioners Echanis and Baylosisand Ladlad) was then
pending before the RTC Makati, Branch 150 (RTC Makati).Putting
forward the political offense doctrine, petitioner Ocampo argues that
common crimes, such as murder in this case, are already absorbed by the
crime of rebellion when committed as a necessary means, in connection
with and in furtherance of rebellion.
Petitioner Ladlad and Baylosis filed an Urgent Motion to Fix Bail and a
Motion to Allow Petitioner to Post Bail respectively.The OSG interposed
no objection to the grant of aP100,000 cash bail to them. The Court
granted the motions of petitioners Ladlad and Baylosis and fixed their
bail in the amount ofP100,000, subject to the condition that their
temporary release shall be limited to the period of their actual
participation in the peace negotiations
Section 3(d), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, allows Prosecutor Vivero to
resolve the complaint based on the evidence before him if a respondent
could not be subpoenaed. As long as efforts to reach a respondent were
made, and he was given an opportunity to present countervailing
evidence, the preliminary investigation remains valid.
In this case, the Resolution stated that efforts were undertaken to serve
subpoenas on the named respondents at their last known addresses. This
is sufficient for due process. It was only because a majority of them could
no longer be found at their last known addresses that they were not
served copies of the complaint and the attached documents or evidence.
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that "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."
Petitioner Ocampo alleges that Judge Abando did not comply with the
requirements of the Constitution in finding the existence of probable
cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against petitioners.
Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been defined as
"such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet
and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the
person sought to be arrested." Allado v. Diokno, G.R. No. 113630, May 5,
1994.Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall be
determined by the judge after an examination under oath or an
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses, we have ruled that a
hearing is not necessary for the determination thereof. In fact, the judges
personal examination of the complainant and the witnesses is not
mandatory and indispensable for determining the aptness of issuing a
warrant of arrest.
***