Case Digest Prepared by: Sheila

Ladlad v. Velasco
Preliminary Investigation and Inquest

Court Second Division Date June 1, 2007

Citation G.R. Nos. 172070-72, 172074-76, 175013 Ponente Carpio, J.

Petitioner VICENTE P. LADLAD et al

Respondent SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO et al

Doctrine

Inquest proceedings are proper only when the accused has been lawfully arrested without a warrant: in
flagrante delicto or if arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.

Where the recommendation for the release of the detained person is approved by the City or Provincial
Prosecutor but the evidence on hand warrant the conduct of a regular preliminary investigation, the
order of release shall be served on the officer having custody of said detainee and shall direct the
said officer to serve upon the detainee the subpoena or notice of preliminary investigation, together
with the copies of the charge sheet or complaint, affidavit or sworn statements of the complainant and his
witnesses and other supporting evidence.

Case Summary

The case is a consolidation of cases in relation to the warrantless arrests of several petitioners after Arroyo’s
issuance of P.P. 1017. The Beltran petition questioned the two inquest proceedings (Inciting to Sedition and
Rebellion) done on Beltran despite being warrantlessly arrested only for Inciting to Sedition, while the Maza
and Ladlad petitions involve the appearance of a masked witness who filed an affidavit to Pros. Velasco who
then released it to media members before sending it to the petitioners.

The Court held that the political considerations in the actuations show that DOJ willingly ignored the defects
in the inquest proceedings to be able to file a case against petitioners despite the evidence against Beltran
being not enough to establish probable cause, the second inquest proceedings on Rebellion being invalid,
and the unprofessional antics of the prosecutor in the Ladlad and Maza petitions.

FACTS
 Petitioners Beltran, Maza, Virado, Ocampo, Casino, and Mariano are members of the House of
Representatives, and some private individuals face charges for Rebellion under Art. 134 in relation to
Art. 135 of the RPC in two criminal cases pending with RTC Makati.

The Beltran Petition

 After Arroyo’s issuance of Presidential Proclamation 1017 on February 24, 2006, declaring a State of
National Emergency, Beltran was arrested without a warrant and was not informed of his crime. He was
brought to Camp Crame.
 Beltran was subjected to an inquest for Inciting to Sedition due to a speech he gave during the 20th
Anniversary of the EDSA Revolution.
 The inquest prosecutor indicted Beltran and filed information with the MeTC.
 A second inquest was conducted for Rebellion once Beltran was brought back to Camp Crame. This
was based on two letters with an alleged foiled plot to overthrow the Arroyo government.
 Feb. 27, 2006. DOJ found probable cause to indict Beltran and San Juan as leaders of promoters of
Rebellion, in a tactical alliance with CPP/NPA and other communist parties.
 Beltran moved for a judicial determination of probable cause but previous finding of probable cause
was sustained. Beltran sough reconsideration but Judge Moya inhibited herself from the case without
resolving Beltran’s motion. After re-raffling of the case, motion was denied.
  SolGen claims that Beltran’s inquest for Rebellion was valid and that RTC Makati correctly found
probable cause to try Beltran for such felony.

The Maza and Ladlad Petitions

 Based on the same two letters used to indict Beltran, the DOJ sent subpoenas to Maza and Ladlad on
March 6, 2006 which required them to appear at the DOJ on March 13, 2006 to get copies of the
complaint and its attachment.
 Prior to this, petitioners quartered themselves at the House of Representatives in fear of being
subjected to warrantless arrest.
 A preliminary investigation was conducted and CIDG presented a masked Fuentes who claimed to be
an eyewitness. He filed an affidavit before Velasco, who then gave copies to media members during
the proceedings.
 Petitioners were furnished complete copies of documents only on March 17, 2006.
 Petitioners moved for inhibition of the members of the prosecution panel due to lack of impartiality and
independence, considering the political milieu under which they were investigated, but was denied.
They sought reconsideration but were denied again.
 Petitioners now seek for the nullification of the DOJ Orders of denial of reconsideration, and a prayer
for the issuance of an injunctive writ. The Court issued a status quo order on June 5, 2006.
 Prior to the release of the status quo, the panel of prosecutors issued a Resolution finding probable
cause to charge petitioners and 46 others with Rebellion.
 SolGen comments that the preliminary investigation of petitioners was not tainted with irregularities and
that the filing of Criminal Case 06-944 has mooted the Maza petition.

ISSUE - HELD - RATIO:

ISSUE # 1 HELD

On the Beltran petition, (a) whether the inquest proceeding against Beltran for NO to both.
Rebellion was valid and (b) whether there is probable cause to indict Beltran for
Rebellion;

RATIO
The Inquest Proceeding against Beltran for Rebellion is Void
 Inquest proceedings are proper only when the accused has been lawfully arrested without a warrant: in
flagrante delicto or if arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.
 The joint affidavit of Beltran’s arresting officers was for Inciting to Sedition, not Rebellion. Thus, inquest
must be done only for Inciting to Sedition.
 The second inquest for Rebellion is an overstep of the prosecutors’ authority and is declared void.
Beltran’s arrest based on Rebellion is not proper.
 DOJ Circular No. 61: duty of the inquest officer is to determine if arrest of the detained person was
made in accordance with the provisions of par. (a) and (b) of the Section 5, Rule 113. I the arrest was
not properly effected, inquest officer shall:
o Recommend the release of the person arrested or detained
o Note down the disposition on the referral document
o Prepare a brief memorandum indicating the reasons the action taken
o Forward the same, together with the records of the case, to the City of Provincial Prosecutor for
appropriate action.
 Where the recommendation for the release of the detained person is approved by the City or Provincial
Prosecutor but the evidence on hand warrant the conduct of a regular preliminary investigation,
the order of release shall be served on the officer having custody of said detainee and shall
direct the said officer to serve upon the detainee the subpoena or notice of preliminary
investigation, together with the copies of the charge sheet or complaint, affidavit or sworn statements
of the complainant and his witnesses and other supporting evidence.

2
  Due to the inquest officers’ failure to comply to Sec. 7, Rule 112 in relation to Sec. 5, Rule 113 and DOJ
Circ. No. 61, Beltran’s inquest is declared void.

There is No Probable Cause to Indict Beltran for Rebellion

 Probable cause is the "existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a
reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged
was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted."
 In general, the Court does not interfere with prosecutor’s determination of probable cause. However, in
cases where prosecutor abused his discretion by ignoring a clear insufficiency of evidence to support a
finding of probable cause, the Court shall use its review poer to overturn prosecutor’s findings.
 Elements of Rebellion:
o That there be a (a) public uprising and (b) taking arms against the Government; and
o That the purpose of the uprising or movement is either —
▪ to remove from the allegiance to said Government or its laws:
• the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof; or
• any body of land, naval, or other armed forces; or
▪ to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers
and prerogatives.
 Evidence before the panel of prosecutors:
o Affidavits sworn before a public notary. Only 2 specifically mention Beltran.
o Far from proof needed to indict Beltran. It only proved that Beltran was in Bucal, Padre Garcia,
Batangas on Feb. 20, 2006 and that 14 years earlier, he was present during the 1992 CPP
Plenum.
o None allege Beltran is a leader of rebellion or acts of rebellion.
o One of the affidavits assumed Beltran’s membership in CPP (which he does not acknowledge).
Mere membership in CPP ≠ rebellion. The same affidavit merely concluded that Beltran’s
congressional funds were used to fund CPP’s military equipment.
o The affidavit SolGen relied on was not part of the attachments CIDG referred to the DOJ, thus,
the panel did not have the affidavit when they conducted the rebellion inquest. They tried to
remedy this by submitting the affidavit prior to the judicial determination of probable cause, but
this does not resolve such a huge defect.
o The minutes of the meeting between MKP and CPP members in Batangas does not specifically
implicate Beltran’s participation.

ISSUE - HELD - RATIO:

ISSUE # 2 HELD

On the Maza and Ladlad petitions, whether respondent prosecutors should be NO

enjoined from continuing with the prosecution of Criminal Case No. 06-944.

RATIO
The Preliminary Investigation was Tainted with Irregularities
 As in the determination of probable cause, this Court is similarly loath to enjoin the prosecution of
offenses, a practice rooted on public interest as the speedy closure of criminal investigations fosters
public safety. 35 However, such relief in equity may be granted if, among others, the same is necessary
(a) to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive manner or (b) to
afford adequate protection to constitutional rights.
 Section 3, Rule 112 state that: Procedure. — The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the
following manner:
(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by the affidavits
of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish probable
cause. They shall be in such number of copies as there are respondents, plus two (2) copies for the
3
 official file. The affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government
official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public,
each of whom must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they
voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.
(b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the investigating officer shall either dismiss it if
he finds no ground to continue with the investigation, or issue a subpoena to the respondent
attaching to it a copy of the complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents.
 Prosecutors nonchalantly disregarded the rule. They treated the unsubscribed letters of Tanigue and
Mendoza of the CIDG, PNP as complaints and accepted the affidavits attached to the letters even
though some of them were notarized by a notary public without any showing that a prosecutor or
qualified government official was unavailable as required by Section 3(a) of Rule 112.
 Prosecutor, after receiving the complaint, must determine if there are grounds to continue with the
investigation. If there is none, he shall dismiss the case, otherwise he shall "issue a subpoena to the
respondents."
o Prosecutors, after receiving CIDG letters, issued subpoenas which required petitioners to
appear at DOJ. Velasco’s release of Fuentes’ affidavit to media members before he gave it to
petitioners.
o By peremptorily issuing the subpoenas to petitioners, tolerating the complainant's antics during
the investigation, and distributing copies of a witness' affidavit to members of the media knowing
that petitioners have not had the opportunity to examine the charges against them, respondent
prosecutors not only trivialized the investigation but also lent credence to petitioners' claim that
the entire proceeding was a sham.
 The right to a preliminary investigation as not "a mere formal or technical right" but a "substantive" one,
forming part of due process in criminal justice.

On Respondent Prosecutors’ Lack of Impartiality

 Respondent Secretary of Justice, who exercises supervision and control over the panel of prosecutors,
stated in an interview on 13 March 2006, the day of the preliminary investigation, that, "We [the DOJ]
will just declare probable cause, then it's up to the Court to decide…”
 This clearly shows pre-judgment, a determination to file the Information even in the absence of
probable cause.
 The obvious involvement of political considerations in the actuations of respondent Secretary of Justice
and respondent prosecutors brings to mind an observation we made in another equally politically
charged case.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petitions. In G.R. No. 175013, we SET ASIDE the Order dated 31 May 2006 of
the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 146 and the Order dated 29 August 2006 of the Regional Trial
Court, Makati City, Branch 150. In G.R. Nos. 172070-72 and 172074-76, we SET ASIDE the Orders dated 22
March 2006 and 4 April 2006 issued by respondent prosecutors. We ORDER the Regional Trial Court, Makati
City, Branch 150 to DISMISS Criminal Case Nos. 06-452 and 06-944.