DRILON VS CA FACTS: Private respondents were charged with dou !e "urder e#ore $i!itar% Co""ission and the "i!

itar% pro"u!gated a decision ac&uitting Rau! Paredes ut sentencing Rodo!#o 'an(on to !i#e i"prison"ent with hard !a or) Paredes was thereupon re!eased #ro" custod% whi!e 'an(on was "ade to serve sentence unti! he was re!eased and p!aced under house arrest under guard) 'an(on *oined the +i!usang ,agong Lipunan -+,L./ the part% in power/ where he was designated as ca"paign "anager) Ad"inistration has changed and a pre!i"inar% investigation against the private respondents #or the a ove "urders was ordered) The private respondents "oved #or dis"issa!/ in 'an(on0s case/ on the ground that he had een e1tended an a so!ute pardon % the President Ferdinand $arcos/ and he/ having een previous!% convicted/ can no !onger e tried anew/ and in Paredes0 case/ on the ground that he had een ac&uitted) Tra"pe the prosecutor assigned in the case/ however/ denied oth re&uests and reconsideration thus the private respondents went to the Court o# Appea!s on prohi ition which was a##ir"ed) ISS23S: 45N the disposition o# the "urder cases govern"ent) R2LIN': As per Tan ru!ing/ wh% shou!d one who has accepted the *ustness o# the verdict o# a "i!itar% court who is satis#ied that he had a #air hearing/ and who is wi!!ing to serve his sentence in #u!!/ e dragged through the harrow o# another hearing in a civi! court to ris6 eing convicted a second ti"e perchance to serve a heavier pena!t% 7 the court ru!ed that he private respondents0 case #a!!s s&uare!% within Tan0s ru!ing/ and as we to!erated no reinvestigation there/ we cannot to!erate one here) ,ut ased on Cru( ru!ing/ petitioners in said proceedings 8who have een serving - ut not %et co"p!eted. their sentence i"prison"ent8 sha!! have 8the option either to co"p!ete the service their sentence/ or e tried anew % the civi! courts) 2pon conviction the% shou!d e credited in the service o# their sentence #or the period o# their previous i"prison"ent) 2pon ac&uitta!/ the% shou!d set #ree/ the &uestion 45N with respect to 'an(on/ he has co"p!eted the service o# his sentence is "ateria! since i# he served his sentence/ the &uestion o# pardon is "oot and acade"ic) The Court is o# the considered opinion that twin deve!op"ents 9 si1:%ear service o# sentence and su se&uent re!ease under house arrest9 are signi#icant in 'an(on case) Since i# then President $arcos ordered 'an(on0s re!ease a#ter si1 %ears o# i"prison"ent/ he then President $arcos/ unavoida !% co""uted 'an(on0s i"prison"ent to si1 %ears -give or ta6e a #ew da%s./ a!though as a condition/ 'an(on sha!! re"ain under 8house arrest)8 Court is o# the opinion that i# 'an(on0s sentence had een co""uted/ he has there#ore served his sentence and i# he has served his sentence #u!!%/ he can no !onger e reinvestigated/ or/ as the Cruz cases decreed/ e "ade to 8co"p!ete the service o# ;his< sentence)8 The Court does not e!ieve/ in 'an(on0s case/ that co""utation o# sentence need e in a speci#ic #or") It is su##icient/ to "ind/ that 'an(on was vo!untari!% re!eased in =>?@ with ter"s or conditions/ e1cept that he shou!d re"ain under house arrest) Aence/ the view o# the Court is that irrespective o# the 8pardon/8 'an(on has served his sentence and to reiterate/ he can no !onger e reinvestigated #or the sa"e o##ense/ "uch "ore undergo #urther i"prison"ent to co"p!ete his service) % the "i!itar% does not prec!ude the #i!ing o# new in#or"ation % the civi!ian

The Decision o# the Court o# Appea!s is AFFIR$3D) No pronounce"ent as to costs)

G.R. No. 143591

May 5, 2010

TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, JR., CORAZON M. BEJASA, ARTURO E. MANUEL, JR., ERIC L. LEE, P. SIER O !. DIZON, BENJAMIN DE LEON, DEL"IN C. GONZALES, JR., a#$ BEN %U LIM, JR., Petitioners/ vs) MAGDALENO M. PE&A a#$ !ON. MANUEL '. LIMSIACO, JR., a( J)$*+ D+(,*#a-+ o. -/+ M)#,0,1a2 T3,a2 Co)3,# C,-,+(, Ba*o C,-y, Respondents) D3CISION PEREZ, J.: The pivota! issue in this case is whether or not the Court o# Appea!s/ in its Decision = dated BC Dune BCCC in CA:')R) SP No) E>FFF/ is correct when it dis"issed the petition #or certiorari #i!ed % petitioners Teodoro C) ,or!ongan/ Dr)/ Cora(on $) ,e*asa/ Arturo 3) $anue!/ Dr)/ ,en*a"in de Leon/ P) Siervo A) Di(on/ De!#in C) 'on(a!es/ Dr)/ 3ric L) Lee and ,en Gu Li"/ Dr)/ and ru!ed that the $unicipa! Tria! Court in Cities -$TCC./ ,ago Cit%/ did not grave!% a use its discretion in den%ing the "otion #or reinvestigation and reca!! o# the warrants o# arrest in Cri"ina! Case Nos) FF@H/ FF@E/ FF@I/ and FF@F) The #actua! antecedents o# the case are as #o!!ows:

Respondent Att%) $agda!eno $) PeJa -Att%) PeJa. instituted a civi! case #or recover% o# agentKs co"pensation and e1penses/ da"ages/ and attorne%Ks #eesB against 2r an ,an6 and herein petitioners/ e#ore the Regiona! Tria! Court -RTC. o# Negros Occidenta!/ ,ago Cit%) The case was ra##!ed to ,ranch FB and was doc6eted as Civi! Case No) ?IE) Att%) PeJa anchored his c!ai" #or co"pensation on the Contract o# Agenc% H a!!eged!% entered into with the petitioners/ wherein the #or"er undertoo6 to per#or" such acts necessar% to prevent an% intruder and s&uatter #ro" un!aw#u!!% occup%ing 2r an ,an6Ks propert% !ocated a!ong Ro1as ,ou!evard/ Pasa% Cit%) Petitioners #i!ed a $otion to Dis"issE arguing that the% never appointed the respondent as agent or counse!) Attached to the "otion were the #o!!owing docu"ents: =. a Letter I dated => Dece" er =>>E signed % Aer"an Ponce and Du!ie A ad on eha!# o# Isa e!a Sugar Co"pan%/ Inc) -ISCI./ the origina! owner o# the su *ect propert%L B. an unsigned Letter Fdated ? Dece" er =>>E addressed to Cora(on ,e*asa #ro" $ari!%n ') OngL H. a Letter ? dated > Dece" er =>>E addressed to Teodoro ,or!ongan/ Dr) and signed % $ari!%n ') OngL and E. a $e"orandu" @ dated BC Nove" er =>>E #ro" 3nri&ue $onti!!a III) Said docu"ents were presented in an atte"pt to show that the respondent was appointed as agent % ISCI and not % 2r an ,an6 or % the petitioners) In view o# the introduction o# the a ove:"entioned docu"ents/ Att%) PeJa #i!ed his Co"p!aint:A##idavit > with the O##ice o# the Cit% Prosecutor/ ,ago Cit%)=C Ae c!ai"ed that said docu"ents were #a!si#ied ecause the a!!eged signatories did not actua!!% a##i1 their signatures/ and the signatories were neither stoc6ho!ders nor o##icers and e"p!o%ees o# ISCI)== 4orse/ petitioners introduced said docu"ents as evidence e#ore the RTC 6nowing that the% were #a!si#ied) In a Reso!ution=B dated BE Septe" er =>>@/ the Cit% Prosecutor #ound pro a !e cause #or the indict"ent o# petitioners #or #our -E. counts o# the cri"e o# Introducing Fa!si#ied Docu"ents/ pena!i(ed % the second paragraph o# Artic!e =?B o# the Revised Pena! Code) The Cit% Prosecutor conc!uded that the docu"ents were #a!si#ied ecause the a!!eged signatories untruth#u!!% stated that ISCI was the principa! o# the respondentL that petitioners 6new that the docu"ents were #a!si#ied considering that the signatories were "ere du""iesL and that the docu"ents #or"ed part o# the record o# Civi! Case No) ?IE where the% were used % petitioners as evidence in support o# their "otion to dis"iss/ and then adopted in their answer and in their Pre:Tria! ,rie#) =H Su se&uent!%/ the corresponding In#or"ations =E were #i!ed with the $TCC/ ,ago Cit%) The cases were doc6eted as Cri"ina! Case Nos) FF@H/ FF@E/ FF@I/ and FF@F) Therea#ter/ Dudge Pri"itivo ,!anca issued the warrants=I #or the arrest o# the petitioners) On = Octo er =>>@/ petitioners #i!ed an O"ni us $otion to Muash/ Reca!! 4arrants o# Arrest and5or For Reinvestigation)=F Petitioners insisted that the% were denied due process ecause o# the non:o servance o# the proper procedure on pre!i"inar% investigation prescri ed in the Ru!es o# Court) Speci#ica!!%/ the% c!ai"ed that the% were not a##orded the right to su "it their counter:a##idavit) Then the% argued that since no such counter:a##idavit and supporting docu"ents were su "itted % the petitioners/ the tria! *udge "ere!% re!ied on the co"p!aint:a##idavit and attach"ents o# the respondent in issuing the warrants o# arrest/ a!so in contravention with the Ru!es o# Court) Petitioners #urther pra%ed that the in#or"ation e &uashed #or !ac6 o# pro a !e cause) $oreover/ one o# the accused/ i)e)/ ,en Li"/ Dr)/ is not even a director o# 2r an ,an6/ contrar% to what co"p!ainant stated) Last!%/ petitioners posited that the cri"ina! cases shou!d have een suspended on the ground that the issue eing threshed out in the civi! case is a pre*udicia! &uestion) In an Order=? dated =H Nove" er =>>@/ the $TCC denied the o"ni us "otion pri"ari!% on the ground that pre!i"inar% investigation was not avai!a !e in the instant case 7 which #e!! within the *urisdiction o# the #irst:!eve! court) The court/ !i6ewise/ uphe!d the va!idit% o# the warrant o# arrest/ sa%ing that it was issued in accordance with the Ru!es o# Court) ,esides/ the court added/ petitioners cou!d no !onger &uestion the va!idit% o# the warrant since the% a!read% posted ai!) The court a!so e!ieved that the issue invo!ved in the civi! case was not a pre*udicia! &uestion/ and/ thus/ denied the pra%er #or suspension o# the cri"ina! proceedings) Last!%/ the court was convinced that the In#or"ations contained a!! the #acts necessar% to constitute an o##ense) Petitioners i""ediate!% instituted a specia! civi! action #or Certiorari and Prohi ition with Pra%er #or 4rit o# Pre!i"inar% In*unction and Te"porar% Restraining Order -TRO. e#ore the Court o# Appea!s/ ascri ing grave a use o# discretion a"ounting to !ac6 or e1cess o# *urisdiction on the part o# the $TCC in issuing and not reca!!ing the warrants o# arrest/ reiterating the argu"ents in their o"ni us "otion)=@ The%/ !i6ewise/ &uestioned the courtKs conc!usion that % posting ai!/ petitioners a!read% waived their right to assai! the va!idit% o# the warrants o# arrest) On BC Dune BCCC/ the Court o# Appea!s dis"issed the petition) => Thus/ petitioners #i!ed the instant petition #or review on certiorari under Ru!e EI o# the Ru!es o# Court/ raising the #o!!owing issues: A) 4here the o##ense charged in a cri"ina! co"p!aint is not cogni(a !e % the Regiona! Tria! Court and not covered % the Ru!e on Su""ar% Procedure/ is the #inding o# pro a !e cause re&uired #or the #i!ing o# an In#or"ation in courtN I# the a!!egations in the co"p!aint:a##idavit do not esta !ish pro a !e cause/ shou!d not the investigating prosecutor dis"iss the co"p!aint/ or at the ver% !east/ re&uire the respondent to su "it his counter:a##idavitN ,) Can a co"p!aint:a##idavit containing "atters which are not within the persona! 6now!edge o# the co"p!ainant e su##icient asis #or the #inding o# pro a !e causeN

C) 4here there is o##ense charged in a cri"ina! co"p!aint is not cogni(a !e % the Regiona! Tria! Court and not covered % the Ru!e on Su""ar% Procedure/ and the record o# the pre!i"inar% investigation does not show the e1istence o# pro a !e cause/ shou!d not the *udge re#use to issue a warrant o# arrest and dis"iss the cri"ina! case/ or at the ver% !east/ re&uire the accused to su "it his counter:a##idavit in order to aid the *udge in deter"ining the e1istence o# pro a !e causeN D) Can a cri"ina! prosecution e restrainedN 3) Can this Aonora !e Court itse!# deter"ine the e1istence o# pro a !e causeN BC On the other hand/ respondent contends that the issues raised % the petitioners had a!read% eco"e "oot and acade"ic when the !atter posted ai! and were a!read% arraigned) On B August BCCC/ this Court issued a TROB= en*oining the *udge o# the $TCC #ro" proceeding in an% "anner with Cri"ina! Case Nos) FF@H to FF@F/ e##ective during the entire period that the case is pending e#ore/ or unti! #urther orders o#/ this Court) 4e wi!! #irst discuss the issue o# "ootness) The issues raised % the petitioners have not een "ooted % the #act that the% had posted ai! and were a!read% arraigned) It appears #ro" the records that upon the issuance o# the warrant o# arrest/ petitioners i""ediate!% posted ai! as the% wanted to avoid e" arrass"ent/ eing then the o##icers o# 2r an ,an6) On the schedu!ed date #or the arraign"ent/ despite the petitionersK re#usa! to enter a p!ea/ the court a &uo entered a p!ea o# 8Not 'ui!t%8 #or the") The erstwhi!e ru!ing o# this Court was that posting o# ai! constitutes a waiver o# an% irregu!arit% in the issuance o# a warrant o# arrest/ that has a!read% een superseded % Section BF/ Ru!e ==E o# the Revised Ru!e o# Cri"ina! Procedure) The princip!e that the accused is prec!uded #ro" &uestioning the !ega!it% o# the arrest a#ter arraign"ent is true on!% i# he vo!untari!% enters his p!ea and participates during tria!/ without previous!% invo6ing his o *ections thereto)BB As he!d in O6a e v) Aon) 'utierre(:BH It ears stressing that Section BF/ Ru!e ==E o# the Revised Ru!es on Cri"ina! Procedure is a new one/ intended to "odi#% previous ru!ings o# this Court that an app!ication #or ai! or the ad"ission to ai! % the accused sha!! e considered as a waiver o# his right to assai! the warrant issued #or his arrest on the !ega!ities or irregu!arities thereon) The new ru!e has reverted to the ru!ing o# this Court in People v. Red) The new ru!e is curative in nature ecause precise!%/ it was designed to supp!% de#ects and cur evi!s in procedura! ru!es) Aence/ the ru!es governing curative statutes are app!ica !e) Curative statutes are % their essence retroactive in app!ication) ,esides/ procedura! ru!es as a genera! ru!e operate retroactive!%/ even without e1press provisions to that e##ect/ to cases pending at the ti"e o# their e##ectivit%/ in other words to actions %et undeter"ined at the ti"e o# their e##ectivit%) ,e#ore the appe!!ate court rendered its decision on Danuar% H=/ BCC=/ the Revised Ru!es on Cri"ina! Procedure was a!read% in e##ect) It ehoved the appe!!ate court to have app!ied the sa"e in reso!ving the petitionerKs petition #or certiorari and her "otion #or partia! reconsideration)
1avvphi1

$oreover/ considering the conduct o# the petitioner a#ter posting her persona! ai! ond/ it cannot e argued that she waived her right to &uestion the #inding o# pro a !e cause and to assai! the warrant o# arrest issued against her % the respondent *udge) There "ust e c!ear and convincing proo# that the petitioner had an actua! intention to re!in&uish her right to &uestion the e1istence o# pro a !e cause) 4hen the on!% proo# o# intention rests on what a part% does/ his act shou!d e so "ani#est!% consistent with/ and indicative o#/ an intent to vo!untari!% and une&uivoca!!% re!in&uish the particu!ar right that no other e1p!anation o# his conduct is possi !e) 1 1 1) Aerein petitioners #i!ed the O"ni us $otion to Muash/ Reca!! 4arrants o# Arrest and5or For Reinvestigation on the sa"e da% that the% posted ai!) Their ai! onds !i6ewise e1press!% contained a stipu!ation that the% were not waiving their right to &uestion the va!idit% o# their arrest) BE On the date o# their arraign"ent/ petitioners re#used to enter their p!ea due to the #act that the issue on the !ega!it% o# their arrest is sti!! pending with the Court) Thus/ when the court a &uo entered a p!ea o# not gui!t% #or the"/ there was no va!id waiver o# their right to prec!ude the" #ro" raising the sa"e with the Court o# Appea!s or this Court) The posting o# ai! ond was a "atter o# i"perative necessit% to avert their incarcerationL it shou!d not e dee"ed as a waiver o# their right to assai! their arrest) The ru!ing to which we have returned in People v. RedBI stated:

1 1 1 The present de#endants were arrested towards the end o# Danuar%/ =>B>/ on the Is!and and Province o# $arindu&ue % order o# the *udge o# the Court o# First Instance o# Lucena/ Ta%a as/ at a ti"e when there were no court sessions eing he!d in $arindu&ue) In view o# these circu"stances and the nu" er o# the accused/ it "a% proper!% e he!d that the #urnishing o# the ond was pro"pted % the sheer necessit% o# not re"aining in detention/ and in no wa% i"p!ied their waiver o# an% right/ such as the su""ar% e1a"ination o# the case e#ore their detention) That the% had no intention o# waiving this right is c!ear #ro" their "otion o# Danuar% BH/ =>B>/ the sa"e da% on which the% #urnished a ond/ and the #act that the% renewed this petition on Fe ruar% BH/ =>B>/ pra%ing #or the sta% o# their arrest #or !ac6 o# the su""ar% e1a"inationL the #irst "otion eing denied % the court on Danuar% BE/ =>B> -')R) No) HH?C@/ page @./ and the second re"aining undecided/ ut with an order to have it presented in ,oac/ $arindu&ue) There#ore/ the de#endants herein cannot e said to have waived the right granted to the" % section =H/ 'enera! Order No) I@/ as a"ended % Act No) HCEB) The rest o# the issues raised % the petitioners "a% e grouped into two/ which are: -=. the procedura! aspect/ i)e)/ whether the prosecution and the court a &uo proper!% o served the re&uired procedure in the instant case/ and/ -B. the su stantive aspect/ which is whether there was pro a !e cause to pursue the cri"ina! cases to tria!) The procedura! aspect: Petitioners contend that the% were denied due process as the% were una !e to su "it their counter:a##idavits and were not accorded the right to a pre!i"inar% investigation) Considering that the co"p!aint o# Att%) PeJa was #i!ed in Septe" er =>>@/ the ru!e then app!ica !e was the =>@I Ru!es o# Cri"ina! Procedure) The provisions o# the =>@I Ru!es o# Cri"ina! Procedure re!evant to the issue are Sections =/ H-a. and >-a. o# Ru!e ==B/ to wit: Section =) De#inition) Pre!i"inar% investigation is an in&uir% or proceeding #or the purpose o# deter"ining whether there is su##icient ground to engender a we!! #ounded e!ie# that a cri"e cogni(a !e % the Regiona! Tria! Court has een co""itted and that the respondent is pro a !% gui!t% thereo#/ and shou!d e he!d #or tria!) Sec) H) Procedure) 31cept as provided #or in Section ? hereo#/ no co"p!aint or in#or"ation #or an o##ense cogni(a !e % the Regiona! Tria! Court sha!! e #i!ed without a pre!i"inar% investigation having een #irst conducted in the #o!!owing "anner: -a. The co"p!aint sha!! state the 6nown address o# the respondent and e acco"panied % a##idavits o# the co"p!ainant and his witnesses as we!! as other supporting docu"ents/ in such nu" er o# copies as there are respondents/ p!us two -B. copies #or the o##icia! #i!e) The said a##idavits sha!! e sworn to e#ore an% #isca!/ state prosecutor or govern"ent o##icia! authori(ed to ad"inister oath/ or/ in their a sence or unavai!a i!it%/ a notar% pu !ic/ who "ust certi#% that he persona!!% e1a"ined the a##iants and that he is satis#ied that the% vo!untari!% e1ecuted and understood their a##idavits) Sec) >) Cases not #a!!ing under the origina! *urisdiction o# the Regiona! Tria! Courts nor covered % the Ru!e on Su""ar% Procedure) -a. 4here #i!ed with the #isca!)9 I# the co"p!aint is #i!ed direct!% with the #isca! or state prosecutor/ the procedure out!ined in Section H-a. o# this Ru!e sha!! e o served) The #isca! sha!! ta6e appropriate action ased on the a##idavits and other supporting docu"ents su "itted % the co"p!ainant) -underscoring supp!ied. The cri"e to which petitioners were charged was de#ined and pena!i(ed under second paragraph o# Artic!e =?B in re!ation to Artic!e =?= o# the Revised Pena! Code) Art) =?B) Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. 9 The pena!t% o# prision correcciona! in its "ediu" and "a1i"u" periods and a #ine o# not "ore than PI/CCC pesos sha!! e i"posed upon: =) An% private individua! who sha!! co""it an% o# the #a!si#ications enu"erated in the ne1t preceding artic!e in an% pu !ic or o##icia! docu"ent or !etter o# e1change or an% other 6ind o# co""ercia! docu"entL and B) An% person who/ to the da"age o# a third part%/ or with the intent to cause such da"age/ sha!! in an% private docu"ent co""it an% o# the acts o# #a!si#ication enu"erated in the ne1t preceding artic!e) An% person who sha!! 6nowing!% introduce in evidence in an% *udicia! proceeding or to the da"age o# another or who/ with the intent to cause such da"age/ sha!! use an% o# the #a!se docu"ents e" raced in the ne1t preceding artic!e or in an% o# the #oregoing su divisions o# this artic!e/ sha!! e punished % the pena!t% ne1t !ower in degree) Prision correcciona! in its "ediu" and "a1i"u" periods trans!ates to i"prison"ent o# B %ears/ E "onths and = da%)BF The ne1t !ower in degree to prision correcciona! is arresto "a%or in its "a1i"u" period to prision correcciona! in its "ini"u" period which trans!ates to E "onths and = da% to B %ears and E "onths B? o# i"prison"ent) Since the

cri"e co""itted is not covered % the Ru!es o# Su""ar% Procedure/ B@ the case #a!!s within the e1c!usive *urisdiction o# the #irst !eve! courts ut app!%ing the ordinar% ru!es) In such instance/ pre!i"inar% investigation as de#ined in Section =/ Ru!e ==B o# the =>@I Ru!es o# Cri"ina! Procedure is not app!ica !e since such section covers on!% cri"es cogni(a !e % the RTC) That which is stated in Section >-a. is the app!ica !e ru!e) 2nder this Ru!e/ whi!e pro a !e cause shou!d #irst e deter"ined e#ore an in#or"ation "a% e #i!ed in court/ the prosecutor is not "andated to re&uire the respondent to su "it his counter:a##idavits to oppose the co"p!aint) In the deter"ination o# pro a !e cause/ the prosecutor "a% so!e!% re!% on the co"p!aint/ a##idavits and other supporting docu"ents su "itted % the co"p!ainant) I# he does not #ind pro a !e cause/ the prosecutor "a% dis"iss outright the co"p!aint or i# he #inds pro a !e cause or su##icient reason to proceed with the case/ he sha!! issue a reso!ution and #i!e the corresponding in#or"ation) The co"p!aint o# respondent/ ver ati"/ is as #o!!ows: CO$PLAINT 7 AFFIDAVIT I/ $A'DAL3NO $) P3OA/ Fi!ipino/ o# !ega! age/ with address at ,rg%) 2 a%/ Pu!upandan/ Negros Occidenta!/ a#ter having een sworn in accordance with !aw here % depose and state: =) I a" the P!ainti## in Civi! Case No) ?IE pending with the Regiona! Tria! Court o# ,ago Cit% entit!ed 8Att%) $agda!eno $) PeJa v) 2r an ,an6/ et a!8 I"p!eaded therein as de#endants o# the oard o# the an6/ na"e!%/ Teodoro ,or!ongan/ De!#in 'on(a!es/ Dr)/ ,en*a"in De Leon/ P) Siervo Di(on/ 3ric Lee/ ,en Li" Dr)/ Cora(on ,e*asa and Arturo $anue!) -under!ining ours. B) I #i!ed the said case to co!!ect "% #ees as agent o# 2r an ,an6/ Inc)-hereina#ter re#erred to as the 8 an68. in ridding a certain parce! o# !and in Pasa% Cit% o# s&uatters and intruders) A certi#ied true cop% o# the Co"p!aint in the said case is hereto attached as Anne1 8A8) H) In the $otion to Dis"iss dated =B $arch =>>F -a certi#ied true cop% o# which is attached as Anne1 8,8./ Answer dated B@ Octo er =>>F -Anne1 8C8./ and Pre:Tria! ,rie# dated B@ Danuar% =>>? -Anne1 8D8. #i!ed % the an6 and the respondent "e" ers o# the oard/ the said respondents used as evidence the #o!!owing docu"ents: a) Letter dated => Dece" er =>>E supposed!% signed % a certain Aer"an Ponce and Du!ie A ad #or Isa e!a Sugar Co"pan% -ISC. -a cop% o# which is attached as Anne1 838./ which states: Dece" er =>/ =>>E 2r an ,an6 2r an Avenue/ $a6ati $etro $ani!a 'ent!e"en: This has re#erence to %our propert% !ocated a"ong Ro1as ,ou!evard/ Pasa% Cit% which %ou purchased #ro" Isa e!a Sugar Co"pan% under a Deed o# A so!ute Sa!e e1ecuted on Dece" er =/ =>>E) In !ine with our warranties as the Se!!er o# the said propert% and our underta6ing to de!iver to %ou the #u!! and actua! possession and contro! o# said propert%/ #ree #ro" tenants/ occupants or s&uatters and #ro" an% o struction or i"pedi"ent to the #ree use and occupanc% o# the propert% and to prevent the #or"er tenants or occupants #ro" entering or returning to the pre"ises) In view o# the trans#er o# ownership o# the propert% to 2r an ,an6/ it "a% e necessar% #or 2r an ,an6 to appoint Att%) PeJa !i6ewise as its authori(ed representative #or purposes o# ho!ding5"aintaining continued possession o# the said propert% and to represent 2r an ,an6 in an% court action that "a% e instituted #or the a ove"entioned purposes) It is understood that an% attorne%Ks #ees/ cost o# !itigation and an% other charges or e1penses that "a% e incurred re!ative to the e1ercise % Att%) PeJa o# his a ove"entioned duties sha!! e #or the account o# Isa e!a Sugar Co"pan% and an% !oss or da"age that "a% e incurred to third parties sha!! e answera !e % Isa e!a Sugar Co"pan%) Ver% tru!% %ours/ Isa e!a Sugar Co"pan% ,%: A3R$AN PONC3 D2LI3 A,AD ) $e"orandu" dated ? Dece" er =>>E supposed!% e1ecuted % a certain $ari!%n Ong on eha!# o# ISC/ a cop% o# which is hereto attached as anne1 8F8/ which states:

Dece" er ?/ =>>E To: ATTG) CORA ,3DASA Fro": $ARILGN ') ON' R3: ISA,3LA S2'AR CO)/ INC) Att%) $agda!eno $) PeJa/ who has een assigned % Isa e!a Sugar Co"pan% inc) to ta6e charge o# inspecting the tenants wou!d !i6e to re&uest an authorit% si"i!ar to this #ro" the ,an6 to new owners) Can %ou p!ease issue so"ething !i6e this toda% as he -unreada !e. this) ) Letter dated > Dece" er =>>E supposed!% e1ecuted % the sa"e $ari!%n Ong/ a cop% o# which is hereto attached as Anne1 8'8/ which states: Dece" er >/ =>>E Att%) Ted ,or!ongan 2R,AN ,AN+ OF TA3 PAILIPPIN3S $A+ATI/ $3TRO $ANILA Attention: $r) Ted ,or!ongan Dear $r) ,or!ongan I wou!d !i6e to re&uest #or an authorit% #ro" 2r an ,an6 per attached i""ediate!% 7 as the tenants are &uestioning authorit% o# the peop!e who are he!ping us to ta6e possession o# the propert%) $ari!%n Ong c) $e"orandu" dated BC Nove" er =>>E/ cop% o# which is attached as anne1 8A8/ which states: $3$ORAND2$ To: Att%) $agada!eno $) PeJa Director Fro": 3nri&ue C) $onti!!a III President Date: BC Nove" er =>>E Gou are here % directed to recover and ta6e possession o# the propert% o# the corporation situated at Ro1as ,ou!evard covered % TCT No) IH@B o# the Registr% o# Deeds #or Pasa% Cit%/ i""ediate!% upon the e1piration o# the contract o# !ease over the said propert% on B> Nove" er =>>E) For this purpose/ %ou are authori(ed to engage the services o# securit% guards to protect the propert% against intruders) Gou "a% a!so engage the services o# a !aw%er in case there is a need to go to court to protect the said propert% o# the corporation) In addition/ %ou "a% ta6e whatever steps or "easures are necessar% to ensure our continued possession o# the propert%) 3NRIM23 C) $ONTILLA III President E) The respondent "e" er o# the oard o# the an6 used and introduced the a#orestated docu"ents as evidence in the civi! case 6nowing that the sa"e are #a!si#ied) The% used thae said docu"ents to *usti#% their re#usa! to pa% "% agentKs #ees/ to "% da"age and pre*udice) I) The => Dece" er =>>E !etter -Anne1 P38. is a #a!si#ied docu"ent/ in that the person who supposed!% e1ecuted the !etter on eha!# o# ISC/ a certain Aer"an Ponce and Du!ie A ad did not actua!!% a##i1 their signatures on the docu"ent) The e1ecution o# the !etter was "ere!% si"u!ated % "a6ing it appear that Ponce and A ad e1ecuted the !etter on eha!# o# ISC when the% did not in #act do so) F) No persons % the na"e o# Aer"an Ponce and Du!ie A ad were ever stoc6ho!ders/ o##icers/ e"p!o%ees or representatives o# ISC) In the !etter/ Aer"an Ponce was represented to e the President o# ISC and Du!ie A ad/ the Corporate Secretar%) Aowever/ as o# => Dece" er =>>E/ the rea! President o# p!ainti## was 3nri&ue $onti!!a/ III and Cristina $onti!!a was the Corporate Secretar%) A cop% o# the $inutes o# the Regu!ar $eeting o# ISC #or the %ear =>>E/ during which $onti!!a/ et a!) 4ere e!ected is hereto attached as Anne1 8I8) On the otherhand/ a !ist o# the stoc6ho!ders o# ISC on or a out the ti"e o# the transaction is attached as Anne1 8D8)

?) The sa"e ho!ds true with respect to the $e"orandu" dated ? Dece" er =>>E and athe !etter dated > Dece" er =>>E a!!eged!% written % a ceratin $ari!%n Ong) No od% % the said na"e was ever a stoc6ho!der o# ISC) @) Last!%/ with respect to the supposed $e"orandu" issued % 3nri&ue $onti!!a/ III his signature thereon was "ere!% #orged % respondents) 3nri&ue $onti!!a III/ did not a##i1 his signature on an% such docu"ent) >) I a" e1ecuting this a##idavit #or the purpose o# charging Teodoro C) ,or!ongan/ Cora(on $) ,e*asa and Arturo 3) $anue!/ De!#in C) 'on(a!es Dr)/ ,en*a"in L) De Leon/ P) Siervo A) Di(on and 3ric Lee/ with the cri"e o# use o# #a!si#ied docu"ents under Arti!ce =?B/ paragraph B/ o# the Revised Pena! Code)-under!ining ours. =C) I a" !i6ewise e1ecuting this a##idavit #or whatever !ega! purpose it "a% serve) F2RTA3R AFFIANT SAG3TA NA2'AT) Sgd) $A'DAL3NO $) P3OA It is evident that in the a##idavit:co"p!aint/ speci#ica!!% in paragraph =/ respondent "ere!% introduced and identi#ied 8the oard o# the an6/ na"e!%/ Teodoro ,or!ongan/ Dr)/ De!#in 'on(a!es/ Dr)/ ,en*a"in De Leon/ P) Siervo Di(on/ 3ric Lee/ ,en Li"/ Dr)/ Cora(on ,e*asa and Arturo $anue!/ Sr)8 Aowever/ in the accusator% portion o# the co"p!aint which is paragraph nu" er >/ $r) ,en Li"/ Dr) was not inc!uded a"ong those charged with the cri"e o# use o# #a!si#ied docu"ents under Artic!e =?B/ paragraph B/ o# the Revised Pena! Code) The o"ission indicates that respondent did not intend to cri"ina!!% i"p!icate $r) ,en Li"/ Dr)/ even as he was ac6now!edged to e a "e" er o# the oard) And there was no e1p!anation in the Reso!ution and In#or"ation % the Cit% Prosecutor wh% $r) ,en Li"/ Dr) was inc!uded) $oreover/ as can e g!eaned #ro" the od% o# the co"p!aint and the speci#ic aver"ents therein/ $r) ,en Li"/ Dr) was never "entioned) The Cit% Prosecutor shou!d have cautious!% reviewed the co"p!aint to deter"ine whether there were inconsistencies which ought to have een rought to the attention o# the respondent or/ on his own/ considered #or due eva!uation) It is a ig "ista6e to ring a "an to tria! #or a cri"e he did not co""it) Prosecutors are endowed with a"p!e powers in order that the% "a% proper!% #u!#i!! their assigned ro!e in the ad"inistration o# *ustice) It shou!d e rea!i(ed/ however/ that when a "an is hai!ed to court on a cri"ina! charge/ it rings in its wa6e pro !e"s not on!% #or the accused ut #or his #a"i!% as we!!) There#ore/ it behooves a prosecutor to weigh the evidence carefully and to deliberate thereon to determine the existence of a prima facie case before filing the information in court. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty )B> Att%) PeJa/ in his Second $ani#estationHC dated =F Dune =>>>/ averred that petitioners/ inc!uding $r) ,en Li"/ Dr)/ were a!read% estopped #ro" raising the #act that $r) ,en Li"/ Dr) was not a "e" er o# the oard o# directors o# 2r an ,an6/ as the !atter participated and appeared through counse! in Civi! Case No) ?IE without raising an% opposition) Aowever/ this does not detract #ro" the #act that the Cit% Prosecutor/ as previous!% discussed/ did not care#u!!% scrutini(e the co"p!aint o# Att%) PeJa/ which did not charge $r) ,en Li"/ Dr) o# an% cri"e) 4hat tainted the procedure #urther was that the Dudge issued a warrant #or the arrest o# the petitioners/ inc!uding/ $r) ,en Li"/ Dr) despite the #i!ing o# the O"ni us $otion to Muash/ Reca!! 4arrants o# Arrest and5or For Reinvestigation raising a"ong others the issue that $r) ,en Li"/ Dr)/ was not even a "e" er o# the oard o# directors) 4ith the #i!ing o# the "otion/ the *udge is put on a!ert that an innocent person "a% have een inc!uded in the co"p!aint) In the OrderH= dated =H Nove" er =>>@/ in den%ing the "otion to &uash/ Dudge Pri"itivo ,!anca ru!ed that: Courts in reso!ving a "otion to &uash cannot consider #acts contrar% to those a!!eged in the in#or"ation or which do not appear on the #ace o# the in#or"ation ecause said "otion is h%pothethica! ad"ission o# the #acts a!!eged in the in#or"ation 1 1 1) -citations o"itted). 4e cannot accept as "ere oversight the "ista6e o# respondent *udge since it was at the e1pense o# !i ert%) This cannot e condoned) In the issuance o# a warrant o# arrest/ the "andate o# the Constitution is #or the *udge to persona!!% deter"ine the e1istence o# pro a !e cause: Section B/ Artic!e III o# the Constitution provides: Section B) The right o# the peop!e to e secure in their persons/ houses/ papers and e##ects against unreasona !e searches and sei(ures o# whatever nature and #or an% purpose sha!! e invio!a !e/ and no search warrant or warrant o# arrest sha!! issue e1cept upon pro a !e cause to e deter"ined persona!!% % the *udge a#ter e1a"ination under oath or a##ir"ation o# the co"p!ainant and the witnesses he "a% produce/ and particu!ar!% descri ing the p!ace to e searched and the persons or things to e sei(ed) Coro!!ar% thereto/ Section >- . o# the =>@I Ru!es o# Cri"ina! Procedure provides:

Sec) >) Cases not #a!!ing under the origina! *urisdiction o# the Regiona! Tria! Courts nor covered % the Ru!e on Su""ar% Procedure) -a. 1 1 1) - . 4here #i!ed direct!% with the $unicipa! Tria! Court) 9 I# the co"p!aint or in#or"ation is #i!ed direct!% with the $unicipa! Tria! Court/ the procedure provided #or in Section H-a. o# this Ru!e sha!! !i6ewise e o served) I# the *udge #inds no su##icient ground to ho!d the respondent #or tria!/ he sha!! dis"iss the co"p!aint or in#or"ation) Otherwise/ he sha!! issue a warrant o# arrest a#ter persona!!% e1a"ining in writing and under oath the co"p!ainant and his witnesses in the #or" o# searching &uestions and answers) 3nshrined in our Constitution is the ru!e that 8;n<o 1 1 1 warrant o# arrest sha!! issue e1cept upon pro a !e cause to e deter"ined persona!!% % the *udge a#ter e1a"ination under oath or a##ir"ation o# the co"p!ainant and the witnesses he "a% produce/ and particu!ar!% descri ing 1 1 1 the persons 1 1 1 to e sei(ed)8 HB Interpreting the words 8persona! deter"ination/8 we said in So!iven v) $a6asiarHH that it does not there % "ean that *udges are o !iged to conduct the persona! e1a"ination o# the co"p!ainant and his witnesses the"se!ves) To re&uire thus wou!d e to undu!% !aden the" with pre!i"inar% e1a"inations and investigations o# cri"ina! co"p!aints instead o# concentrating on hearing and deciding cases #i!ed e#ore the") Rather/ what is e"phasi(ed "ere!% is the e1c!usive and persona! responsi i!it% o# the issuing *udge to satis#% hi"se!# as to the e1istence o# pro a !e cause) To this end/ he "a%: -a. persona!!% eva!uate the report and the supporting docu"ents su "itted % the prosecutor regarding the e1istence o# pro a !e cause and/ on the asis thereo#/ issue a warrant o# arrestL or - . i# on the asis thereo# he #inds no pro a !e cause/ disregard the prosecutor0s report and re&uire the su "ission o# supporting a##idavits o# witnesses to aid hi" in deter"ining its e1istence) 4hat he is never a!!owed to do is to #o!!ow !ind!% the prosecutor0s are certi#ication as to the e1istence o# pro a !e cause) $uch "ore is re&uired % the constitutiona! provision) Dudges have to go over the report/ the a##idavits/ the transcript o# stenographic notes i# an%/ and other docu"ents supporting the prosecutor0s certi#ication) A!though the e1tent o# the *udge0s persona! e1a"ination depends on the circu"stances o# each case/ to e sure/ he cannot *ust re!% on the are certi#ication a!one ut "ust go e%ond it) This is ecause the warrant o# arrest issues not on the strength o# the certi#ication standing a!one ut ecause o# the records which sustain it) HE Ae shou!d even ca!! #or the co"p!ainant and the witnesses to answer the court0s pro ing &uestions when the circu"stances warrant) HI An arrest without a pro a !e cause is an unreasona !e sei(ure o# a person/ and vio!ates the privac% o# persons which ought not to e intruded % the State) HF $easured against the constitutiona! "andate and esta !ished ru!ings/ there was here a c!ear a dication o# the *udicia! #unction and a c!ear indication that the *udge !ind!% #o!!owed the certi#ication o# a cit% prosecutor as to the e1istence o# pro a !e cause #or the issuance o# a warrant o# arrest with respect to a!! o# the petitioners) The care!ess inc!usion o# $r) ,en Li"/ Dr)/ in the warrant o# arrest gives #!esh to the one o# contention o# petitioners that the instant case is a "atter o# persecution rather than prosecution)H? On this ground/ this Court "a% en*oin the cri"ina! cases against petitioners) As a genera! ru!e/ cri"ina! prosecutions cannot e en*oined) Aowever/ there are recogni(ed e1ceptions which/ as su""ari(ed in roc!a v) "nrile/H@ are: a) To a##ord ade&uate protection to the constitutiona! rights o# the accusedL H> ) 4hen necessar% #or the order!% ad"inistration o# *ustice or to avoid oppression or "u!tip!icit% o# actionsL EC c) 4hen there is a pre*udicia! &uestion which is sub #udiceLE= d) 4hen the acts o# the o##icer are without or in e1cess o# authorit%L EB e) 4here the prosecution is under an inva!id !aw/ ordinance or regu!ationL EH #) 4hen dou !e *eopard% is c!ear!% apparentLEE g) 4here the court had no *urisdiction over the o##enseL EI h) 4here it is a case o# persecution rather than prosecutionL EF i) 4here the charges are "ani#est!% #a!se and "otivated % the !ust #or vengeanceL E? and *) 4hen there is c!ear!% no prima facie case against the accused and a "otion to &uash on that ground has een denied)E@ T/+ ()4(-a#-,5+ a(1+0-6 Petitioners were charged with vio!ation o# par) B/ Artic!e =?B o# the Revised Pena! Code or Introduction o# Fa!si#ied Docu"ent in a *udicia! proceeding) The e!e"ents o# the o##ense are as #o!!ows: =) That the o##ender 6new that a docu"ent was #a!si#ied % another person)

B) That the #a!se docu"ent is e" raced in Artic!e =?= or in an% su divisions Nos) = or B o# Artic!e =?B) H) That he introduced said docu"ent in evidence in an% *udicia! proceeding) E> The #a!sit% o# the docu"ent and the de#endantsK 6now!edge o# its #a!sit% are essentia! e!e"ents o# the o##ense) The O##ice o# the Cit% Prosecutor #i!ed the In#or"ations against the petitioners on the asis o# the Co"p!aint:A##idavit o# respondent Att%) PeJa/ attached to which were the docu"ents contained in the $otion to Dis"iss #i!ed % the petitioners in Civi! Case No) ?IE) A!so inc!uded as attach"ents to the co"p!aint were the Answers/ Pre:Tria! ,rie#/ the a!!eged #a!si#ied docu"ents/ cop% o# the regu!ar "eetings o# ISCI during the e!ection o# the ,oard o# Directors and the !ist o# ISCI Stoc6ho!ders)IC ,ased on these docu"ents and the co"p!aint:a##idavit o# Att%) PeJa/ the Cit% Prosecutor conc!uded that pro a !e cause #or the prosecution o# the charges e1isted) On the strength o# the sa"e docu"ents/ the tria! court issued the warrants o# arrest) This Court/ however/ cannot #ind these docu"ents su##icient to support the e1istence o# pro a !e cause) Pro a !e cause is such set o# #acts and circu"stances as wou!d !ead a reasona !% discreet and prudent "an to e!ieve that the o##ense charged in the In#or"ation or an% o##ense inc!uded therein has een co""itted % the person sought to e arrested) In deter"ining pro a !e cause/ the average "an weighs the #acts and circu"stances without restoring to the ca!i rations o# the ru!es o# evidence o# which he has no technica! 6now!edge) Ae re!ies on co""on sense) A #inding o# pro a !e cause needs on!% to rest on evidence showing that/ "ore !i6e!% than not/ a cri"e has een co""itted and that it was co""itted % the accused) Pro a !e cause de"ands "ore than suspicionL it re&uires !ess than evidence that wou!d *usti#% conviction)I= As enunciated in ,a!ta(ar v) Peop!e/IB the tas6 o# the presiding *udge when the In#or"ation is #i!ed with the court is #irst and #ore"ost to deter"ine the e1istence or non:e1istence o# pro a !e cause #or the arrest o# the accused) The purpose o# the "andate o# the *udge to #irst deter"ine pro a !e cause #or the arrest o# the accused is to insu!ate #ro" the ver% start those #a!se!% charged with cri"es #ro" the tri u!ations/ e1penses and an1iet% o# a pu !ic tria!) IH 4e do not see how it can e conc!uded that the docu"ents "entioned % respondent in his co"p!aint:a##idavit were #a!si#ied) In his co"p!aint/ Att%) PeJa stated that Aer"an Ponce/ Du!ie A ad and $ari!%n Ong/ the a!!eged signatories o# the &uestioned !etters/ did not actua!!% a##i1 their signatures thereinL and that the% were not actua!!% o##icers or stoc6ho!ders o# ISCI)IE Ae #urther c!ai"ed that 3nri&ue $onti!!aKs signature appearing in another "e"orandu" addressed to respondent was #orged)II These aver"ents are "ere assertions which are insu##icient to warrant the #i!ing o# the co"p!aint or worse the issuance o# warrants o# arrest) These aver"ents cannot e considered as proceeding #ro" the persona! 6now!edge o# herein respondent who #ai!ed to/ asica!!%/ a!!ege that he was present at the ti"e o# the e1ecution o# the docu"ents) Neither was there an% "ention in the co"p!aint:a##idavit that herein respondent was #a"i!iar with the signatures o# the "entioned signatories to e a !e to conc!ude that the% were #orged) 4hat Att%) PeJa actua!!% stated were ut sweeping assertions that the signatories are "ere du""ies o# ISCI and that the% are not in #act o##icers/ stoc6ho!ders or representatives o# the corporation) Again/ there is no indication that the assertion was ased on the persona! 6now!edge o# the a##iant) The reason #or the re&uire"ent that a##idavits "ust e ased on persona! 6now!edge is to guard against hearsa% evidence) A witness/ there#ore/ "a% not testi#% as what he "ere!% !earned #ro" others either ecause he was to!d or read or heard the sa"e) Such testi"on% is considered hearsa% and "a% not e received as proo# o# the truth o# what he has !earned)IF Aearsa% is not !i"ited to ora! testi"on% or state"entsL the genera! ru!e that e1c!udes hearsa% as evidence app!ies to written/ as we!! as ora! state"ents) I? The re&uire"ent o# persona! 6now!edge shou!d have een strict!% app!ied considering that herein petitioners were not given the opportunit% to re ut the co"p!ainantKs a!!egation through counter:a##idavits) Muite noticea !e is the #act that in the !etter dated => Dece" er =>>E o# Aer"an Ponce and Du!ie A ad/ neither o# the two "ade the representation that the% were the president or secretar% o# ISCI) It was on!% Att%) PeJa who asserted that the two "ade such representation) Ae a!!eged that $ari!%n Ong was never a stoc6ho!der o# ISCI ut he did not present the stoc6 and trans#er oo6 o# ISCI) And/ there was neither a!!egation nor proo# that $ari!%n Ong was not connected to ISCI in an% other wa%) $oreover/ even i# $ari!%n Ong was not a stoc6ho!der o# ISCI/ such wou!d not prove that the docu"ents she signed were #a!si#ied)
lawphil

The Court "a% not e co"pe!!ed to pass upon the correctness o# the e1ercise o# the pu !ic prosecutorKs #unction without an% showing o# grave a use o# discretion or "ani#est error in his #indings) I@ Considering/ however/ that the prosecution and the court a &uo co""itted "ani#est errors in their #indings o# pro a !e cause/ this Court there#ore annu!s their #indings) Our pronounce"ent in Di"ene( v) Di"ene( I> as reiterated in ,a!ta(ar v) Peop!e is apropos: It is 1 1 1 i"perative upon the #isca! or the *udge as the case "a% e/ to re!ieve the accused #ro" the pain o# going through a tria! once it is ascertained that the evidence is insu##icient to sustain a pri"a #acie case or that no pro a !e cause e1ists to #or" a su##icient e!ie# as to the gui!t o# the accused) A!though there is no genera! #or"u!a or #i1ed ru!e #or the deter"ination o# pro a !e cause since the sa"e "ust e decided in the !ight o# the conditions o taining in

given situations and its e1istence depends to a !arge degree upon the #inding or opinion o# the *udge conducting the e1a"ination/ such a #inding shou!d not disregard the #acts e#ore the *udge nor run counter to the c!ear dictates o# reasons) The *udge or #isca!/ there#ore/ shou!d not go on with the prosecution in the hope that so"e credi !e evidence "ight !ater turn up during tria! #or this wou!d e a #!agrant vio!ation o# a asic right which the courts are created to upho!d) It ears repeating that the *udiciar% !ives up to its "ission % visua!i(ing and not denigrating constitutiona! rights) So it has een e#ore) It shou!d continue to e so) On the #oregoing discussion/ we #ind that the Court o# Appea!s erred in a##ir"ing the #indings o# the prosecutor as we!! as the court a &uo as to the e1istence o# pro a !e cause) The cri"ina! co"p!aint against the petitioners shou!d e dis"issed) 7!ERE"ORE/ the petition is here % GRANTED. The Decision o# the Court o# Appea!s dated BC Dune BCCC/ in CA: ')R) SP No) E>FFF/ is RE ERSED and SET ASIDE) The Te"porar% Restraining Order dated B August BCCC is here % "ade per"anent) According!%/ the $unicipa! Tria! Court in Cities/ Negros Occidenta!/ ,ago Cit%/ is here %DIRECTED to DISMISS Cri"ina! Case Nos) FF@H/ FF@E/ FF@I and FF@F) SO ORD3R3D)

G.R. No. 180823

Ma30/ 3, 2009

GLORIA PILAR S. AGUIRRE, petitioner/ vs) SECRETAR% O" T!E DEPARTMENT O" JUSTICE, MIC!ELINA S. AGUIRRE:OLONDRIZ, PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, DR. JU IDO AGATEP a#$ DR. MARISSA B. PASCUAL, respondents) D3CISION C!ICO:NAZARIO, J.6 In this petition #or review on certiorari= under Ru!e EI o# the Ru!es o# Court/ as a"ended/ petitioner '!oria Pi!ar S) Aguirre -'!oria Aguirre. see6s the reversa! o# the B= Du!% BCCI Decision B and I Dece" er BCCI Reso!ution/ H oth o# the Court o# Appea!s in CA:')R) SP No) @@H?C/ entit!ed 8$loria Pilar %. Aguirre v. %ecretary of the &epartment of 'ustice( )ichelina %. Aguirre*+londriz( &r. 'uvido Agatep( &ra. )arissa . Pascual( Pedro . Aguirre and 'ohn and 'ane &oes.8 The Court o# Appea!s #ound no grave a use o# discretion on the part o# the Secretar% o# the Depart"ent o# Dustice -DOD. when the !atter issued the twin reso!utions dated == Fe ruar% BCCE E and =B Nove" er BCCE/I respective!%/ which in turn a##ir"ed the @ Danuar% BCCH Reso!utionF o# the O##ice o# the Cit% Prosecutor -OCP. o# Mue(on Cit%) The Assistant Cit% Prosecutor #or the OCP o# Mue(on Cit% reco""ended the dis"issa! o# the cri"ina! co"p!aint/ doc6eted as I)S) No) CB:=BEFF/ #or vio!ation o# Artic!es =?B -Fa!si#ication % Private Individua!s and 2se o# Fa!si#ied Docu"ents. and BFB -$uti!ation./ oth o# the Revised Pena! Code/ in re!ation to Repu !ic Act No) ?F=C/ otherwise 6nown as 8Child Abuse( "xploitation and &iscrimination Act/8 #or insu##icienc% o# evidence) The case ste""ed #ro" a co"p!aint #i!ed % petitioner '!oria Aguirre against respondents Pedro ,) Aguirre -Pedro Aguirre./ $iche!ina S) Aguirre:O!ondri( -O!ondri(./ Dr) Duvido Agatep -Dr) Agatep./ Dr) $arissa ,) Pascua! -Dr) Pascua!. and severa! Dohn5Dane Does #or #a!si#ication/ "uti!ation and chi!d a use) The antecedents o# the present petition are: Laureano 8Larr%8 Aguirre? used to e a charge o# the Aeart o# $ar% Vi!!a/ a chi!d caring agenc% run % the 'ood Shepherd Sisters and !icensed % the Depart"ent o# Socia! 4or6 and Deve!op"ent -DS4D.) So"eti"e in =>?@/ respondent Pedro AguirreL the !atter0s spouse/ Lourdes S) Aguirre -Lourdes Aguirre.L and their #our daughters/ who inc!uded petitioner '!oria Aguirre and respondent O!ondri(/ ca"e to 6now Larr%/ who was then *ust over a %ear o!d) The Aguirres wou!d have Larr% spend a #ew da%s at their ho"e and then return hi" to the orphanage therea#ter) In Dune =>@C/ Larr%/ then two %ears and nine "onths o# age/ #or"a!!% eca"e the ward o# respondent Pedro Aguirre and his spouse Lourdes Aguirre % virtue o# an Affidavit of Consent to ,egal $uardianship e1ecuted in their #avor % Sister $ar% Concepta ,e!!osi!!o/ Superior o# the Aeart o# $ar% Vi!!a) On => Dune =>@F/ the Aguirre spouses0 guardianship o# Larr% was !ega!i(ed when the Regiona! Tria! Court -RTC./ ,ranch H o# ,a!anga/ ,ataan/ du!% appointed the" as *oint co:guardians over the person and propert% o# Larr%) As Larr% was growing up/ the Aguirre spouses and their chi!dren noticed that his deve!op"enta! "i!estones were re"ar6a !% de!a%ed) Ais cognitive and ph%sica! growth did not appear nor"a! in that 8at age H to E %ears/ Larr% cou!d on!% craw! on his tu""% !i6e a #rog 1 1 1L8@ he did not utter his #irst word unti! he was three %ears o# ageL did not spea6 in sentences unti! his si1th %earL and on!% !earned to stand up and wa!6 a#ter he turned #ive %ears o!d) At age si1/ the Aguirre spouses #irst enro!!ed Larr% at the Co!egio de San Agustin/ Das"ariJas Vi!!age/ ut the chi!d e1perienced

signi#icant !earning di##icu!ties there) In =>@>/ at age e!even/ Larr% was ta6en to specia!ists #or neuro!ogica! and ps%cho!ogica! eva!uations) The ps%cho!ogica! eva!uation> done on Larr% revea!ed the !atter to e su##ering #ro" a "i!d "enta! de#icienc%)=C Conse&uent thereto/ the Aguirre spouses trans#erred Larr% to St) Dohn $a) Vianne%/ an educationa! institution #or specia! chi!dren) In Nove" er o# BCC=/ respondent Dr) Agatep/ a uro!ogist5surgeon/ was approached concerning the intention to have Larr%/ then BE %ears o# age/ vasecto"i(ed) Prior to per#or"ing the procedure on the intended patient/ respondent Dr) Agatep re&uired that Larr% e eva!uated % a ps%chiatrist in order to con#ir" and va!idate whether or not the #or"er cou!d va!id!% give his consent to the "edica! procedure on account o# his "enta! de#icienc%) In view o# the re&uired ps%chiatric c!earance/ Larr% was rought to respondent Dr) Pascua!/ a ps%chiatrist/ #or eva!uation) In a ps%chiatric report dated B= Danuar% BCCB/ respondent Dr) Pascua! "ade the #o!!owing reco""endation: ;T<he responsi i!it% o# decision "a6ing "a% e given to his parent or guardian) == the #u!! te1t o# which reads 7 PSGCAIATRG R3PORT B= Danuar% BCCB '3N3RAL DATA LA2R3ANO A'2IRR3/ BE %ears o!d/ "a!e/ high schoo! graduate o# St) Dohn ;$arie Vianne%</ was re#erred #or ps%chiatric eva!uation to deter"ine co"petenc% to give consent #or vasecto"%) CLINICAL S2$$ARG Larr% was adopted at age H #ro" an orphanage and prenata! histor% is not 6nown to the adoptive #a"i!% e1cept that a ortion was atte"pted) Deve!op"enta! "i!estones were noted to e de!a%ed) Ae started to wa!6 and spea6 in sing!e word at around age I) Ae was enro!!ed in Co!egio de San Agustin at age F where he showed signi#icant !earning di##icu!ties that he had to repeat =st and Eth grades) A consu!t was done in =>@> when he was == %ears o!d) Neuro!ogica! #indings and 33' resu!ts were not nor"a! and he was given Tecreto! and 3ncepha o! % his neuro!ogist) Ps%cho!ogica! eva!uation revea!ed "i!d to "oderate "enta! retardation/ specia! education training was advised and thus/ he was trans#erred to St) Dohn $arie Vianne%) Ae #inished his e!e"entar% and secondar% education in the said schoo!) Ae was !ater enro!!ed in a vocationa! course at Don ,osco which he was una !e to continue) There has een no reported ehaviora! pro !e"s in schoo! and he gets a!ong re!ative!% we!! with his teachers and so"e o# his c!ass"ates) Larr% grew up with a ver% supportive adoptive #a"i!%) Ae is the %oungest in the #a"i!% o# #our sisters) Current!%/ his adoptive parents are a!read% o!d and have "edica! pro !e" and thus/ the% cou!d no !onger "onitor and ta6e care o# hi" !i6e e#ore) Ais adoptive "other has ,ipo!ar $ood Disorder and used to ph%sica!!% "a!treat hi") A %ear ago/ he had an episode o# di((iness/ vo"iting and headaches a#ter he was hit % his adoptive "other) Consu!t was done in $a6ati $edica! Center and severa! tests were done/ resu!ts o# which were consistent with his deve!op"enta! pro !e") There was no evidence o# acute insu!ts) The #a"i!% su se&uent!% decided that he shou!d sta% with one o# his sisters to avoid si"i!ar incident and the possi i!it% that he wou!d reta!iate a!though he has never hurt an% od%) There has een no episode o# vio!ent out urst or aggressive ehavior) Ae wou!d o#ten 6eep to hi"se!# when sad/ angr% or #rustrated) Ae is current!% e"p!o%ed in the co"pan% o# his sister and given assign"ent to do so"e photocop%ing/ usua!!% in the "ornings) Ae en*o%s p!a%ing i!!iards and as6et a!! with his nephews and/ he spends "ost o# his !eisure ti"e watching TV and !istening to "usic) Ae cou!d per#or" activities o# dai!% !iving without assistance e1cept that he sti!! needs supervision in ta6ing a ath) Ae cannot prepare his own "ea! and never a!!owed to go out and run errands a!one) Ae does not have #riends and it is on!% his adoptive #a"i!% who" he has signi#icant re!ationships) Ae c!ai"s that he once had a gir!#riend when he was in high schoo! who was "ore !i6e a est #riend to hi") Ae never had se1ua! re!ations) Ae has !earned to s"o6e and drin6 a!coho! #ew %ears ago through his cousins and the drivers) There is no histor% o# a use o# a!coho! or an% prohi ited su stances) $3DICAL STAT2S 3QA$INATION The app!icant was appropriate!% dressed) Ae was cooperative and he had inter"ittent e%e contact) Speech was spontaneous/ so#t/ and re!evant) Ae responded to &uestions in sing!e words or si"p!e sentences) Ae was an1ious specia!!% at the start o# the interview/ with #u!! a##ect appropriate to "ood and thought content) There was no apparent thought or perceptua! distur ance) No suicida!5ho"icida! thoughts e!icited) Ae was oriented to ti"e/ p!ace and person) Ae has intact re"ote and recent "e"or%) Ae cou!d do si"p!e ca!cu!ation) Ae cou!d write his na"e and read si"p!e words) Ais hu"an #igure was co"para !e to a ?:@ %ear o!d) Ae de"onstrated #air *udg"ent and poor insight) Ae had #air i"pu!se contro!)

PSGCAOLO'ICAL T3STS Ps%cho!ogica! tests done on $arch F/ =>>C -Dr) Lourdes Ledes"a. and on August E/ BCCC -Dr) $a) Teresa 'usti!o:Vi!!aosor. consistent!% revea!ed "i!d to "oderate "enta! de#icienc%) SI'NIFICANT LA,ORATORG 3QA$S R3S2LTS CT scan done C> Danuar% BCC= showed nonspeci#ic right deep parieta! su cortica! "a!acia) No !oca!i(ed "ass !esion in the rain) $RI done on =C Danuar% BCC= showed i!atera! parieta! 1 1 1 vo!u"e !oss/ encepha!o"a!acia/ g!iosis and u!eg%ria consistent with se&ue!a o# postnata! or neonata! in#arcts) 31:vacuo di!atation o# the atria o# !atera! ventric!es associated thinned posterior ha!# o# the corpus ca!!osu") ASS3SS$3NT AND R3CO$$3NDATION A1is I None A1is II $enta! Retardation/ "i!d to "oderate t%pe A1is III None A1is IV None at present A1is V Current 'AF R IC:FC Larr%0s "enta! de#icienc% cou!d e associated with possi !e perinata! insu!ts/ which is consistent with the neuroi"aging #indings) $enta! retardation associated with neuro!ogica! pro !e"s usua!!% has poorer prognosis) Larr% is ver% "uch dependent on his #a"i!% #or his needs/ adaptive #unctioning/ direction and in "a6ing "a*or !i#e decisions) At his capacit%/ he "a% never understand the nature/ the #oreseea !e ris6s and ene#its/ and conse&uences o# the procedure -vasecto"%. that his #a"i!% wants #or his protection) Thus/ the responsi i!it% o# decision "a6ing "a% e given to his parent or guardian) $arissa ,) Pascua!/ $)D) Ps%chiatrist=B Considering the a ove reco""endation/ respondent Pedro Aguirre0s written consent was dee"ed su##icient in order to proceed with the conduct o# the vasecto"%) Aence/ on H= Danuar% BCCB/ respondent Dr) Agatep per#or"ed a i!atera! vasecto"% on Larr%) On == Dune BCCB/ petitioner '!oria Aguirre/ respondent Pedro Aguirre0s e!dest chi!d/ instituted a cri"ina! co"p!aint #or the vio!ation o# the Revised Pena! Code/ particu!ar!% Artic!es =?B and BFB/ oth in re!ation to Repu !ic Act No) ?F=C against respondents Pedro Aguirre/ O!ondri(/ Dr) Agatep/ Dr) Pascua! and severa! Dohn5Dane Does e#ore the O##ice o# the Cit% Prosecutor o# Mue(on Cit%) The Co"p!aint A##idavit/=H doc6eted as I)S) No) CB:=BEFF/ contained the #o!!owing a!!egations: B) 1 1 1 Dr) Agatep and Dra) Pascua! were -sic. "edica! practitioners specia!i(ing in uro!og% and ps%chiatr% respective!%L whi!e respondent Pedro ,) Aguirre is "% #atherL $iche!ina S) Aguirre:O!ondri( is "% sister/ and the victi" Laureano 8Larr%8 Aguirre 111 is "% co""on !aw rother) DOAN and DAN3 DO3S were the persons who/ acting upon the apparent instructions o# respondents $iche!ina Aguirre:O!ondri( and5or Pedro ,) Aguirre/ actua!!% scouted/ prospected/ #aci!itated/ so!icited and5or procured the "edica! services o# respondents Dra) Pascua! and Dr) Agatep vis:S:vis the intended "uti!ation via i!atera! vasecto"% o# "% co""on !aw rother Larr% Aguirre su *ect hereo#) 1111 E) So"eti"e in $arch BCCB/ however/ the Aeart o# $ar% Vi!!a o# the 'ood Shepherd Sisters was #urnished a cop% o# respondent Dra) Pascua!0s Ps%chiatr% Report dated B= Danuar% BCCE % the 8DS4D/8 in which "% co""on !aw rother 8Larr%8 was #a!se!% and "a!icious!% dec!ared inco"petent and incapa !e o# purported!% giving his own consent to the $2TILATION VIA ,ILAT3RAL VAS3CTO$G intended to e per#or"ed on hi" % a!! the respondents) 1111 F) ,ased on the #oregoing charade and #a!se pretenses invaria !% co""itted % a!! o# the respondents in conspirac% with each other/ on H= Danuar% BCCB/ "% co""on !aw rother Larr% Aguirre/ a!though o# !ega! age

ut conspiratoria!!% caused to e dec!ared % respondents to e 8"enta!!% de#icient8 and inco"petent to give consent to his ,ILAT3RAL VAS3CTO$G/ was then intentiona!!%/ un!aw#u!!%/ "a!icious!%/ #e!onious!% and5or cri"ina!!% p!aced therea#ter under surger% #or $2TILATION VIA 8,ILAT3RAL VAS3CTO$G8 1 1 1/ 3V3N 4ITAO2T ANG A2TAORITATION ORD3R #ro" the '2ARDIANSAIP CO2RT/ nor persona! consent o# Larr% Aguirre hi"se!#) In addition to the a ove/ the co"p!aint inc!uded therein an a!!egation that 7 v) 1 1 1 without a PRIOR "edica! e1a"ination/ pro#essiona! interview o# nor veri#ication and consu!tation with "% "other/ Lourdes Sa ino:Aguirre/ respondent Dra) Pascua! ase!ess!%/ #raudu!ent!% and with o vious intent to de#a"e and "a!ign her reputation and honor/ and worse/ that o# our Sa ido #a"i!%/ #a!se!% conc!uded and diagnosed/ via her #a!si#ied Ps%chiatr% Report/ that "% "other Lourdes Sa ido:Aguirre purported!% su##ers #ro" 8,IPOLAR $OOD DISORD3R8 1 1 1) To answer petitioner '!oria Aguirre0s accusations against the"/ respondents Pedro Aguirre/ O!ondri(/ Dr) Agatep and Dr) Pascua! su "itted their respective Counter:A##idavits) In her de#ense/=E respondent O!ondri( denied that she 8prospected/ scouted/ #aci!itated/ so!icited and5or procured an% #a!se state"ent/ "uti!ated or a used8 her co""on:!aw rother/ Larr% Aguirre) Further/ she countered that: H) 1 1 1 4hi!e I a" aware and ad"it that Larr% went through a vasecto"% procedure/ there is nothing in the Co"p!aint which e1p!ains how the vasecto"% a"ounts to a "uti!ation) 1111 I) In an% case/ as I did not per#or" the vasecto"%/ I can state with co"p!ete con#idence that I did not participate in an% wa% in the a!!eged "uti!ation) F) Neither did I procure or so!icit the services o# the ph%sician who per#or"ed the vasecto"%/ Dr) Duvido Agatep 1 1 1) It was "% #ather/ Pedro Aguirre/ Larr%0s guardian/ who o tained his services) I "ere!% acted upon his instructions and acco"panied "% rother to the ph%sician/ respondents Dra) $arissa ,) Pascua! 1 1 1) 1111 =C) Neither does the Co"p!aint e1p!ain in what "anner the Co"p!ainant is authori(ed or has an% standing to dec!are that Larr%0s consent was not o tained) Co"p!ainant is not the guardian or re!ative o# Larr%) 4hi!e she argues that Larr%0s consent shou!d have een o tained the Co"p!aint does not dispute the ps%chiatrist0s #indings a out Larr%0s ina i!it% to give consent) 1111 =H) 1 1 1 the Co"p!aint does not even state what a!!eged participation was #a!si#ied or the portion o# the ps%chiatric report that a!!eged!% states that so"eone participated when in #act that person did not so participate) 1111 =I) Again/ I had no participation in the preparation o# the report o# Dr) Pascua! 1 1 1) 1111 =?) 1 1 1 the Co"p!aint does not dispute that he -Larr%. is "enta!!% de#icient or inco"petent to give consent) 1111 =>) 1 1 1 I veri#ied that the e##ect o# a vasecto"% operation was e1p!ained to hi" -Larr%. % oth respondent doctors) BC) 1 1 1 I acco"panied Larr% and o e%ed "% #ather on the e!ie# that "% #ather continues to e the !ega! guardian o# Larr%) I 6now o# no one e!se who asserts to e his !ega! guardian 1 1 1) =I A!!eging the sa"e state"ent o# #acts and de#enses/ respondent Pedro Aguirre argues against his co"p!icit% in the cri"e o# "uti!ation as charged and asserts that: I) In an% case/ as I did not per#or" the vasecto"%/ I can state with co"p!ete con#idence that I did not participate in an% wa% in the a!!eged "uti!ation)=F

Neverthe!ess/ he "aintains that the vasecto"% per#or"ed on Larr% does not in an% wa% a"ount to "uti!ation/ as the !atter0s reproductive organ is sti!! co"p!ete!% intact) =? In an% case/ respondent Pedro Aguirre e1p!ains that the procedure per#or"ed is reversi !e through another procedure ca!!ed Vasovasosto"%/ to wit: @) I understand that vasecto"% is reversible through a procedure ca!!ed Vasovasosto"%) I can a!so state with con#idence that the procedure ena !es "en who have undergone a vasecto"% to sire a chi!d) Aence/ no permanent da"age was caused % the procedure) Respondent Pedro Aguirre cha!!enges the charge o# #a!si#ication in the co"p!aint/ to wit: =E) 1 1 1 I did not "a6e it appear that an% person participated in an% act or proceeding when that person did not in #act participate 1 1 1) 1111 =F) 1 1 1 I had no participation in the preparation o# the report o# Dra) Pascua!) She arrived at her report independent!%/ using her own pro#essiona! *udg"ent 1 1 1) 1111 H=) 4hat I cannot understand a out Petita0s Co"p!aint is how Larr% is argued to e !ega!!% a chi!d under the de#inition o# one !aw ut nonethe!ess and si"u!taneous!% argued to e capacitated to give his consent as #u!!% as an adu!t)=@ Respondent Pedro Aguirre #urther c!ari#ies that co:guardianship over Larr% had een granted to hi"se!# and his wi#e/ Lourdes Aguirre/ wa% ac6 on => Dune =>@F % the Regiona! Tria! Court/ ,ranch H o# ,a!anga/ ,ataan) Respondent Pedro Aguirre contends that eing one o# the !ega! guardians/ conse&uent!%/ parenta! authorit% over Larr% is vested in hi") ,ut assu"ing #or the sa6e o# argu"ent that Larr% does have the capacit% to "a6e the decision concerning his vasecto"%/ respondent Pedro Aguirre argues that petitioner '!oria Aguirre has no !ega! persona!it% to institute the su *ect cri"ina! co"p!aint/ #or on!% Larr% wou!d have the right to do so) Dust as the two preceding respondents did/ respondent Dr) Agatep a!so disputed the a!!egations o# #acts stated in the Co"p!aint) Adopting the a!!egations o# his co:respondents inso#ar as the% were "ateria! to the charges against hi"/ he vehe"ent!% denied #ai!ing to in#or" Larr% o# the intended procedure) In his counter:state"ent o# #acts he averred that: - . 1 1 1 I schedu!ed Larr% #or consu!tative interview 1 1 1 wherein I painsta6ing!% e1p!ained what vasecto"% is and the conse&uences thereo#L ut #inding signs o# "enta! de#icienc%/ 1 1 1 I advised his re!atives and his nurse who acco"panied hi" to have Larr% e1a"ined % a ps%chiatrist who cou!d proper!% deter"ine whether or not Larr% 1 1 1 can rea!!% give his consent/ thus I re&uired the" to secure #irst a ps%chiatric eva!uation and c!earance prior to the conte"p!ated procedure) -c. On Danuar% B=/ BCCB/ I was #urnished a cop% o# a ps%chiatric report prepared % Dr) $arissa Pascua! 1 1 1) In her said report/ Dr) Pascua! #ound Larr% to su##er #ro" 8"enta! retardation/ "i!d to "oderate t%pe8 and #urther stated that 8at his capacit%/ he "a% never understand the nature/ the #oreseea !e ris6s and ene#its and conse&uences o# the procedure -vasecto"%. 1 1 1/ thus the responsi i!it% o# decision "a6ing "a% e given to his parent or guardian 1 1 1)8 -d. 1 1 1 I was !i6ewise #urnished a cop% o# an a##idavit e1ecuted % Pedro Aguirre stating that he was the !ega! guardian o# Larr% 1 1 1 Pedro Aguirre gave his consent to vasecto"i(e Larr% 1 1 1) -e. On!% then/ speci#ica!!% Danuar% H=/ BCCB/ vasecto"% was per#or"ed with ut"ost care and di!igence) => In de#ense against the charge o# #a!si#ication and "uti!ation/ respondent Dr) Agatep argued that su *ect co"p!aint shou!d e dis"issed #or the #o!!owing reasons: =) The co"p!ainant has no !ega! persona!it% to #i!e this case) As "entioned a ove/ she is on!% a co""on !aw sister o# Larr% who has a !ega! guardian in the person o# Pedro Aguirre/ one o# the herein respondents 1 1 1) B) 1 1 1 ;t<he a!!egations in the co"p!aint c!ear!% centers on the condition o# co"p!ainant0s "other/ Lourdes Aguirre/ her reputation/ and "isera !% #ai!s to i"p!icate the degree o# participation o# herein respondent) 1 1 1 1111 - . Fa!si#ication) 1 1 1 I strong!% aver that this #e!on% does not app!% to "e since it c!ear!% gives re#erence to co: respondent/ Dr) $arissa Pascua!0s Ps%chiatr% Report/ dated Danuar% B=/ BCCB/ in re!ation with her #ie!d o# pro#ession/ an e1pert opinion) I do not have an% participation in the preparation o# said report/ 1 1 1 neither did

I uti!i(ed -sic. the sa"e in an% proceedings to the da"age to another) 1 1 1 I a!so den% using a #a!si#ied docu"ent 1 1 1) -c. $uti!ation) 1 1 1 Vasecto"% does not in an%wa% e&uate to castration and what is touched in vasecto"% is not considered an organ in the conte1t o# !aw and "edicine/ it is &uite re"ote #ro" the penis 1 1 1) -d. Chi!d A use) 1 1 1 the co"p!aint:a##idavit is ver% vague in speci#%ing the app!ica i!it% o# said !aw) It "ere!% avers that Laureano 8Larr%8 Aguirre is a chi!d/ and a!!eges his #ather/ Pedro Aguirre/ has parenta! authorit% over hi" 1 1 1)BC Si"i!ar!%/ respondent Dr) Pascua! denied the cri"ina! charges o# #a!si#ication and "uti!ation i"puted to her) She stands % the contents o# the assai!ed Ps%chiatric Report/ *usti#%ing it thus: 1 1 1 $% opinion o# Larr% Aguirre0s "enta! status was ased on "% own persona! o servations/ his responses during "% interview o# hi"/ the resu!ts o# the two -B. ps%cho!ogica! tests conducted % c!inica! ps%cho!ogists/ the resu!ts o# !a orator% tests/ inc!uding a CT Scan and $RI/ and his persona! and #a"i!% histor% which I o tained #ro" his sister/ $iche!ina Aguirre:O!ondri( 1 1 1) I) 1 1 1 the re#erence in "% report concerning $rs) Lourdes Aguirre is not a state"ent o# "% opinion o# $rs) Aguirre0s "enta! status/ 1 1 1) Rather/ it is part o# the patient0s persona! and #a"i!% histor% as conve%ed to "e % $rs) Aguirre:O!ondri() F) 1 1 1 An e1pression o# "% opinion/ especia!!% o# an e1pert opinion/ cannot give rise to a charge #or #a!si#ication) A contrar% opinion % another e1pert on!% "eans that the e1perts di##er/ and does not necessari!% re#!ect on the truth or #a!sit% o# either opinion 1 1 1) ?) 1 1 1 I never stated that I e1a"ined $rs) Aguirre/ ecause I never did 1 1 1) @) I had no participation in the surger% per#or"ed on Larr% Aguirre e1cept to render an opinion on his capacit% to give in#or"ed consent to the vasecto"% 1 1 1) >) 4ithout ad"itting the "erits o# the co"p!aint/ I su "it that co"p!ainants are not the proper persons to su scri e to the sa"e as the% are not the o##ended part%/ peace o##icer or other pu !ic o##icer charged with the en#orce"ent o# the !aw vio!ated 1 1 1)B= The Assistant Cit% Prosecutor he!d that the circu"stances attendant to the case did not a"ount to the cri"e o# #a!si#ication) Ae he!d that 7 ;T<he c!ai" o# the co"p!ainant that the Ps%chiatric Report was #a!si#ied/ ecause consent was not given % Larr% Aguirre to the vasecto"% and5or he was not consu!ted on said operation does not constitute #a!si#ication) It wou!d have een di##erent i# it was stated in the report that consent was o tained #ro" Larr% Aguirre or that it was written therein that he was consu!ted on the vasecto"%/ ecause that wou!d "ean that it was "ade to appear in the report that Larr% Aguirre participated in the act or proceeding % giving his consent or was consu!ted on the "atter when in truth and in #act/ he did not participate) Or i# not/ the entr% wou!d have een an untruth#u! state"ent) ,ut that is not the case) Precise!% -sic. the report was "ade to deter"ine whether Larr% Aguirre cou!d give his consent to his intended vasecto"%) ,e that as it "a%/ the "atter o# Larr%0s consent having o tained or not "a% nor e an issue a#ter a!!/ ecause co"p!ainant0s -sic. herse!# a!!eged that Larr%0s "enta! condition is that o# a chi!d/ who can not give consent) ,ased on the #oregoing consideration/ no #a!si#ication can e esta !ished under the circu"stances) BB 3ven the state"ent in the Ps%chiatric Report o# respondent Dr) Pascua! that Lourdes Aguirre had ,ipo!ar $ood Disorder cannot e considered #a!si#ication since 7 The report did not state that Lourdes Aguirre was in #act persona!!% interviewed % respondent Dr) Pascua! and that the !atter conc!uded that Lourdes Aguirre has ,ipo!ar $ood Disorder) The report "ere!% &uoted other sources o# in#or"ation with respect to the condition o# Lourdes Aguirre/ in the sa"e "anner that the #act that Lourdes Aguirre was ph%sica!!% a using Larr% Aguirre was a!so not o# Dra) Pascua! persona! 6now!edge) ,ut the #act that Dra) Pascua! cited #inding/ which is not o# her own persona! 6now!edge in her report does not "ean that she co""itted #a!si#ication in the process) Aer sources "a% e wrong and "a% a##ect the veracit% o# her report/ ut #or as !ong as she has not a!!eged therein that she persona!!% diagnosed Lourdes Aguirre/ which a!!egation wou!d not then e true/ she cannot e charged o# #a!si#ication) There#ore/ it goes without sa%ing that i# the author o# the report is not gui!t%/ then with "ore reason the other respondents are not !ia !e) BH Respecting the charge o# "uti!ation/ the Assistant Cit% Prosecutor a!so he!d that the #acts a!!eged did not a"ount to the cri"e o# "uti!ation as de#ined and pena!i(ed under Artic!e BFB o# the Revised Pena! Code/ i.e)/ 8;t<he vasecto"% operation did not in an% wa% deprived -sic. Larr% o# his reproductive organ/ which is sti!! ver% "uch part o# his ph%sica! se!#)8 Ae ratiocinated that:

4hi!e the operation renders hi" the ina i!it% -sic. to procreate/ the operation is reversi !e and there#ore/ cannot e the per"anent da"age conte"p!ated under Artic!e BFB o# the Revised Pena! Code) BE The Assistant Cit% Prosecutor/ BI in a Reso!utionBF dated @ Danuar% BCCH/ #ound no pro a !e cause to ho!d respondents Pedro Aguirre/ O!ondri(/ Dr) Agatep and Dr) Pascua! !ia !e #or the co"p!aint o# #a!si#ication and "uti!ation/ "ore speci#ica!!%/ the vio!ation o# Artic!es =?B and BFB o# the Revised Pena! Code/ in re!ation to Repu !ic Act No) ?F=C) According!%/ the Assistant Cit% Prosecutor reco""ended the dis"issa! o# petitioner '!oria Aguirre0s co"p!aint #or insu##icienc% o# evidence) The dispositive portion o# the reso!ution reads: 4A3R3FOR3/ it is reco""ended that the a ove:entit!ed case e dis"issed #or insu##icienc% o# evidence) B? On =@ Fe ruar% BCCH/ petitioner '!oria Aguirre appea!ed the #oregoing reso!ution to the Secretar% o# the DOD % "eans o# a Petition #or Review)B@ In a Reso!ution dated == Fe ruar% BCCE/ Chie# State Prosecutor Dovencito R) TuJo/ #or the Secretar% o# the DOD/ dis"issed the petition) In reso!ving said appea!/ the Chie# State Prosecutor he!d that: 2nder Section =B/ in re!ation to Section ?/ o# Depart"ent Circu!ar No) ?C dated Du!% H/ BCCC/ the Secretar% o# Dustice "a%/ motu proprio/ dis"iss outright the petition i# there is no showing o# an% reversi !e error in the &uestioned reso!ution or #inds the sa"e to e patent!% without "erit) 4e care#u!!% e1a"ined the petition and its attach"ents and #ound no error that wou!d *usti#% a reversa! o# the assai!ed reso!ution which is in accord with the !aw and evidenced -sic. on the "atter) B> Petitioner '!oria Aguirre0s $otion #or Reconsideration was !i6ewise denied with #ina!it% % the DOD in another Reso!ution dated =B Nove" er BCCE) Reso!ute in her e!ie#/ petitioner '!oria Aguirre went to the Court o# Appea!s % "eans o# a Petition #or Certiorari/ Prohi ition and )andamus under Ru!e FI o# the Ru!es o# Court/ as a"ended) On B= Du!% BCCI/ the Court o# Appea!s pro"u!gated its Decision dis"issing petitioner '!oria Aguirre0s recourse #or !ac6 o# "erit) The fallo o# the assai!ed decision reads: 4A3R3FOR3/ pre"ises considered/ the present petition is here % D3NI3D D23 CO2RS3 and according!% DIS$ISS3D #or !ac6 o# "erit) Conse&uent!%/ the assai!ed Reso!utions dated Fe ruar% ==/ BCCE and Nove" er =B/ BCCE o# the Secretar% o# Dustice in I)S) No) CB:=BEFF are here % AFFIR$3D) HC Petitioner '!oria Aguirre0s "otion #or reconsideration proved #uti!e as it was denied % the appe!!ate court in a Reso!ution dated I Dece" er BCCI) Aence/ the present petition #i!ed under Ru!e EI o# the Ru!es o# Court/ as a"ended/ pre"ised on the #o!!owing argu"ents: I) TA3 CO2RT OF APP3ALS CO$$ITT3D S3RIO2S/ 'RAV3 AND R3V3RSI,L3 3RRORS OF LA4 4A3N IT CONCL2D3D/ ,AS3D P2RPORT3DLG ON TA3 INT3RN3T 4AICA R2NS A$2C+ 4ITA O2R SGST3$ OF TA3 R2L3 OF LA4 AND TA3 3VID3NC3 ON R3CORD/ TAAT ,ILAT3RAL VAS3CTO$G IS P2RPORT3DLG =CCU R3V3RSI,L3 ,G A F2T2R3 $3DICAL PROC3D2R3 A3NC3 NOT A$O2NTIN' TO $2TILATION/ Q Q QL AND 1111 II) 4ORS3/ TA3 CO2RT OF APP3ALS CO$$ITT3D 'RAV3/ S3RIO2S AND R3V3RSI,L3 3RRORS OF LA4 4A3N IT R3F2S3D TO DIR3CT TA3 INDICT$3NT OF TA3 PRIVAT3 R3SPOND3NTS FOR $2TILATION AND FALSIFICATION D3SPIT3 TA3 3QIST3NC3 OF S2FFICI3NT PRO,A,L3 CA2S3 TA3R3FOR Q Q Q)H= The #oregoing issues notwithstanding/ the "ore proper issue #or this Court0s consideration is/ given the #acts o# the case/ whether or not the Court o# Appea!s erred in ru!ing that the DOD did not co""it grave a use o# discretion a"ounting to !ac6 or e1cess o# *urisdiction when the !atter a##ir"ed the pu !ic prosecutor0s #inding o# !ac6 o# pro a !e cause #or respondents Pedro Aguirre/ O!ondri(/ Dr) Agatep and Dr) Pascua! to stand tria! #or the cri"ina! co"p!aints o# #a!si#ication and "uti!ation in re!ation to Repu !ic Act No) ?F=C)

In ru!ing that the DOD did not co""it grave a use o# discretion a"ounting to !ac6 or e1cess o# *urisdiction/ the Court o# Appea!s e1p!ained that: 3vident!%/ the controvers% !ies in the per"anenc% o# steri!i(ation as a resu!t o# a vasecto"% operation/ and the chances o# restoring #erti!it% with a reversa! surger% 1 1 1) 4e sustain the DOD in ru!ing that the i!atera! vasecto"% per#or"ed on Larr% does not constitute "uti!ation even i# intentiona!!% and purpose!% done to prevent hi" #ro" siring a chi!d) 1111 Steri!i(ation is to e distinguished #ro" castration: in the !atter act the reproductive capacit% is per"anent!% re"oved or da"aged)HB It then conc!uded that: The "atter o# !ega! !ia i!it%/ other than cri"ina!/ which private respondents "a% have incurred #or the a!!eged a sence o# a va!id consent to the vasecto"% per#or"ed on Larr%/ is certain!% e%ond the province o# this certiorari petition) Out tas6 is con#ined to the issue o# whether or not the Secretar% o# Dustice and the O##ice o# the Cit% Prosecutor o# Mue(on Cit% co""itted grave a use o# discretion in their deter"ining the e1istence or a sence o# pro a !e cause #or #i!ing cri"ina! cases #or falsification and mutilation under Artic!es =?B -B. and BFB o# the Revised Pena! Code)HH Petitioner '!oria Aguirre/ however/ contends that the Court o# Appea!s and the DOD #ai!ed to appreciate severa! i"portant #acts: =. that i!atera! vasecto"% conducted on petitioner0s rother/ Larr% Aguirre/ was ad"itted HEL B. that the procedure caused the perpetua! destruction o# Larr%0s reproductive organs o# generation or conceptionL HIH. that the i!atera! vasecto"% was intentiona! and de!i erate to deprive Larr% #orever o# his reproductive organ and his capacit% to procreateL and E. that respondents/ 8in conspirac% with one another/ "ade not on!% one ut two -B. untruth#u! state"ents/ and not "ere inaccuracies when the% "ade it appear in the ps%chiatr% report8 HF that a. Larr%0s consent was o tained or at the ver% !east that the !atter was in#or"ed o# the intended vasecto"%L and . that Lourdes Aguirre was !i6ewise interviewed and eva!uated) Parado1ica!!%/ however/ petitioner '!oria Aguirre does not in an% wa% state that she/ instead o# respondent Pedro Aguirre/ has guardianship over the person o# Larr%) She on!% insists that respondents shou!d have o tained Larr%0s consent prior to the conduct o# the i!atera! vasecto"%) In contrast/ the O##ice o# the So!icitor 'enera! -OS'./ #or pu !ic respondent DOD/ argues that 8the conduct o# pre!i"inar% investigation to deter"ine the e1istence o# pro a !e cause #or the purpose o# #i!ing -an. in#or"ation is the #unction o# the pu !ic prosecutor)8H? $ore i"portant!%/ 8the e!e"ent;s< o# castration or "uti!ation o# an organ necessar% #or generation is co"p!ete!% a sent as he was not deprived o# an% organ necessar% #or reproduction/ "uch !ess the destruction o# such organ)8H@ Li6ewise/ in support o# the decision o# the Court o# Appea!s/ respondents Pedro Aguirre and O!ondri( assert that/ #unda"enta!!%/ petitioner '!oria Aguirre has no standing to #i!e the co"p!aint/ as she has not shown an% in*ur% to her person or asserted an% re!ationship with Larr% other than eing his 8co""on !aw sister8L #urther/ that she cannot prosecute the present case/ as she has not een authori(ed % !aw to #i!e said co"p!aint/ not eing the o##ended part%/ a peace o##icer or a pu !ic o##icer charged with the en#orce"ent o# the !aw) According!%/ respondents Pedro Aguirre and O!ondri( posit that the%/ together with the other respondents Dr) Agatep and Dr) Pascua!/ "a% not e charged with/ prosecuted #or and u!ti"ate!% convicted o#: =. 8"uti!ation 1 1 1 since the i!atera! vasecto"% conducted on Larr% does not invo!ve castration or a"putation o# an organ necessar% #or reproduction as the twin e!e"ents o# the cri"e o# "uti!ation 1 1 1 are a sent8H>L and B. 8#a!si#ication 1 1 1 since the acts a!!eged!% constituting #a!si#ication invo!ve "atters o# "edica! opinion and not "atters o# #act/8EC and that petitioner '!oria Aguirre #ai!ed to prove da"age to herse!# or to an% other person) Respondent Dr) Agatep/ in the sa"e vein/ stresses that vasecto"% is not "uti!ation) Ae e!ucidates that vasecto"% is "ere!% the 8e1cision o# the vas de#erens/ the duct in testis which transport se"en8 E=L that it is the penis and the testis that "a6e up the "a!e reproductive organ and not the vas de#erensL and additiona!!% argues that #or the cri"e o# "uti!ation to e acco"p!ished/ Artic!e BFB o# the Revised Pena! Code necessitates that there e intentiona! tota! or partia! deprivation o# so"e essentia! organ #or reproduction) Tu es/ se"ina! ducts/ vas de#erens or prostatic urethra not eing organs/ respondent Dr) Agatep conc!udes/ there#ore/ that vasecto"% does not correspond to "uti!ation) Anent the charge o# #a!si#ication o# a private docu"ent/ respondent Dr) Agatep asseverates that he never too6 part in disc!osing an% in#or"ation/ data or #acts as contained in the contentious Ps%chiatric Report) For her part/ respondent Dr) Pascua! insists that the assai!ed Ps%chiatr% Report was the resu!t o# her independent e1ercise o# pro#essiona! *udg"ent) 8Right!% or wrong!%/ -she. diagnosed Larr% Aguirre to e incapa !e o# giving consent/ ased on interviews "ade % the ps%chiatrist on Larr% Aguirre and persons who interacted with hi")8 EBAnd supposing that said report is #!awed/ it is/ at "ost/ an erroneous "edica! diagnosis) The petition has no "erit)

Pro a !e cause has een de#ined as the e1istence o# such #acts and circu"stances as wou!d e1cite e!ie# in a reasona !e "ind/ acting on the #acts within the 6now!edge o# the prosecutor/ that the person charged was gui!t% o# the cri"e #or which he was prosecuted)EH The ter" does not "ean 8actua! and positive cause8 nor does it i"port a so!ute certaint%)EE It is "ere!% ased on opinion and reasona !e e!ie#L EI that is/ the e!ie# that the act or o"ission co"p!ained o# constitutes the o##ense charged) A #inding o# pro a !e cause "ere!% inds over the suspect to stand tria!) It is not a pronounce"ent o# gui!t)EF The e1ecutive depart"ent o# the govern"ent is accounta !e #or the prosecution o# cri"es/ its principa! o !igation eing the #aith#u! e1ecution o# the !aws o# the !and) A necessar% co"ponent o# the power to e1ecute the !aws is the right to prosecute their vio!ators/E? the responsi i!it% o# which is thrust upon the DOD) Aence/ the deter"ination o# whether or not pro a !e cause e1ists to warrant the prosecution in court o# an accused is consigned and entrusted to the DOD) And % the nature o# his o##ice/ a pu !ic prosecutor is under no co"pu!sion to #i!e a particu!ar cri"ina! in#or"ation where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the aver"ents thereo#/ or that the evidence at hand points to a di##erent conc!usion) Put si"p!%/ pu !ic prosecutors under the DOD have a wide range o# discretion/ the discretion o# whether/ what and who" to charge/ the e1ercise o# which depends on a s"orgas ord o# #actors which are est appreciated % -pu !ic. prosecutors)E@ And this Court has consistent!% adhered to the po!ic% o# non:inter#erence in the conduct o# pre!i"inar% investigations/ and to !eave to the investigating prosecutor su##icient !atitude o# discretion in the deter"ination o# what constitutes su##icient evidence as wi!! esta !ish pro a !e cause #or the #i!ing o# an in#or"ation against the supposed o##ender)E> ,ut this is not to discount the possi i!it% o# the co""ission o# a uses on the part o# the prosecutor) It is entire!% possi !e that the investigating prosecutor "a% erroneous!% e1ercise the discretion !odged in hi" % !aw) This/ however/ does not render his act a"ena !e to correction and annu!"ent % the e1traordinar% re"ed% o# certiorari/ a sent an% showing o# grave a use o# discretion a"ounting to e1cess o# *urisdiction) IC Prescinding #ro" the a ove/ the court0s dut% in an appropriate case/ there#ore/ is con#ined to a deter"ination o# whether the assai!ed e1ecutive deter"ination o# pro a !e cause was done without or in e1cess o# *urisdiction resu!ting #ro" a grave a use o# discretion) For courts o# !aw to grant the e1traordinar% writ o# certiorari/ so as to *usti#% the reversa! o# the #inding o# whether or not there e1ists pro a !e cause to #i!e an in#or"ation/ the one see6ing the writ "ust e a !e to esta !ish that the investigating prosecutor e1ercised his power in an ar itrar% and despotic "anner % reason o# passion or persona! hosti!it%/ and it "ust e patent and gross as wou!d a"ount to an evasion or to a uni!atera! re#usa! to per#or" the dut% en*oined or to act in conte"p!ation o# !aw) 'rave a use o# discretion is not enough)I= 31cess o# *urisdiction signi#ies that he had *urisdiction over the case ut has transcended the sa"e or acted without authorit%)IB App!%ing the #oregoing dis&uisition to the present petition/ the reasons o# the Assistant Cit% Prosecutor in dis"issing the cri"ina! co"p!aints #or #a!si#ication and "uti!ation/ as a##ir"ed % the DOD/ is deter"inative o# whether or not he co""itted grave a use o# discretion a"ounting to !ac6 or e1cess o# *urisdiction) In ru!ing the wa% he did 7 that no pro a !e cause #or #a!si#ication and "uti!ation e1ists : the Assistant Cit% Prosecutor de!i erated on the #actua! and !ega! "i!ieu o# the case) Ae #ound that there was no su##icient evidence to esta !ish a prima facie case #or the cri"es co"p!ained o# as de#ined and punished under Artic!es =?B/ paragraph B/ and BFB o# the Revised Pena! Code in re!ation to Repu !ic Act No) ?F=C/ respective!%) Concerning the cri"e o# #a!si#ication o# a private docu"ent/ the Assistant Cit% Prosecutor reasoned that the circu"stances attendant to the case did not a"ount to the cri"e co"p!ained o#/ that is/ the !ac6 o# consent % Larr% Aguirre e#ore he was vasecto"i(edL or the #act that the !atter was not consu!ted) The !ac6 o# the two preceding attendant #acts do not in an% wa% a"ount to #a!si#ication/ a sent the contention that it was "ade to appear in the assai!ed report that said consent was o tained) That wou!d have een an untruth#u! state"ent) Neither does the #act that the Ps%chiatric Report state that Lourdes Aguirre has ,ipo!ar $ood Disorder % the sa"e to6en a"ount to #a!si#ication ecause said report does not put #orward that such #inding arose a#ter an e1a"ination o# the concerned patient) Apropos the charge o# "uti!ation/ he reasoned that though the vasecto"% rendered Larr% una !e to procreate/ it was not the per"anent da"age conte"p!ated under the pertinent provision o# the pena! code) 4e agree) 'rave a use o# discretion a"ounting to !ac6 or e1cess o# *urisdiction on the part o# the DOD and the Assistant Cit% Prosecutor was not shown in the present case) In the present petition/ respondents Pedro Aguirre/ O!ondri(/ Dr) Agatep and Dr) Pascua! are charged with vio!ating Artic!es =?B and BFB o# the Revised Pena! Code/ in re!ation to Repu !ic Act No) ?F=C) Artic!e =?B/ paragraph B o# the Revised Pena! Code/ de#ines the cri"e o# #a!si#ication o# a private docu"ent/ vi( 7 Art) =?B) Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents) 7 The pena!t% o# prision correcciona! in its "ediu" and "a1i"u" periods and a #ine o# not "ore than I/CCC pesos sha!! e i"posed upon: 1111

B) An% person who/ to the da"age o# a third part%/ or with the intent to cause such da"age/ sha!! in an% private docu"ent co""it an% o# the acts o# #a!si#ication enu"erated in the ne1t preceding artic!e) Petitioner '!oria Aguirre charges respondents with #a!si#ication o# a private docu"ent #or conspiring with one another in 6eeping Larr% 8in the dar6 a out the #oregoing -vasecto"%. as the sa"e was concea!ed #ro" hi" % the respondents 1 1 1/8IH as we!! as #or #a!se!% conc!uding and diagnosing Lourdes Aguirre to e su##ering #ro" ,ipo!ar $ood Disorder) A scrutin%/ however/ o# Artic!e =?= o# the Revised Pena! Code which de#ines the acts constitutive o# #a!si#ication/ that is 7 Art) =?=) 1 1 1 sha!! #a!si#% a docu"ent % co""itting an% o# the #o!!owing acts: =) Counter#eiting or i"itating an% handwriting/ signature/ or ru ricL B) Causing it to appear that persons have participated in an% act or proceeding when the% did not in #act so participateL H) Attri uting to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding state"ents other than those in #act "ade % the"L E) $a6ing untruth#u! state"ents in a narration o# #actsL I) A!tering true datesL F) $a6ing an% a!teration or interca!ation in a genuine docu"ent which changes its "eaningL ?) Issuing in an authenticated #or" a docu"ent purporting to e a cop% o# an origina! docu"ent when no such origina! e1ists/ or inc!uding in such cop% a state"ent contrar% to/ or di##erent #ro"/ that o# the genuine origina!L or @) Interca!ating an% instru"ent or note re!ative to the issuance thereo# in a protoco!/ registr%/ or o##icia! oo6) vis*-*vis the "uch critici(ed Ps%chiatric Report/ shows that the acts co"p!ained o# do not in an% "anner/ % whatever stretch o# the i"agination/ #a!! under an% o# the eight -@. enu"erated acts constituting the o##ense o# #a!si#ication) In order to proper!% address the issue presented % petitioner '!oria Aguirre/ it is necessar% that we discuss the e!e"ents o# the cri"e o# #a!si#ication o# private docu"ent under the Revised Pena! Code/ a cri"e which a!! the respondents have een accused o# perpetrating) The e!e"ents o# said cri"e under paragraph B o# Artic!e =?B o# our pena! code are as #o!!ows: =. that the o##ender co""itted an% acts o# #a!si#ication/ e1cept those in par) ?/ enu"erated in Artic!e =?=L B. that the #a!si#ication was co""itted in an% private docu"entL and H. that the #a!si#ication caused da"age to a third part% or at !east the #a!si#ication was co""itted with intent to cause such da"age) 2nder Artic!e =?=/ paragraph B/ a person "a% co""it #a!si#ication o# a private docu"ent % causing it to appear in a docu"ent that a person or persons participated in an act or proceeding/ when such person or persons did not in #act so participate in the act or proceeding) On the other hand/ #a!si#ication under par) H o# the sa"e artic!e is perpetrated % a person or persons who/ participating in an act or proceeding/ "ade state"ents in that act or proceeding and the o##ender/ in "a6ing a docu"ent/ attri uted to such person or persons state"ents other than those in #act "ade % such person or persons) And the cri"e de#ined under paragraph E thereo# is co""itted when =. the o##ender "a6es in a docu"ent state"ents in a narration o# #actsL B. he has a !ega! o !igation to disc!ose the truth o# the #acts narrated % hi"L H. the #acts narrated % the o##ender are a so!ute!% #a!seL and E. the perversion o# truth in the narration o# #acts was "ade with the wrong#u! intent o# in*uring a third person) App!%ing the a ove:stated e!e"ents o# the cri"e to the case at ar/ in order that respondent Dr) Pascua!/ and the rest acting in conspirac% with her/ to have co""itted the cri"e o# #a!si#ication under par) H and E o# Artic!e =?= o# the Revised Pena! Code/ it is essentia! that that there e prima facie evidence to show that she had caused it to appear that Larr% gave his consent to e vasecto"i(ed or at the ver% !east/ that the proposed "edica! procedure was e1p!ained to Larr%) ,ut in the assai!ed report/ no such thing was done) Lest it e #orgotten/ the reason #or having Larr% ps%chiatrica!!% eva!uated was precise!% to ascertain whether or not he can va!id!% consent with i"punit% to the proposed vasecto"%/ and not to o tain his consent to it or to o !ige respondent Dr) Pascua! to e1p!ain to hi" what the i"port o# the "edica! procedure was) Further/ that Larr%0s consent to e vasecto"i(ed was not o tained % the ps%chiatrist was o# no "o"ent/ ecause nowhere is it stated in said report that such assent was o tained) At an% rate/ petitioner '!oria Aguirre contradicts her ver% own a!!egations when she persists in the contention that Larr% has the "enta! age o# a chi!dL hence/ he was !ega!!% incapa !e o# va!id!% consenting to the procedure) In the "atter o# the supposed incorrect diagnosis o# Lourdes Aguirre/ with regard to paragraph B o# Artic!e =?= o# the Revised Pena! Code/ we &uote with approva! the succinct state"ents o# the Assistant Cit% Prosecutor:

;T<he #act that Dra) Pascua! cited #inding/ which is not o# her own persona! 6now!edge in her report does not "ean that she co""itted #a!si#ication in the process) Aer sources "a% e wrong and "a% a##ect the veracit% o# her report/ ut #or as !ong as she has not a!!eged therein that she persona!!% diagnosed Lourdes Aguirre/ which a!!egation wou!d not then e true/ she cannot e charged o# #a!si#ication) There#ore/ it goes without sa%ing that i# the author o# the report is not gui!t%/ then with "ore reason the other respondents are not !ia !e) IE As to the charge o# "uti!ation/ Art) BFB o# the Revised Pena! Code de#ines the cri"e as 7 Art) BFB) Mutilation. 7 The pena!t% o# rec!usion te"pora! to rec!usion perpetua sha!! e i"posed upon an% person who sha!! intentiona!!% "uti!ate another % depriving hi"/ either tota!!% or partia!!%/ o# so"e essentia! organ #or reproduction) An% other intentiona! "uti!ation sha!! e punished % prision "a%or in its "ediu" and "a1i"u" periods) A straight#orward scrutin% o# the a ove provision shows that the e!e"ents II o# "uti!ation under the #irst paragraph o# Art) BFB o# the Revised Pena! Code to e =. that there e a castration/ that is/ "uti!ation o# organs necessar% #or generationL and B. that the "uti!ation is caused purpose!% and de!i erate!%/ that is/ to deprive the o##ended part% o# so"e essentia! organ #or reproduction) According to the pu !ic prosecutor/ the #acts a!!eged did not a"ount to the cri"e o# "uti!ation as de#ined and pena!i(ed a ove/ i.e)/ 8;t<he vasecto"% operation did not in an% wa% deprived -sic. Larr% o# his reproductive organ/ which is sti!! ver% "uch part o# his ph%sica! se!#)8 Petitioner '!oria Aguirre/ however/ wou!d want this Court to "a6e a ru!ing that i!atera! vasecto"% constitutes the cri"e o# "uti!ation) This we cannot do/ #or such an interpretation wou!d e contrar% to the intentions o# the #ra"ers o# our pena! code) A #itting riposte to the issue at hand !ies in .nited %tates v. "sparcia/IF in which this Court had the occasion to shed !ight on the i"p!ication o# the ter" "uti!ation) Therein we said that: The so!e point which it is desira !e to discuss is whether or not the cri"e co""itted is that de#ined and pena!i(ed % artic!e E=E o# the Pena! Code) The 3ng!ish trans!ation o# this artic!e reads: 8An% person who sha!! intentiona!!% castrate another sha!! su##er a pena!t% ranging #ro" rec!usion te"pora! to rec!usion perpetua)8 The Spanish te1t/ which shou!d govern/ uses the word 8castrare/8 inade&uate!% trans!ated into 3ng!ish as 8castrate)8 The word 8capar/8 which is s%non%"ous o# 8castrar/8 is de#ined in the Ro%a! Acade"ic Dictionar% as the destruction o# the organs o# generation or conception) C!ear!% it is the intention o# the !aw to punish an% person who sha!! intentiona!!% deprived another o# an% organ necessar% #or reproduction) An app!ica !e construction is that o# Viada in the #o!!owing !anguage: 8At the head o# these cri"es/ according to their order o# gravit%/ is the "uti!ation 6nown % the na"e o# 0castration0 which consists o# the a"putation o# whatever organ is necessar% #or generation) The !aw cou!d not #ai! to punish with the ut"ost severit% such a cri"e/ which/ a!though not destro%ing !i#e/ deprives a person o# the "eans to trans"it it) ,ut ear in "ind that according to this artic!e in order #or 0castration0 to e1ist/ it is indispensa !e that the 0castration0 e "ade purpose!%) The !aw does not !oo6 on!% to the resu!t ut a!so to the intention o# the act) Conse&uent!%/ i# % reason o# an in*ur% or attac6/ a person is deprived o# the organs o# generation/ the act/ a!though vo!untar%/ not eing intentiona! to that end/ it wou!d not co"e under the provisions o# this artic!e/ ut under No) B o# artic!e EH=)8 -Viada/ Codigo Pena!/ vo!) H/ p) ?C) See to sa"e e##ect/ E 'roi(ard/ Codigo Pena!/ p) IBI). Thus/ the &uestion is/ does vasecto"% deprive a "an/ tota!!% or partia!!%/ o# so"e essentia! organ o# reproductionN 4e answer in the negative) In the "a!e steri!i(ation procedure o# vasecto"%/ the tu u!ar passage/ ca!!ed the vas de#erens/ through which the sper" -ce!!s. are transported #ro" the testic!e to the urethra where the% co" ine with the se"ina! #!uid to #or" the e*acu!ant/ is divided and the cut ends "ere!% tied) I? That part/ which is cut/ that is/ the vas de#erens/ is "ere!% a passagewa% that is part o# the duct s%ste" o# the "a!e reproductive organs) The vas de#erens is not an organ/ i.e.( a high!% organi(ed unit o# structure/ having a de#ined #unction in a "u!tice!!u!ar organis" and consisting o# a range o# tissues)I@ ,e that as it "a%/ even assu"ing arguendo that the tu u!ar passage can e considered an organ/ the cutting o# the vas de#erens does not divest or den% a "an o# an% essentia! organ o# reproduction #or the si"p!e reason that it does not entai! the ta6ing awa% o# a part or portion o# the "a!e reproductive s%ste") The cut ends/ a#ter the% have een tied/ are then dropped ac6 into the incision) I> Though undenia !%/ vasecto"% denies a "an his power o# reproduction/ such procedure does not deprive hi"/ 8either tota!!% or partia!!%/ o# so"e essentia! organ #or reproduction)8 Nota !%/ the ordinar% usage o# the ter" 8 mutilation8 is the deprivation o# a !i" or essentia! part -o# the od%./ FC with the operative e1pression eing 8deprivation)8 In the sa"e "anner/ the word 8castration8 is de#ined as the re"ova! o# the testies or ovaries) F= Such eing the case in this present petition/ the i!atera! vasecto"% done on Larr% cou!d not have a"ounted to the cri"e o# "uti!ation as de#ined and punished under Artic!e BFB/ paragraph =/ o# the Revised Pena! Code) And no cri"ina! cu!pa i!it% cou!d e #oisted on to respondent Dr) Agatep/ the uro!ogist who per#or"ed the procedure/ "uch !ess the other respondents) Thus/ we #ind su##icient evidence to e1p!ain wh% the Assistant Cit% Prosecutor and the DOD ru!ed the wa% the% did) Veri!%/ 4e agree with the Court o# Appea!s that the writ o# certiorari is unavai!ingL hence/ shou!d not e issued)

It is once "ore apropos to pointed!% app!% the Court0s genera! po!ic% o# non:inter#erence in the conduct o# pre!i"inar% investigations) As it has een o#t said/ the Supre"e Court cannot order the prosecution o# a person against who" the prosecutor does not #ind su##icient evidence to support at !east a prima facie case)FB The courts tr% and a so!ve or convict the accused ut/ as a ru!e/ have no part in the initia! decision to prosecute hi") FH The possi !e e1ception to this ru!e is where there is an un"ista6a !e showing o# a grave a use o# discretion a"ounting to !ac6 or e1cess o# *urisdiction that wi!! *usti#% *udicia! intrusion into the precincts o# the e1ecutive) ,ut that is not the case herein) 7!ERE"ORE/ pre"ises considered/ the instant petition is DENIED #or !ac6 o# "erit) The assai!ed B= Du!% BCCI&ecision and I Dece" er BCCI Resolution( oth o# the Court o# Appea!s in CA:')R) SP No) @@H?C are here %A""IRMED) Costs against petitioner '!oria Aguirre) SO ORDERED)
Ru!e ==H

[G.R. No. 126005. January 21, 1999]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and L!NN PLE"ETTE #!, petitioners, vs. $O%RT OF PPE LS, &ILL! $ER&O and JON TH N $ER&O, respondents. #E$ISION
P NG NI& N, J.'

In our criminal justice system, the public prosecutor has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court. Courts must respect the exercise of such discretion when the information filed against the accused is valid on its face, and no manifest error, grave abuse of discretion or prejudice can be imputed to the public prosecutor.
T() $a*)

Before us is a etition for !eview under !ule "#, see$ing to reverse the %une &', ())* +ecision and the ,ugust &-, ())* !esolution if the Court of ,ppeals .(/in C,- 0! 1 2o. 3*4('..&/ 5he assailed +ecision dismissed the etition for Certiorari filed by the petitioners, which sought to annul and set aside two 6rders of the !egional 5rial Court of 2abunturan, +avao7 the %une &', ())" 6rder dismissing the Information for murder filed against rivate !espondent Billy Cerbo and the ,ugust (', ())" 6rder denying petitioners8 motion for reconsideration. 5he assailed ,ugust &-, ())* Court of ,ppeals 9C,: !esolution li$ewise denied petitioners8 motion for reconsideration.
T() Fa+,*

5he case below arose from the fatal shooting of etitioner +y8s mother, !osalinda +y, in which the primary suspect was rivate !espondent %onathan Cerbo, son of rivate !espondent Billy Cerbo. 5he procedural and factual antecedents of the case were summari;ed in the challenged +ecision of the Court of ,ppeals as follows7

<6n ,ugust 34, ())3, !osalinda +y, according to the petition, was shot at pointblan$ range by private respondent %onathan Cerbo in the presence and at the office of his father, private respondent Billy Cerbo at uro$ ), oblacion, 2abunturan, +avao. <6n 1eptember &, ())3, eyewitness =lsa B. 0umban executed an affidavit positively identifying private respondent %onathan Cerbo as the assailant. 9,nnex C, !ollo, p. 3":.

<6n 1eptember &4, ())3, private respondents %onathan Cerbo executed a counter-affidavit interposing the defense that the shooting was accidental 9,nnex +7 !ollo, pp. 3#-3*:.
<6n 6ctober *, ())3, the 3 >unicipal Circuit 5rial Court of 2abunturan->awab, +avao, after a preliminary investigation, found <sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief? that the crime of murder has been committed by private respondent %onathan Cerbo and resolved to forward the entire records of the case to the provincial prosecutor at 5agum, +avao 9,nnex =, !ollo, pp. 3--3':.
rd

<,fter .an/ information for murder was filed against %onathan Cerbo, petitioner ,lynn le;ette +y, daughter of the victim !osalinda +y, executed an affidavit-complaint charging private respondent Billy Cerbo of conspiracy in the $illing 9,nnex @, !ollo, p. 3):, supported by a supplemental affidavit of =lsa B. 0umban, alleging <in addition? to her previous statement that7 A3. In addition to my said sworn statement, I voluntarily and freely aver as follows7 Aa: I vividly recall that while my mistress !osalinda 0o and I were in the office of Billy Cerbo at about ((7"# a.m. on ,ugust 34, ())3, >r. Cerbo personally instructed me to fetch the food from the $itchen .and to bring it/ to the office instead of the dining room. Ab: Bhile bringing the food, >r. Cerbo again instructed me to place the food .o/n a corner table and commanded me to sit behind the entrance door and at the same time >r. Cerbo positioned !osalinda .on/ a chair facing the entrance door for an easy target. Ac: Immediately after !osalinda was shot, >r. Billy Cerbo called his son %onathan who was running, but did not and ha.s/ never bothered to bring !osalinda to a hospital or even apply first aid. Ad: 5o my surprise, >r. Billy Cerbo, instead of bringing !osalinda to the hospital, brought her to the funeral parlor and immediately ordered her to be embalmed without even informing her children or any of her immediate relatives xxx.8 ,nnex 0, !ollo, p. "4.: < rivate respondent Billy Cerbo 1ubmitted a counter-affidavit denying the allegations of both petitioner ,lynn le;ette +y and =lsa B. 0umban 9,nnex C, !ollo, pp. "(-"&:. <6n or about ,pril ', ())", rosecutor rotacio Dumangtad filed a <>otion for leave of court to reinvestigate the case? 9,nnex I. !ollo, pp"3-"": which was granted by the respondent judge in an order dated ,pril &', ())" 9,nnex %, !ollo, p. "#:. <In his resolution dated >ay #, ())", rosecutor Dumangtad recommended the filing of an amended information including Billy Cerbo Axxx as one of the accused in the murder case xxx8 9,nnex E7 rollo, pp. "*-"):. <,ccordingly, the prosecution filed an amended information including Billy Cerbo in the murder case. , warrant for his arrest was later issued on >ay &-, ())" 9!ollo, p. &-:. < rivate respondent Billy Cerbo then filed a motion to quash warrant of arrest arguing that the same was issued without probable cause 9!ollo, p. &-:. <6n %une &', ())", respondent %udge issued the first assailed order dismissing the case against Billy Cerbo and recalling the warrant for his arrest.F/ the dispositive portion of .the order/ reads7 GI2 5C= DI0C5 6@ ,DD 5C= @6!=06I20, .an/ order is hereby issued +I1>I11I20 the case as against Billy Cerbo only.? ADet, therefore, the warrant of arrest, dated may &-, ())", be !=C,DD=+. A5he prosecution is hereby ordered to withdraw its ,mended Information and file a new one charging %onathan Cerbo only.

A16 6!+=!=+.8 9!ollo, pp. &)-34:.

< rivate rosecutor !omeo 5agra filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the respondent judge in his second assailed order dated ,ugust (', ())" 9,nnex B, !ollo, pp. 3(-33:.?.3/
T() Ru-.n/ o0 ,() $our, o0 11)a-*

In its (4-page +ecision, the Court of ,ppeals debun$ed petitioners8 assertion that the trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion in recalling the warrant of arrest and subsequently dismissing the case against Billy Cerbo, Citing jurisprudence,."/ the appellate court held as follows7

<5he ruling is explicit. If upon the filing of the information in court, the trial judge, after reviewing the information and the documents attached thereto, finds that no probable cause exist must either call for the complainant and the witnesses or simply dismiss the case. < etitioners question the applicability of the doctrine laid down in the above.-/mentioned case, alleging that the facts therein are different from the instant case. Be rule that the disparity of facts does not prevent the application of the principle. <Be have gone over the supplemental affidavit of =lsa B. 0umban and ta$ing into account the additional facts and circumstance alleged therein, we cannot say that respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the case as against private respondent Billy Cerbo for lac$ of probable cause
xxx xxx xxx

H5he prosecution, if it really believed that Billy Cerbo is probably guilty by conspiracy, should have presented additional evidence sufficiently and credibly demonstrating the existence of probable cause.
xxx xxx xxx?.#/

In sum, the Court of ,ppeals held that %udge =ugenio Ialles did not commit grave abuse of discretion in recalling the warrant of arrest issued against rivate !espondent Billy Cerbo and subsequently dismissing the Information for murder filed against the private respondent, because the evidence presented thus far did not substantiate such charge. Cence, this petition..*/
T() **./n)d Error*

etitioner +y avers7

<(: 5he Court of ,ppeals gravely erred in holding that the !egional 5rial Court %udge had the authority to reverse .the public prosecutor8s/ finding of probable cause to prosecute accused xxx and thus dismiss the case filed by the latter on the basis of a motion to quash warrant of arrest.
<&: 5he Court of ,ppeals gravely erred in fully and unqualifiedly applying the case of ,llado, et. al. vs. ,CC, et. al. 0.!. 2o. ((3*34, .to/ the case at bench despite .the/ clear difference in their respective factual bac$drop.s/ and the contrary earlier jurisprudence on the matter.?.-/ 6n the other hand, the solicitor general posits this sole issue7 <Bhether the Court of ,ppeals erred in finding that no probable cause exists to merit the filing of charges against private respondents Billy Cerbo.?.'/

=ssentially, the petitioners are questioning the propriety of the trial court8s dismissal, for want of evidence, of the Information for murder against rivate !espondent Billy Cerbo. In resolving this petition, the discussion of the Court will revolve two points7 first, the determination of probable cause as an executive and judicial function and, second, the applicability of Allado and Salonga to the case at bar.
T() $our,2* Ru-.n/

5he petition is meritorious. 5he trial court erred in dismissing the Information filed against the private respondent. Consequently, the Court of ,ppeals was li$ewise in error when it upheld such ruling.
Executive Determination of Probable Cause

5he determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor. It is an executive function,.)/ the correctness of the exercise of which is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon. 5he 1eparate 9Concurring: 6pinion of former Chief %ustice ,ndres !. 2arvasa in !oberts v. Court of ,ppeals.(4/ succinctly elucidates such point in this wise7 <xxx xxx xxx

<In this special civil action, this Court is being as$ed to assume the function of a public prosecutor. It is being as$ed to determine whether probable cause exists as regards petitioners. >ore concretely, the Court is being as$ed to examine and assess such evidence as has thus far been submitted by the parties and, on the basis thereof, ma$e a conclusion as to whether or not it suffices Ato engender a well founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. <It is a function that this Court should not be called upon to perform. It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor, one that, as far as crimes cognizable by a Regional Trial Court are concerned, and notwithstanding that it involves an ad udicative process of a sort, exclusively pertains, by law, to said executive officer, the public prosecutor! It is moreover a function that in the established scheme of things, is supposed to be performed at the very genesis of, indeed, prefatorily to, the formal commencement of a criminal action! The proceedings before a public prosecutor, it may well be stressed, are essentially preliminary, prefatory and cannot lead to a final, definite and authoritative ad udgment of the guilt or innocence of the persons charged with a felony or crime! "#hether or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public prosecutor $ i! e!, whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon! It is not for instance permitted for an accused, upon the filing of the information against him by the public prosecutor, to preempt trial by filing a motion with the 5rial Court praying for the quashal or dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the evidence upon which the same is based is inade%uate! 2or is it permitted, on the antipodal theory that the evidence is in truth inadequate, for the complaining party to present a petition before the Court praying that the public prosecutor be compelled to file the corresponding information against the accused.
xxx xxx xxx?

Indeed, the public prosecutor has broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exist and to charge those whom be or she believes to have committed the crime as defined by law! 6therwise stated, such official has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed in court. .((/ 5hus, in Crespo v! &ogul,.(&/ we ruled7

<It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal! The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal! Ce may or may not file the

complaint or information, follow or not follow that presented by the offended party, according to whether the evidence , in his opinion, is sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 5he reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecutions by private persons. xxx rosecuting officers under the power vested in them by law, not only have the authority but also the duty of prosecuting persons who, according to the evidence received from the complainant, are shown to be guilty of a crime committed within the jurisdiction of their office. 5hey have equally the duty not to prosecute when the evidence adduced is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case.?
5his broad prosecutorial power is however not unfettered, because just as public prosecutors are obliged to bring forth before the law those who have transgressed it, they are also constrained to be circumspect in filing criminal charges against the innocent. 5hus, for crimes cogni;able by regional trial courts preliminary investigations are usually conducted. In 'edesma v! Court of Appeals,.(3/ we discussed the purposes and nature of a preliminary investigation in this manner7

<5he primary objective of a preliminary investigation is to free respondent from the inconvenience, expense, ignominy and stress of defending himselfJherself in the course of a formal trial, until the reasonable probability of his or her guilt in a more or less summary proceeding by a competent office designated by law for that purpose. 1econdarily, such summary proceeding also protects the state from the burden of the unnecessary expense an effort in prosecuting alleged offenses and in holding trials arising from false, frivolous or groundless charges. H1uch investigation is not part of the trial. , full and exhaustive presentation of the parties8 evidence is not required, but only such as may engender a well-grounded belief than an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. By reason of the abbreviated nature of preliminary investigations, a dismissal of the charges as a result thereof is not equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of acquittal. Cence, no double jeopardy attaches.?
Judicial Determination of Probable Cause

5he determination of probable cause to hold a person for trial must be distinguished from the determination of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest, which is udicial function. 5he judicial determination of probable cause in the issuance of arrest warrants has been emphasi;ed in numerous cases. In Co v. eople,.("/ the Court summari;ed the pertinent rulings on the subject, as follows7

<5he above rulings in Soliven, Inting and 'im, 1r. were iterated in Allado v! (io)no, where we explained again what probable cause means. robable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. Cence, the judge, before issuing a warrant of arrest, <must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof.? ,t this stage of the criminal proceeding, the udge is not yet tas)ed to review in detail the evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation! It is sufficient that he personally evaluates such evidence in determining probable cause! In #ebb v! (e 'eon, we stressed that the udge merely determines the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of the accused and, in doing so, he need not conduct a de novo hearing . Ce simply personally reviews the prosecutor8s initial determination finding probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence.
xxx xxx xxx

<In light of the aforecited decisions of this Court, such justification cannot be upheld. Dest we be too repetitive, we only emphasi;e three vital matters once more7 *irst, as held in Inting, the determination of probable cause by the prosecutor is for the purpose different from that which is to be made by the udge! #hether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be held for trial is what the prosecutor passes upon! The udge, on the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused, i!e!,

whether there is a necessity for placing him under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of ustice! Thus, even if both should base their findings on one and the same proceedings or evidence, there should be no confusion as to their distinct ob ectives! "Second, since their objectives are different, the judge cannot rely solely on the report of the prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest. 6bviously and understandably, the contents of the prosecutor8s report will support his own conclusion that there is reason to charge the accused of an offense and hold him for trial. Cowever, the judge must decide independently. Cence, he must have supporting evidence, other than the prosecutor8s bare report upon which to legally sustain his own findings on the existence or non-existence of probable cause to issue an arrest order. 5his responsibility of determining personally and independently the existence of non-existence of probable cause is lodge in him by no less than the most basic law of the land. arenthetically, the prosecutor could ease the burden of the judge and speed up the litigation process by forwarding to the latter not only the information and his bare resolution, but also so much of the records and the evidence on hand as to enable Cis Conor to ma$e his personal and separate judicial finding on whether to issue a warrant of arrest. <'astly, it is not required that the complete or entire records of the case during the preliminary investigation be submitted to and examined by the judge. Be do not intend to unduly burden trial courts by obliging them to examine the complete records of every case all the time simply for the purpose of ordering the arrest of the accused. Bhat is required, rather, is that the judge must have sufficient supporting documents 9such as the complaint, affidavits, counter-affidavits, sworn statements of witnesses or transcript of stenographic notes, if any: upon which to ma$e his independent judgment, or at the very least, upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause. 5he point is7 he cannot rely solely and entirely on the prosecutor8s recommendation, as the !espondent Court did in this case. ,lthough the prosecutor enjoys the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties and functions which in turn gives his report the presumption of accuracy, the Constitution, we repeat, commands the judge to personally determine probable cause in the issuance of warrants of arrest. 5his Court has consistently held that a judge fails in his bounden duty if he relies merely on the certification or the report of the investigating officer.
xxx xxx xxx?

Ierily, a judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if he or she deems that there is no probable cause for doing so. Corollary to this principle, the judge should not override the public prosecutor8s determination of probable cause to hold an accused for trial, on the ground that the evidence presented to substantiate the issuance of an arrest warrant insufficient, as in the present case. Indeed, it would be unfair to expect the prosecution to present all the evidence needed to secure the conviction of the accused upon the filing of the information against the latter. 5he reason is found in the nature and the objective of a preliminary investigation. Cere, the public prosecutors do not decide whether there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the person chargedF they merely determine <whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime x x x has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.? .(#/ =videntiary matters must be presented and heard during the trial..(*/ 5herefore, if the information is valid on its face, and there is no showing of manifest error, grave abuse of discretion and prejudice on the part of public prosecutor, the trial court should respect such determination.
Inapplicability of --ado and Sa-on/a

5he Court of ,ppeals anchored its ruling on the pronouncement made in Allado v! (io)no+ <xxx .I/f, upon the filing of the information in court, the trial judge, after reviewing the information and the documents attached thereto, must either call for the complainant and the witnesses themselves or simply dismiss the case. there is no reason to hold the accused for trial and further expose him to an open and public accusation of the crime when no probable cause exists.?.(-/ In Allado, etitioners +iosdado %ose ,llado and !oberto D. >endo;a, practicing lawyers, were accused by the residential ,nti-Crime Commission 9 ,CC: of $idnapping with murder and ordered by %udge !oberto C.

+io$no to be arrested without bail. 5he petitioners questioned the issuance of the warrants for their arrest, contending that the respondents judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of his jurisdiction in holding that there was probable cause against them. 5hey contended that the trial court relied merely on the resolution of the investigating panel and its certification that probable cause existed, without personally determining the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence for such finding and without stating the basis thereof. they maintained that the records of the preliminary investigation, which was the sole basis of the judge8s ruling, failed to establish probable cause against them that would justify the issuance of the warrants for their arrest. 5he Court declared that %udge +io$no had indeed committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the arrest warrants. Contrary to the constitutional mandate and establish jurisprudence, he merely relied on the certification of the prosecutors as to the existence of probable cause, instead of personally examining the evidence, the complainant and his witnesses. <@or otherwise,? the Court said, <he would have found out that the evidence thus far presented was utterly insufficient to warrant the arrest of the petitioners.?.('/ In categorically stating that the evidence so far presented did not meet the standard of probable cause and subsequently granting the petition, the Court noted the following circumstances7 first, the corpus delicti was not established, and there was serious doubt as to the alleged victim8s deathF second, the extrajudicial statement of the principal witness, who had priorly confessed his participation in the crime, was full of material inconsistenciesF and third, the ,CC operatives who investigated the case never implicated the petitioners. Citing Salonga v! Cruz,-a.o, the Court of ,ppeals pointed out that when there was no prima facie case against a person sought to be charged with a crime,? the judge or fiscal, therefore, should not go on with the prosecution in the hope that some credible evidence might later turn out during trial, for this would be a flagrant violation of a basic right which the courts are created to uphold.?.()/ In the aforecited case, etitioner %ovito !. 1alonga sought to bar the filing of an Information for violation of the !evised ,nti-1ubversion ,ct, which %udge =rnani Cru;- ano had ordered to be filed against him. In sustaining the petitioner, the Court held that the evidence upon which the Information was based was not sufficient to charge him for a violation of the !evised ,nti-1ubversion ,ct. In all, the Court decreed in both cases that there was no basis in law and in fact for the judicial and executive determination of probable cause. 5he Court also held that the government, while vested with the right and the duty to protect itself and its people against transgressors of the law, must perform the same in a manner that would not infringe the perceived violators8 rights as guaranteed by the constitution. Cowever, the present case is not at all fours with Allado and Salonga! *irst, =lsa 0umban, the principal eyewitness to the $illing of !osalinda +y, was not a participant or conspirator in the commission of said crime. In Allado and Salonga, however, the main witness were the confessed perpetrators of the crimes, whose testimonies the Court deemed Atainted8..&4/ Second, in the case at bar the private respondent was accorded due process, and no precipitate haste or bias during the investigation of the case can be imputed to the public prosecutor. 6n the other hand, the Court noted in Allado the Hundue haste in the filing of the Information and the inordinate interest of the government? in pursuing the caseF .&(/ and in Salonga, <xxx the failure of the prosecution to show that the petitioner was probably guilty of conspiring to commit the crime, the initial disregard of petitioner8s constitutional rights .and/ the massive and damaging publicity made against him.? .&&/ In other words, while the respective sets of evidence before the prosecutors in Allado and Salonga were <utterly insufficient? to support a finding of probable cause, the same cannot be said of the present case. Be stress that Allado and Salonga constitute exceptions to the general rule and may be invo$e only if similar circumstances are clearly shown to exist. But as the foregoing comparisons show, such similarities are absent in the instant case. Cence, the rulings in the two aforementioned cases cannot apply to it.
Motion Without e!uisite "otice

6ne more thing. etitioners aver that rivate !espondents Cerbo did not give them a copy of the motion to Kuash the Barrant of ,rrest, which had been issued against him, or a notice of the schedule hearing. 5hus, they contend, %udge Ialles should not have entertained such motion. It is settled that every written motion in a trial court must be set for hearing by the applicant and served with the notice of hearing thereof, in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party. 5he provisions on this matter in 1ections " and #, !ule (# of the !ules of Court, .&3/ are categorical and mandatory in character. .&"/ Lnder 1ection * of the said rule, no motion shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof. 5he rationale for this is simple7 unless the movants set the time and the place of hearing, the court will be unable to

determine whether the adverse parties agree or object to the motions, since the rules themselves do not fix any period within which they may file their replies or oppositions..&#/ 5he motion to quash the warrant of arrest in the present case being pro forma, inasmusch as the requisite copy and notice were not duly served upon the adverse party, the trial court had no authority to act on it.
Epilo#ue

In granting this petition, we are not prejudging the criminal case or guilt or innocence of rivate !espondent Billy Cerbo. Be are simply saying that, as a general rule, if the information is valid on its face and there is no showing of manifest error, grave abuse of discretion or prejudice on the part of the public prosecutor, courts should not dismiss it for Awant of evidence,8 because evidentiary matters should be presented and heard during the trial. 5he functions and duties of both the trial court and the public prosecutor in <the proper scheme of things? in our criminal justice system should be clearly understood. 5he rights of the people from what could sometimes be an <oppressive exercise of government prosecutorial powers do need to be protected when circumstance so require. But just as we recogni;e this need, we also ac$nowledge that the 1tate must li$ewise be accorded due process. 5hus, when there is no showing of nefarious irregularity or manifest error in the performance of a public prosecutor8s duties, courts ought to refrain from interfering with such lawfully and judicially mandated duties. In any case, if there was palpable error or grave abuse of discretion in the public prosecutor8s finding of probable cause, the accused can appeal such finding to the justice secretary .&*/ and move for the deferment or suspension of the proceedings until such appeal is resolved. 3HEREFORE, the petition is /RA0T1(. 5he assailed +ecision of the Court of ,ppeals is hereby R121RS1( and S1T ASI(1. 5he case is R1&A0(1(to the !egional 5rial Court of 2abunturan, +avao, which is ordered to reinstate the amended Information against rivate !espondent Billy Cerbo and to proceed with judicious speed in hearing the case. 2o costs. SO OR#ERE#.
Ru!e ==E

G.R. No. 1494;9

Ja#)a3y 29, 2003

ATT%. ED7ARD SERAPIO, petitioner/ vs) SANDIGANBA%AN <T!IRD DI ISION=, PEOPLE O" T!E P!ILIPPINES, a#$ P!ILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTOR:GENERAL LEANDRO MENDOZA, respondents) 1:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1 G.R. No. 1498;9 Ja#)a3y 29, 2003

ED7ARD SERAPIO, petitioner/ vs) !ONORABLE SANDIGANBA%AN a#$ PEOPLE O" T!E P!ILIPPINES, respondents) 1:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1 G.R. No. 14911; Ja#)a3y 29, 2003

ED7ARD SERAPIO, petitioner/ vs) !ONORABLE SANDIGANBA%AN <T!IRD DI ISION= a#$ PEOPLE O" T!E P!ILIPPINES, respondents) CALLEJO, SR., J.6 ,e#ore the Court are two petitions #or certiorari #i!ed % petitioner 3dward Serapio/ assai!ing the reso!utions o# the Third Division o# the Sandigan a%an den%ing his petition #or ai!/ "otion #or a reinvestigation and "otion to &uash/ and a petition #or ha eas corpus/ a!! in re!ation to Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@ #or p!under wherein petitioner is one o# the accused together with #or"er President Doseph 3) 3strada/ Dose 8Dinggo%8 P) 3strada and severa! others)

The records show that petitioner was a "e" er o# the ,oard o# Trustees and the Lega! Counse! o# the 3rap $us!i" Gouth Foundation/ a non:stoc6/ non:pro#it #oundation esta !ished in Fe ruar% BCCC ostensi !% #or the purpose o# providing educationa! opportunities #or the poor and underprivi!eged ut deserving $us!i" %outh and students/ and support to research and advance studies o# %oung $us!i" educators and scientists) So"eti"e in Apri! BCCC/ petitioner/ as trustee o# the Foundation/ received on its eha!# a donation in the a"ount o# Two Aundred $i!!ion Pesos -PBCC $i!!ion. #ro" I!ocos Sur 'overnor Luis 8Chavit8 Singson through the !atter0s assistant $rs) Go!anda Rica#orte) Petitioner received the donation and turned over the said a"ount to the Foundation0s treasurer who !ater deposited it in the Foundation0s account with the 3&uita !e PCI ,an6) In the !atter part o# the %ear BCCC/ 'ov) Singson pu !ic!% accused then President Doseph 3) 3strada and his cohorts o# engaging in severa! i!!ega! activities/ inc!uding its operation on the i!!ega! nu" ers ga"e 6nown as #ueteng) This triggered the #i!ing with the O##ice o# the O" uds"an o# severa! cri"ina! co"p!aints against Doseph 3strada/ Dinggo% 3strada and petitioner/ together with other persons) A"ong such co"p!aints were: /olunteers Against Crime and Corruption( versus 'oseph "#ercito "strada( "dward %erapio( et al )/ doc6eted as O$, Cri") Case No) C:CC: =?IEL $raft Free Philippines Foundation( 0nc.( versus 'oseph "#ercito "strada( "dward %erapio( et al. / doc6eted as O$, Cri") Case No) C:CC:=?IIL and ,eonardo &e /era( Romeo 1. Capulong and &ennis . Funa( versus 'oseph "strada( 2olanda Ricaforte( "dward %erapio( Raul &e $uzman( &anilo Reyes and )ila Reforma / doc6eted as O$, Cri") Case No) C:CC:=?I?) Su se&uent!%/ petitioner #i!ed his Counter:A##idavit dated Fe ruar% B=/ BCC=) The other respondents !i6ewise #i!ed their respective counter:a##idavits) The O##ice o# the O" uds"an conducted a pre!i"inar% investigation o# the co"p!aints and on Apri! E/ BCC=/ issued a *oint reso!ution reco""ending/ inter a!ia/ that Doseph 3strada/ petitioner and severa! others e charged with the cri"ina! o##ense o# p!under) On Apri! E/ BCC=/ the O" uds"an #i!ed with the Sandigan a%an severa! In#or"ations against #or"er President 3strada/ who ear!ier had resigned #ro" his post as President o# the Repu !ic o# the Phi!ippines) One o# these In#or"ations/ doc6eted as Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@/ charged Doseph 3strada with p!under) On Apri! =@/ BCC=/ the O" uds"an #i!ed an a"ended In#or"ation in said case charging 3strada and severa! co:accused/ inc!uding petitioner/ with said cri"e) No ai! was reco""ended #or the provisiona! re!ease o# a!! the accused/ inc!uding petitioner) The case was ra##!ed to a specia! division which was su se&uent!% created % the Supre"e Court) The a"ended In#or"ation reads: 8That during the period #ro" Dune/ =>>@ to Danuar%/ BCC=/ in the Phi!ippines/ and within the *urisdiction o# this Aonora !e Court/ accused Doseph 3*ercito 3strada/ TA3N A P2,LIC OFFIC3R ,3IN' TA3N TA3 PR3SID3NT OF TA3 R3P2,LIC OF TA3 PAILIPPIN3S/ % hi"se!# AND5OR in CONNIVANC35CONSPIRACG with his co:accused/ 4AO AR3 $3$,3RS OF AIS FA$ILG/ R3LATIV3S ,G AFFINITG OR CONSAN'2INITG/ ,2SIN3SS ASSOCIAT3S/ S2,ORDINAT3S AND5OR OTA3R P3RSONS/ ,G TA+IN' 2ND23 ADVANTA'3 OF AIS OFFICIAL POSITION/ A2TAORITG/ R3LATIONSAIP/ CONN3CTION OR INFL23NC3/ did then and there wi!#u!!%/ un!aw#u!!% and cri"ina!!% a"ass/ accu"u!ate and ac&uire ,G AI$S3LF/ DIR3CTLG OR INDIR3CTLG/ i!!:gotten wea!th in the aggregate a"ount OR TOTAL VAL23 o# FO2R ,ILLION NIN3TG S3V3N $ILLION 3I'AT A2NDR3D FO2R TAO2SAND ON3 A2NDR3D S3V3NTG TAR33 P3SOS AND S3V3NT33N C3NTAVOS ;PE/C>?/@CE/=?H)=?</ "ore or !ess/ TA3R3,G 2ND2STLG 3NRICAIN' AI$S3LF OR TA3$S3LV3S AT TA3 3QP3NS3 AND TO TA3 DA$A'3 OF TA3 FILIPINO P3OPL3 AND TA3 R3P2,LIC OF TA3 PAILIPPIN3S through ANG OR A co" ination OR A series o# overt OR cri"ina! acts/ OR SI$ILAR SCA3$3S OR $3ANS/ descri ed as #o!!ows: -a. % receiving OR co!!ecting/ direct!% or indirect!%/ on S3V3RAL INSTANC3S $ON3G IN TA3 A''R3'AT3 A$O2NT OF FIV3 A2NDR3D FORTG:FIV3 $ILLION P3SOS -PIEI/CCC/CCC)CC./ $OR3 OR L3SS/ FRO$ ILL3'AL 'A$,LIN' IN TA3 FOR$ OF 'IFT/ SAAR3/ P3RC3NTA'3/ +IC+,AC+ OR ANG FOR$ OF P3C2NIARG ,3N3FIT/ ,G AI$S3LF AND5OR in connivance with co:accused CAARLI3 0ATON'0 AN'/ Dose 0Dinggo%0 3strada/ Go!anda T) Rica#orte/ 3dward Serapio/ AND DOAN DO3S AND DAN3 DO3S in consideration OF TOL3RATION OR PROT3CTION OF ILL3'AL 'A$,LIN'L - . % DIV3RTIN'/ R3C3IVIN'/ "isappropriating/ converting OR "isusing DIR3CTLG OR INDIR3CTLG/ #or AIS OR TA3IR P3RSONAL gain and ene#it pu !ic #und in the a"ount o# ON3 A2NDR3D TAIRTG $ILLION P3SOS -P=HC/CCC/CCC)CC./ "ore or !ess/ representing a portion o# the T4O A2NDR3D $ILLION P3SOS ;PBCC/CCC/CCC)CC<. to acco e1cise ta1 share a!!ocated #or the Province o# I!ocos Sur under R)A) No) ?=?=/ ,G AI$S3LF AND5OR in CONNIVANC3 with co:accused Char!ie 0Atong0 Ang/ A!"a A!#aro/ DOAN DO3 a)6)a) 3!euterio Tan OR 3!euterio Ra"os Tan or $r) 2%/ and Dane Doe a)6)a) De!ia Ra*as/ AND OTA3R DOAN DO3S AND DAN3 DO3SL -c. % directing/ ordering and co"pe!!ing FOR AIS P3RSONAL 'AIN AND ,3N3FIT/ the 'overn"ent Service Insurance S%ste" -'SIS. TO P2RCAAS3/ HI=/@?@/CCC SAAR3S OF STOC+S/ $OR3 OR L3SS/ and the Socia! Securit% S%ste" -SSS./ HB>/@II/CCC SAAR3S OF STOC+/ $OR3 OR L3SS/ OF TA3 ,3LL3 CORPORATION IN TA3 A$O2NT OF $OR3 OR L3SS ON3 ,ILLION ON3 A2NDR3D T4O $ILLION NIN3 A2NDR3D SIQTG FIV3 TAO2SAND SIQ A2NDR3D S3V3N P3SOS AND FIFTG C3NTAVOS ;P=/=CB/>FI/FC?)IC< AND $OR3 OR L3SS S3V3N A2NDR3D

FORTG FO2R $ILLION SIQ A2NDR3D T43LV3 TAO2SAND AND FO2R A2NDR3D FIFTG P3SOS ;P?EE/F=B/EIC)CC</ R3SP3CTIV3LG/ OR A TOTAL OR $OR3 OR L3SS ON3 ,ILLION 3I'AT A2NDR3D FORTG S3V3N $ILLION FIV3 A2NDR3D S3V3NTG 3I'AT TAO2SAND FIFTG S3V3N P3SOS AND FIFTG C3NTAVOS ;P=/@E?/I?@/CI?)IC<L AND ,G COLL3CTIN' OR R3C3IVIN'/ DIR3CTLG OR INDIR3CTLG/ ,G AI$S3LF AND5OR IN CONNIVANC3 4ITA DOAN DO3S AND DAN3 DO3S/ CO$$ISSIONS OR P3RC3NTA'3S OF SAAR3S OF STOC+ IN TA3 A$O2NT OF ON3 A2NDR3D 3I'ATG NIN3 $ILLION S3V3N A2NDR3D TAO2SAND P3SOS ;=@>/?CC/CCC)CC< $OR3 OR L3SS/ FRO$ TA3 ,3LL3 CORPORATION 4AICA ,3CA$3 PART OF TA3 D3POSIT IN TA3 3M2ITA,L3:PCI ,AN+ 2ND3R TA3 ACCO2NT NA$3 8DOS3 V3LARD38L -d. % un*ust!% enriching hi"se!# FRO$ CO$$ISSIONS/ 'IFTS/ SAAR3S/ P3RC3NTA'3S/ +IC+,AC+S OR ANG FOR$ OF P3C2NIARG ,3N3FITS/ IN CONNIVANC3 4ITA DOAN DO3S AND DAN3 DO3S/ the a"ount o# $OR3 OR L3SS TAR33 ,ILLION T4O A2NDR3D TAIRTG TAR33 $ILLION ON3 A2NDR3D FO2R TAO2SAND ON3 A2NDR3D S3V3NTG TAR33 P3SOS AND S3V3NT33N C3NTAVOS ;PH/BHH/=CE/=?H)=?< AND D3POSITIN' TA3 SA$3 2ND3R AIS ACCO2NT NA$3 8DOS3 V3LARD38 AT TA3 3M2ITA,L3:PCI ,AN+) CONTRARG TO LA4)8= On Apri! I/ BCC=/ petitioner o tained a cop% o# the O" uds"an0s Doint Reso!ution #inding pro a !e cause against hi" #or p!under) The ne1t da%/ Apri! F/ BCC=/ he #i!ed with the O##ice o# the O" uds"an a $otion #or Reconsideration and5or Reinvestigation)B Petitioner !i6ewise #i!ed on said date/ this ti"e with the Sandigan a%an/ an 2rgent O"ni us $otion: -a. To Ao!d in A e%ance the Issuance o# 4arrant o# Arrest and Further ProceedingsL - . To Conduct a Deter"ination o# Pro a !e CauseL -c. For Leave to Fi!e Accused0s $otion #or Reconsideration and5or ReinvestigationL and -d. To Direct the O" uds"an to Conduct a Reinvestigation o# the Charges against accused 3dward Serapio) H On Apri! =C/ BCC=/ the O" uds"an issued an order den%ing petitioner0s "otion #or reconsideration and5or reinvestigation on the ground o# !ac6 o# *urisdiction since the a"ended In#or"ation charging petitioner with p!under had a!read% een #i!ed with the Sandigan a%an) E In a para!!e! deve!op"ent/ the Sandigan a%an issued a Reso!ution on Apri! BI/ BCC= in Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@ #inding pro a !e cause to *usti#% the issuance o# warrants o# arrest #or the accused/ inc!uding petitioner) According!%/ the Sandigan a%an issued an Order on the sa"e date #or the arrest o# petitioner) I 4hen apprised o# said order/ petitioner vo!untari!% surrendered at >:EI p)") on the sa"e da% to Phi!ippine Nationa! Po!ice Chie# 'en) Leandro $endo(a) Petitioner has since een detained at Ca"p Cra"e #or said charge) The Sandigan a%an set the arraign"ent o# the accused/ inc!uding petitioner/ in Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@ on Dune B?/ BCC=) In the "eanti"e/ on Apri! B?/ BCC=/ petitioner #i!ed with the Sandigan a%an an 2rgent Petition #or ,ai! which was set #or hearing on $a% E/ BCC=) F For his part/ petitioner0s co:accused Dose 8Dinggo%8 3strada #i!ed on Apri! BC/ BCC= a Ver% 2rgent O"ni us $otion a!!eging that he was entit!ed to ai! as a "atter o# right) During the hearing on $a% E/ BCC= on petitioner0s 2rgent Petition #or ,ai!/ the prosecution "oved #or the resetting o# the arraign"ent o# the accused ear!ier than the Dune B?/ BCC= schedu!e) Aowever/ the Sandigan a%an denied the "otion o# the prosecution and issued an order dec!aring that the petition #or ai! can and shou!d e heardbefore petitioner0s arraign"ent on Dune B?/ BCC= and even before the other accused in Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@ #i!ed their respective petitions #or ai!) According!%/ the Sandigan a%an set the hearing #or the reception o# evidence on petitioner0s petition #or ai! on $a% B= to BI/ BCC=) On $a% =?/ BCC=/ #our da%s e#ore the hearing on petitioner0s petition #or ai!/ the O" uds"an #i!ed an urgent "otion #or ear!% arraign"ent o# Doseph 3strada/ Dinggo% 3strada and petitioner and a "otion #or *oint ai! hearings o# Doseph 3strada/ Dinggo% 3strada and petitioner) The #o!!owing da%/ petitioner #i!ed a "ani#estation &uestioning the propriet% o# inc!uding Doseph 3strada and Dinggo% 3strada in the hearing on his -petitioner0s. petition #or ai!) The Sandigan a%an issued a Reso!ution on $a% =@/ BCC= resetting the hearings on petitioner0s petition #or ai! to Dune =@ to B@/ BCC= to ena !e the court to reso!ve the prosecution0s pending "otions as we!! as petitioner0s "otion that his petition #or ai! e heard as ear!% as possi !e/ which "otion the prosecution opposed) On $a% H=/ BCC=/ the Sandigan a%an issued a Reso!ution den%ing petitioner0s Apri! F/ BCC= 2rgent O"ni us $otion) The court ru!ed that the issues posed % petitioner had a!read% een reso!ved in its Apri! BI/ BCC= Reso!ution #inding pro a !e cause to ho!d petitioner and his co:accused #or tria!) ? Petitioner #i!ed a "otion #or reconsideration o# the said $a% H=/ BCC= Reso!ution) On Dune =/ BCC=/ the Sandigan a%an issued a reso!ution re&uiring the attendance o# petitioner as we!! as a!! the other accused in Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@ during the hearings on the petitions #or ai! under pain o# waiver o# cross: e1a"ination) The Sandigan a%an/ citing its inherent powers to proceed with the tria! o# the case in the "anner it deter"ines est conducive to order!% proceedings and speed% ter"ination o# the case/ directed the other accused to participate in the said ai! hearing considering that under Section @/ Ru!e ==E o# the Revised Ru!es o# Court/ whatever evidence is adduced during the ai! hearing sha!! e considered auto"atica!!% reproduced at the tria!) @

Aowever/ instead o# proceeding with the ai! hearing set % it on Dune =@/ BCC=/ the Sandigan a%an issued an Order on Dune =I/ BCC= cance!ing the said ai! hearing due to pending incidents %et to e reso!ved and reset anew the hearing to Dune BF/ BCC=)> On the eve o# said hearing/ the Sandigan a%an issued a reso!ution den%ing petitioner0s "otion #or reconsideration o# its $a% H=/ BCC= Reso!ution) The ai! hearing on Dune BF/ BCC= did not again proceed ecause on said date petitioner #i!ed with the Sandigan a%an a "otion to &uash the a"ended In#or"ation on the grounds that as against hi"/ the a"ended In#or"ation does not a!!ege a co" ination or series o# overt or cri"ina! acts constitutive o# p!underL as against hi"/ the a"ended In#or"ation does not a!!ege a pattern o# cri"ina! acts indicative o# an overa!! un!aw#u! sche"e or conspirac%L the "one% a!!eged in paragraph -a. o# the a"ended In#or"ation to have een i!!ega!!% received or co!!ected does not constitute 8i!!:gotten wea!th8 as de#ined in Section =-d. o# Repu !ic Act No) ?C@CL and the a"ended In#or"ation charges hi" o# ri er% and i!!ega! ga" !ing) =C ,% wa% o# riposte/ the prosecution o *ected to the ho!ding o# ai! hearing unti! petitioner agreed to withdraw his "otion to &uash) The prosecution contended that petitioner0s "otion to &uash the a"ended In#or"ation was antithetica! to his petition #or ai!) The Sandigan a%an reset the arraign"ent o# accused and the hearing on the petition #or ai! o# petitioner in Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@ #or Du!% =C/ BCC= to ena !e it to reso!ve the pending incidents and the "otion to &uash o# petitioner) Aowever/ even e#ore the Sandigan a%an cou!d reso!ve the pending "otions o# petitioner and the prosecution/ petitioner #i!ed with this Court on Dune B>/ BCC= a Petition #or 3abeas Corpus and Certiorari/doc!eted as $.R. 4o. 156576/ pra%ing that the Court dec!are void the &uestioned orders/ reso!utions and actions o# the Sandigan a%an on his c!ai" that he was there % e##ective!% denied o# his right to due process) Petitioner !i6ewise pra%ed #or the issuance o# a writ o# habeas corpusL that the Peop!e e dec!ared to have waived their right to present evidence in opposition to his petition #or ai!L and/ pre"ised on the #ai!ure o# the Peop!e to adduce strong evidence o# petitioner0s gui!t o# p!under/ that he e granted provisiona! !i ert% on ai! a#ter due proceedings) == $eanwhi!e/ on Dune B@/ BCC=/ Dose 8Dinggo%8 3strada #i!ed with the Sandigan a%an a "otion pra%ing that said court reso!ve his "otion to #i1 his ai!) On Du!% >/ BCC=/ the Sandigan a%an issued a Reso!ution den%ing petitioner0s "otion to &uash the a"ended In#or"ation) Petitioner/ through counse!/ received on said date a cop% o# said reso!ution) =B The "otion to #i1 ai! #i!ed % Dose 8Dinggo%8 3strada was a!so reso!ved % the Sandigan a%an) On Du!% =C/ BCC=/ *ust e#ore his arraign"ent in Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@/ petitioner "ani#ested to the Sandigan a%an that he was going to #i!e a "otion #or reconsideration o# the Du!% >/ BCC= Reso!ution den%ing his "otion to &uash and #or the de#er"ent o# his arraign"ent) The Sandigan a%an/ however/ dec!ared that there was no provision in the Ru!es o# Court or in the Sandigan a%an0s ru!es granting the right to petitioner to #i!e a "otion #or the reconsideration o# an inter!ocutor% order issued % it and ordered petitioner to ora!!% argue his "otion #or reconsideration) 4hen petitioner re#used/ the Sandigan a%an proceeded with his arraign"ent) Petitioner re#used to p!ead/ i"pe!!ing the court to enter a p!ea o# not gui!t% #or hi") On Du!% BC/ BCC=/ petitioner #i!ed with the Court a Petition #or Certiorari/ doc6eted as $.R. 4o. 156879/ a!!eging that the Sandigan a%an acted without or in e1cess o# *urisdiction or with grave a use o# discretion a"ounting to !ac6 or e1cess o# *urisdiction in issuing its Du!% >/ BCC= Reso!ution den%ing his "otion to &uash/ notwithstanding the #act that "ateria! incu!pator% a!!egations o# the a"ended In#or"ation against hi" do not constitute the cri"e o# p!underL and that he is charged/ under the said a"ended In#or"ation/ #or "ore than one o##ense) Dose 8Dinggo%8 3strada !i6ewise #i!ed petition #or certiorari with the Court doc6eted as ')R) No) =E@>FI #or the nu!!i#ication o# a reso!ution o# the Sandigan a%an den%ing his "otion to #i1 ai!) On August >/ BCC=/ petitioner #i!ed with the Court another Petition #or Certiorari/ doc!eted as $.R. 4o. 159117/ assai!ing the Sandigan a%an0s Reso!ution dated H= $a% BCC= which denied his Apri! F/ BCC= 2rgent O"ni us $otion and its Dune BI/ BCC= Reso!ution den%ing his "otion #or reconsideration o# its $a% H=/ BCC= Reso!ution) Re: $.R. 4o. 156879 Petitioner avers that: TA3 SANDI'AN,AGAN ACT3D 4ITAO2T OR IN 3QC3SS OF D2RISDICTION OR 4ITA 'RAV3 A,2S3 OF DISCR3TION A$O2NTIN' TO LAC+ OR 3QC3SS OF D2RISDICTION/ IN D3NGIN' P3TITION3R S3RAPIO0S)+10+4 1+ ;.A%3 NOT4ITASTANDIN' TAAT 9 I TA3 FACTS ALL3'3D IN TA3 A$3ND3D INFOR$ATION AS A'AINST P3TITION3R S3RAPIO DO NOT CONSTIT2T3 TA3 CRI$3 OF PL2ND3R) A The Amended 0nformation/ as against petitioner Serapio/ does not a!!ege a co" ination or series o# overt or cri"ina! acts constitutive o# p!under)

, The Amended 0nformation/ as against petitioner Serapio/ does not a!!ege a pattern o# cri"ina! acts indicative o# an overa!! un!aw#u! sche"e or conspirac%) C The "one% descri ed in paragraph -a. o# the Amended 0nformation and a!!eged to have een i!!ega!!% received or co!!ected does not constitute 0i!!:gotten wea!th0 as de#ined in Section =-d./ Repu !ic Act No) ?C@C/ as a"ended) II TA3 A)"4&"& 04F+R)A10+4 CAAR'3S $OR3 TAAN ON3 OFF3NS3)8=H Petitioner asserts that/ on the #ace o# the a"ended In#or"ation/ he is charged with p!under on!% in paragraph -a. which reads: 8-a. % receiving OR co!!ecting/ direct!% or indirect!%/ on S3V3RAL INSTANC3S/ $ON3G IN TA3 A''R3'AT3 A$O2NT OF FIV3 A2NDR3D FORTG:FIV3 $ILLION P3SOS -PIEI/CCC/CCC)CC./ $OR3 OR L3SS/ FRO$ ILL3'AL 'A$,LIN' IN TA3 FOR$ OF 'IFT/ SAAR3/ P3RC3NTA'3/ +IC+,AC+ OR ANG FOR$ OF P3C2NIARG ,3N3FIT/ ,G AI$S3LF AND5OR in connivance with co:accused CAARLI3 0ATON'0 AN'/ Dose 0Dinggo%0 3strada/ Go!anda T) Rica#orte/ 3dward Serapio/ AND DOAN DO3S AND DAN3 DO3S/ in consideration OF TOL3RATION OR PROT3CTION OF ILL3'AL 'A$,LIN'L8 =E Petitioner asserts that there is no a!!egation in paragraph -a. o# the a"ended In#or"ation o# a 8co" ination or series o# overt or cri"ina! acts8 constituting p!under as descri ed in Section =-d. o# R)A) ?C@C as a"ended) Neither does the a"ended In#or"ation a!!ege 8a pattern o# cri"ina! acts)8 Ae avers that his sing!e act o# to!eration or protection o# i!!ega! ga" !ing i"pe!!ed % a sing!e cri"ina! reso!ution does not constitute the re&uisite 8co" ination or series o# acts8 #or p!under) Ae #urther c!ai"s that the consideration consisting o# gi#ts/ percentages or 6ic6 ac6s in #urtherance o# said reso!ution turned over to and received % #or"er President Doseph 3) 3strada 8on severa! occasions8 does not cure the de#ect in the a"ended in#or"ation) Petitioner insists that on the #ace o# the a"ended In#or"ation he is charged on!% with ri er% or i!!ega! ga" !ing and not o# p!under) Petitioner argues that the PIEC "i!!ion which #or"s part o# the PE/C>?/@CE/=?H)=? a"assed % #or"er President Doseph 3) 3strada in con#a u!ation with his co:accused is not i!!:gotten wea!th as de#ined in Section =-d. o# R)A) ?C@C) 4e do not agree with petitioner) Section F/ Ru!e ==C o# the Revised Ru!es o# Cri"ina! Procedure provides that: 8Sec) F %ufficiency of complaint or information) 9 A co"p!aint or in#or"ation is su##icient i# it states the na"e o# the accused/ the designation o# the o##ense given % the statute < the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offenseL the na"e o# the o##ended part%L the appro1i"ate date o# the co""ission o# the o##enseL and the p!ace where the o##ense was co""itted) 4hen the o##ense was co""itted % "ore than one person/ a!! o# the" sha!! e inc!uded in the co"p!aint or in#or"ation)8=I The acts or o"issions co"p!ained or "ust e a!!eged in such #or" as is su##icient to ena !e a person o# co""on understanding to 6now what o##ense is intended to e charged and ena !e the court to 6now the proper *udg"ent) The In#or"ation "ust a!!ege c!ear!% and accurate!% the e!e"ents o# the cri"e charged) 4hat #acts and circu"stances are necessar% to e inc!uded therein "ust e deter"ined % re#erence to the de#inition and e!e"ents o# the speci#ic cri"es) The purpose o# the re&uire"ent o# a!!eging a!! the e!e"ents o# the cri"e in the In#or"ation is to in#or" an accused o# the nature o# the accusation against hi" so as to ena !e hi" to suita !% prepare #or his de#ense) =F Another purpose is to ena !e accused/ i# #ound gui!t%/ to p!ead his conviction in a su se&uent prosecution #or the sa"e o##ense)=? The use o# derivatives or s%non%"s or a!!egations o# asic #acts constituting the o##ense charged is su##icient)=@ In this case/ the a"ended In#or"ation speci#ica!!% a!!eges that a!! the accused/ inc!uding petitioner/ connived and conspired with #or"er President Doseph 3) 3strada to co""it p!under 8through an% or a co" ination or a series o# overt or cri"ina! acts or si"i!ar sche"es or "eans)8 And in paragraph -a. o# the a"ended In#or"ation/ petitioner and his co:accused are charged with receiving or co!!ecting/ direct!% or indirect!%/ on several instances "one% in the aggregate a"ount o# PIEI/CCC/CCC)CC) In 'ose ='inggoy= "strada vs. %andiganbayan >1hird &ivision?( et al )/=>we he!d that the word 8series8 is s%non%"ous with the c!ause 8on severa! instances8L it re#ers to a repetition o# the sa"e predicate act in an% o# the ite"s in Section =-d. o# the !aw) 4e #urther he!d that the word 8co" ination8 conte"p!ates the co""ission o# at !east an% two di##erent predicate acts in an% o# the said ite"s) 4e ru!ed that 8p!ain!%/ su paragraph -a. o# the a"ended in#or"ation charges accused therein/ inc!uding petitioner/ with p!under co""itted % a series o# the sa"e predicate act under Section =-d.-B. o# the !aw8 and that: 81 1 1 Su :paragraph -a. a!!eged the predicate act o# receiving/ on severa! instances/ "one% #ro" i!!ega! ga" !ing/ in consideration o# to!eration or protection o# i!!ega! ga" !ing/ and e1press!% na"es petitioner as one o# those who conspired with #or"er President 3strada in co""itting the o##ense) This predicate act corresponds with the o##ense descri ed in ite" ;B< o# the enu"eration in Section =-d. o# R)A) No) ?C@C) 1 1 1)8 BC

It is not necessar% to a!!ege in the a"ended In#or"ation a pattern o# overt or cri"ina! acts indicative o# the overa!! un!aw#u! sche"e or conspirac% ecause as Section H o# R)A) ?C@C speci#ica!!% provides/ the sa"e is evidentiar% and the genera! ru!e is that "atters o# evidence need not e a!!eged in the In#or"ation) B= The Court a!so ru!ed in 'ose ='inggoy= "strada vs. %andiganbayan BB that the aggregate a"ount o# PE/C>?/@CE/=?H)=? inc!usive o# the PIEI "i!!ion a!!eged in paragraph -a. o# the a"ended in#or"ation is i!!:gotten wea!th as conte"p!ated in Section =/ paragraph =-d. o# Repu !ic Act ?C@C/ as a"ended/ and that a!! the accused in paragraph -a. to -d. o# the a"ended in#or"ation conspired and con#ederated with #or"er President 3strada to ena !e the !atter to a"ass/ accu"u!ate or ac&uire i!!:gotten wea!th in the aggregate a"ount o# PE/C>?/@CE/=?H)=?) 2nder the a"ended In#or"ation/ a!! the accused/ inc!uding petitioner/ are charged o# having conspired and con#a u!ated together in co""itting p!under) 4hen two or "ore persons conspire to co""it a cri"e/ each is responsi !e #or a!! the acts o# others) In conte"p!ation o# !aw/ the act o# the conspirator is the act o# each o# the")BH Conspirators are one "an/ the% reathe one reath/ the% spea6 one voice/ the% wie!d one ar" and the !aw sa%s that the acts/ words and dec!arations o# each/ whi!e in the pursuit o# the co""on design/ are the acts/ words and dec!arations o# a!!)BE Petitioner asserts that he is charged under the a"ended in#or"ation o# ri er% and i!!ega! ga" !ing and others) The Sandigan a%an/ #or its part/ he!d that petitioner is not charged with the predicate acts o# ri er% and i!!ega! ga" !ing ut is charged on!% with one cri"e that o# p!under: 8TA3 ISS23 OF 4A3TA3R OR NOT TA3 INFOR$ATION CAAR'3S $OR3 TAAN ON3 OFF3NS3 According to the accused 3stradas and 3dward Serapio the in#or"ation charges "ore than one o##ense/ na"e!%/ ri er% -Artic!e B=C o# the Revised Pena! Code./ "a!versation o# pu !ic #unds or propert% -Artic!e B=?/ Revised Pena! Code. and vio!ations o# Sec) H-e. o# Repu !ic Act -RA No) HC=>. and Section ?-d. o# RA F?=H) This contention is patent!% un"eritorious) The acts a!!eged in the in#or"ation are not charged as separate o##enses ut as predicate acts o# the cri"e o# p!under) It shou!d e stressed that the Anti:P!under !aw speci#ica!!% Section =-d. thereo# does not "a6e an% e1press re#erence to an% speci#ic provision o# !aws/ other than R)A) No) ?C@C/ as a"ended/ which coincidenta!!% "a% pena!i(e as a separate cri"e an% o# the overt or cri"ina! acts enu"erated therein) The said acts which #or" part o# the co" ination or series o# act are descri ed in their generic sense) Thus/ aside #ro" 0"a!versation0 o# pu !ic #unds/ the !aw a!so uses the generic ter"s 0"isappropriation0/ 0conversion0 or 0"isuse0 o# said #und) The #act that the acts invo!ved "a% !i6ewise e pena!i(ed under other !aws is incidenta!) The said acts are "entioned on!% as predicate acts o# the cri"e o# p!under and the a!!egations re!ative thereto are not to e ta6en or to e understood as a!!egations charging separate cri"ina! o##enses punished under the Revised Pena! Code/ the Anti:'ra#t and Corrupt Practices Act and Code o# Conduct and 3thica! Standards #or Pu !ic O##icia!s and 3"p!o%ees)8BI This Court agrees with the Sandigan a%an) It is c!ear on the #ace o# the a"ended In#or"ation that petitioner and his co:accused are charged on!% with one cri"e o# p!under and not with the predicate acts or cri"es o# p!under) It ears stressing that the predicate acts "ere!% constitute acts o# p!under and are not cri"es separate and independent o# the cri"e o# p!under) Resu!tant!% then/ the petition is dis"issed) Re: $.R. 4o. 159117 Petitioner assai!s the $a% H=/ BCC= Doint Reso!ution o# the Sandigan a%an den%ing his Apri! E/ BCC= 2rgent O"ni us $otion contending that: 8$R+.4&% F+R 13" P"1010+4 TA3 SANDI'AN,AGAN ACT3D 4ITAO2T OR IN 3QC3SS OF D2RISDICTION OR 4ITA 'RAV3 A,2S3 OF DISCR3TION A$O2NTIN' TO LAC+ OR 3QC3SS OF D2RISDICTION IN S2$$ARILG D3NGIN' P3TITION3R S3RAPIO0S .R$"41 +)40 .% )+10+4 A4& )+10+4 F+R R"C+4%0&"RA10+4 >R": R"%+,.10+4 &A1"& @1 )A2 ABB1?( NOT4ITASTANDIN' TAAT TA3 O$,2DS$AN AAD TOTALLG DISR3'ARD3D 3QC2LPATORG 3VID3NC3 AND CO$$ITT3D 'RAV3 AND $ANIF3ST 3RRORS OF LA4 S3RIO2SLG PR3D2DICIAL TO TA3 RI'ATS AND INT3R3STS OF P3TITION3R S3RAPIO/ AND TA3R3 IS NO PRO,A,L3 CA2S3 TO S2PPORT AN INDICT$3NT FOR PL2ND3R AS A'AINST P3TITION3R S3RAPIO)8BF Petitioner c!ai"s that the Sandigan a%an co""itted grave a use o# discretion in den%ing his o"ni us "otion to ho!d in a e%ance the issuance o# a warrant #or his arrest as we!! as the proceedings in Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@L to conduct a deter"ination o# pro a !e causeL and to direct the O" uds"an to conduct a reinvestigation o# the charges hi") Petitioner asseverates that the O" uds"an had tota!!% disregarded e1cu!pator% evidence and co""itted grave a use o# discretion in charging hi" with p!under) Ae #urther argues that there e1ists no pro a !e cause to support an indict"ent #or p!under as against hi") B?

Petitioner points out that the *oint reso!ution o# the O" uds"an does not even "ention hi" in re!ation to the co!!ection and receipt o# #ueteng money which started in =>>@B@ and that the O" uds"an ine1p!ica !% arrived at the conc!usion that the 3rap $us!i" Gouth Foundation was a "one% !aundering #ront organi(ation put up % Doseph 3strada/ assisted % petitioner/ even though the !atter presented evidence that said Foundation is a bona fide and !egiti"ate private #oundation)B> $ore i"portant!%/ he c!ai"s/ said *oint reso!ution does not indicate that he 6new that the PBCC "i!!ion he received #or the Foundation ca"e #ro" #ueteng)HC Petitioner insists that he cannot e charged with p!under since: -=. the PBCC "i!!ion he received does not constitute 8i!!:gotten wea!th8 as de#ined in Section =-d. o# R)A) No) ?C@CL H= -B. there is no evidence !in6ing hi" to the co!!ection and receipt o# #ueteng "one%LHB -H. there was no showing that petitioner participated in a pattern o# cri"ina! acts indicative o# an overa!! un!aw#u! sche"e or conspirac% to a"ass/ accu"u!ate or ac&uire i!!:gotten wea!th/ or that his act o# receiving the PBCC "i!!ion constitutes an overt cri"ina! act o# p!under) HH Petitioner argues #urther that his "otion #or reinvestigation is pre"ised on the a so!ute !ac6 o# evidence to support a #inding o# pro a !e cause #or p!under as against hi"/ HE and hence he shou!d e spared #ro" the inconvenience/ urden and e1pense o# a pu !ic tria!) HI Petitioner a!so avers that the discretion o# govern"ent prosecutors is not e%ond *udicia! scrutin%) Ae asserts that whi!e this Court does not ordinari!% !oo6 into the e1istence o# pro a !e cause to charge a person #or an o##ense in a given case/ it "a% do so in e1ceptiona! circu"stances/ which are present in this case: -=. to a##ord ade&uate protection to the constitutiona! rights o# the accusedL -B. #or the order!% ad"inistration o# *ustice or to avoid oppressionL -H. when the acts o# the o##icer are without or in e1cess o# authorit%L and -E. where the charges are "ani#est!% #a!se and "otivated % the !ust #or vengeance) HF Petitioner c!ai"s that he raised proper grounds #or a reinvestigation % asserting that in issuing the &uestioned *oint reso!ution/ the O" uds"an disregarded evidence e1cu!pating petitioner #ro" the charge o# p!under and co""itted errors o# !aw or irregu!arities which have een pre*udicia! to his interest)H? Ae a!so states that during the *oint pre!i"inar% investigations #or the various charges against Doseph 3strada and his associates/ o# which the p!under charge was on!% one o# the eight charges against 3strada et a!)/ he was not #urnished with copies o# the other co"p!aints nor given the opportunit% to re#ute the evidence presented in re!ation to the other seven cases/ even though the evidence presented therein were a!so used against hi"/ a!though he was on!% charged in the p!under case)H@ The Peop!e "aintain that the Sandigan a%an co""itted no grave a use o# discretion in den%ing petitioner0s o"ni us "otion) The% assert that since the O" uds"an #ound pro a !e cause to charge petitioner with the cri"e o# p!under/ the Sandigan a%an is ound to assu"e *urisdiction over the case and to proceed to tr% the sa"e) The% #urther argue that 8a #inding o# pro a !e cause is "ere!% pre!i"inar% and pre#ator% o# the eventua! deter"ination o# gui!t or innocence o# the accused/8 and that petitioner sti!! has the chance to interpose his de#enses in a #u!! !own tria! where his gui!t or innocence "a% #ina!!% e deter"ined)H> The Peop!e a!so point out that the Sandigan a%an did not co""it grave a use o# discretion in den%ing petitioner0s o"ni us "otion as6ing #or/ a"ong others/ a reinvestigation % the O" uds"an/ ecause his "otion #or reconsideration o# the O" uds"an0s *oint reso!ution did not raise the grounds o# either new!% discovered evidence/ or errors o# !aw or irregu!arities/ which under Repu !ic Act No) F??C are the on!% grounds upon which a "otion #or reconsideration "a% e #i!ed)EC The Peop!e !i6ewise insist that there e1ists pro a !e cause to charge petitioner with p!under as a co:conspirator o# Doseph 3strada)E= This Court does not agree with petitioner) Case !aw has it that the Court does not inter#ere with the O" uds"an0s discretion in the conduct o# pre!i"inar% investigations) Thus/ in Raro vs. %andiganbayanEB / the Court ru!ed: 81 1 1) In the per#or"ance o# his tas6 to deter"ine pro a !e cause/ the O" uds"an0s discretion is para"ount) Thus/ in Camanag vs. $uerrero/ this Court said: 01 1 1) -S.u##ice it to state that this Court has adopted a po!ic% o# non:inter#erence in the conduct o# pre!i"inar% investigations/ and !eaves to the investigating prosecutor su##icient !atitude o# discretion in the e1ercise o# deter"ination o# what constitutes su##icient evidence as wi!! esta !ish 0pro a !e cause0 #or #i!ing o# in#or"ation against the supposed o##ender)8 In Cruz( 'r. vs. People/EH the Court ru!ed thus: 8Further"ore/ the O" uds"an0s #indings are essentia!!% #actua! in nature) According!%/ in assai!ing said #indings on the contention that the O" uds"an co""itted a grave a use o# discretion in ho!ding that petitioner is !ia !e #or esta#a through #a!si#ication o# pu !ic docu"ents/ petitioner is c!ear!% raising &uestions o# #act here) Ais argu"ents are anchored on the propriet% or error in the O" uds"an0s appreciation o# #acts . Petitioner cannot be unaware that the %upreme Court is not a trier of facts( more so in the consideration of the extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither Cuestion of fact nor even of law are entertained / ut on!% &uestions o# !ac6 or e1cess o# *urisdiction or grave a use o# discretion) Inso#ar as the third issue is concerned/

we #ind that no grave a use o# discretion has een co""itted % respondents which wou!d warrant the granting o# the writ o# certiorari)8 Petitioner is urdened to a!!ege and esta !ish that the Sandigan a%an and the O" uds"an #or that "atter co""itted grave a use o# discretion in issuing their reso!ution and *oint reso!ution/ respective!%) Petitioner #ai!ed to discharge his urden) Indeed/ the Court #inds no grave a use o# discretion on the part o# the Sandigan a%an and the O" uds"an in #inding pro a !e cause against petitioner #or p!under) Neither did the Sandigan a%an a use its discretion in den%ing petitioner0s "otion #or reinvestigation o# the charges against hi" in the a"ended In#or"ation) In its Reso!ution o# Apri! BI/ BCC=/ the Sandigan a%an a##ir"ed the #inding o# the O" uds"an that pro a !e cause e1ists against petitioner and his co:accused #or the cri"e o# p!under/ thus: 8In the !ight o# the #oregoing and considering the a!!egations o# the A"ended In#or"ation dated =@ Apri! BCC= charging the accused with the o##ense o# PL2ND3R and e1a"ining care#u!!% the evidence su "itted in support thereo# consisting o# the a##idavits and sworn state"ents and testi"onies o# prosecution witnesses and severa! other pieces o# docu"entar% evidence/ as we!! as the respective counter:a##idavits o# accused #or"er President Doseph 3strada dated $arch BC/ BCC=/ Dose 8Dinggo%8 Pi"ente! 3strada dated Fe ruar% BC/ BCC=/ Go!anda T) Rica#orte dated Danuar% B=/ BCC= and 3dward S) Serapio dated Fe ruar% B=/ BCC=/ the Court #inds and so ho!ds that pro a !e cause #or the o##ense o# PL2ND3R e1ists to *usti#% issuance o# warrants o# arrest o# accused #or"er President Doseph 3*ercito 3strada/ $a%or Dose 8Dinggo%8 3strada/ Char!ie 8Atong8 Ang/ 3dward Serapio/ Go!anda T) Rica#orte/ A!"a A!#aro/ Dohn Doe a)6)a) 3!euterio Tan or 3!euterio Ra"os Tan or $r) 2%/ and Dane Doe a)6)a De!ia Ra*as)8EE Li6ewise/ in its Reso!ution dated $a% H=/ BCC= o# petitioner0s o"ni us "otion/ the Sandigan a%an noted that a pre!i"inar% investigation was #u!!% conducted in accordance with Ru!e II/ Ad"inistrative Order No) ? o# the O##ice o# the O" uds"an/ pursuant to Sections =@/ BH and B? o# Repu !ic Act No) F??C -The O" uds"an Act o# =>@>.L and that a!! the asic co"p!aints and evidence in support thereo# were served upon a!! the accused) EI It was in !ight o# such #indings that the Sandigan a%an he!d that there was no asis #or the a!!egation that accused therein -inc!uding petitioner. were deprived o# the right to see6 a reconsideration o# the O" uds"an0s Reso!ution dated Apri! E/ BCC= #inding pro a !e cause to charge the" with p!under a#ter the conduct o# pre!i"inar% investigation in connection therewith) In addition/ the Sandigan a%an pointed out that petitioner #i!ed a "otion #or reconsideration o# the O" uds"an0s reso!ution/ ut #ai!ed to show in his "otion that there were new!% discovered evidence/ or that the pre!i"inar% investigation was tainted % errors o# !aw or irregu!arities/ which are the on!% grounds #or which a reconsideration o# the O" uds"an0s reso!ution "a% e granted) EF It ears stressing that the right to a pre!i"inar% investigation is not a constitutiona! right/ ut is "ere!% a right con#erred % statute)E? The a sence o# a pre!i"inar% investigation does not i"pair the va!idit% o# the In#or"ation or otherwise render the sa"e de#ective and neither does it a##ect the *urisdiction o# the court over the case or constitute a ground #or &uashing the In#or"ation)E@ I# the !ac6 o# a pre!i"inar% investigation does not render the In#or"ation inva!id nor a##ect the *urisdiction o# the court over the case/ with "ore reason can it e said that the denia! o# a "otion #or reinvestigation cannot inva!idate the In#or"ation or oust the court o# its *urisdiction over the case) Neither can it e said that petitioner had een deprived o# due process) Ae was a##orded the opportunit% to re#ute the charges against hi" during the pre!i"inar% investigation) The purpose o# a pre!i"inar% investigation is "ere!% to deter"ine whether a cri"e has een co""itted and whether there is pro a !e cause to e!ieve that the person accused o# the cri"e is pro a !% gui!t% thereo# and shou!d e he!d #or tria!)E> As the Court he!d in Debb vs. &e ,eon/ 8;a< #inding o# pro a !e cause needs on!% to rest on evidence showing that "ore !i6e!% than not a cri"e has een co""itted and was co""itted % the suspect) Pro a !e cause need not e ased on c!ear and convincing evidence o# gui!t/ neither on evidence esta !ishing gui!t e%ond reasona !e dou t and de#inite!%/ not on evidence esta !ishing a so!ute certaint% o# gui!t)00 IC A sent an% showing o# ar itrariness on the part o# the prosecutor or an% other o##icer authori(ed to conduct pre!i"inar% investigation/ courts as a ru!e "ust de#er to said o##icer0s #inding and deter"ination o# pro a !e cause/ since the deter"ination o# the e1istence o# pro a !e cause is the #unction o# the prosecutor) I= The Court agrees with the Sandigan a%an that petitioner #ai!ed to esta !ish that the pre!i"inar% investigation conducted % the O" uds"an was tainted with irregu!arit% or that its #indings stated in the *oint reso!ution dated Apri! E/ BCC= are not supported % the #acts/ and that a reinvestigation was necessar%) Certiorari wi!! not !ie to inva!idate the Sandigan a%an0s reso!ution den%ing petitioner0s "otion #or reinvestigation since there is nothing to su stantiate petitioner0s c!ai" that it grave!% a used its discretion in ru!ing that there was no need to conduct a reinvestigation o# the case)IB The ru!ing in Rolito $o vs. Court of AppealsIH that an accused sha!! not e dee"ed to have waived his right to as6 #or a pre!i"inar% investigation a#ter he had een arraigned over his o *ection and despite his insistence on the conduct o# said investigation prior to tria! on the "erits does not app!% in the instant case ecause petitioner "ere!% pra%ed #or a reinvestigation on the ground o# a new!%:discovered evidence) Irre#raga !%/ a pre!i"inar% investigation had een conducted % the O" uds"an prior to the #i!ing o# the a"ended In#or"ation/ and that petitioner had participated therein % #i!ing his counter:a##idavit) Further"ore/ the Sandigan a%an had a!read% denied his "otion #or reinvestigation as we!! as his "otion #or reconsideration thereon prior to his arraign"ent) IEIn su" then/ the petition is dis"issed)

Re: $.R. 4o. 156576 As s%nthesi(ed % the Court #ro" the petition and the p!eadings o# the parties/ the issues #or reso!ution are: -=. 4hether or not petitioner shou!d #irst e arraigned e#ore hearings o# his petition #or ai! "a% e conductedL -B. 4hether petitioner "a% #i!e a "otion to &uash the a"ended In#or"ation during the pendenc% o# his petition #or ai!L -H. 4hether a *oint hearing o# the petition #or ai! o# petitioner and those o# the other accused in Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@ is "andator%L -E. 4hether the Peop!e waived their right to adduce evidence in opposition to the petition #or ai! o# petitioner and #ai!ed to adduce strong evidence o# gui!t o# petitioner #or the cri"e chargedL and -I. 4hether petitioner was deprived o# his right to due process in Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@ and shou!d thus e re!eased #ro" detention via a writ o# habeas corpus) On the #irst issue/ petitioner contends that the Sandigan a%an co""itted a grave a use o# its discretion a"ounting to e1cess or !ac6 o# *urisdiction when it de#erred the hearing o# his petition #or ai! to Du!% =C/ BCC=/ arraigned hi" on said date and entered a p!ea o# not gui!t% #or hi" when he re#used to e arraigned) Ae insists that the Ru!es on Cri"ina! Procedure/ as a"ended/ does not re&uire that he e arraigned #irst prior to the conduct o# ai! hearings since the !atter can stand a!one and "ust/ o# necessit%/ e heard i""ediate!%) II Petitioner "aintains that his arraign"ent e#ore the ai! hearings are set is not necessar% since he wou!d not p!ead gui!t% to the o##ense charged/ as is evident in his ear!ier state"ents insisting on his innocence during the Senate investigation o# the #ueteng scanda! and the pre!i"inar% investigation e#ore the O" uds"an) IF Neither wou!d the prosecution e pre*udiced even i# it wou!d present a!! its evidence e#ore his arraign"ent ecause/ under the Revised Pena! Code/ a vo!untar% con#ession o# gui!t is "itigating on!% i# "ade prior to the presentation o# evidence #or the prosecution/ I? and petitioner ad"itted that he cannot repudiate the evidence or proceedings ta6en during the ai! hearings ecause Ru!e ==E/ Section @ o# the Revised Ru!es o# Court e1press!% provides that evidence present during ai! hearings are auto"atica!!% reproduced during the tria!)I@ Petitioner !i6ewise assures the prosecution that he is wi!!ing to e arraigned prior to the posting o# a ai! ond shou!d he e granted ai!) I> The Peop!e insist that arraign"ent is necessar% e#ore ai! hearings "a% e co""enced/ ecause it is on!% upon arraign"ent that the issues are *oined) The Peop!e stress that it is on!% when an accused p!eads not gui!t% "a% he #i!e a petition #or ai! and i# he p!eads gui!t% to the charge/ there wou!d e no "ore need #or hi" to #i!e said petition) $oreover/ since it is during arraign"ent that the accused is #irst in#or"ed o# the precise charge against hi"/ he "ust e arraigned prior to the ai! hearings to prevent hi" #ro" !ater assai!ing the va!idit% o# the ai! hearings on the ground that he was not proper!% in#or"ed o# the charge against hi"/ especia!!% considering that/ under Section @/ Ru!e ==E o# the Revised Ru!es o# Court/ evidence presented during such proceedings are considered auto"atica!!% reproduced at the tria!)FC Li6ewise/ the arraign"ent o# accused prior to ai! hearings di"inishes the possi i!it% o# an accused0s #!ight #ro" the *urisdiction o# the Sandigan a%an ecause tria! in absentia "a% e had on!% i# an accused escapes a#ter he has een arraigned)F= The Peop!e a!so contend that the conduct o# ai! hearings prior to arraign"ent wou!d e1tend to an accused the undeserved privi!ege o# eing appraised o# the prosecution0s evidence e#ore he p!eads gui!t% #or purposes o# pena!t% reduction)FB A!though petitioner had a!read% een arraigned on Du!% =C/ BCC= and a p!ea o# not gui!t% had een entered % the Sandigan a%an on his eha!#/ there % rendering the issue as to whether an arraign"ent is necessar% e#ore the conduct o# ai! hearings in petitioner0s case "oot/ the Court ta6es this opportunit% to discuss the contro!!ing precepts thereon pursuant to its s%" o!ic #unction o# educating the ench and ar) FH The contention o# petitioner is we!!:ta6en) The arraign"ent o# an accused is not a prere&uisite to the conduct o# hearings on his petition #or ai!) A person is a!!owed to petition #or ai! as soon as he is deprived o# his !i ert% % virtue o# his arrest or vo!untar% surrender) FE An accused need not wait #or his arraign"ent e#ore #i!ing a petition #or ai!) In ,avides vs. Court of Appeals/FI this Court ru!ed on the issue o# whether an accused "ust #irst e arraigned e#ore he "a% e granted ai!) Lavides invo!ved an accused charged with vio!ation o# Section I- . Repu !ic Act No) ?F=C -The Specia! Protection o# Chi!dren Against A use/ 31p!oitation and Discri"ination Act./ an o##ense punisha !e % reclusion temporal in its "ediu" period to reclusion perpetua) The accused therein assai!ed/ inter alia/ the tria! court0s i"position o# the condition that he shou!d #irst e arraigned e#ore he is a!!owed to post ai!) 4e he!d therein that 8in cases where it is authori(ed/ ai! shou!d e granted e#ore arraign"ent/ otherwise the accused "a% e prec!uded #ro" #i!ing a "otion to &uash)8 FF Aowever/ the #oregoing pronounce"ent shou!d not e ta6en to "ean that the hearing on a petition #or ai! shou!d at a!! ti"es precede arraign"ent/ ecause the ru!e is that a person deprived o# his !i ert% % virtue o# his arrest or vo!untar% surrender "a% app!% #or ai! as soon as he is deprived o# his !i ert%/ even e#ore a co"p!aint or in#or"ation is #i!ed against hi")F? The Court0s pronounce"ent in ,avides shou!d e understood in !ight o# the #act that the accused in said case #i!ed a petition #or ai! as we!! as a "otion to &uash the in#or"ations #i!ed against hi") Aence/ we e1p!ained therein that to condition the grant o# ai! to an accused on his arraign"ent wou!d e to p!ace hi" in a position where he has to choose etween -=. #i!ing a "otion to &uash and thus de!a% his re!ease on ai! ecause unti! his "otion to &uash can e reso!ved/ his arraign"ent cannot e he!d/ and -B. #oregoing the #i!ing o# a "otion to &uash so that he can e arraigned at once and therea#ter e re!eased on ai!) This wou!d under"ine his constitutiona! right not to e put on tria! e1cept upon a va!id co"p!aint or In#or"ation su##icient to charge hi" with a cri"e and his right to ai!)F@ It is there#ore not necessar% that an accused e #irst arraigned e#ore the conduct o# hearings on his app!ication #or ai!) For when ai! is a "atter o# right/ an accused "a% app!% #or and e granted ai! even prior to arraign"ent) The

ru!ing in ,avides a!so i"p!ies that an app!ication #or ai! in a case invo!ving an o##ense punisha !e % reclusion perpetua to death "a% a!so e heard even e#ore an accused is arraigned) Further/ i# the court #inds in such case that the accused is entit!ed to ai! ecause the evidence against hi" is not strong/ he "a% e granted provisiona! !i ert% even prior to arraign"entL #or in such a situation/ ai! wou!d e 8authori(ed8 under the circu"stances) In #ine/ the Sandigan a%an co""itted a grave a use o# its discretion a"ounting to e1cess o# *urisdiction in ordering the arraign"ent o# petitioner e#ore proceeding with the hearing o# his petition #or ai!) 4ith respect to the second issue o# whether petitioner "a% #i!e a "otion to &uash during the pendenc% o# his petition #or ai!/ petitioner "aintains that a "otion to &uash and a petition #or ai! are not inconsistent/ and "a% proceed independent!% o# each other) 4hi!e he agrees with the prosecution that a "otion to &uash "a% in so"e instances resu!t in the ter"ination o# the cri"ina! proceedings and in the re!ease o# the accused therein/ thus rendering the petition #or ai! "oot and acade"ic/ he opines that such is not a!wa%s the caseL hence/ an accused in detention cannot e #orced to specu!ate on the outco"e o# a "otion to &uash and decide whether or not to #i!e a petition #or ai! or to withdraw one that has een #i!ed)F> Ae a!so insists that the grant o# a "otion to &uash does not auto"atica!!% resu!t in the discharge o# an accused #ro" detention nor render "oot an app!ication #or ai! under Ru!e ==?/ Section I o# the Revised Ru!es o# Court)?C The Court #inds that no such inconsistenc% e1ists etween an app!ication o# an accused #or ai! and his #i!ing o# a "otion to &uash) ,ai! is the securit% given #or the re!ease o# a person in the custod% o# the !aw/ #urnished % hi" or a onds"an/ to guarantee his appearance e#ore an% court as re&uired under the conditions set #orth under the Ru!es o# Court)?= Its purpose is to o tain the provisiona! !i ert% o# a person charged with an o##ense unti! his conviction whi!e at the sa"e ti"e securing his appearance at the tria!) ?B As stated ear!ier/ a person "a% app!% #or ai! #ro" the "o"ent that he is deprived o# his !i ert% % virtue o# his arrest or vo!untar% surrender) ?H On the other hand/ a "otion to &uash an In#or"ation is the "ode % which an accused assai!s the va!idit% o# a cri"ina! co"p!aint or In#or"ation #i!ed against hi" #or insu##icienc% on its #ace in point o# !aw/ or #or de#ects which are apparent in the #ace o# the In#or"ation) ?E An accused "a% #i!e a "otion to &uash the In#or"ation/ as a genera! ru!e/ e#ore arraign"ent)?I These two re!ie#s have o *ectives which are not necessari!% antithetica! to each other) Certain!%/ the right o# an accused right to see6 provisiona! !i ert% when charged with an o##ense not punisha !e % death/ reclusion perpetua or !i#e i"prison"ent/ or when charged with an o##ense punisha !e % such pena!ties ut a#ter due hearing/ evidence o# his gui!t is #ound not to e strong/ does not prec!ude his right to assai! the va!idit% o# the In#or"ation charging hi" with such o##ense) It "ust e conceded/ however/ that i# a "otion to &uash a cri"ina! co"p!aint or In#or"ation on the ground that the sa"e does not charge an% o##ense is granted and the case is dis"issed and the accused is ordered re!eased/ the petition #or ai! o# an accused "a% eco"e "oot and acade"ic) 4e now reso!ve the issue o# whether or not it is "andator% that the hearings on the petitions #or ai! o# petitioner and accused Dose 8Dinggo%8 3strada in Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@ and the tria! o# the said case as against #or"er President Doseph 3) 3strada e heard *oint!%) Petitioner argues that the conduct o# *oint ai! hearings wou!d negate his right to have his petition #or ai! reso!ved in a su""ar% proceeding since said hearings "ight e converted into a #u!! !own tria! on the "erits % the prosecution) ?F For their part/ the Peop!e c!ai" that *oint ai! hearings wi!! save the court #ro" having to hear the sa"e witnesses and the parties #ro" presenting the sa"e evidence where it wou!d a!!ow separate ai! hearings #or the accused who are charged as co:conspirators in the cri"e o# p!under) ?? In issuing its Dune =/ BCC= Order directing a!! accused in Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@ to participate in the ai! hearings/ the Sandigan a%an e1p!ained that the directive was "ade was in the interest o# the speed% disposition o# the case) It stated: 8 1 1 1 The o vious #act is/ i# the rest o# the accused other than the accused Serapio were to e e1cused #ro" participating in the hearing on the "otion #or ai! o# accused Serapio/ under the prete1t that the sa"e does not concern the" and that the% wi!! participate in an% hearing where evidence is presented % the prosecution on!% i# and when the% wi!! a!read% have #i!ed their petitions #or ai!/ or shou!d the% decide not to #i!e an%/ that the% wi!! participate on!% during the tria! proper itse!#/ then ever% od% wi!! e #aced with the daunting prospects o# having to go through the process o# introducing the sa"e witness and pieces o# evidence two ti"es/ three ti"es or #our ti"es/ as "an% ti"es as there are petitions #or ai! #i!ed) O vious!%/ such procedure is not conducive to the speed% ter"ination o# a case) Neither can such procedure e characteri(ed as an order!% proceeding)8?@ There is no provision in the Revised Ru!es o# Cri"ina! Procedure or the Ru!es o# Procedure o# the Sandigan a%an governing the hearings o# two or "ore petitions #or ai! #i!ed % di##erent accused or that a petition #or ai! o# an accused e heard si"u!taneous!% with the tria! o# the case against the other accused) The "atter o# whether or not to conduct a *oint hearing o# two or "ore petitions #or ai! #i!ed % two di##erent accused or to conduct a hearing o# said petition *oint!% with the tria! against another accused is addressed to the sound discretion o# the tria! court) 2n!ess grave a use o# discretion a"ounting to e1cess or !ac6 o# *urisdiction is shown/ the Court wi!! not inter#ere with the e1ercise % the Sandigan a%an o# its discretion)

It "a% e underscored that in the e1ercise o# its discretion/ the Sandigan a%an "ust ta6e into account not on!% the convenience o# the State/ inc!uding the prosecution/ ut a!so that o# the accused and the witnesses o# oth the prosecution and the accused and the right o# accused to a speed% tria!) The Sandigan a%an "ust a!so consider the co"p!e1ities o# the cases and o# the #actua! and !ega! issues invo!ving petitioner and the other accused) A#ter a!!/ i# this Court "a% echo the o servation o# the 2nited States Supre"e Court/ the State has a sta6e/ with ever% citi(en/ in his eing a##orded our historic individua! protections/ inc!uding those surrounding cri"ina! prosecutions) A out the"/ this Court dares not eco"e care!ess or co"p!acent when that #ashion has eco"e ra"pant over the earth) ?> It "ust e orne in "ind that in +campo vs. ernabe/@C this Court he!d that in a petition #or ai! hearing/ the court is to conduct on!% a su""ar% hearing/ "eaning such rie# and speed% "ethod o# receiving and considering the evidence o# gui!t as is practica !e and consistent with the purpose o# the hearing which is "ere!% to deter"ine the weight o# evidence #or purposes o# ai!) The court does not tr% the "erits or enter into an% in&uir% as to the weight that ought to e given to the evidence against the accused/ nor wi!! it specu!ate on the outco"e o# the tria! or on what #urther evidence "a% e o##ered therein) It "a% con#ine itse!# to receiving such evidence as has re#erence to su stantia! "atters/ avoiding unnecessar% thoroughness in the e1a"ination and cross:e1a"ination o# witnesses/ and reducing to a reasona !e "ini"u" the a"ount o# corro oration particu!ar!% on detai!s that are not essentia! to the purpose o# the hearing) A *oint hearing o# two separate petitions #or ai! % two accused wi!! o# course avoid dup!ication o# ti"e and e##ort o# oth the prosecution and the courts and "ini"i(es the pre*udice to the accused/ especia!!% so i# oth "ovants #or ai! are charged o# having conspired in the co""ission o# the sa"e cri"e and the prosecution adduces essentia!!% the sa"e evident against the") Aowever/ in the cases at ar/ the *oinder o# the hearings o# the petition #or ai! o# petitioner with the tria! o# the case against #or"er President Doseph 3) 3strada is an entire!% di##erent "atter) For/ with the participation o# the #or"er president in the hearing o# petitioner0s petition #or ai!/ the proceeding assu"es a co"p!ete!% di##erent di"ension) The proceedings wi!! no !onger e su""ar%) As against #or"er President Doseph 3) 3strada/ the proceedings wi!! e a #u!!: !own tria! which is antithetica! to the nature o# a ai! hearing) $oreover/ #o!!owing our ru!ing in 'ose "strada vs. %andiganbayan/ supra where we stated that Dose 8Dinggo%8 3strada can on!% e charged with conspirac% to co""it the acts a!!eged in su :paragraph -a. o# the a"ended In#or"ation since it is not c!ear #ro" the !atter i# the accused in su :paragraphs -a. to -d. thereo# conspired with each other to assist Doseph 3strada to a"ass i!!:gotten wea!th/ we ho!d that petitioner can on!% e charged with having conspired with the other co:accused na"ed in su :paragraph -a. % 8receiving or co!!ecting/ direct!% or indirect!%/ on severa! instances/ "one% 1 1 1 #ro" i!!ega! ga" !ing/ 1 1 1 in consideration o# to!eration or protection o# i!!ega! ga" !ing) @= Thus/ with respect to petitioner/ a!! that the prosecution needs to adduce to prove that the evidence against hi" #or the charge o# p!under is strong are those re!ated to the a!!eged receipt or co!!ection o# "one% #ro" i!!ega! ga" !ing as descri ed in su : paragraph -a. o# the a"ended In#or"ation) 4ith the *oinder o# the hearing o# petitioner0s petition #or ai! and the tria! o# the #or"er President/ the !atter wi!! have the right to cross:e1a"ine intensive!% and e1tensive!% the witnesses #or the prosecution in opposition to the petition #or ai! o# petitioner) I# petitioner wi!! adduce evidence in support o# his petition a#ter the prosecution sha!! have conc!uded its evidence/ the #or"er President "a% insist on cross:e1a"ining petitioner and his witnesses) The *oinder o# the hearing o# petitioner0s ai! petition with the tria! o# #or"er President Doseph 3) 3strada wi!! e pre*udicia! to petitioner as it wi!! undu!% de!a% the deter"ination o# the issue o# the right o# petitioner to o tain provisiona! !i ert% and see6 re!ie# #ro" this Court i# his petition is denied % the respondent court) The indispensa i!it% o# the speed% reso!ution o# an app!ication #or ai! was succinct!% e1p!ained % Coo!e% in his treatiseConstitutional ,imitations/ thus: 8For/ i# there were an% "ode short o# con#ine"ent which wou!d with reasona !e certaint% insure the attendance o# the accused to answer the accusation/ it wou!d not e *usti#ia !e to in#!ict upon hi" that indignit%/ when the e##ect is to su *ect hi" in a greater or !esser degree/ to the punish"ent o# a gui!t% person/ whi!e as %et it is not deter"ined that he has not co""itted an% cri"e)8 @B 4hi!e the Sandigan a%an/ as the court tr%ing Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@/ is e"powered 8to proceed with the tria! o# the case in the "anner it deter"ines est conducive to order!% proceedings and speed% ter"ination o# the case/8 @H the Court #inds that it grave!% a used its discretion in ordering that the petition #or ai! o# petitioner and the tria! o# #or"er President Doseph 3) 3strada e he!d *oint!%) It ears stressing that the Sandigan a%an itse!# ac6now!edged in its $a% E/ BCC= Order the 8pre:e"inent position and superiorit% o# the rights o# ;petitioner< to have the "atter o# his provisiona! !i ert% reso!ved ) ) ) without unnecessar% de!a%/8 @E on!% to "a6e a volte face and dec!are that a#ter a!! the hearing o# petition #or ai! o# petitioner and Dose 8Dinggo%8 3strada and the tria! as against #or"er President Doseph 3) 3strada shou!d e he!d si"u!taneous!%) In ordering that petitioner0s petition #or ai! to e heard *oint!% with the tria! o# the case against his co:accused #or"er President Doseph 3) 3strada/ the Sandigan a%an in e##ect a!!owed #urther and unnecessar% de!a% in the reso!ution thereo# to the pre*udice o# petitioner) In #ine then/ the Sandigan a%an co""itted a grave a use o# its discretion in ordering a si"u!taneous hearing o# petitioner0s petition #or ai! with the tria! o# the case against #or"er President Doseph 3) 3strada on its "erits) 4ith respect to petitioner0s a!!egations that the prosecution tried to de!a% the ai! hearings % #i!ing di!ator% "otions/ the Peop!e aver that it is petitioner and his co:accused who caused the de!a% in the tria! o# Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@ % their #i!ing o# nu"erous "ani#estations and p!eadings with the Sandigan a%an) @I The% assert that the% #i!ed the "otion #or *oint ai! hearing and "otion #or ear!ier arraign"ent around the origina! schedu!e #or the ai! hearings which was on $a% B=7BI/ BCC=)@F The% argue #urther that ai! is not a "atter o# right in capita! o##enses) @? In support thereo#/ the% cite Artic!e III/ Sec =H o# the Constitution/ which states that 9

8A!! persons/ except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong( shall before conviction be bailable % su##icient sureties/ or e re!eased on recogni(ance as "a% e provided % !aw) The right to ai! sha!! not e i"paired even when the privi!ege o# the writ o# habeas corpusis suspended) 31cessive ai! sha!! not e re&uired)8@@ The Peop!e a!so cited Ru!e ==E/ Secs) ? and E o# the Revised Ru!es o# Court which provide: 8Sec) ? Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment( not bailable ) 94o person charged with a capital offense/ or an o##ense punisha !e % reclusion perpetua or !i#e i"prison"ent/ shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong / regard!ess o# the stage o# the cri"ina! prosecution) Sec) E ail( a matter of right( exception) 9 A!! persons in custod% sha!! e ad"itted to ai! as a "atter o# right/ with su##icient sureties/ or re!eased on recogni(ance as prescri ed % !aw or this Ru!e 1 1 1 - . and e#ore conviction % the Regiona! Tria! Court of an offense not punishable by death( reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment)8@> Irre#raga !%/ a person charged with a capita! o##ense is not a so!ute!% denied the opportunit% to o tain provisiona! !i ert% on ai! pending the *udg"ent o# his case) Aowever/ as to such person/ ai! is not a "atter o# right ut is discretionar% upon the court)>C Aad the ru!e een otherwise/ the Ru!es wou!d not have provided #or an app!ication #or ai! % a person charged with a capita! o##ense under Ru!e ==E/ Section @ which states: 8Sec) @ urden of proof in bail application) 9 At the hearing o# an app!ication #or ai! #i!ed % a person who is in custod% #or the co""ission o# an o##ense punisha !e % death/ reclusion perpetua/ or !i#e i"prison"ent/ the prosecution has the urden o# showing that the evidence o# gui!t is strong) The evidence presented during the ai! hearing sha!! e considered auto"atica!!% reproduced at the tria! ut/ upon "otion o# either part%/ the court "a% reca!! an% witness #or additiona! e1a"ination un!ess the !atter is dead/ outside the Phi!ippines/ or otherwise una !e to testi#%)8>= 2nder the #oregoing provision/ there "ust e a showing that the evidence o# gui!t against a person charged with a capita! o##ense is not strong #or the court to grant hi" ai!) Thus/ upon an app!ication #or ai! % the person charged with a capita! o##ense/ a hearing thereon "ust e conducted/ where the prosecution "ust e accorded an opportunit% to discharge its urden o# proving that the evidence o# gui!t against an accused is strong) >B The prosecution sha!! e accorded the opportunit% to present a!! the evidence it "a% dee" necessar% #or this purpose) >H 4hen it is satis#actori!% de"onstrated that the evidence o# gui!t is strong/ it is the court0s dut% to den% the app!ication #or ai!) Aowever/ when the evidence o# gui!t is not strong/ ai! eco"es a "atter o# right) >E In this case/ petitioner is not entit!ed to ai! as a "atter o# right at this stage o# the proceedings) Petitioner0s c!ai" that the prosecution had re#used to present evidence to prove his gui!t #or purposes o# his ai! app!ication and that the Sandigan a%an has re#used to grant a hearing thereon is not orne % the records) The prosecution did not waive/ e1press!% or even i"p!ied!%/ its right to adduce evidence in opposition to the petition #or ai! o# petitioner) It "ust e noted that the Sandigan a%an had a!read% schedu!ed the hearing dates #or petitioner0s app!ication #or ai! ut the sa"e were reset due to pending incidents raised in severa! "otions #i!ed % the parties/ which incidents had to e reso!ved % the court prior to the ai! hearings) The ai! hearing was eventua!!% schedu!ed % the Sandigan a%an on Du!% =C/ BCC= ut the hearing did not push through due to the #i!ing o# this petition on Dune B>/ BCC=) The de!a% in the conduct o# hearings on petitioner0s app!ication #or ai! is there#ore not i"puta !e so!e!% to the Sandigan a%an or to the prosecution) Petitioner is a!so part!% to !a"e there#or/ as is evident #ro" the #o!!owing !ist o# "otions #i!ed % hi" and % the prosecution: $otions #i!ed % petitioner: V .rgent +mnibus )otion/ dated Apri! F/ BCC=/ #or -=. !eave to #i!e "otion #or reconsideration5reinvestigation and to direct o" uds"an to conduct reinvestigationL -B. conduct a deter"ination o# pro a !e cause as wou!d suggest the issuance o# house arrestL -H. ho!d in a e%ance the issuance o# warrant o# arrest and other proceedings pending deter"ination o# pro a !e causeL V )otion for "arly Resolution/ dated $a% BE/ BCC=L

V .rgent )otion to 3old in Abeyance 0mplementation or %ervice of Darrant of Arrest for 0mmediate $rant of bail or For Release on Recognizance/ dated Apri! BI/ BCC=L V .rgent )otion to allow Accused %erapio to /ote at +bando( ulacan / dated $a% ==/ BCC=L

V .rgent )otion for Reconsideration/ dated $a% BB/ BCC=/ pra%ing #or Reso!ution o# $a% =@/ BCC= e set aside and ai! hearings e set at the ear!iest possi !e ti"eL V .rgent )otion for 0mmediate Release on ail or Recognizance / dated $a% B?/ BCC=L

)otion for Reconsideration of denial of .rgent +mnibus )otion / dated Dune =H/ BCC=/ pra%ing that he e a!!owed to #i!e a $otion #or ReinvestigationL and )otion to ;uash/ dated Dune BF/ BCC=)>I

$otions #i!ed % the prosecution: V )otion for "arlier Arraignment/ dated $a% @/ BCC=L>F

V )otion for 'oint ail 3earings of Accused 'oseph "strada( 'ose ='inggoy= "strada and "dward %erapio / dated $a% @/ BCC=L>? V +pposition to the .rgent )otion for Reconsideration and +mnibus )otion to Ad#ust "arlier Arraignment / dated $a% BI/ BCC=L>@ and V +mnibus )otion for "xamination( 1estimony and 1ranscription in Filipino / dated Dune =>/ BCC=)>>

The other accused in Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@ a!so contri uted to the a#oresaid de!a% % their #i!ing o# the #o!!owing "otions: V )otion to ;uash or %uspend/ dated Apri! BE/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Dinggo% 3strada/ assai!ing the constitutiona!it% o# R)A) No) ?C@C and pra%ing that the A"ended In#or"ation e &uashedL V /ery .rgent +mnibus )otion/ dated Apri! HC/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Dinggo% 3strada/ pra%ing that he e -=.e1c!uded #ro" the A"ended In#or"ation #or !ac6 o# pro a !e causeL -B. re!eased #ro" custod%L or in the a!ternative/ -H. e a!!owed to post ai!L V .rgent "x*Parte )otion to Place on 3ouse Arrest/ dated Apri! BI/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Doseph and Dinggo% 3strada/ pra%ing that the% e p!aced on house arrest during the pendenc% o# the caseL V Position Paper ;re: 3ouse Arrest</ dated $a% B/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Doseph and Dinggo% 3stradaL

V %upplemental Position Paper ;re: 3ouse Arrest</ dated $a% B/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Doseph and Dinggo% 3stradaL V +mnibus )otion/ dated $a% ?/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Doseph 3strada/ pra%ing % reinvestigation o# the case % the O" uds"an or the outright dis"issa! o# the caseL V .rgent "x*Parte )otion for "xtension / dated $a% B/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Dinggo% 3strada/ re&uesting #or #ive -I. da%s within which to respond to the Opposition to $otion to Muash in view o# the ho!ida%s and e!ection: re!ated distractionsL V +pposition to .rgent )otion for "arlier Arraignment / dated $a% =C/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Doseph 3stradaL

V +mnibus )anifestation on voting and custodial arrangement / dated $a% ==/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Doseph and Dinggo% 3strada/ pra%ing that the% e p!aced on house arrestL V V V )anifestation regarding house arrest/ dated $a% F/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Doseph and Dinggo% 3stradaL %ummation regarding house arrest/ dated $a% BH/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Doseph and Dinggo% 3stradaL .rgent )anifestation E )otion/ dated $a% F/ BCC= #i!ed % Dinggo% 3stradaL

V )anifestation/ dated $a% B@/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Doseph and Dinggo% 3strada/ pra%ing that the% e a!!owed to e con#ined in Tana%L V )otion to charge as Accused ,uis =Chavit= %ingson/ #i!ed % Doseph 3stradaL

V +mnibus )otion/ dated Dune ==/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Doseph and Dinggo% 3strada/ see6ing reconsideration o# denia! o# re&uests #or house arrest/ #or detention in Tana% or Ca"p Cra"eL "otion #or inhi ition o# Dustice ,ado%L V .rgent )otion to Allow Accused to Clear 3is &es! as )ayor of %an 'uan( )etro )anila / dated Dune B@/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Dinggo% 3stradaL V )otion for Reconsideration/ dated Dune >/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Doseph and Dinggo% 3strada/ pra%ing that the reso!ution co"pe!!ing the" to e present at petitioner Serapio0s hearing #or ai! e reconsideredL

)otion to ;uash/ dated Dune ?/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Doseph 3stradaL

V %till Another )anifestation/ dated Dune =E/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Doseph and Dinggo% 3strada stating that ,ishop Teodoro ,acani #avors their house arrestL V )anifestation/ dated Dune =I/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Doseph and Dinggo% 3strada/ waiving their right to e present at the Dune =@ and B=/ BCC= ai! hearings and reserving their right to tria! with assessorsL V +mnibus )otion for 0nstructions: HC:Da% Aouse ArrestL Production/ Inspection and Cop%ing o# Docu"entsL and Possi !e Tria! with Assessors/ dated Dune =>/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Doseph and Dinggo% 3stradaL V .rgent )otion for Additional 1ime to Dind .p Affairs / dated Dune BC/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Dinggo% 3stradaL

V )anifestation/ dated Dune BB/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Dinggo% 3strada/ as6ing #or #ree dates #or parties/ c!ai"ing that denia! o# ai! is crue! and inhu"an/ reiterating re&uest #or gag order o# prosecution witnesses/ avai!ing o# production/ inspection and cop%ing o# docu"ents/ re&uesting #or status o# a!ias caseL and V Compliance/ dated Dune BI/ BCC=/ #i!ed % Dinggo% 3strada/ re&uesting #or per"ission to attend so"e "unicipa! a##airs in San Duan/ $etro $ani!a) =CC Further"ore/ the Court has previous!% ru!ed that even in cases where the prosecution re#uses to adduce evidence in opposition to an app!ication #or ai! % an accused charged with a capita! o##ense/ the tria! court is sti!! under dut% to conduct a hearing on said app!ication) =C= The rationa!e #or such re&uire"ent was e1p!ained in 4arciso vs. %ta. Romana*Cruz -supra./ citing asco vs. Rapatalo:=CB 84hen the grant o# ai! is discretionar%/ the prosecution has the urden o# showing that the evidence o# gui!t against the accused is strong) Aowever/ the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong( being a matter of #udicial discretion( remains with the #udge. 1his discretion by the very nature of things( may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. %ince the discretion is directed to the weight of the evidence and since evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before the court( it is obvious that a proper exercise of #udicial discretion reCuires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to the court/ the petitioner having the right o# cross:e1a"ination and to introduce his own evidence in re utta!)8=CH According!%/ petitioner cannot e re!eased #ro" detention unti! the Sandigan a%an conducts a hearing o# his app!ication #or ai! and reso!ve the sa"e in his #avor) 3ven then/ there "ust #irst e a #inding that the evidence against petitioner is not strong e#ore he "a% e granted ai!) Anent the issue o# the propriet% o# the issuance o# a writ o# habeas corpus #or petitioner/ he contends that he is entit!ed to the issuance o# said writ ecause the State/ through the prosecution0s re#usa! to present evidence and % the Sandigan a%an0s re#usa! to grant a ai! hearing/ has #ai!ed to discharge its urden o# proving that as against hi"/ evidence o# gui!t #or the capita! o##ense o# p!under is strong) Petitioner contends that the prosecution !aunched 8a see"ing!% end!ess arrage o# o structive and di!ator% "oves8 to prevent the conduct o# ai! hearings) Speci#ica!!%/ the prosecution "oved #or petitioner0s arraign"ent e#ore the co""ence"ent o# ai! hearings and insisted on *oint ai! hearings #or petitioner/ Doseph 3strada and Dinggo% 3strada despite the #act that it was on!% petitioner who as6ed #or a ai! hearingL "ani#ested that it wou!d present its evidence as i# it is the presentation o# the evidence in chie#/ "eaning that the ai! hearings wou!d e conc!uded on!% a#ter the prosecution presented its entire case upon the accusedL and argued that petitioner0s "otion to &uash and his petition #or ai! are inconsistent/ and there#ore/ petitioner shou!d choose to pursue on!% one o# these two re"edies) =CE Ae #urther c!ai"s that the Sandigan a%an/ through its &uestioned orders and reso!utions postponing the ai! hearings e##ective!% denied hi" o# his right to ai! and to due process o# !aw)=CI Petitioner a!so "aintains that the issuance % the Sandigan a%an o# new orders cance!ing the ai! hearings which it had ear!ier set did not render "oot and acade"ic the petition #or issuance o# a writ o# habeas corpus/ since said orders have resu!ted in a continuing deprivation o# petitioner0s right to ai!) =CF Ae argues #urther that the #act that he was arrested and is detained pursuant to va!id process does not % itse!# negate the e##icac% o# the re"ed% o# habeas corpus. In support o# his contention/ petitioner cites )oncupa vs. "nrile/=C? where the Court he!d thathabeas corpus e1tends to instances where the detention/ whi!e va!id #ro" its inception/ has !ater eco"e ar itrar%) =C@ Aowever/ the Peop!e insist that habeas corpus is not proper ecause petitioner was arrested pursuant to the a"ended in#or"ation which was ear!ier #i!ed in court/=C> the warrant o# arrest issuant pursuant thereto was va!id/ and petitioner vo!untari!% surrendered to the authorities) ==C As a genera! ru!e/ the writ o# habeas corpus wi!! not issue where the person a!!eged to e restrained o# his !i ert% in custod% o# an o##icer under a process issued % the court which *urisdiction to do so) === In e1ceptiona! circu"stances/ habeas corpus "a% e granted % the courts even when the person concerned is detained pursuant to a va!id arrest or his vo!untar% surrender/ #or this writ o# !i ert% is recogni(ed as 8the #unda"enta! instru"ent #or sa#eguarding individua! #reedo" against ar itrar% and !aw!ess state action8 due to 8its a i!it% to cut through arriers o# #or" and procedura! "a(es)8==B Thus/ in previous cases/ we issued the writ where the deprivation o# !i ert%/ whi!e

initia!!% va!id under the !aw/ had !ater eco"e inva!id/ ==H and even though the persons pra%ing #or its issuance were not co"p!ete!% deprived o# their !i ert%)==E The Court #inds no asis #or the issuance o# a writ o# habeas corpus in #avor o# petitioner) The genera! ru!e thathabeas corpus does not !ie where the person a!!eged to e restrained o# his !i ert% is in the custod% o# an o##icer under process issued % a court which had *urisdiction to issue the sa"e ==I app!ies/ ecause petitioner is under detention pursuant to the order o# arrest issued % the Sandigan a%an on Apri! BI/ BCC= a#ter the #i!ing % the O" uds"an o# the a"ended in#or"ation #or p!under against petitioner and his co:accused) Petitioner had in #act vo!untari!% surrendered hi"se!# to the authorities on Apri! BI/ BCC= upon !earning that a warrant #or his arrest had een issued) The ru!ing in )oncupa vs. "nrile==F that habeas corpus wi!! !ie where the deprivation o# !i ert% which was initia!!% va!id has eco"e ar itrar% in view o# su se&uent deve!op"ents #inds no app!ication in the present case ecause the hearing on petitioner0s app!ication #or ai! has %et to co""ence) As stated ear!ier/ the% de!a% in the hearing o# petitioner0s petition #or ai! cannot e pinned so!e!% on the Sandigan a%an or on the prosecution #or that "atter) Petitioner hi"se!# is part!% to e !a"ed) $oreover/ a petition #or habeas corpus is not the appropriate re"ed% #or asserting one0s right to ai!) ==? It cannot e avai!ed o# where accused is entit!ed to ai! not as a "atter o# right ut on the discretion o# the court and the !atter has not a used such discretion in re#using to grant ai!/ ==@ or has not even e1ercised said discretion) The proper recourse is to #i!e an app!ication #or ai! with the court where the cri"ina! case is pending and to a!!ow hearings thereon to proceed) The issuance o# a writ o# habeas corpus wou!d not on!% e un*usti#ied ut wou!d a!so pree"pt the Sandigan a%an0s reso!ution o# the pending app!ication #or ai! o# petitioner) The recourse o# petitioner is to #orthwith proceed with the hearing on his app!ication #or ai!) IN TA3 LI'AT OF ALL TA3 FOR3'OIN'/ *udg"ent is here % rendered as #o!!ows: = In ')R) No) =E@?F> and ')R) No) =E>==F/ the petitions are DIS$ISS3D) The reso!utions o# respondent Sandigan a%an su *ect o# said petitions are AFFIR$3DL and B In ')R) No) =E@EF@/ the petition is PARTIALLG 'RANT3D) The reso!ution o# respondent Sandigan a%an/ Anne1 8L8 o# the petition/ ordering a *oint hearing o# petitioner0s petition #or ai! and the tria! o# Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@ as against #or"er President Doseph 3) 3strada is S3T ASID3L the arraign"ent o# petitioner on Du!% =C/ BCC= is a!so S3T ASID3) No costs) SO ORD3R3D) &avide( 'r.( C .' .( ellosillo( Puno( )endoza( Panganiban( ;uisumbing( Austria*)artinez( Corona( Carpio*)orales and Azcuna( '' .( concur) /itug( ' .( see separate opinion) 2nares*%antiago( ' .( *oins the dissent o# Dustice Sandova!:'utierre() %andoval*$utierrez( ' .( see dissenting opinion) Carpio( ' .( no part/ prior inhi ition in p!under cases)

S+1a3a-+ O1,#,o#( ITUG, J.6 I #u!!% su scri e to the ponencia in ')R) No) =E@EF@ that 9 a. The arraign"ent o# an accused is not a prere&uisite to the conduct o# hearings on a petition #or ai!) A person is a!!owed to petition #or ai! as soon as he is deprived o# his !i ert% % virtue o# his arrest or vo!untar% surrender) . There is no inconsistenc% etween an app!ication o# an accused #or ai! and his #i!ing o# a "otion to &uash/ these two re!ie#s not eing necessari!% antithetica! to each other) c. The *oinder o# hearing o# herein petitioner0s ai! petition with the tria! o# #or"er President Doseph 3strada indeed cou!d undu!% de!a% the deter"ination o# the issue o# the right o# petitioner to o tain provisiona! !i ert%) d. The c!ai" o# petitioner that the prosecution has re#used to present evidence to prove his gui!t #or purposes o# his ai! app!ication and that the Sandigan a%an has re#used to grant a hearing thereon hard!% #inds su stantiation) Neither has the prosecution waived/ e1press!% or even i"p!ied!%/ its right to adduce evidence in opposition to the petition #or ai! o# petitioner)

e. There is no asis #or the issuance o# a writ o# habeas corpus in #avor o# petitioner) 3abeas corpus does not !ie where the person a!!eged to e restrained o# his !i ert% is in the custod% o# an o##icer under process issued % a court having *urisdiction thereover) In ')R) No) =E@?F> and ')R) No) =E>==F/ the issues #or reso!ution are ana!ogous to those posed in ')R) No) =E@>FI/ entit!ed 8Dose 0Dinggo%0 3strada vs) Sandigan a%an ;Third Division</ Peop!e o# the Phi!ippines and O##ice o# the O" uds"an/8 decided % the Court on BF Fe ruar% BCCB) Petitioner Att%) 3dward Serapio stands indicted with the #or"er President/ $r) Doseph 3) 3strada/ #or p!under) Petitioner is charged with e1act!% the sa"e degree o# cu!pa i!it% as that o# $r) Dose 8Dinggo%8 3strada/ thus!%: 8A$3ND3D INFOR$ATION 8The undersigned O" uds"an Prosecutor and OIC:Director/ 3PI,/ O##ice o# the O" uds"an/ here % accuses #or"er PR"%0&"41 +F 13" R"P. ,0C +F 13" P30,0PP04"%/ Doseph 3*ercito 3strada a.!.a)FA%0+4$ %A,+4$AF and a.!.a. F'+%" /",AR&"F/ TO'3TA3R 4ITA Dose 0Dinggo%0 3strada/ Char!ie 0Atong0 Ang/ 3dward Serapio/ Go!anda T) Rica#orte/ A!"a A!#aro/ DOAN DO3 a)6)a) 3!euterio Tan OR 3!euterio Ra"os Tan or $r) 2%/ Dane Doe a)6)a) De!ia Ra*as/ and Dohn DO3S W Dane Does/ o# the cri"e o# P!under/ de#ined and pena!i(ed under R)A) ?C@C/ as a"ended % Sec) =B o# R)A) ?FI>/ co""itted as #o!!ows: 8That during the period #ro" Dune/ =>>@ to Danuar% BCC=/ in the Phi!ippines/ and within the *urisdiction o# this Aonora !e Court/ accused Doseph 3*ercito 3strada/ 13"4 A P. ,0C +FF0C"R( "04$ 13"4 13" PR"%0&"41 +F 13" R"P. ,0C +F 13" P30,0PP04"% / % hi"se!#/ A4&G+R in C+440/A4C"GC+4%P0RAC2 with his co:accused/ D3+ AR" )") "R% +F 30% FA)0,2( R",A10/"% 2 AFF04012 +R C+4%A4$.04012( .%04"%% A%%+C0A1"%( %. +R&04A1"% A4&G+R +13"R P"R%+4% 2 1AH04$ .4&." A&/A41A$" +F 30% +FF0C0A, P+%010+4( A.13+R012( R",A10+4%30P( C+44"C10+4 +R 04F,."4C"/ did then and there wi!#u!!%/ un!aw#u!!% and cri"ina!!% a"ass/ accu"u!ate and ac&uire 2 30)%",F( &0R"C1,2 +R 04&0R"C1,2( ill*gotten wealth in the aggregate amount +R 1+1A, /A,." of F+.R 0,,0+4 404"12 %"/"4 )0,,0+4 "0$31 3.4&R"& F+.R 13+.%A4& +4" 3.4&R"& %"/"412 13R"" P"%+% A4& %"/"41""4 C"41A/+% -PE/C>?/@CE/=?H)=?./ "ore or !ess/ 13"R" 2 .4'.%1,2 "4R0C304$ 30)%",F +R 13")%",/"% A1 13" "IP"4%" A4& 1+ 13" &A)A$" +F 13" F0,0P04+ P"+P," A4& 13" R"P. ,0C +F 13" P30,0PP04"% / through A42 +R A co" ination OR a series o# overt OR cri"ina! acts/ +R %0)0,AR %C3")"% +R )"A4%/ descri ed as #o!!ows: 8-a. % receiving OR co!!ecting/ direct!% or indirect!%/ on %"/"RA, 04%1A4C"%( )+4"2 04 13" A$$R"$A1" A)+.41 +F F0/" 3.4&R"& F+R12*F0/" )0,,0+4 P"%+% >PJ5J(BBB(BBB.BB? )+R" +R ,"%%( FR+) 0,,"$A, $A) ,04$( 04 13" F+R) +F $0F1( %3AR"( P"RC"41A$"( H0CH ACH +R A42 F+R) +F P"C.40AR2 "4"F01 2 30)%",F A4&G+R in connivance with co*accused C3AR,0" FA1+4$F A4$ / Dose 0Dinggo%0 3strada/ Go!anda T) Rica#orte/ 3dward Serapio/ A4& '+34 &+"% A4& 'A4" &+"%( in consideration +F 1+,"RA10+4 +R PR+1"C10+4 +F 0,,"$A, $A) ,04$ L8 Att%) Serapio/ in ')R) No) =E@?F>/ &uestions the denia! % the Sandigan a%an o# his "otion to &uash the A"ended In#or"ation on the ground that/ a"ong other things/ it a!!eges/ at !east as to hi"/ neither a co" ination or series o# overt acts constitutive o# p!under nor a pattern o# cri"ina! acts indicative o# an overa!! un!aw#u! sche"e in conspirac% with others) In ')R) No) =E>==F/ petitioner c!ai"s that the Sandigan a%an has co""itted grave a use o# discretion in den%ing his o"ni us "otion to ho!d in a e%ance the issuance o# a warrant #or his arrest/ as we!! as the proceedings in Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@./ to conduct a deter"ination o# pro a !e cause/ and to direct the O" uds"an to conduct a reinvestigation o# the charges against hi") In "% separate opinion in ')R) No) =E@>FI/ which I now reiterate/ I have said: 8P!under "a% e co""itted % an% pu !ic o##icer either % hi"se!# or 8in connivance8 with other personsL it "a% a!so e co""itted % a person who participates with a pu !ic o##icer in the co""ission o# an o##ense contri uting to the cri"e o# p!under) A person "a% thus e he!d accounta !e under the !aw % conniving with the principa! co:accused or % participating in the co""ission o# 8an o##ense8 contri uting to the cri"e o# p!under) The ter" 8in connivance8 wou!d suggest an agree"ent or consent to co""it an un!aw#u! act or deed with or % another/ to connive eing to cooperate secret!% or privi!% with another) = 2pon the other hand/ to participate is to have a part or a share in con*unction with another o# the proceeds o# the un!aw#u! act or deed) 8The a"ended In#or"ation a!!eged 8connivance8 and wou!d assu"e that petitioner and his co:accused had a co""on design in perpetrating the vio!ations co"p!ained o# constitutive o# 8p!under)8 The Supre"e Court in "strada vs. %andiganbayanB has dec!ared the anti:p!under !aw constitutiona! #or eing neither vague nor a" iguous on the thesis that the ter"s 8series8 and 8co" ination8 are not unsuscepti !e to #ir" understanding) 8Series8 re#ers to two or more acts #a!!ing under the sa"e categor% o# the enu"erated acts provided in Section =-d.H o# the statuteL 8co" ination8 pertains to two or more acts #a!!ing under at !east two separate categories "entioned in the sa"e !aw)E

8111

111

111

8The govern"ent argues that the i!!ega! act ascri ed to petitioner is a part o# the chain that !in6s the various acts o# p!under % the principa! accused) It see"s to suggest that a "ere a!!egation o# conspirac% is &uite enough to ho!d petitioner e&ua!!% !ia !e with the principa! accused #or the !atter0s other acts/ even i# un6nown to hi"/ in paragraph -a. o# the indict"ent) This contention is a g!aring ent) It is/ to "% "ind/ utter!% unaccepta !e/ neither right nor *ust/ to cast cri"ina! !ia i!it% on one #or the acts or deeds o# p!under that "a% have een co""itted % another or others over which he has not consented or acceded to/ participated in/ or even in #act een aware o#) Such vicarious cri"ina! !ia i!it% is never to e ta6en !ight!% ut "ust a!wa%s e "ade e1p!icit not "ere!% at the tria! ut !i6ewise/ and no !ess i"portant/ in the co"p!aint or in#or"ation itse!# in order to "eet the #unda"enta! right o# an accused to e #u!!% in#or"ed o# the charge against hi") It is a re&uire"ent that cannot e dispensed with i# he were to e "eaning#u!!% assured that he tru!% has a right to de#end hi"se!#) Indeed/ an unwarranted genera!i(ation on the scope o# the anti:p!under !aw wou!d e a #ata! !ow to "aintaining its constitutiona!it% given the ratio decidendi in the pronounce"ent hereto#ore "ade % the Court upho!ding the va!idit% o# the statute) 8'iven the #oregoing e1egesis/ the petitioner/ a!though ine##ective!% charged in the A"ended In#or"ation #or p!under/ cou!d sti!! e prosecuted and tried #or a !esser o##ense/ #or it is a recogni(ed ru!e that an accused sha!! not e discharged even when a "ista6e has een "ade in charging the proper o##ense i# he "a% sti!! e he!d accounta !e #or an% other o##ense necessari!% inc!uded in the cri"e eing charged) It is/ however/ the Sandigan a%an/ not this Court/ which "ust "a6e this deter"ination on the asis o# its own #indings)8 4A3R3FOR3/ I accept the ponencia in ')R) No) =E@EF@ ut/ as regards ')R) No) =E@?F> and ')R) No) =E>==F/ I vote #or the re"and o# the case to the Sandigan a%an #or #urther proceedings on the ai! app!ication o# petitioner and urge that the incident e reso!ved with dispatch)

D,((+#-,#* O1,#,o# SANDO AL:GUTIERREZ, J.,6 Once again/ the A"ended In#or"ation dated Apri! =@/ BCC= in Cri"ina! Case No) BFII@ = is su *ected to *udicia! scrutin%/ this ti"e/ via a petition #or certiorari under Ru!e FI o# the =>>? Ru!es o# Civi! Procedure -')R) No) =E@?F>. #i!ed % petitioner 3dward S) Serapio) For eas% re#erence/ !et "e &uote the A"ended In#or"ation/ thus: 8The undersigned O" uds"an Prosecutor and OIC:Director/ 3PI,/ O##ice o# the O" uds"an/ here % accuses #or"er President o# the Repu !ic o# the Phi!ippines/ Doseph 3*ercito 3strada a)6)a) FAsiong %alongaFand a)6)a) F'ose /elarde/0 together with Dose 0'inggoy0 3strada/ Char!ie 0Atong0 Ang/ 3dward Serapio/ Go!anda T) Rica#orte/ A!"a A!#aro/ Dohn Doe a)6)a 3!euterio Tan or 3!euterio Ra"os Tan or $r) 2%/ Dane Doe a)6)a) De!ia Ra*as/ and Dohn Does W Dane Does/ o# the cri"e o# P!under/ de#ined and pena!i(ed under R)A) No) ?C@C/ as a"ended % Sec) =B o# R)A) No) ?FI>/ co""itted as #o!!ows: 0That during the period #ro" Dune =>>@ to Danuar%/ BCC=/ in the Phi!ippines/ and within the *urisdiction o# this Aonora !e Court/ accused Doseph 3*ercito 3strada/ then a pu !ic o##icer/ eing then the President o# the Repu !ic o# the Phi!ippines/ % hi"se!# and5or in connivance5conspirac% with his co: accused/ who are "e" ers o# his #a"i!%/ re!atives % a##init% or consanguinit%/ usiness associates/ su ordinates and5or other persons/ % ta6ing undue advantage o# his o##icia! position/ authorit%/ re!ationship/ connection/ or in#!uence/ did then and there wi!!#u!!%/ un!aw#u!!% and cri"ina!!% a"ass/ accu"u!ate and ac&uire % hi"se!#/ direct!% or indirect!%/ i!!:gotten wea!th in the aggregate a"ount or tota! va!ue o# #our i!!ion ninet% seven "i!!ion eight hundred #our thousand one hundred sevent% three pesos and seventeen centavos ;PE/C>?/@CE/=?H)=?</ "ore or !ess/ there % un*ust!% enriching hi"se!# or the"se!ves at the e1pense and to the da"age o# the Fi!ipino peop!e and the Repu !ic o# the Phi!ippines through an% or a co" ination or a series o# overt OR cri"ina! acts/ or si"i!ar sche"es or "eans/ descri ed as #o!!ows: a. by receiving or collecting( directly or indirectly( an aggregate amount of Five 3undred Forty*Five )illion Pesos >PJ5J(BBB(BBB.BB?( more or less( from illegal gambling in the form of gift( share( percentage !ic!bac! or any form of pecuniary benefit( by himself andGor in connivance with co* accused Charlie =Atong= Ang( 'ose F'inggoyF "strada( 2olanda 1. Ricaforte( "dward %erapio( A4& '+34 &+"% A4& 'A4" &+"%( in consideration +F 1+,"RA10+4 +R PR+1"C10+4 +F 0,,"$A, $A) ,04$L . % diverting/ receiving/ "isappropriating/ converting or "isusing direct!% or indirect!%/ #or his or their persona! gain and ene#it/ pu !ic #unds in the a"ount o# one hundred thirt% "i!!ion pesos -P=HC/CCC/CCC)CC. "ore or !ess/ representing a portion o# the Two Aundred $i!!ion Pesos -PBCC/CCC/CCC)CC. to acco e1cise ta1 share a!!ocated #or the Province o# I!ocos Sur under R)A) No) ?=?=/ % hi"se!# and5or in connivance with co:accused Char!ie 0Atong0 Ang/ A!"a A!#aro/ Dohn Doe

a)6)a) 3!euterio Tan Or 3!euterio Ra"os Tan or $r) 2%/ and Dane Doe a)6)a De!ia Ra*as/ and other Dohn Does and Dane DoesL c. % directing/ ordering and co"pe!!ing/ #or his persona! gain and ene#it/ the 'overn"ent Service Insurance S%ste" -'SIS. to purchase/ HI=/@?@/CCC shares o# stoc6/ "ore or !ess and the Socia! Securit% S%ste" -SSS./ HB>/@II/CCC shares o# stoc6/ "ore or !ess/ o# the ,e!!e Corporation in the a"ount o# "ore or !ess One ,i!!ion One Aundred Two $i!!ion Nine Aundred Si1t% Five Thousand Si1 Aundred Seven Pesos and Fi#t% Centavos ;P=/=CB/>FI/FC?)IC< and "ore or !ess Seven Aundred Fort% Four $i!!ion Si1 Aundred Twe!ve Thousand Four Aundred Fi#t% Pesos -P?EE/F=B/EIC)CC</ respective!%/ or a tota! o# a "ore or !ess One ,i!!ion 3ight Aundred Fort% Seven $i!!ion Five Aundred Sevent% 3ight Thousand Fi#t% Seven Pesos and #i#t% centavos ;P=/@E?/I?@/CI?)IC<L and % co!!ecting or receiving/ direct!% or indirect!%/ % hi"se!# and5or in connivance with Dohn Does and Dane Does/ Co""issions or percentages % reason o# said purchases o# shares o# stoc6 in the a"ount o# One Aundred 3ight%: Nine $i!!ion Seven Aundred Thousand Pesos ;P=@>/?CC/CCC</ "ore or !ess/ #ro" the ,e!!e Corporation/ which eca"e part o# the deposit in the 3&uita !e:PCI ,an6 under the account o# 8Dose Ve!arde8L d. % un*ust!% enriching hi"se!# FRO$ CO$$ISSIONS/ gi#ts/ shares/ percentages/ 6ic6 ac6s/ or an% #or" o# pecuniar% ene#its/ in connivance with Dohn Does and Dane Does/ in the a"ount o# "ore or !ess Three ,i!!ion Two Aundred Thirt%:Three $i!!ion One Aundred Four Thousand One Aundred Sevent% Three Pesos and Seventeen Centavos ;PH/BHH/=CE/=?H)=?< and depositing the sa"e under his account na"e 8Dose Ve!arde8 at the 3&uita !e:PCI ,an6) CONTRARG TO LA4)08B In ')R) No) =E@>FI/H I stood apart #ro" the "a*orit% o# "% rethren in den%ing the Petition #or Certiorari and $anda"us #i!ed % Dose 8Dinggo%/8 3) 3strada against the Sandigan a%an/ Peop!e o# the Phi!ippines and O##ice o# the O" uds"an) I articu!ated in "% Dissent the various reasons wh% I cou!d not *oin the "a*orit% in sustaining the a#ore: &uoted A"ended In#or"ation) Now/ I a" ta6ing this second occasion to reiterate the"/ hoping that the "a*orit% wi!! have a change o# "ind and reso!ve to re:e1a"ine its Decision) Consistent with "% previous Dissent/ it is "% view that petitioner 3dward S) Serapio/ !i6e Dose 8Dinggo%8 3strada/ "a% not e va!id!% prosecuted #or the cri"e o# p!under under the A"ended In#or"ation) To e #orthright/ the o vious error in the #oregoing In#or"ation !ies in the #act that it *oined together #our distinct conspiracies in a sing!e continuing conspirac% o# p!under and indiscri"inate!% accused a!! the persons who participated therein o# the said resu!ting cri"e) Si"p!% put/ the A"ended In#or"ation is a "ere #usion o# separate conspiracies) It is a6in to that o# 8separate spo!es meeting at a common center( without the rim of the wheel to enclose the spo!es)8 This is !ega!!% i"per"issi !e) Such 6ind o# in#or"ation p!aces the accused0s pri"ar% right to e in#or"ed o# the nature and cause o# the accusation against hi" in *eopard%) I "ust reiterate what I have pointed out in ')R) No) =E@>FI) There e1ists a distinction etween separate conspiracies/ where certain parties are co""on to a!! the conspiracies/ but with no overall goal or common purposeL and one overa!! continuing conspirac% with various parties *oining and ter"inating their re!ationship at di##erent ti"es) E Distinct and separate conspiracies do not/ in conte"p!ation o# !aw/ eco"e a sing!e conspirac% "ere!% ecause one "an is a participant and 6e% #igure in a!! the separate conspiracies)I The present case is a per#ect e1a"p!e) The #act that #or"er President 3strada is a co""on 6e% #igure in the cri"ina! acts recited under paragraphs -a./ - ./ -c. and -d. o# the A"ended In#or"ation does not auto"atica!!% give rise to a sing!e continuing conspirac% o# p!under/ particu!ar!%/ with respect to petitioner Serapio whose participation is !i"ited to paragraph -a.) 1o say otherwise is to impute to petitioner or to any of the accused the acts and statements of the others without reference to whether or not their acts are related to one scheme or overall plan) It cou!d not have een the intention o# the Legis!ature/ in dra#ting R)A) No) ?C@C/ to authori(e the prosecution to chain together #our separate and distinct cri"es when the on!% ne1us a"ong the" !ies in the #act that one "an participated in a!!) There !ies a great danger #or the trans#erence o# gui!t #ro" one to another across the !ine separating conspiracies) The princip!e !aid down a ove is no !onger nove! in other *urisdictions) Various A"erican decisions had e1pounded on the "atter) In attle vs. %tate/F a *udg"ent o# conviction was reversed on the ground that the a!!egation o# conspirac% in the indict"ent was insu##icient/ thus: 8A"ong the re&uire"ents #or the a!!egations in an indict"ent to e su##icient are -=. the speci#icit% test/ i.e)/ does the indict"ent contain a!! the e!e"ents o# the o##ense p!eaded in ter"s su##icient enough to apprise the accused o# what he "ust e prepared to "eet/ and -B. is the indict"ent p!eaded in such a "anner as to ena !e the de#endant to p!ead prior *eopard% as a de#ense i# additiona! charges are rought #or the sa"e o##ense) 1 1 1 Further/ our Supre"e Court has recent!% considered the criteria #or su##icienc% in conspirac% cases in $oldberg vs. %tate/ HI= So) Bd HHB -F!a) =>??./? as this court has !i6ewise done in %tate vs. $iardino/ HFH So) Bd BC= -F!a) Hd DCA =>?@.) @ App!%ing the princip!es deve!oped in the a ove cases to the instant cause/ we are o# the opinion that Count I o# the indict"ent was insu##icient) 0t is impossible to ascertain

whether the indictment charges that appellant conspired with Acuna and 3ernandez #ointly or severally( or whether appellant conspired entirely with persons un!nown. Also( it is impossible to tell whether appellant met with Acuna and 3ernandez #ointly or severally( or whether appellant conspired entirely with persons un!nown. Also( it is impossible to tell whether appellant met with Acuna and 3ernandez #ointly or severally( or whether appellant met with persons un!nown to plan the murder of 1orres ) ,ecause appe!!ant was !e#t to guess who these other conspirators "ight e and ecause the vagueness o# the a!!egations did nothing to protect hi" #ro" #urther prosecution/ we are o# the opinion that the% were too vague and inde#inite to "eet the re&uire"ents set #orth a ove) According!%/ in our opinion the tria! court erred in #ai!ing to dis"iss Count I o# the indict"ent #or conspirac% against appe!!ant)8 -Footnote supp!ied. In %tate vs. 3ar!ness/> a de"urrer to the in#or"ation was sustained on the ground that an in#or"ation charging two separate conspiracies is ad #or "is*oinder o# parties where the on!% connection etween the two conspiracies was the #act that one de#endant participated in oth) The Supre"e Court o# 4ashington ru!ed: 8;4<e see no ground upon which the counts against oth the Aar6nesses can e inc!uded in the sa"e in#or"ation) 4hi!e the% are charged with cri"es o# the sa"e c!ass/ the cri"es are a!!eged to have een co""itted independent!% and at di##erent ti"es) 1he crimes are related to each other only by the fact that the prescriptions used were issued by the same physician. x x x De find ourselves unable to agree with the appellant that the mis#oinder is cured by the conspiracy charge ) It is dou t#u! i# the count is su##icient in #or" to charge a conspirac%) 1 1 1 Re#erence is "ade in the count/ to counts one to si1/ inc!usive/ #or a speci#ication o# the acts constituting the conspirac%) 4hen these counts are e1a"ined/ it wi!! e seen that the% charge separate substantive offenses without a!!eging an% concert o# action etween the Aar6nesses)8 Thus/ when certain persons unite to per#or" certain acts/ and so"e o# the" unite with others who are engaged in tota!!% di##erent acts/ it is error to *oin the" in an in#or"ation) =C Otherwise stated/ de#endants charged with two separate conspiracies having one co""on participant are not/ without "ore/ proper!% *oined/ and si"i!arit% o# acts a!one is insu##icient to indicate that series o# acts e1ist)== Doinder "a% e per"itted when the connection etween the a!!eged o##enses and the parties is the accused0s awareness o# the identit% and activit% o# the other a!!eged participants)=B There "ust e a showing o# one overa!! co""on goa! to which the participants ind the"se!ves) Apparent!%/ the #actua! recita!s o# the A"ended In#or"ation #ai! to su##icient!% a!!ege that petitioner Serapio de!i erate!% agreed or anded with the rest o# the accused #or the purpose o# co""itting P!under) There is no aver"ent that he conspired with the" in co""itting the cri"es speci#ied in paragraphs - ./ -c. and -d. o# the A"ended In#or"ation/ such as "isappropriation o# the to acco e1cise ta1 share o# I!ocos SurL receipt o# co""issions % reason o# the purchase o# shares o# stoc6 #ro" the ,e!!e CorporationL and ac&uisition o# une1p!ained wea!th) To "% "ind/ the A"ended In#or"ation on!% "a6es out a case o# ri er% 8in to!eration or protection o# i!!ega! ga" !ing)8 4hi!e he is eing charged #or the 8cri"e o# P!under/ de#ined and pena!i(ed under R)A) No) ?C@C/8 his a!!eged participation therein is !i"ited to what is speci#ied under paragraph -a. o# the A"ended In#or"ation) The essence o# the !aw on p!under !ies in the phrase 8combination or series of overt or criminal acts)8 The deter"ining #actor o# R)A) No) ?C@C/ as can e g!eaned #ro" the Record o# the Senate/ is the plurality o# the overt acts or cri"ina! acts under a grand sche"e or conspirac% to a"ass i!!:gotten wea!th) Thus/ even i# the a"assed wea!th e&ua!s or e1ceeds #i#t% "i!!ion pesos/ a person cannot e prosecuted #or the cri"e o# p!under i# he per#or"s on!% a sing!e cri"ina! act)=H It is the "a*orit%0s position that since there is an a!!egation o# conspirac% at the inception o# the A"ended In#or"ation/ the cri"ina! acts recited in paragraphs - ./ -c. and -d. pertain to petitioner as we!!/ the act o# one eing the act o# a!!) This is an o vious non seCuitur) 3ven the A"ended In#or"ation/ on its #ace/ cannot ad"it such a construction) First/ it ears noting that the A"ended In#or"ation na"ed the co:conspirators o# #or"er President 3strada individua!!% and separate!% in each o# the #our predicate o##enses) Paragraph -a. na"ed petitioner Dose 8'inggoy8 3strada/ 8Atong8 Ang/ Go!anda T) Rica#orte/ "dward %erapio/ Dohn Does and Dane Does as co:conspirators in the cri"e o# ri er%) Paragraph -b. na"ed A!"a A!#aro/ 8Atong8 Ang/ 3!euterio Ra"os Tan/ De!ia Ra*as and other Dohn Does and Dane Does as co:conspirators in the cri"e o# "a!versation o# pu !ic #unds representing a portion o# the to acco e1cise ta1 share a!!ocated to the Province o# I!ocos Sur) Paragraph -c. and -d. na"ed Dohn Does and Dane Does as co: conspirators in the purchase o# the ,e!!e0s shares and in the ac&uisition o# i!!:gotten wea!th in the a"ount o# PH/BHH/=CE/=?H)=? under the account na"e 8'ose /elarde)8 0s it logical to infer from the Amended 0nformation the existence of a single continuing conspiracy of plunder when the factual recital thereof individually and separately named the co*conspirators in each of the predicate offenses N I "ust reecho "% answer in ')R) No) =E@>FI/ i)e)/ an outright no) A sing!e agree"ent to co""it severa! cri"es constitutes one conspirac%) ,% the sa"e reasoning/ "u!tip!e agree"ents to co""it separate cri"es constitute "u!tip!e conspiracies) 1o individually and separately name the co*conspirators in each of the predicate offenses is to reveal the absence of a common design) The e1p!icit c!ustering o# co:conspirators #or each predicate o##ense thwarts the "a*orit%0s theor% o# a sing!e continuing conspirac% o# p!under) 0t reveals a clear line segregating each predicate offense from the other) Thus/ the act o# one cannot e considered as the act o# a!!)

%econd/ the a!!egation o# conspirac% at the inception o# the A"ended In#or"ation asica!!% pertains to #or"er President 3strada as the co""on 6e% #igure in the #our predicate o##enses) A!!ow "e to &uote the pertinent portion/ thus: 8That during the period #ro" Dune =>>@ to Danuar%/ BCC=/ in the Phi!ippines/ and within the *urisdiction o# this Aonora !e Court/ accused 'oseph "#ercito "strada/ then a pu !ic o##icer/ eing then the President o# the Repu !ic o# the Phi!ippines/ by himself andGor in connivanceGconspiracy with his co:accused/ who are "e" ers o# his #a"i!%/ re!atives % a##init% or consanguinit%/ usiness associates/ su ordinates and5or other persons/ % ta6ing undue advantage o# his o##icia! position/ authorit%/ re!ationship/ connection/ or in#!uence/ did then and there wi!!#u!!%/ un!aw#u!!% and cri"ina!!% a"ass/ accu"u!ate and ac&uire by himself/ direct!% or indirect!%/ i!!:gotten wea!th in the aggregate a"ount or tota! va!ue o# #our i!!ion ninet% seven "i!!ion eight hundred #our thousand one hundred sevent% three pesos and seventeen centavos ;PE/C>?/@CE/=?H)=?</ "ore or !ess/ there % un*ust!% enriching hi"se!# or the"se!ves at the e1pense and to the da"age o# the Fi!ipino peop!e and the Repu !ic o# the Phi!ippines through an% or a co" ination or a series o# overt OR cri"ina! acts/ or si"i!ar sche"es or "eans/ descri ed as #o!!ows: 1 1 1)8 Fro" the #oregoing a!!egation/ it can e reasona !% construed that #or"er President 3strada conspired with a!! the accused in co""itting the #our predicate o##enses) Aowever/ whether his co:accused conspired with hi" #ointly orindividually #or the co""ission o# all/ or some or one o# the predicate o##enses is a &uestion that "a% e answered on!% a#ter a reading o# the entire A"ended In#or"ation) I note with particu!arit% the phrase in the A"ended In#or"ation stating/ 8by himself andGor=E in connivanceGconspiracy with his co*accused)8 The phrase indicates that #or"er President 3strada did not/ in a!! instances/ act in connivance with the other accused) At ti"es/ he acted a!one) Conse&uent!%/ as a!!eged in the succeeding paragraphs -a./ - ./ -c. and -d./ his co:accused conspired with hi" individua!!% and not *oint!%) Petitioner %erapio cannot therefore be associated with the former President in all the latterFs alleged criminal activities) O# course/ I cannot ignore the use o# the phrase 8on several instances8 and 8aggregate amount of PJ5J(BBB(BBB.BB8 in paragraph -a. o# the A"ended In#or"ation) At #irst g!ance/ this "a% e construed as attri uting to petitioner Serapio a 8combination or series of overt act)8 Aowever/ a reading o# the A"ended In#or"ation/ in its entiret%/ readi!% revea!s that the said phrases pertain to former President "strada( the principal accused in the case ) A!!eged!%/ the #or"er President/ on severa! instances/ received or co!!ected an aggregate a"ount o# PIEI/CCC/CCC)CC/ "ore or !ess #ro" i!!ega! ga" !ing in the #or" o# gi#t/ share/ percentage/ 6ic6 ac6 or an% #or" o# pecuniar% ene#it 8 by himself andGor in connivance with co:accused Char!ie 8Atong8 Ang/ Dose 8'inggoy8 3strada/ Go!anda T) Rica#orte/ petitioner %erapio and Dohn Does and Dane Does) 4e have a!read% e1p!ained the i"p!ication o# the phrase 8 % hi"se!# and5or in connivance)8 ConseCuently( the acts committed by former President "strada on the several instances referred to cannot automatically be attributed to petitioner ) 1hird/ petitioner0s cri"ina! intent to advance the un!aw#u! o *ect o# the conspirac% -p!under. is not su##icient!% a!!eged in the #actua! recita!s o# the A"ended In#or"ation) Coro!!ari!%/ the intent re&uired is the intent to advance or #urther the un!aw#u! o *ect o# the conspirac%)=I This "eans that so #ar as the re!evant circu"stances are concerned/ oth parties to the agree"ent "ust have mens rea)=F There is no conspirac% to co""it a particu!ar cri"e un!ess the parties to the agree"ent intend that the conse&uences/ which are ingredients o# that cri"e/ sha!! e caused) =? In the present case/ whi!e there is an a!!egation that #or"er President 3strada 8willfully( unlawfully and criminally8=@ a"assed i!!:gotten wea!th in the aggregate a"ount o# PE/C>?/@CE/=?H)=?/ none is "entioned with regard to petitioner) There is nothing in the A"ended In#or"ation that suggests whether or not petitioner has the "ens rea to engage in the co""ission o# the serious cri"e o# p!under) Indeed/ there are no a!!egations that he 8 willfully( unlawfully or criminally8 *oined with the rest o# the accused to a"ass i!!:gotten wea!th) This renders the A"ended In#or"ation #ata!!% de#ective with respect to petitioner) 3ver% cri"e is "ade up o# certain acts and intent: these "ust e set #orth in the co"p!aint with reasona !e particu!arit%)=> 0mperatively( an information charging that a defendant conspired to commit an offense must allege that the defendant agreed with one or more persons to commit the offense )BC And fourth/ the state"ent in the accusator% portion o# the A"ended In#or"ation cu"u!ative!% charging a!! the accused o# the cri"e o# P!under cannot e given "uch weight in deter"ining the nature o# the o##ense charged) It is a *urisprudentia!!%:e" edded ru!e that what determines the =nature and cause of accusation= against an accused is the crime described by the facts stated in the information or complaint and not that designated by the fiscal in the preamble thereof)B= In the recent "n anc ru!ing in ,acson vs. "xecutive %ecretary/BB citing the =>IE case o# People vs. CosareBH and People vs. )endoza/BE this Court he!d: 8The #actor that characteri(es the charge is the actual recital of the facts) The rea! nature o# the cri"ina! charge is deter"ined not #ro" the caption or prea" !e o# the in#or"ation nor #ro" the speci#ication o# the provision o# !aw a!!eged to have een vio!ated/ they being conclusions of law/ ut % the actual recital of facts in the co"p!aint or in#or"ation)8BI Thus/ in the event that the appe!!ation o# the cri"e charged/ as deter"ined % the pu !ic prosecutor/ does not e1act!% correspond to the actua! cri"e constituted % the cri"ina! acts descri ed in the in#or"ation to have een co""itted % the accused/ what contro!s is the description o# the said cri"ina! acts and not the technica! na"e o# the cri"e supp!ied % the pu !ic prosecutor)BF

There is a caveat that an in#or"ation under the road !anguage o# a genera! conspirac% statute "ust e scrutini(ed care#u!!% as to each o# the charged de#endants ecause o# the possi i!it%/ inherent in a cri"ina! conspirac% charge/ that its wide net "a% ensnare the innocent as we!! as the cu!pa !e) B? Let it e stressed that gui!t shou!d re"ain individua! and persona!/ even as respect conspiracies) It is not a "atter o# "ass app!ication) There are ti"es when o# necessit%/ ecause o# the nature and scope o# a particu!ar #ederation/ !arge nu" ers o# persons ta6ing part "ust e tried % their conduct) The proceeding ca!!s #or the use o# ever% sa#eguard to individua!i(e each accused in re!ation to the "ass) Cri"ina! the% "a% e/ ut it is not the cri"ina!it% o# "ass conspirac%) The% do not invite "ass tria! % their conduct) True/ this "a% e inconvenient #or the prosecution) ,ut the govern"ent is not one o# "ere convenience or e##icienc%) It too has a sta6e with ever% citi(en/ in his eing a##orded the individua! protections/ inc!uding those surrounding cri"ina! tria!s) B@ The shot:gun approach o# a conspirac% charge cou!d a"ount to a prosecution #or genera! cri"ina!it% resu!ting in a #inding o# gui!t % association) The courts shou!d/ at a!! ti"es/ guard against this possi i!it% so that the constitutiona! rights o# an individua! are not cur ed or c!ouded % the we o# circu"stances invo!ved in a conspirac% charge) B> Coro!!ari!%/ petitioner pra%s in ')R) No) =E@EF@ #or this Court to issue a writ o# habeas corpus) The A"ended In#or"ation eing #ata!!% de#ective/ it is i"perative that petitioner e dropped #ro" the A"ended In#or"ation and proceeded against under a new one charging the proper o##ense) In the a sence o# a standing case against hi"/ the issuance o# a writ o# habeas corpus is in order)8HC 4A3R3FOR3/ I vote to 'RANT the petitions in ')R) No) =E@?F> and ')R) No) =E@EF@)