Ladlad v.
People Beltran was brought back to Camp Crame and was subjected to a
June 1, 2007 | Carpio, J.
DOCTRINE: Inquest proceedings are proper only when the accused has been
lawfully arrested without warrant. Section 5, Rule 113 of the ROC provides the
instances when such warrantless arrests may be effected, thus:
Arrest without warrant; when lawful.A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person
to be arrested has committed it; and in case falling under paragraphs (a) and (b)
above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the
nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with
section 7 of Rule 112.
SUMMARY: Crispin Beltran, one of the petitioners in this consolidated case,
was arrested without warrant and was not informed of the crime for which he
was arrested. He was subject to an Inquest for Sedition and another separate
inquest proceeding for Rebellion. Beltran questioned the validity of the inquest
proceeding. The Court ruled in his favour citing the doctrine above.
FACTS:
The case is composed of consolidated petitions for writs of prohibition
and certiorari to enjoin petitioners prosecution for Rebellion and to set
aside the rulings of the DOJ and the RTC Makati on the investigation
and prosecution of the petitioners cases.
In the Beltran petition, the facts are as follows: After Arroyo issued
Presidential Proclamation No. 1017, declaring a State of National
Emergency, police officers arrested Crispin Beltran (who was then the
representative for Anakpawis Partylist) and detained him in Camp
Crame.
He was arrested without warrant and was not informed of the crime for
which he was arrested. On that evening, Beltran was subject to an
inquest at the QC Hall of Justice for Inciting to Sedition (Art. 142 RPC).
This is allegedly based on a speech that he gave during a rally on the
occasion of the 20th anniversary of the EDSA Revolution.
The inquest was based on the joint affidavit of the arresting officers
who claimed to be present at the rally. The inquest prosecutor indicted
Beltran and filed an Information with the MeTC of QC.
second inquest conducted by a panel of State Prosecutors from DOJ,
this time for Rebellion. This was based on two letters which allegedly
pointed to Beltran and several others as leaders and promoters of a
foiled plot to overthrow the Arroyo government with the help of the
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the Makabayang Kawal
ng Pilipinas (MKP)
The DOJ Prosecution Panel issued a Resolution finding probable
cause to indict Beltran, then filed an Information with RTC Makati.
Beltran moved that the lower court make a judicial determination of
probable cause against him. The second judge to whom the case was
re-raffled sustained the finding of probable cause against Beltran.
Hence, this present petition is filed to set aside the Orders and to
enjoin Beltrans prosecution. The Solicitor General also claims that the
inquest was valid and the RTC Makati correctly found probable cause.
ISSUE: WON the inquest proceeding against Beltran was valid
RULING: NO.
Based on the cited doctrine, the Court ruled that the inquest
proceeding was not valid. None of Beltrans arresting officers saw
Beltran commit, in their presence, the crime of rebellion. Nor did they
have knowledge of facts and circumstances that Beltran had just
committed Rebellion, sufficient to form probable cause to believe that
he had committed Rebellion.
Under DOJ Circular No. 61, the initial duty of the inquest officer is to
determine if the arrest of the detained person was made in accordance
with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5, Rule 113. If
the arrest was not properly effected, he shall: (a) recommend the
release of the person arrested; (b) note down the disposition on the
referral document; (c) prepare a brief memorandum indicating the
reasons for the action taken; and (d) forward the same together with
the record of the case to the Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate
action.
For failure of Beltrans panel of inquest prosecutors to comply with
Section 7, Rule 112, Beltrans inquest is declared void. Court also did
not agree that there was a finding of probable cause.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.