JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES vs. HON. MANUEL B. PD 1829.
On 26 November 2001, the undersigned filed a
GAITE (G.R. No. 165276. November 25, 2009) Petition for Review before the Office of President. The petition was dismissed and the motion for reconsideration was denied FACTS: Petitioner [Judge Adoracion G. Angeles] was the foster before said forum anchored on Memorandum Circular No. 58 mother of her fourteen (14) year-old grandniece Maria Mercedes which bars an appeal or a petition for review of Vistan who, in April 1990 was entrusted to the care of the former decisions/orders/resolutions of the Secretary of Justice except by the girl's grandmother and petitioner's sister Leonila Angeles those involving offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or Vda. de Vistan when the child was orphaned at the tender age death. of four. Petitioner's love for the child extended to her siblings, particularly her half-brother respondent Michael Vistan, a former drug-addict, and the latter's family who were regular ISSUE: Was the dismissal of the action filed by petitioner beneficiaries of the undersigned's generosity. In the evening of correct? 11 April 1999, Michael Vistan had a falling out with petitioner for his failure to do a very important errand for which he was severely reprimanded over the phone. He was told that from then on, no assistance of any kind would be extended to him HELD: No. Petitioner's arguments have no leg to stand on. They and that he was no longer welcome at petitioner's residence. are mere suppositions without any basis in law. Petitioner Feeling thwarted, he, in conspiracy with his co-horts retaliated argues in the main that Memorandum Circular No. 58 is an on 12 April 1999 by inducing his half-sister, Maria Mercedes, to invalid regulation, because it diminishes the power of control of leave petitioner's custody. the President and bestows upon the Secretary of Justice, a subordinate officer, almost unfettered power. This argument is In the evening of that day, 12 April 1999, petitioner, absurd. The President's act of delegating authority to the accompanied by her friend Ines Francisco, sought Michael Secretary of Justice by virtue of said Memorandum Circular is Vistan in his residence in Sta. Cruz, Guiguinto, Bulacan to well within the purview of the doctrine of qualified political confront him about the whereabouts of his half-sister. He agency, long been established in our jurisdiction. The President disclosed that he brought the girl to the residence of her himself set the limits of his power to review maternal relatives in Sta. Monica, Hagonoy, Bulacan. Petitioner then reported the matter and requested for the assistance of the decisions/orders/resolutions of the Secretary of Justice in order 303rd Criminal Investigation and Detective Group Field Office in to expedite the disposition of cases. Petitioner's argument that Malolos, Bulacan to locate the girl. Consequently, PO3 Paquito the Memorandum Circular unduly expands the power of the M. Guillermo and Ruben Fred Ramirez accompanied petitioner Secretary of Justice to the extent of rendering even the Chief and her friend to Hagonoy, Bulacan where they coordinated with Executive helpless to rectify whatever errors or abuses the police officers from the said place. The group failed to find the former may commit in the exercise of his discretion is purely girl. Instead, they were given the run-around as the spouses speculative to say the least. Ruben and Lourdes Tolentino and spouses Gabriel and Olympia Nazareno misled them with the false information that Maria Petitioner argues that the evasion of arrest constitutes a Mercedes was already brought by their brother Carmelito violation of Section 1 (e) of PD No. 1829, the same is quoted Guevarra and the latter's wife Camilia to Casiguran, Quezon hereunder as follows: (e) Delaying the prosecution of criminal Province. On 13 April 1999, petitioner filed a complaint for case by obstructing the service of processes or court orders or Kidnapping under Article 271 of the Revised Penal Code disturbing proceedings in the fiscals' offices in Tanodbayan, or (Inducing a Minor to Abandon His Home) against Michael in the courts. Specifically, petitioner contends that respondent's Vistan, the Tolentino spouses, the Nazareno spouses and act of going underground obstructed the service of a court Guevarra spouses, all maternal relatives of Maria Mercedes process, particularly the warrant of arrest. This Court does not Vistan. agree. There is no jurisprudence that would support the stance In the early morning of 16 April 1999, Michael Vistan brought taken by petitioner. Notwithstanding petitioner's vehement Maria Mercedes to the DSWD after he felt himself cornered by objection in the manner the CA had disposed of the said issue, the police dragnet laid for him. Prompted by his overwhelming this Court agrees with the same. The CA ruled that the position desire to retaliate against petitioner and get himself off the hook taken by petitioner was contrary to the spirit of the law on from the kidnapping charge, Michael Vistan had deliberately, "obstruction of justice," As correctly observed by the CA, the maliciously, selfishly and insensitively caused undue physical, facts of the case, as portrayed by petitioner, do not warrant the emotional and psychological sufferings to Maria Mercedes filing of a separate information for violation of Section 1 (e) of Vistan, all of which were greatly prejudicial to her well-being and PD No. 1829. This Court agrees with the CA that based on the development. Thus, on 1 December 1999, petitioner filed a evidence presented by petitioner, the failure on the part of the complaint against Michael Vistan before the Office of the arresting officer/s to arrest the person of the accused makes the Provincial Prosecutor in Malolos, Bulacan for five counts of latter a fugitive from justice and is not equivalent to a Violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA 7610, otherwise commission of another offense of obstruction of justice. known as the Child Abuse Act, and for four counts of Violation of Sec. 1 (e) of PD 1829. In a Resolution dated March 3, 2000, Petitioner conveniently forgets that it is a basic rule of statutory Investigating Prosecutor Benjamin R. Caraig recommended construction that penal statutes are to be liberally construed in upheld (sic) the charge of Violation of RA 7160 but favor of the accused. Courts must not bring cases within the recommended that only one Information be filed against Michael Vistan. The charge of Violation of PD 1829 was dismissed. provision of a law which are not clearly embraced by it. No act However, Provincial Prosecutor Amando C. Vicente denied the can be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by recommendation of the Investigating Prosecutor that Michael statute; so, too, no person who is not clearly within the terms of Vistan be indicted for Violation RA 7610. He also approved the a statute can be brought within them. Any reasonable doubt recommendation for the dismissal of the charge for Violation of must be resolved in favor of the accused. JACKSON PADIERNOS y QUEJADA, JACKIE ROXAS y 705 is mala prohibita, their intent, motive, or knowledge need not GERMAN and ROLANDO MESINA y JAVATE vs. PEOPLE be shown. Nevertheless, their defense of denial must fail in view OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. No. 181111. August 17, 2015) of the evidence on record and their own admissions that they were aware of the truck's involvement in an illegal activity at the FACTS: The petitioners were charged as accessories to the time that they drove it towards Nueva Ecija. crime of illegal possession of lumber, in violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705 or the Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines. According to the Information, the petitioners took away the truck that carried the lumber to prevent its use as ISSUE: Can petitioners be considered accessories because the evidence and to avoid its confiscation and forfeiture. DENROs and the police authorities had already discovered the crime and had, in fact, control over the truck when the petitioners The presented evidence of the prosecution shows that on drove it towards Nueva Ecija? November 15, 2002, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Officer (DENRO) Felimon Balico (Balico) approached a truck loaded with lumber, which was parked at a HELD: Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the facts national highway in Dingalan, Aurora (Dingalan). The truck bore alleged in the Information and the crime proved in the present the name "JEROME" with Plate No. TFZ-747. Balico requested case do not make the petitioners liable as accessories for from the truck driver, Frederico, and the truck helper, Mostera, violation of P.D. 705. They are, however, liable for violation of the lumber's supporting documents but they failed to produce Section 1 (b) of P.D. 1829. any. Balico reported the matter to SPO4 Ramil Gamboa (Gamboa) and SPO4 Romulo Derit. Thereafter, he proceeded The controlling charge against the petitioners is not the to the DENR office to report the incident. The DENRO group allegation that they were accessories to the crime, which is decided to transfer the truck and the lumber to the police station merely the public prosecutor's conclusion of law or the technical at Poblacion. They transferred the lumber first from November name of an accused's criminal participation under Article 19 of 15 to November 16, 2002, and left the truck at the national the RPC, but the factual charges against them. In short, their highway in Dingalan, guarded by the DENROs and some police alleged acts control in defining the crime for which they should officers. Santiago, who claimed ownership of the truck, 7 agreed stand trial. These material factual allegations pertain to their act with the DENROs and the police officers to bring the truck to the of conspiring with each other to take and carry away the subject police station. Santiago gave the truck key to Mesina who truck so that it could not be used as evidence and to avoid its volunteered to drive the truck; while Padiernos asked Balico confiscation and forfeiture in favor of the government as tool or where the seized lumbers were. Since the truck was then parked instrument of the crime. Notably, the petitioners had been opposite the direction to the police station, Balico thought that sufficiently apprised of these factual allegations, against which Mesina would maneuver the truck so that they could proceed to they should defend themselves. In the present case, the crime the police station. To their surprise, Mesina increased the truck's punishable under P.D. 705 — the illegal possession of lumber speed and headed towards the direction of Nueva Ecija, leaving — had already been discovered at the time the petitioners took behind their two policemen escorts. the truck. This discovery led to the confiscation of the truck and the loaded lumber on November 15, 2002. The petitioners took Mesina testified that on November 16, 2002, he was watching the truck on November 16, 2002, after its confiscation. In these television with his wife and children when his former employer, lights, the petitioners are not liable as accessories to the crime Santiago, arrived and asked him to bring the latter's truck to charged in the Information as the legal definition of the technical Cabanatuan City. He refused Santiago's request because he term "accessories" does not coincide with the factual allegations knew that the truck had been engaged in illegal activities. in the Information that serves as the actual criminal charge Santiago insisted and assured him that he would take care of against the petitioners. everything and that there was really no problem with the truck. Mesina finally agreed and rode in Santiago's car. On reaching P.D. 1829 addresses the necessity of penalizing acts which the place where the truck was parked, they all alighted from the obstruct or frustrate or tend to obstruct or frustrate the car and walked towards the back of the truck; Padiernos crossed successful apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders. the street. Mesina saw Santiago talk to DENRO Tumagan and The factual allegations in the Information, as duly proved during several other persons for about 25 to 30 minutes. The petitioners trial, show that the petitioners' acts actually constituted a unanimously testified that they did not hear people shouting or violation of Section 1 (b) above. First, the Information duly tapping on the truck to stop them. They also did not notice any alleges all the essential elements of the crime of obstruction of motorcycle following them as the truck's side mirrors were justice under Section 1 (b). The factual allegations in the broken. They did not reach Cabanatuan City because the Information clearly charge the accused of taking and carrying Philippine Army flagged them down. away the truck so that it could not be used as evidence and to avoid its confiscation and forfeiture in favor of the government The RTC convicted petitioners Padiernos, Mesina and Roxas as as a tool or instrument of the crime. Second, the petitioners accessories to the crime of violation of P.D. 705. The RTC ruled deliberately took the truck or "suppressed" this particular that the petitioners had a common design to take away the truck evidence. The term "suppress" means to subdue or end by that earlier had been used in violating P.D. No. 705 or the force. Specifically, the petitioners intentionally suppressed the Forestry Reform Code. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision and truck as evidence, with the intent to impair its availability and adopted its factual findings, but modified the penalty imposed on prevent its use as evidence in the criminal investigation or the petitioners. The CA considered the subject truck as an proceeding for violation of P.D. 705. "instrument" in the commission of the offense, within the meaning of Article 19, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The CA added that since the petitioners' violation of P.D. ROGER POSADAS, ROSARIO TORRES-YU, and MARICHU were not being arrested in flagrante delicto. There is no probable LAMBINO , vs . THE HON. OMBUDSMAN (G.R. No. 131492. cause to charge Posadas, Torres-Yu, Lambino, Bentain and September 29, 2000) Atty. Villamor of violating Section 1(c) of P.D. 1829. Probable cause is defined as "sufficient ground to engender a well FACTS: Dennis Venturina, a member of Sigma Rho at the founded belief that a crime cognizable by the court has been University of the Philippines, was killed in a rumble between his committed and that the respondents are probably guilty thereof fraternity and another fraternity on December 8, 1994. In a letter and should be held for trial" (Section 1, Rule 12, Rules of Court). dated December 11, 1994, petitioner Roger Posadas, then The absence of an arrest warrant, the absence of knowledge or Chancellor of U.P. Diliman in Quezon City, asked the Director of reasonable ground on the part of the accused to believe that the the National Bureau of Investigation for assistance in students had committed a crime, the absence of any law determining the persons responsible for the crime. In response punishing refusal to attend an investigation at the NBI, all show to the request, respondent Orlando V. Dizon, Chief of the that there is no sufficient ground to charge the accused with Special Operations Group of the NBI, and his men went to U.P. Obstruction of Justice. On the contrary, the circumstances show on December 12 and, on the basis of the supposed positive that the accused, in safeguarding the rights of students, were identification of two alleged eyewitnesses, Leandro Lachica and acting within the bounds of law. Petitioners had a right to prevent Cesar Mangrobang, Jr., attempted to arrest Francis Carlo the arrest of Taparan and Narag at the time because their Taparan and Raymundo Narag, officers/members of the Scintilla attempted arrest was illegal. Indeed, they could not have Juris Fraternity, as suspects in the killing of Venturina. interfered with the prosecution of the guilty parties because in Petitioners Posadas, Marichu Lambino, and Rosario Torres-Yu, fact petitioner Posadas had asked the NBI for assistance in also of U.P., and a certain Atty. Villamor, counsel for the investigating the death of Venturina. On the other hand, just suspects, objected on the ground that the NBI did not have because petitioners had asked for assistance from the NBI did warrants of arrest with them. Dizon then filed a complaint in the not authorize respondent Dizon and his men to disregard Office of the Special Prosecutor, charging petitioners Posadas, constitutional requirements. Torres-Yu, Lambino, Col. Eduardo Bentain, Chief of the Security Force of the U.P. Police, and Atty. Villamor with violation of P.D. 1829, which makes it unlawful for anyone to obstruct the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders.
Later, on motion of petitioners, the Special Prosecutor's Office
recommended the dismissal of the case. But the recommendation was disapproved. In a memorandum, dated September 8, 1997, the Office of the Ombudsman directed the Special Prosecutor to proceed with the prosecution of petitioners in the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE: Whether there was probable cause for prosecuting
petitioners for violation of P.D. No. 1829
HELD: No. There can be no arrest without a warrant as provided
for under Rule 113 Sec. 5 of the ROC, however there are exceptions. The present case does not fall within the exceptions as the arresting officers in this case did not witness the crime being committed. Neither are the students fugitives from justice nor prisoners who had escaped from confinement. Indeed, at the time Dennis Venturina was killed, these agents were nowhere near the scene of the crime. When respondent Dizon and his men attempted to arrest Taparan and Narag, the latter were not committing a crime nor were they doing anything that would create the suspicion that they were doing anything illegal. On the contrary, Taparan and Narag, under the supervision of the U.P. police, were taking part in a peace talk called to put an end to the violence on the campus.
The question is not whether petitioners had reasonable grounds
to believe that the suspects were guilty. The question is whether the suspects could be arrested even in the absence of a warrant issued by a court, considering that, as already explained, the attempted arrest did not fall under any of the cases provided in Rule 113, §5. Regardless of their suspicion, petitioners could not very well have authorized the arrest without warrant of the students or even effected the arrest themselves. Only courts could decide the question of probable cause since the students
(Routledge Research in International Law) Aisling O'Sullivan-Universal Jurisdiction in International Criminal Law - The Debate and The Battle For Hegemony-Routledge (2017)