TITLE III Crimes Against Public Order
2. Whether or not Judge Salazar personally determined probable cause in the case at bar.
PEOPLE V. HERNANDEZ 99 Phil. 515 (Digest)
No Complex Crime of Rebellion With Murder, Arson or Robbery
FACTS:
Amado HERNANDEZ5 (member of the CPP and President of the Congress of Labor
Organizations) re-filed for bail (previous one denied) for his conviction of rebellion complexed with
murders, arsons and robberies. The prosecution said to deny this again because the capital
punishment may be imposed. The defense however contends that rebellion cannot be complexed with
murder, arson, or robbery. The information states that the “…murders, arsons and robberies allegedly
perpetrated by the accused “as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection
therewith and in furtherance thereof.”
ISSUE: W/N rebellion can be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery.
Held: NO!
RATIO:Under the allegations of the amended information, the murders, arsons and robberies
described therein are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by HERNANDEZ,
as means “necessary” for the perpetration of said offense of rebellion and that the crime charged in
the amended information is, therefore, simple rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple
murder, arsons and robberies. Under Article 1346 and 1357, these five (5) classes of acts constitute
only one offense, and no more, and are, altogether, subject to only one penalty. One of the means by
which rebellion may be committed, in the words of said Article 135, is by “engaging in war against the
forces of the government” and “committing serious violence” in the prosecution of said “war”. These
expressions imply everything that war connotes. Since Article 135 constitute only 1 crime, Article 48
doesn’t apply since it requires the commission of at least 2 crimes.
Juan Ponce Enrile vs Jaime Salazar
November 6, 2010
In February 1990, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested for the crime of rebellion with murder and
multiple frustrated murder. The warrant of arrest was issued by Judge Jaime Salazar. Said crime arose
from the failed coup attempts against then president Corazon Aquino. There was no bail set for Enrile
due to the seriousness of the crime charged against him. Enrile was then brought to Camp Karingal.
Enrile later filed a petition for habeas corpus questioning his detention and alleging that the crime being
charged against him is nonexistent. He insists that there is no such crime as rebellion with murder and
multiple frustrated murder. Enrile invoked the ruling in the landmark case of People vs Hernandez
where it was ruled that rebellion cannot be complexed with common crimes such as murder; as such,
the proper crime that should have been charged against him is simple rebellion – which is bailable.
Enrile also questioned the regularity of the issuance of the warrant of arrest against him. He claimed
that it only took Judge Salazar one hour and twenty minutes (from the raffling of the case to him) to
issue the warrant. Enrile claimed that such period is so short that it was impossible for the judge to
have been able to examine the voluminous record of the case from the prosecution’s office – that
being, the constitutional provision that a judge may only issue a warrant of arrest after personally
determining the existence of probable cause has not been complied with.
For the prosecution, the Solicitor General argued that the Hernandez ruling should be abandoned and
that it should be ruled that rebellion cannot absorb more serious crimes like murder.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Hernandez ruling should be abandoned.
HELD:
1. No, the said case is still good law. The Supreme Court also noted that there was actually a previous
law (P.D. 942) which sought to abandon the Hernandez doctrine. The said law provided that graver
crimes may not be complexed with rebellion. However, President Corazon Aquino repealed said law
(by virtue of the power granted to her by the 1986 Freedom Constitution). That being, the Hernandez
doctrine, which reflects the rebellion law under the Revised Penal Code, still stands. The courts cannot
change this because courts can only interpret laws. Only Congress can change the rebellion law (which
the SC suggested in order to strengthen the rebellion law). But as it stands, Enrile is correct, there is
no such crime as rebellion with murder. Common crimes such as murder are absorbed. He can only
be charged with rebellion – which is bailable.
2. Yes. There is nothing irregular on the fact that Judge Salazar only took an hour and twenty minutes
to issue the warrant from the time the case was raffled to him despite the fact that the prosecution
transmitted quite a voluminous record from the preliminary investigation it conducted. It is sufficient
that the judge follows established procedure by personally evaluating the report and the supporting
documents submitted by the prosecutor. Just because Judge Salazar had what some might consider
only a relatively brief period within which to comply with that duty, gives no reason to assume that he
had not, or could not have, so complied; nor does that single circumstance suffice to overcome the
legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.
OCAMPO V. ABANDO G.R. No. 176830 February 11, 2014
FACTS: A mass graveyard was found at Sitio Sapang Daco, Barangay Kaulisihan, Inopacan, Leyte by
the43rd Infantry Brigade containing 67 skeletal remains of those believed to be victims of “Operation
Venereal Disease (VD)” by the Communist Party of the Philippines/ New People’s Army/National
Democratic Front (CPP/NPA/NPDF) of the Philippines. This was done to purge their ranks of suspected
military informers.
Members of the Scene of the Crime Operation team conducted forensic crime analysis to identify the
bodies by way of DNA sample. The initial report of the PNP Crime Laboratory on their identities
remained inconclusive, but, in a Special Report, the Case Secretariat of the Regional and National
Inter-Agency Legal Action Group came up with ten names of possible victims after comparing the
testimonies of relatives and witnesses.
Police Chief Inspector George L. Almaden and Staff Judge Advocate Captain Allan Tiu sent undated
letters to Pros. Vivero, requesting for legal action on the twelve attached complaint affidavits. These
were from relatives of the alleged victims of Operation VD who all swore that their relatives had been
abducted or last seen with members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP.
Charging them with murder, the affidavits were directed to 71 named members of the group, including
the petitioners. Namely, the petitioners were Ocampo, Echanis, Baylosis and Ladlad who were all
pointed out to be members of the Central Committee that ordered the campaign to be carried out in
1985.
On this basis, Pros. Vivero issued a subpoena requiring them to submit their counter-affidavits and
Ocampo complied. However, Echanis and Baylosis did not do so because allegedly they were not
served the copy of a subpoena. As for Ladlad, though his counsel made formal appearance during the
preliminary investigation, he also did not submit for the same reason as the two.
Pros. Vivero, in a resolution, directed the filing of information for 15 counts of multiple murder against
the 54 named members, including the petitioners. He also caused some respondents to be used as
state witnesses for their testimony is vital to the prosecution. Said information was filed before RTC
Hilongos, Leyte branch 18 presided by Judge Abando.
Prior to receiving the resolution, Ocampo filed an Ex Parte Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory Hearing.
Judge Obando found probable cause and ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest against them with
no recommended bail.
Ocampo went to the Supreme Court by way of special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under
Rule 65 and asked for the abovementioned order and the prosecutor’s resolution to be annulled. He
said that a case for rebellion against him and 44 others was then already pending before RTC Makati
and so, the crime of murder was absorbed by the rebellion in line with the political offense doctrine.
The Court ordered the Solicitor General to comment on the issue and also ordered the parties to submit
their memoranda. From the oral arguments, the Court found that the single Information charging them
all of 15 counts of murder was defective. The prosecution moved to admit amended and new
information, but Judge Abando suspended the proceedings during the pendency of the case before
the Court.
Meanwhile, Echanis was arrested and he, along with Baylosis, filed a Motion for Judicial
Reinvestigation/ Determination of Probable Cause with Prayer to Dismiss the Case Outright and
Alternative Prayer to Recall/ Suspend Service of Warrant, but it was dismissed by Judge Abando.
Around this time, Ladlad filed a Motion to Quash/Dismiss with the RTC Manila.
Echanis and Baylosis moved to reconsider but it was not acted because, as per request of the DOJ
Secretary to change the venue of the trial, the records were transmitted to RTC Manila. Echanis and
Baylosis continued to seek relief from the Supreme Court in response to Judge Abando’s orders.
Echanis also prayed for his release.
Both Ocampo and Echanis were granted provisional release by the Supreme Court under cash bonds.
As to Ladlad’s Motion to Quash, it was denied by respondent judge and the same happened to his
Motion for Reconsideration. Ladlad sought to annul the latter’s orders by way of special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65.
As to their bail, Ladlad filed an Urgent Motion to Fix Bail whereas Baylosis filed a Motion to Allow
Petitioner to Post Bail which were granted, with no opposition from the OSG (bec. they’re consultants
of the NDFP negotiating team, then having talks with the GRP peace panel).
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners’ right to due process was violated.
HELD:
NO. Petitioners were accorded due process during preliminary investigation and in the issuance of the
warrants of arrest.
A preliminary investigation is "not a casual affair." It is conducted to protect the innocent from the
embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a public trial. While the right to have a preliminary investigation
before trial is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a substantive right and a component of due
process in the administration of criminal justice.
In the context of a preliminary investigation, the right to due process of law entails the opportunity to
be heard. It serves to accord an opportunity for the presentation of the respondent’s side with regard
to the accusation. Afterwards, the investigating officer shall decide whether the allegations and
defenses lead to a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, and that it was the respondent
who committed it. Otherwise, the investigating officer is bound to dismiss the complaint.
"The essence of due process is reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support of
one's defense." What is proscribed is lack of opportunity to be heard. Thus, one who has been afforded
a chance to present one’s own side of the story cannot claim denial of due process.
As to the claim of petitioners Echanis and Baylosis that they were denied due process, we quote the
pertinent portion of Prosecutor Vivero’s Resolution, which states:
In connection with the foregoing and pursuant to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure[,] the
respondents were issued and served with Subpoena at their last known address for them to submit
their counter-affidavits and that of their witnesses.
Majority of the respondents did not submit their counter-affidavits because they could no longer be
found in their last known address, per return of the subpoenas. On the other hand, Saturnino Ocampo
Satur, Fides Lim, Maureen Palejaro and Ruben Manatad submitted their Counter-Affidavits. However,
Vicente Ladlad and Jasmin Jerusalem failed to submit the required Counter Affidavits in spite entry of
appearance by their respective counsels.
Section 3(d), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, allows Prosecutor Vivero to resolve the complaint based
on the evidence before him if a respondent could not be subpoenaed. As long as efforts to reach a
respondent were made, and he was given an opportunity to present countervailing evidence, the
preliminary investigation remains valid. The rule was put in place in order to foil underhanded attempts
of a respondent to delay the prosecution of offenses.In this case, the Resolution stated that efforts
were undertaken to serve subpoenas on the named respondents at their last known addresses. This
is sufficient for due process. It was only because a majority of them could no longer be found at their
last known addresses that they were not served copies of the complaint and the attached documents
or evidence.
Moreover, Petitioner Ladlad, through his counsel, had every opportunity to secure copies of the
complaint after his counsel’s formal entry of appearance and, thereafter, to participate fully in the
preliminary investigation. Instead, he refused to participate.
We have previously cautioned that "litigants represented by counsel should not expect that all they
need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case."106 Having opted to remain passive
during the preliminary investigation, petitioner Ladlad and his counsel cannot now claim a denial of due
process, since their failure to file a counter-affidavit was of their own doing.
As to Ocampo’s claim that he was denied the right to file a motion for reconsideration or to appeal the
Resolution of Prosecutor Vivero due to the 19-day delay in the service of the Resolution, it must be
pointed out that the period for filing a motion for reconsideration or an appeal to the Secretary of Justice
is reckoned from the date of receipt of the resolution of the prosecutor, not from the date of the
resolution. This is clear from Section 3 of the 2000 National Prosecution Service Rule on Appeal:
Sec. 3. Period to appeal. – The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the
resolution, or of the denial of the motion for reconsideration/ reinvestigation if one has been filed within
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed resolution. Only one motion for reconsideration shall be
allowed. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, when petitioner Ocampo received the Resolution of Prosecutor Vivero on 12 March 2007,108
the former had until 27 March 2007 within which to file either a motion for reconsideration before the
latter or an appeal before the Secretary of Justice. Instead, petitioner Ocampo chose to file the instant
petition for certiorari directly before this Court on 16 March 2007.