You are on page 1of 12

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 158763 March 31, 2006
JOSE C. MIRANDA, A!ERTO P. DAMACIO, a"# ROMEO !. OCON, Petitioners,
vs.
$IRGIIO M. TUIAO, Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
C%ICO&NA'ARIO, J.:
This is a petition for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt, assailin% the &'
Dece(ber )**) Decision
&
of the !ourt of +ppeals in !+,-.R. SP No. .///* and its &) 0une )**1
Resolution den2in% petitioners3 Motion for Reconsideration. The dispositive portion of the assailed
decision reads as follo"s4
56RFOR, findin% public respondent 0ud%e +nastacio D. +n%had to have acted "ith %rave abuse of
discretion a(ountin% to lac7 or e8cess of 9urisdiction in issuin% the assailed Orders, the instant petition
for certiorari, (anda(us and prohibition is hereb2 -R+NTD and -IVN D: !O:RS, and it is hereb2
ordered4
&. The assailed 0oint Order dated +u%ust &/, )**&, Order dated Septe(ber )&, )**&, 0oint
Order dated October &., )**& and 0oint Order dated Nove(ber &#, )**& dis(issin% the t"o ;)<
Infor(ations for Murder, all issued b2 public respondent 0ud%e +nastacio D. +n%had in !ri(inal
!ases Nos. 1.,1$)1 and 1.,1$)# are hereb2 RVRSD and ST +SID for havin% been issued
"ith %rave abuse of discretion a(ountin% to lac7 or e8cess of 9urisdiction, and another entered
:P6O=DIN-, +FFIRMIN->,? and RINST+TIN- the Order dated 0une )$, )**& and 0oint Order
dated 0ul2 ., )**& issued b2 the then actin% Presidin% 0ud%e 5ilfredo Tu(aliuan@
). !ri(inal !ases Nos. 1.,1$)1 and 1.,1$)# are hereb2 ordered RINST+TD in the doc7et of
active cri(inal cases of Aranch 1. of the Re%ional Trial !ourt of Santia%o !it2, Isabela@ and
1. Public respondent 0ud%e +nastacio D. +n%had is DIR!TD to ISS: forth"ith 5arrants of
+rrest for the apprehension of private respondents 0ose BPe(peB Miranda, SPO1 +lberto P.
Dal(acio, PO1 Ro(eo A. Ocon and accused Rodel T. Maderal in said !ri(inal !ases Nos. 1.,
1$)1 and 1.,1$)#.
)
The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follo"s4
On ' March &CC., t"o burnt cadavers "ere discovered in Puro7 Nibulan, Ra(on, Isabela, "hich "ere
later identified as the dead bodies of Vicente AauDon and liDer Tuliao, son of private respondent
Vir%ilio Tuliao "ho is no" under the "itness protection pro%ra(.
T"o infor(ations for (urder "ere filed a%ainst SPO& 5ilfredo =eaEo, SPO& Ferdinand MarDan, SPO&
Ruben A. +%ustin, SPO) +le8ander Micu, SPO) Rodel Maderal, and SPO# (ilio Ra(ireD in the Re%ional
Trial !ourt ;RT!< of Santia%o !it2.
The venue "as later transferred to Manila. On )) +pril &CCC, the RT! of Manila convicted all of the
accused and sentenced the( to t"o counts of reclusion perpetua e8cept SPO) Maderal "ho "as 2et to
be arrai%ned at that ti(e, bein% at lar%e. The case "as appealed to this !ourt on auto(atic revie"
"here "e, on C October )**&, acFuitted the accused therein on the %round of reasonable doubt.
So(eti(e in Septe(ber &CCC, SPO) Maderal "as arrested. On )/ +pril )**&, he e8ecuted a s"orn
confession and identified petitioners 0ose !. Miranda, PO1 Ro(eo A. Ocon, and SPO1 +lberto P.
Dal(acio, a certain Ao2et dela !ruD and +(ado Doe, as the persons responsible for the deaths of
Vicente AauDon and liDer Tuliao.
Respondent Tuliao filed a cri(inal co(plaint for (urder a%ainst petitioners, Ao2et dela !ruD, and
+(ado Doe, and sub(itted the s"orn confession of SPO) Maderal. On )$ 0une )**&, +ctin% Presidin%
0ud%e 5ilfredo Tu(aliuan issued "arrants of arrest a%ainst petitioners and SPO) Maderal.
On )C 0une )**&, petitioners filed an ur%ent (otion to co(plete preli(inar2 investi%ation, to
reinvesti%ate, and to recall andGor Fuash the "arrants of arrest.
In the hearin% of the ur%ent (otion on . 0ul2 )**&, 0ud%e Tu(aliuan noted the absence of petitioners
and issued a 0oint Order den2in% said ur%ent (otion on the %round that, since the court did not acFuire
9urisdiction over their persons, the (otion cannot be properl2 heard b2 the court. In the (eanti(e,
petitioners appealed the resolution of State Prosecutor =eo T. Re2es to the Depart(ent of 0ustice.
On &/ +u%ust )**&, the ne" Presidin% 0ud%e +nastacio D. +n%had too7 over the case and issued a 0oint
Order reversin% the 0oint Order of 0ud%e Tu(aliuan. !onseFuentl2, he ordered the cancellation of the
"arrant of arrest issued a%ainst petitioner Miranda. 6e li7e"ise applied this Order to petitioners Ocon
and Dal(acio in an Order dated )& Septe(ber )**&. State Prosecutor =eo S. Re2es and respondent
Tuliao (oved for the reconsideration of the said 0oint Order and pra2ed for the inhibition of 0ud%e
+n%had, but the (otion for reconsideration "as denied in a 0oint Order dated &. October )**& and the
pra2er for inhibition "as denied in a 0oint Order dated )) October )**&.
On )$ October )**&, respondent Tuliao filed a petition for certiorari, (anda(us and prohibition "ith
this !ourt, "ith pra2er for a Te(porar2 Restrainin% Order, see7in% to en9oin 0ud%e +n%had fro( further
proceedin% "ith the case, and see7in% to nullif2 the Orders and 0oint Orders of 0ud%e +n%had dated &/
+u%ust )**&, )& Septe(ber )**&, &. October )**&, and )) October )**&.
On &) Nove(ber )**&, this !ourt issued a Resolution resolvin% to %rant the pra2er for a te(porar2
restrainin% order a%ainst 0ud%e +n%had fro( further proceedin% "ith the cri(inal cases. Shortl2 after
the aforesaid resolution, 0ud%e +n%had issued a 0oint Order dated &# Nove(ber )**& dis(issin% the
t"o Infor(ations for (urder a%ainst petitioners. On &C Nove(ber )**&, this !ourt too7 note of
respondent3s cash bond evidenced b2 O.R. No. &$C)#$1) dated &$ Nove(ber )**&, and issued the
te(porar2 restrainin% order "hile referrin% the petition to the !ourt of +ppeals for ad9udication on the
(erits.
Respondent Tuliao filed "ith this !ourt a Motion to !ite Public Respondent in !onte(pt, alle%in% that
0ud%e +n%had Bdeliberatel2 and "illfull2 co((itted conte(pt of court "hen he issued on &$ Nove(ber
)**& the Order dated &# Nove(ber )**& dis(issin% the infor(ations for (urder.B On )& Nove(ber
)**&, "e referred said (otion to the !ourt of +ppeals in vie" of the previous referral to it of
respondent3s petition for certiorari, prohibition and (anda(us.
On &' Dece(ber )**), the !ourt of +ppeals rendered the assailed decision %rantin% the petition and
orderin% the reinstate(ent of the cri(inal cases in the RT! of Santia%o !it2, as "ell as the issuance of
"arrants of arrest a%ainst petitioners and SPO) Maderal. Petitioners (oved for a reconsideration of this
Decision, but the sa(e "as denied in a Resolution dated &) 0une )**1.
6ence, this petition.
The facts of the case bein% undisputed, petitioners brin% forth to this !ourt the follo"in% assi%n(ents
of error4
FIRST +SSI-NMNT OF RROR
5ith all due respect, the 6onorable !ourt of +ppeals %ravel2 erred in reversin% and settin% aside the
0oint Order of 0ud%e +nastacio D. +n%had dated +u%ust &/, )**&, Septe(ber )&, )**&, October &.,
)**& and Nove(ber &#, )**& issued in cri(inal cases nu(bered 1.,1$)1 and 1.,1$)#@ and, erred in
upholdin%, affir(in% and reinstatin% the Order dated 0ul2 ., )**& issued b2 then +ctin% Presidin% 0ud%e
5ilfredo Tu(aliuan, on the alle%ed rule that an accused cannot see7 an2 9udicial relief if he does not
sub(it his person to the 9urisdiction of the court.
S!OND +SSI-NMNT OF RROR
5ith all due respect, the 6onorable !ourt of +ppeals %ravel2 erred in directin% the reinstate(ent of
!ri(inal !ases No. 1.,1$)1 and 1.,1$)# in the doc7et of +ctive !ri(inal !ases of Aranch 1. of the
Re%ional Trial !ourt of Santia%o !it2, Philippines, and in orderin% the public respondent to re,issue the
"arrants of arrest a%ainst herein petitioners.
T6IRD +SSI-NMNT OF RROR
5it all due respect, the 6onorable !ourt of +ppeals co((itted a reversible error in orderin% the
reinstate(ent of !ri(inal !ases No. 1.,1$)1 and No. 1.,1$)# in the doc7et of active cri(inal cases of
Aranch 1. of the re%ional trial court of Santia%o !it2, Philippines, and in orderin% the public respondent
to issue "arrants of arrest a%ainst herein petitioners, the order of dis(issal issued therein havin%
beco(e final and e8ecutor2.
+d9udication of a (otion to Fuash a "arrant of arrest reFuires neither 9urisdiction over the person of
the accused, nor custod2 of la" over the bod2 of the accused.
The first assi%n(ent of error brou%ht forth b2 the petitioner deals "ith the !ourt of +ppeals3 rulin%
that4
>+?n accused cannot see7 an2 9udicial relief if he does not sub(it his person to the 9urisdiction of the
court. 0urisdiction over the person of the accused (a2 be acFuired either throu%h co(pulsor2 process,
such as "arrant of arrest, or throu%h his voluntar2 appearance, such as "hen he surrenders to the
police or to the court. It is onl2 "hen the court has alread2 acFuired 9urisdiction over his person that
an accused (a2 invo7e the processes of the court ;Pete M. Pico vs. +lfonso V. !o(bin%, 0r., +.M. No.
RT0,C&,/.#, Nove(ber ., &CC)<. Thus, an accused (ust first be placed in the custod2 of the la" before
the court (a2 validl2 act on his petition for 9udicial reliefs.
1
Proceedin% fro( this pre(ise, the !ourt of +ppeals ruled that petitioners Miranda, Ocon and Dal(acio
cannot see7 an2 9udicial relief since the2 "ere not 2et arrested or other"ise deprived of their libert2
at the ti(e the2 filed their B:r%ent Motion to co(plete preli(inar2 investi%ation@ to reinvesti%ate@ to
recall andGor Fuash "arrants of arrest.B
#
Petitioners counter the findin% of the !ourt of +ppeals b2 ar%uin% that 9urisdiction over the person of
the accused is reFuired onl2 in applications for bail. Further(ore, petitioners ar%ue, assu(in% that
such 9urisdiction over their person is reFuired before the court can act on their (otion to Fuash the
"arrant for their arrest, such 9urisdiction over their person "as alread2 acFuired b2 the court b2 their
filin% of the above :r%ent Motion.
In ar%uin% that 9urisdiction over the person is reFuired onl2 in the ad9udication of applications for bail,
petitioners Fuote Retired !ourt of +ppeals 0ustice Oscar 6errera4
8cept in applications for bail, it is not necessar2 for the court to first acFuire 9urisdiction over the
person of the accused to dis(iss the case or %rant other relief. The outri%ht dis(issal of the case even
before the court acFuires 9urisdiction over the person of the accused is authoriDed under Section .;a<,
Rule &&) of the Revised Rules of !ri(inal Procedure and the Revised Rules on Su((ar2 Procedure ;Sec.
&)a<. In +llado vs. Dio7no ;)1) S!R+ &C)<, the case "as dis(issed on (otion of the accused for lac7 of
probable cause "ithout the accused havin% been arrested. In Paul Roberts vs. !ourt of +ppeals ;)$#
S!R+ 1*/<, the !ourt "as ordered to hold the issuance of a "arrant of arrest in abe2ance pendin%
revie" b2 the Secretar2 of 0ustice. +nd in =acson vs. 8ecutive Secretar2 ;1*& S!R+ &*)
$
<, the !ourt
ordered the case transferred fro( the Sandi%anba2an to the RT! "hich eventuall2 ordered the
dis(issal of the case for lac7 of probable cause.
.
In ar%uin%, on the other hand, that 9urisdiction over their person "as alread2 acFuired b2 their filin% of
the above :r%ent Motion, petitioners invo7e our pronounce(ent, throu%h 0ustice FlorenD D. Re%alado,
in Santia%o v. VasFueD
/
4
The voluntar2 appearance of the accused, "hereb2 the court acFuires 9urisdiction over his person, is
acco(plished either b2 his pleadin% to the (erits ;such as b2 filin% a (otion to Fuash or other
pleadin%s reFuirin% the e8ercise of the court3s 9urisdiction thereover, appearin% for arrai%n(ent,
enterin% trial< or b2 filin% bail. On the (atter of bail, since the sa(e is intended to obtain the
provisional libert2 of the accused, as a rule the sa(e cannot be posted before custod2 of the accused
has been acFuired b2 the 9udicial authorities either b2 his arrest or voluntar2 surrender.
Our pronounce(ent in Santia%o sho"s a distinction bet"een custod2 of the la" and 9urisdiction over
the person. !ustod2 of the la" is reFuired before the court can act upon the application for bail, but is
not reFuired for the ad9udication of other reliefs sou%ht b2 the defendant "here the (ere application
therefor constitutes a "aiver of the defense of lac7 of 9urisdiction over the person of the
accused.
'
!ustod2 of the la" is acco(plished either b2 arrest or voluntar2 surrender,
C
"hile 9urisdiction
over the person of the accused is acFuired upon his arrest or voluntar2 appearance.
&*
One can be
under the custod2 of the la" but not 2et sub9ect to the 9urisdiction of the court over his person, such
as "hen a person arrested b2 virtue of a "arrant files a (otion before arrai%n(ent to Fuash the
"arrant. On the other hand, one can be sub9ect to the 9urisdiction of the court over his person, and 2et
not be in the custod2 of the la", such as "hen an accused escapes custod2 after his trial has
co((enced.
&&
Aein% in the custod2 of the la" si%nifies restraint on the person, "ho is thereb2
deprived of his o"n "ill and libert2, bindin% hi( to beco(e obedient to the "ill of the la".
&)
!ustod2
of the la" is literall2 custod2 over the bod2 of the accused. It includes, but is not li(ited to,
detention.
The state(ent in Pico v. 0ud%e !o(bon%, 0r.,
&1
cited b2 the !ourt of +ppeals should not have been
separated fro( the issue in that case, "hich is the application for ad(ission to bail of so(eone not 2et
in the custod2 of the la". The entire para%raph of our pronounce(ent in Pico reads4
+ person appl2in% for ad(ission to bail (ust be in the custod2 of the la" or other"ise deprived of his
libert2. + person "ho has not sub(itted hi(self to the 9urisdiction of the court has no ri%ht to invo7e
the processes of that court. Respondent 0ud%e should have dili%entl2 ascertained the "hereabouts of
the applicant and that he indeed had 9urisdiction over the bod2 of the accused before considerin% the
application for bail.
&1
5hile "e stand b2 our above pronounce(ent in Pico insofar as it concerns bail, "e clarif2 that, as a
%eneral rule, one "ho see7s an affir(ative relief is dee(ed to have sub(itted to the 9urisdiction of the
court.
&$
+s "e held in the aforecited case of Santia%o, see7in% an affir(ative relief in court, "hether
in civil or cri(inal proceedin%s, constitutes voluntar2 appearance.
Pico deals "ith an application for bail, "here there is the special reFuire(ent of the applicant bein% in
the custod2 of the la". In Feliciano v. Pasicolan,
&.
"e held that B>t?he purpose of bail is to secure one3s
release and it "ould be incon%ruous to %rant bail to one "ho is free. Thus, Hbail is the securit2 reFuired
and %iven for the release of a person "ho is in the custod2 of la".3B The rationale behind this special
rule on bail is that it discoura%es and prevents resort to the for(er pernicious practice "herein the
accused could 9ust send another in his stead to post his bail, "ithout reco%niDin% the 9urisdiction of the
court b2 his personal appearance therein and co(pliance "ith the reFuire(ents therefor.
&/
There is, ho"ever, an e8ception to the rule that filin% pleadin%s see7in% affir(ative relief constitutes
voluntar2 appearance, and the conseFuent sub(ission of one3s person to the 9urisdiction of the court.
This is in the case of pleadin%s "hose pra2er is precisel2 for the avoidance of the 9urisdiction of the
court, "hich onl2 leads to a special appearance. These pleadin%s are4 ;&< in civil cases, (otions to
dis(iss on the %round of lac7 of 9urisdiction over the person of the defendant, "hether or not other
%rounds for dis(issal are included@
&'
;)< in cri(inal cases, (otions to Fuash a co(plaint on the %round
of lac7 of 9urisdiction over the person of the accused@ and ;1< (otions to Fuash a "arrant of arrest. The
first t"o are conseFuences of the fact that failure to file the( "ould constitute a "aiver of the
defense of lac7 of 9urisdiction over the person. The third is a conseFuence of the fact that it is the ver2
le%alit2 of the court process forcin% the sub(ission of the person of the accused that is the ver2 issue
in a (otion to Fuash a "arrant of arrest.
To recapitulate "hat "e have discussed so far, in cri(inal cases, 9urisdiction over the person of the
accused is dee(ed "aived b2 the accused "hen he files an2 pleadin% see7in% an affir(ative relief,
e8cept in cases "hen he invo7es the special 9urisdiction of the court b2 i(pu%nin% such 9urisdiction
over his person. Therefore, in narro" cases involvin% special appearances, an accused can invo7e the
processes of the court even thou%h there is neither 9urisdiction over the person nor custod2 of the la".
6o"ever, if a person invo7in% the special 9urisdiction of the court applies for bail, he (ust first sub(it
hi(self to the custod2 of the la".
In cases not involvin% the so,called special appearance, the %eneral rule applies, i.e., the accused is
dee(ed to have sub(itted hi(self to the 9urisdiction of the court upon see7in% affir(ative relief.
Not"ithstandin% this, there is no reFuire(ent for hi( to be in the custod2 of the la". The follo"in%
cases best illustrate this point, "here "e %ranted various reliefs to accused "ho "ere not in the
custod2 of the la", but "ere dee(ed to have placed their persons under the 9urisdiction of the court.
Note that none of these cases involve the application for bail, nor a (otion to Fuash an infor(ation
due to lac7 of 9urisdiction over the person, nor a (otion to Fuash a "arrant of arrest4
&. In +llado v. Dio7no,
&C
on the pra2er of the accused in a petition for certiorari on the %round of lac7
of probable cause, "e issued a te(porar2 restrainin% order en9oinin% P+!! fro( enforcin% the "arrant
of arrest and the respondent 9ud%e therein fro( further proceedin% "ith the case and, instead, to
elevate the records to us.
). In Roberts, 0r. v. !ourt of +ppeals,
)*
upon the accused3s Motion to Suspend Proceedin%s and to 6old in
+be2ance Issuance of 5arrants of +rrest on the %round that the2 filed a Petition for Revie" "ith the
Depart(ent of 0ustice, "e directed respondent 9ud%e therein to cease and desist fro( further
proceedin% "ith the cri(inal case and to defer the issuance of "arrants of arrests a%ainst the accused.
1. In =acson v. 8ecutive Secretar2,
)&
on the pra2er of the accused in a petition for certiorari on the
%round of lac7 of 9urisdiction on the part of the Sandi%anba2an, "e directed the Sandi%anba2an to
transfer the cri(inal cases to the Re%ional Trial !ourt even before the issuance of the "arrants of
arrest.
5e hold that the circu(stances forcin% us to reFuire custod2 of the la" in applications for bail are not
present in (otions to Fuash the "arrant of arrest. If "e allo" the %rantin% of bail to persons not in the
custod2 of the la", it is foreseeable that (an2 persons "ho can afford the bail "ill re(ain at lar%e,
and could elude bein% held to ans"er for the co((ission of the offense if ever he is proven %uilt2. On
the other hand, if "e allo" the Fuashal of "arrants of arrest to persons not in the custod2 of the la",
it "ould be ver2 rare that a person not %enuinel2 entitled to libert2 "ould re(ain scot,free. This is
because it is the sa(e 9ud%e "ho issued the "arrant of arrest "ho "ill decide "hether or not he
follo"ed the !onstitution in his deter(ination of probable cause, and he can easil2 den2 the (otion to
Fuash if he reall2 did find probable cause after personall2 e8a(inin% the records of the case.
Moreover, pursuant to the presu(ption of re%ularit2 of official functions, the "arrant continues in
force and effect until it is Fuashed and therefore can still be enforced on an2 da2 and at an2 ti(e of
the da2 and ni%ht.
))
Further(ore, the continued absence of the accused can be ta7en a%ainst hi( in the
deter(ination of probable cause, since fli%ht is indicative of %uilt.
In fine, as (uch as it is incon%ruous to %rant bail to one "ho is free, it is li7e"ise incon%ruous to
reFuire one to surrender his freedo( before assertin% it. 6u(an ri%hts en9o2 a hi%her preference in the
hierarch2 of ri%hts than propert2 ri%hts,
)1
de(andin% that due process in the deprivation of libert2 (ust
co(e before its ta7in% and not after.
Iuashin% a "arrant of arrest based on a subseFuentl2 filed petition for revie" "ith the Secretar2 of
0ustice and based on doubts en%endered b2 the political cli(ate constitutes %rave abuse of discretion.
5e nevertheless find %rave abuse of discretion in the assailed actions of 0ud%e +n%had. 0ud%e +n%had
see(ed a little too ea%er of dis(issin% the cri(inal cases a%ainst the petitioners. First, he Fuashed the
standin% "arrant of arrest issued b2 his predecessor because of a subseFuentl2 filed appeal to the
Secretar2 of 0ustice, and because of his doubts on the e8istence of probable cause due to the political
cli(ate in the cit2. Second, after the Secretar2 of 0ustice affir(ed the prosecutor3s resolution, he
dis(issed the cri(inal cases on the basis of a decision of this !ourt in another case "ith different
accused, doin% so t"o da2s after this !ourt resolved to issue a te(porar2 restrainin% order a%ainst
further proceedin% "ith the case.
+fter 0ud%e Tu(aliuan issued "arrants for the arrest of petitioners, petitioner Miranda appealed the
assistant prosecutor3s resolution before the Secretar2 of 0ustice. 0ud%e +n%had, shortl2 after assu(in%
office, Fuashed the "arrant of arrest on the basis of said appeal. +ccordin% to 0ud%e +n%had, B8 8 8
prudence dictates ;that< and because of co(it2, a defer(ent of the proceedin%s is but proper.B
)#
Iuashal on this basis is %rave abuse of discretion. It is inconceivable to char%e 0ud%e Tu(aliuan as
lac7in% in prudence and oblivious to co(it2 "hen he issued the "arrants of arrest a%ainst petitioners
9ust because the petitioners (i%ht, in the future, appeal the assistant prosecutor3s resolution to the
Secretar2 of 0ustice. Aut even if the petition for revie" "as filed before the issuance of the "arrants
of arrest, the fact re(ains that the pendenc2 of a petition for the revie" of the prosecutor3s resolution
is not a %round to Fuash the "arrants of arrest.
In 5ebb v. de =eon,
)$
"e held that the petitioners therein cannot assail as pre(ature the filin% of the
infor(ation in court a%ainst the( on the %round that the2 still have the ri%ht to appeal the adverse
resolution of the DO0 Panel to the Secretar2 of 0ustice. Si(ilarl2, the issuance of "arrants of arrest
a%ainst petitioners herein should not have been Fuashed as pre(ature on the sa(e %round.
The other %round invo7ed b2 0ud%e +n%had for the Fuashal of the "arrant of arrest is in order if true4
violation of the !onstitution. 6ence, 0ud%e +n%had as7ed and resolved the Fuestion4
In these double (urder cases, did this !ourt co(pl2 or adhere to the above,Fuoted constitutional
proscription, "hich is Sec. ), +rticle III Aill of Ri%hts@ to Sec. .;a<, Rule &&), Rules of !ri(inal
Procedure and to the above,cited decisional casesJ To this Fuer2 or issue, after a deep perusal of the
ar%u(ents raised, this !ourt, throu%h >its? re%ular Presidin% 0ud%e, finds (erit in the contention of
herein accused,(ovant, 0ose BPe(peB Miranda.
).
0ud%e +n%had is referrin% to the follo"in% provision of the !onstitution as havin% been violated b2
0ud%e Tu(aliuan4
Sec. ). The ri%ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects a%ainst
unreasonable searches and seiDures of "hatever nature and for an2 purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search "arrant or "arrant of arrest shall issue e8cept upon probable cause to be deter(ined personall2
b2 the 9ud%e after e8a(ination under oath or affir(ation of the co(plainant and the "itnesses he (a2
produce, and particularl2 describin% the place to be searched and the persons or thin%s to be seiDed.
)/
6o"ever, after a careful scrutin2 of the records of the case, includin% the supportin% evidence to the
resolution of the prosecutor in his deter(ination of probable cause, "e find that 0ud%e +n%had %ravel2
abused his discretion.
+ccordin% to petitioners4
In this case, the nullit2 of the order of 0ud%e Tu(aliuan, for the arrest of the petitioners is apparent
fro( the face of the order itself, "hich clearl2 stated that the deter(ination of probable cause "as
based on the certification, under oath, of the fiscal and not on a separate deter(ination personall2
(ade b2 the 0ud%e. No presu(ption of re%ularit2 could be dra"n fro( the order since it e8pressl2 and
clearl2 sho"ed that it "as based onl2 on the fiscal3s certification.
)'
Petitioners3 clai( is untrue. 0ud%e Tu(aliuan3s 0oint Order contains no such indication that he relied
solel2 on the prosecutor3s certification. The 0oint Order even indicated the contrar24
:pon receipt of the infor(ation and resolution of the prosecutor, the !ourt proceeded to deter(ine
the e8istence of a probable cause b2 personall2 evaluatin% the records 8 8 8.>)C?
The records of the case sho" that the prosecutor3s certification "as acco(panied b2 supportin%
docu(ents, follo"in% the reFuire(ent under =i(, Sr. v. Feli8
1*
and People v. Intin%.
1&
The supportin%
docu(ents are the follo"in%4
&. Resolution dated )& 0une )**& of State Prosecutor =eo S. Re2es@
). +ffidavit dated )) Ma2 )**& of Modesto -utierreD@
1. +ffidavit dated &C Ma2 )**& of Ro(eo A. Ocon@
#. 0oint !ounter +ffidavit dated )1 Ma2 )**& of Ma2or 0ose !. Miranda and Re2naldo de la !ruD@
$. +ffidavit dated &C Ma2 )**& of +lberto Dal(acio@
.. Decision dated )) +pril &CCC of the Re%ional Trial !ourt of Manila, Aranch #& in !ri(inal !ase
No. C/,&.*1$$@
/. S"orn state(ent dated )/ +pril )**& of Rodel Maderal@
'. Infor(ation dated )) 0une )**&@
C. +ffidavit,co(plaint of Vir%ilio Tuliao@ and
&*. Medico,le%al Reports of the cadavers of leDer Tuliao and Vicente AuaDon.
6ence, procedurall2, "e can conclude that there "as no violation on the part of 0ud%e Tu(aliuan of
+rticle III, Section ), of the !onstitution. 0ud%e +n%had, ho"ever, focused on the substantive part of
said section, i.e., the e8istence of probable cause. In failin% to find probable cause, 0ud%e +n%had
ruled that the confession of SPO) Maderal is incredible for the follo"in% reasons4 ;&< it "as %iven after
al(ost t"o 2ears in the custod2 of the National Aureau of Investi%ation@ ;)< it "as %iven b2 so(eone
"ho rendered hi(self untrust"orth2 for bein% a fu%itive for five 2ears@ ;1< it "as %iven in e8chan%e for
an obvious re"ard of dischar%e fro( the infor(ation@ and ;#< it "as %iven durin% the election period
a(idst a Bpoliticall2 char%ed scenario "here BSantia%o !it2 voters "ere pitted a%ainst each other alon%
the lines of the Miranda ca(p on one side and for(er !it2 Ma2or +(elita S. Navarro, and alle%edl2 that
of DNR Secretar2 6eherson +lvareD on the other.B
1)
5e painsta7in%l2 "ent throu%h the records of the case and found no reason to disturb the findin%s of
probable cause of 0ud%e Tu(aliuan.
It is i(portant to note that an e8haustive debate on the credibilit2 of a "itness is not "ithin the
province of the deter(ination of probable cause. +s "e held in 5ebb
11
4
+ findin% of probable cause needs onl2 to rest on evidence sho"in% that (ore li7el2 than not a cri(e
has been co((itted and "as co((itted b2 the suspects. Probable cause need not be based on clear
and convincin% evidence of %uilt, neither on evidence establishin% %uilt be2ond reasonable doubt and
definitel2, not on evidence establishin% absolute certaint2 of %uilt. +s "ell put in Arine%ar v. :nited
States, "hile probable cause de(ands (ore than Bbare suspicion,B it reFuires Bless than evidence "hich
"ould 9ustif2 8 8 8 conviction.B + findin% of probable cause (erel2 binds over the suspect to stand trial.
It is not a pronounce(ent of %uilt.
8 8 8 Probable cause (erel2 i(plies probabilit2 of %uilt and should be deter(ined in a su((ar2
(anner. Preli(inar2 investi%ation is not a part of trial 8 8 8.
Dis(issin% a cri(inal case on the basis of a decision of this !ourt in another case "ith different
accused constitutes %rave abuse of discretion.
0ud%e +n%had had Fuashed the "arrant of arrest on the %round, a(on% other thin%s, that there "as a
petition for revie" of the assistant prosecutor3s resolution before the Secretar2 of 0ustice. 6o"ever,
after the Secretar2 of 0ustice affir(ed the prosecutor3s resolution, 0ud%e +n%had su((aril2 dis(issed
the t"o cri(inal cases a%ainst the petitioners on the basis of the follo"in% e8planation4
Rodel Maderal "as one of the accused in People vs. 5ilfredo =eano, et al., RT!, Aranch #&, Manila, and
based fro( his s"orn state(ents, he pinpointed to Mr. Miranda K the (aster(ind and "ith hi( and the
other police officers as the direct perpetrators, the October C, )**& Decision of the Supre(e !ourt
absolvin% the five cops of (urder, certainl2 (a7es his s"orn State(ents a Bnarration of falsehood and
liesB and that because of the decision acFuittin% said officers B"ho "ere li7e"ise falsel2 lin7ed b2 said
Rodel Maderal in his +pril )/, )**& state(ents, it is no" be2ond doubt that Rodel Maderal (ade
untruthful, fabricated and per9ured state(ents and therefore the sa(e is "ithout probable value.B This
!ourt a%rees "ith the defense3s vie"s. Indeed, of "hat use is Maderal3s state(ents "hen the Supre(e
!ourt re9ected the prosecution3s evidence presented and adduced in !ri(inal !ase No. C/,&.*1$$.
Rodel Maderal is supposed to turn state "itness in these t"o ;)< cases but "ith the Supre(e !ourt
decision adverted to, the probative value of his state(ents is practicall2 nil.
8 8 8 8
This !ourt finds (erit to the (anifestation of the accused Miranda dated October &', )**&, pra2in% for
the su((ar2 dis(issal of the t"o ;)< (urder char%es in vie" of the latest decision of the Supre(e
!ourt in People of the Philippines vs. 5ilfredo =eaEo, et al., -.R. No. &1''., acFuittin% the accused
therein and in effect disre%ardin% all the evidence presented b2 the prosecution in that case.
+ccordin%l2, the t"o ;)< infor(ations >for? (urder filed a%ainst 0ose Miranda are ordered dis(issed.
1#
This is a clear case of abuse of discretion. 0ud%e +n%had had no ri%ht to t"ist our decision and
interpret it to the discredit of SPO) Maderal, "ho "as still at lar%e "hen the evidence of the
prosecution in the =eaEo case "as presented. + decision, even of this !ourt, acFuittin% the accused
therein of a cri(e cannot be the basis of the dis(issal of cri(inal case a%ainst different accused for
the sa(e cri(e. The blunder of 0ud%e +n%had is even (ore pronounced b2 the fact that our decision in
=eaEo "as based on reasonable doubt. 5e never ruled in =eaEo that the cri(e did not happen@ "e 9ust
found that there "as reasonable doubt as to the %uilt of the accused therein, since the prosecution in
that case relied on circu(stantial evidence, "hich interestin%l2 is not even the situation in the cri(inal
cases of the petitioners in the case at bar as there is here an e2e"itness4 Rodel Maderal. The accused
in =eaEo further(ore had no (otive to 7ill respondent Tuliao3s son, "hereas petitioners herein had
been i(plicated in the testi(on2 of respondent Tuliao before the Senate Alue Ribbon !o((ittee.
It is preposterous to conclude that because of our findin% of reasonable doubt in =eaEo, Bit is no"
be2ond doubt that Rodel Maderal (ade untruthful, fabricated and per9ured state(ents and therefore
the sa(e is "ithout probable value.B
1$
On the contrar2, if "e are to per(it the use of our decision in
=eaEo, an acFuittal on the %round of reasonable doubt actuall2 points to the probabilit2 of the
prosecution3s version of the facts therein. Such probabilit2 of %uilt certainl2 (eets the criteria of
probable cause.
5e cannot let unnoticed, too, 0ud%e +n%had3s dis(issal of the infor(ations t"o da2s after "e resolved
to issue, upon the filin% of a bond, a te(porar2 restrainin% order prohibitin% hi( fro( further
proceedin% "ith the case. The bond "as filed the da2 after the infor(ations "ere dis(issed. 5hile the
dis(issal of the case "as able to beat the effectivit2 date of the te(porar2 restrainin% order, such
abrupt dis(issal of the infor(ations ;da2s after this !ourt3s resolve to issue a TRO a%ainst 0ud%e
+n%had< creates "ild suspicions about the (otives of 0ud%e +n%had.
Nullification of a proceedin% necessaril2 carries "ith it the reinstate(ent of the orders set aside b2 the
nullified proceedin%.
In their second assi%n(ent of error, petitioners clai( that the !ourt of +ppeals did not recall or
reinstate the "arrants of arrest issued b2 0ud%e Tu(aliuan, but instead directed 0ud%e +n%had to issue
apparentl2 ne" "arrants of arrest.
1.
+ccordin% to the petitioners, it "as an error for the !ourt of
+ppeals to have done so, "ithout a personal deter(ination of probable cause.
5e disa%ree. 5hether the !ourt of +ppeals ordered the issuance of ne" "arrants of arrest or (erel2
ordered the reinstate(ent of the "arrants of arrest issued b2 0ud%e Tu(aliuan is (erel2 a (atter of
scrupulous se(antics, the sli%ht inaccurac2 "hereof should not be allo"ed to affect the dispositions on
the (erits, especiall2 in this case "here the other dispositions of the !ourt of +ppeals point to the
other direction. Firstl2, the !ourt of +ppeals had reinstated the )$ 0une )**& Order of 0ud%e
Tu(aliuan,
1/
"hich issued the "arrants of arrest. Secondl2, the !ourt of +ppeals li7e"ise declared the
proceedin%s conducted b2 0ud%e +n%had void. !ertainl2, the declaration of nullit2 of proceedin%s
should be dee(ed to carr2 "ith it the reinstate(ent of the orders set aside b2 the nullified
proceedin%s. 0ud%e +n%had3s order Fuashin% the "arrants of arrest had been nullified@ therefore those
"arrants of arrest are henceforth dee(ed unFuashed.
ven if, ho"ever, the !ourt of +ppeals had directed the issuance of ne" "arrants of arrest based on a
deter(ination of probable cause, it "ould have been le%all2 per(issible for the( to do so. The records
of the preli(inar2 investi%ation had been available to the !ourt of +ppeals, and are also available to
this !ourt, allo"in% both the !ourt of +ppeals and this !ourt to personall2 e8a(ine the records of the
case and not (erel2 rel2 on the certification of the prosecutor. +s "e have ruled in +llado v. Dio7no
and Roberts v. !ourt of +ppeals, the deter(ination of probable cause does not rest on a sub9ective
criteria. +s "e had resolved in those cases to overrule the findin% of probable cause of the 9ud%es
therein on the %round of %rave abuse of discretion, in the sa(e vein, "e can also overrule the decision
of a 9ud%e reversin% a findin% of probable cause, also on the %round of %rave abuse of discretion.
There is no double 9eopard2 in the reinstate(ent of a cri(inal case dis(issed before arrai%n(ent
In their third assi%n(ent of error, petitioners clai( that the !ourt of +ppeals co((itted a reversible
error in orderin% the reinstate(ent of !ri(inal !ases No. 1.,1$)1 and No. 1.,1$)#, alle%in% that the
order of dis(issal issued therein had beco(e final and e8ecutor2. +ccordin% to petitioners4
It is also "orth2 to point out at this 9uncture that the 0oint Order of 0ud%e +n%had dated Nove(ber &#,
)**& is NOT ON of those Orders "hich "ere assailed in the private respondent Tuliao3s Petition for
!ertiorari, Manda(us and Prohibition filed b2 the private respondent before the !ourt of +ppeals. +s
carefull2 enu(erated in the first pa%e of the assailed Decision, onl2 the follo"in% Orders issued b2
0ud%e +n%had "ere Fuestioned b2 private respondent, to "it4
&.< 0oint Order dated +u%ust &/, )**&@
).< Order dated Septe(ber )&, )**&@
1.< 0oint Order dated October &., )**&@ and
#.< 0oint Order dated October )), )**&.
Obviousl2, the 0oint Order dated Nove(ber &#, )**& of 0ud%e +n%had, "hich ulti(atel2 dis(issed
!ri(inal !ases Nos. 1.,1$)1 +ND 1.,1$)# is NOT included in the list of the assailed OrderG0oint Orders.
6ence, the !ourt of +ppeals should not have passed upon the validit2 or nullit2 of the 0oint Order of
Nove(ber &#, )**&.
1'
Petitioners (ust have for%otten that respondent Tuliao3s Petition for !ertiorari, Prohibition and
Manda(us "as filed not "ith the !ourt of +ppeals, but "ith this !ourt. The !ourt of +ppeals decided
the case because "e referred the sa(e to the( in our &C Nove(ber )**& Resolution. Such petition "as
filed on )$ October )**&, around three "ee7s before the &# Nove(ber )**& Order. :pon receipt of the
&# Nove(ber )**& Order, ho"ever, respondent Tuliao lost no ti(e in filin% "ith this !ourt a Motion to
!ite Public Respondent in !onte(pt, alle%in% that 0ud%e +n%had Bdeliberatel2 and "illfull2 co((itted
conte(pt of court "hen he issued on &$ Nove(ber )**& the Order dated &# Nove(ber )**& dis(issin%
the infor(ations for (urder.B On )& Nove(ber )**&, "e referred said (otion to the !ourt of +ppeals,
in vie" of the previous referral of respondent Tuliao3s petition for certiorari, prohibition and
(anda(us.
Our referral to the !ourt of +ppeals of the Motion to !ite Public Repondent in !onte(pt places the &#
Nove(ber )**& Order "ithin the issues of the case decided b2 the !ourt of +ppeals. In clai(in% that
0ud%e +n%had co((itted conte(pt of this !ourt in issuin% the &# Nove(ber )**& Order, respondent
Tuliao had ascribed to 0ud%e +n%had an act (uch (ore serious than %rave abuse of discretion.
Respondent Tuliao clai(s that 0ud%e +n%had issued the &# Nove(ber )**& Order on &$ Nove(ber )**&,
antedatin% it so as to avoid the effects of our &) Nove(ber )**& Resolution. In said &) Nove(ber )**&
Resolution, "e resolved to issue a te(porar2 restrainin% order en9oinin% 0ud%e +n%had fro( further
proceedin% "ith the cri(inal cases upon the respondent Tuliao3s filin% of a bond in the a(ount
of P)*,***.**. Respondent Tuliao had filed the bond on &$ Nove(ber )**$.
5hile "e cannot i((ediatel2 pronounce 0ud%e +n%had in conte(pt, seein% as disobedience to la"ful
orders of a court and abuse of court processes are cases of indirect conte(pt "hich reFuire the
%rantin% of opportunit2 to be heard on the part of respondent,
1C
the pra2er to cite public respondent in
conte(pt and for other reliefs 9ust and eFuitable under the pre(ises should be construed to include a
pra2er for the nullification of said &# Nove(ber )**& Order.
In an2 case, the reinstate(ent of a cri(inal case dis(issed before arrai%n(ent does not constitute
double 9eopard2. Double 9eopard2 cannot be invo7ed "here the accused has not been arrai%ned and it
"as upon his e8press (otion that the case "as dis(issed.
#*
+s to respondent Tuliao3s pra2er ;in both the ori%inal petition for certiorari as "ell as in his (otion to
cite for conte(pt< to disFualif2 0ud%e +n%had fro( further proceedin% "ith the case, "e hold that the
nu(ber of instances of abuse of discretion in this case are enou%h to convince us of an apparent bias
on the part of 0ud%e +n%had. 5e further resolve to follo" the case of People v. SPO& =eaEo,
#&
b2
transferrin% the venue of !ri(inal !ases No. 1.,1$)1 and No. 1.,1$)# to the !it2 of Manila, pursuant to
+rticle VIII, Section #, of the !onstitution.
56RFOR, the petition is DNID. The Decision dated &' Dece(ber )**) and the Resolution dated &)
0une )**1 of the !ourt of +ppeals are hereb2 +FFIRMD, "ith the (odification that !ri(inal !ases No.
1.,1$)1 and No. 1.,1$)# be transferred to and raffled in the Re%ional Trial !ourt of the !it2 of Manila.
In this connection,
&< =et a cop2 of this decision be furnished the 8ecutive 0ud%e of the RT! of the !it2 of
Santia%o, Isabela, "ho is directed to effect the transfer of the cases "ithin ten ;&*< da2s after
receipt hereof@
)< The 8ecutive 0ud%e of the RT! of the !it2 of Santia%o, Isabela, is li7e"ise directed to
report to this !ourt co(pliance hereto "ithin ten ;&*< da2s fro( transfer of these cases@
1< The 8ecutive 0ud%e of the !it2 of Manila shall proceed to raffle the cri(inal cases "ithin
ten ;&*< da2s fro( the transfer@
#< The 8ecutive 0ud%e of the !it2 of Manila is li7e"ise directed to report to this !ourt
co(pliance "ith the order to raffle "ithin ten ;&*< da2s fro( said co(pliance@ and
$< The RT! 0ud%e to "ho( the cri(inal cases are raffled is directed to act on said cases "ith
reasonable dispatch.
.< Finall2, 0ud%e +nastacio D. +n%had is directed to issue forth"ith "arrants of arrest for the
apprehension of petitioners 0ose !. Miranda, +lberto P. Dal(acio, Ro(eo A. Ocon, and accused
Rodel T. Maderal, confor(abl2 "ith the decision of the !ourt of +ppeals dated &' Dece(ber
)**).
The Te(porar2 Restrainin% Order issued b2 this !ourt dated # +u%ust )**1 is hereb2 =IFTD. !osts
a%ainst Petitioners.
SO ORDRD.
MINITA $. C%ICO&NA'ARIO
+ssociate 0ustice
5 !ON!:R4
ARTEMIO $. PANGANI!AN
!hief 0ustice
!hairperson
CONSUEO (NARES&SANTIAGO
+ssociate 0ustice
MA. AICIA AUSTRIA&MARTINE'
+sscociate 0ustice
ROMEO J. CAEJO, SR.
+ssociate 0ustice
! R T I F I ! + T I O N
Pursuant to +rticle VIII, Section &1 of the !onstitution, it is hereb2 certified that the conclusions in the
above Decision "ere reached in consultation before the case "as assi%ned to the "riter of the opinion
of the !ourt3s Division.
ARTEMIO $. PANGANI!AN
!hief 0ustice

You might also like