allado v diokno gr no. 113630

7/25/2019 Allado v Diokno GR no. 113630

1/10

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 113630 May 5, 1994

DIOSDADO JOSE ALLADO and ROERTO L. MENDO!A, petitioners,vs."ON. ROERTO C. DIO#NO, P$%&'d'n( J)d(%, $. 6*, R%('ona+ T$'a+ Co)$, Ma-a', M%$oMan'+a, and PRESIDENTIAL ANTICRIME COMMISSION, respondents.

ELLOSILLO, J.:

On balance at the fulcru once a!ain are the intrinsic ri!ht of the State to prosecute perceived

trans!ressors of the la", "hich can be re!ulated, and the innate value of huan libert#, "hich canhardl# be "ei!hed.

Soe t"elve #ears a!o "e "ere confronted "ith a siilar proble "hen forer Senator $ovito R.Salon!a invo%ed before this &ourt his 'ri!ht to life and libert# !uaranteed b# the due process clause,alle!in! that noprima facie case has been established to "arrant the filin! of an inforation forsubversion a!ainst hi.'1(e resolved the issue then and sustained hi. )e is no" bac% before us, thistie as counsel pleadin! the cause of petitioners herein "ho, he clais, are in a situation far "orse thanhis predicaent t"elve *+- #ears a!o. )e postulates that no probable cause li%e"ise eists in this case,and "hat is "orse is that no bail is recoended.

This petition !ives us an opportunit# to revisit the concept and iplication of probable cause, the

eistence of "hich is necessar# for the prosecutor to have an accused held for trial and for a trial/ud!e to issue a "arrant for his arrest. It is andator# therefore that there be probable cause beforean inforation is filed and a "arrant of arrest issued. 0nfortunatel#, ho"ever, at ties a criinalcase is filed, a "arrant of arrest issued and a person conse1uentl# incarcerated on unsubstantiatedalle!ations that onl# fei!n probable cause.

Petitioners Diosdado $ose 2llado and Roberto 3. Mendo4a, aluni of the &olle!e of 3a", 0niversit#of the Philippines, are partners of the 3a" Fir of Salon!a, )ernande4 and 2llado. In the practice oftheir profession, and on the basis of an alle!ed etra/udicial confession of a securit# !uard, the#have been accused of the heinous crie of %idnappin! "ith urder b# the Presidential 2nti5&rie&oission *P2&&- and ordered arrested "ithout bail b# respondent /ud!e.

The focal source of the inforation a!ainst petitioners is the s"orn stateent dated +6 Septeber+778 of Securit# 9uard :scolastico 0bal, a dischar!e of the Philippine &onstabular#, iplicatin!the as the brains behind the alle!ed %idnappin! and sla#in! of one :u!en 2leander Van T"est, a9eran national. *In that etra/udicial confession, 0bal claied that he and his copanions "ere etb# petitioners at Silahis )otel and in echan!e for P.;M the forer undertoo% to apprehend Van T"est"ho alle!edl# had an international "arrant of arrest a!ainst hi. Thus, on +6 $une +77, after placin! hiunder surveillance for nearl# a onth, 0bal, :5policean Rolando 9aatero, 2FP&I9 2!ent RobertoSantia!o and SPO Ser!io 2ntonino abducted Van T"est. The# bloc%ed his blue Nissan Pathfinder underthe 2laban! overpass and forced hi into their car. The# brou!ht hi to a 'safe house' /ust behind theNe"


2/10

and 2ntonino returned to the 'safe house' to!ether "ith petitioners and SPO Ro!er


3/10

panel !ranted the pra#er of petitioner Mendo4a for the production of additional docuents used orintended to be used a!ainst hi. Mean"hile, Tas% Force )aba!at, in copliance "ith the order,subitted onl# copies of the re1uest for verification of the firears sei4ed fro the accused, the result ofthe re1uest for verification, and aPhilippine Times Journal article on the case "ith a ar!inal note ofPresident Fidel V. Raos addressed to the &hief of the Philippine National Police directin! thesubission of a report and suar# of actions ta%en thereon.

Not havin! been provided "ith the re1uested docuents, petitioners nevertheless subitted theirrespective counter5affidavits den#in! the accusations a!ainst the.9

2fter a preliinar# hearin! "here clarificator# 1uestions "ere additionall# propounded, the case "asdeeed subitted for resolution. Februar# +77=, petitioners coplied "ith the order of respondent /ud!e.

15

The follo"in!da#, Februar# +77=, petitioner 2llado filed an appeal "ith the Secretar# of $ustice see%in! revie" andreversal of the undated resolution of the panelof prosecutors, 16"hich appeal "as adopted b# petitioner Mendo4a. 1/On++ Februar# +77=, petitioner 2llado oved to defer the proceedin!s before the trial court pendin!resolution of his appeal before the Secretar# of $ustice. 1)o"ever, on even date, respondent /ud!eissued the assailed "arrant of arrest a!ainst petitioners. 19)ence, on +; Februar# +77=, petitioners filed"ith us the instant petition forcertiorari and prohibition "ith pra#er for a teporar# restrainin! order.

On +6 Februar# +77=, "e re1uired respondents to coent on the petition and set the case forhearin! on Februar# +77=. 2fter the hearin!, "e issued a teporar# restrainin! order en/oinin!P2&& fro enforcin! the "arrant of arrest and respondent /ud!e fro conductin! further

proceedin!s on the case and, instead, to elevate the records to us. Mean"hile, on > Februar#+77=, petitioners voluntaril# surrendered at the )ead1uarters of the &apital &oand *&2P&OM-,Philippine National Police *PNP-, &ap


4/10

Resolution of the Panel and their certification that probable cause eists "hen the certification isfla"ed.' *1Petitioners aintain that the records of the preliinar# investi!ation "hich respondent /ud!esolel# relied upon failed to establish probable cause a!ainst the to /ustif# the issuance of the "arrant ofarrest. Petitioners li%e"ise assail the prosecutors@ 'clear si!n of bias and ipartialit# *sic-.' **

On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor 9eneral ar!ues that the deterination of probable

cause is a function of the /ud!e "ho is erel# re1uired to personall# appreciate certain facts toconvince hi that the accused probabl# coitted the crie char!ed.

Section , 2rt. III, of the +7> &onstitution, la#s do"n the re1uireents for the issuance of a "arrantof arrest, i.e., a "arrant of arrest shall issue onl# upon probable cause to be deterined personall#b# the /ud!e after eaination under oath or affiration of the coplainant and the "itnesses hea# produce.

2s earl# as +7+;, in Buchanan v. Viuda de Esteban, *3this &ourt spea%in! throu!h 2ssociate $usticeSheran Moreland defined probable cause as 'the eistence of such facts and circustances as "ouldecite the belief, in a reasonable ind, actin! on the facts "ithin the %no"led!e of the prosecutor, that theperson char!ed "as !uilt# of the crie for "hich he "as prosecuted.' This definition is still relevant toda#as "e continue to cite it in recent cases. *4)ence, probable cause for an arrest or for the issuance of a

"arrant of arrest has been defined as such facts and circustances "hich "ould lead a reasonablediscreet and prudent an to believe that an offense has been coitted b# the person sou!ht to bearrested. *52nd as a protection a!ainst false prosecution and arrest, it is the %no"led!e of facts, actual orapparent, stron! enou!h to /ustif# a reasonable an in the belief that he "as la"ful !rounds for arrestin!the accused. *6

Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan*/sets a standard for deterinin! the eistence of probable cause. (hile itappears in that case that "e have !ranted the prosecutor and the trial /ud!e seein!l# unliited latitudein deterinin! the eistence of absence of probable cause b# affirin! the lon!5standin! procedure thatthe# can base their findin!s erel# on their personal opinion and reasonable belief, #et, thisperissiveness should not be interpreted as !ivin! the arbitrar# po"ers and lettin! the loose in thedeterination of the eistence of probable cause, a delicate le!al 1uestion "hich can result in theharassent and deprivation of libert# of the person sou!ht to be char!ed or arrested. There "e said A

Probable cause is a reasonable !round of presuption that a atter is, or a# be,"ell founded, such a state of facts in the ind of the prosecutor as "ould lead aperson of ordinar# caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or stron!suspicion, that a thin! is so. The ter does not ean 'actual and positive cause' nordoes it iport absolute certaint#. It is erel# based on opinion and reasonable belief.Thus, a findin! of probable cause does not re1uire an in1uir# into "hether there issufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enou!h that it is it believed that theact or oission coplained of constitutes the offense char!ed. Precisel#, there is atrial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the char!e.

(hether an act "as done causin! undue in/ur# to the !overnent and "hether the

sae "as done "ith anifest partialit# or evident bad faith can onl# be ade out b#proper and sufficient testion#. Necessaril#, a conclusion can be arrived at "hen thecase has alread# proceeded on sufficient proof.*

2ccordin!l#, before issuin! a "arrant of arrest, the /ud!e ust satisf# hiself that based on theevidence subitted there is sufficient proof that a crie has been coitted and that the person tobe arrested is probabl# !uilt# thereof. In the Order of respondent /ud!e dated ++ Februar# +77=, it isepressl# stated that 'Ethis court after careful evaluation of the evidence on record, believes andrules that probable cause eistsC and therefore, a "arrant of arrest should be issued.' )o"ever, "e


5/10

are unable to see ho" respondent /ud!e arrived at such rulin!. (e have painsta%in!l# eained therecords and "e cannot find an# support for his conclusion. On the contrar#, "e discern a nuber ofreasons "h# "e consider the evidence subitted to be insufficient for a findin! of probable causea!ainst petitioners.

The Presidential 2nti5&rie &oission relies heavil# on the s"orn stateent of Securit# 9uard

0bal "ho supposedl# confessed his participation in the alle!ed %idnappin! and urder of VanT"est. For one, there is serious doubt on Van T"est@s reported death since the corpus delicti has notbeen established, nor have his reains been recovered. 0bal clais that Van T"est "ascopletel# burned into ashes "ith the use of !asoline and rubber tires fro around ten o@cloc% in theevenin! to si o@cloc% the net ornin!. *9This is hi!hl# iprobable, if not ridiculous. 2 huan bod#cannot be pulveri4ed into ashes b# sipl# burnin! it "ith the use of !asoline and rubber tires in an openfield. :ven creatoria use entirel# closed incinerators "here the corpse is sub/ected to intenseheat. 30Thereafter, the reains under!o a process "here the bones are copletel# !round to dust.

In the case of Van T"est, there is not even an# insinuation that earnest efforts "ere eerted torecover traces of his reains fro the scene of the alle!ed creation. 31&ould it be that the!overnent investi!ators did to the place of creation but could not find an#G Or could it be that the# didnot !o at all because the# %ne" that there "ould not be an# as no burnin! ever too% placeG To alle!e then

that the bod# of Van T"est "as copletel# burned to ashes in an open field "ith the use erel# of tiresand !asoline is a tale too tall to !ulp.

Stran!el#, if not a"%"ardl#, after Van T"est@s reported abduction on+6 $une +77 "hich culinated in his deciation b# creation, his counsel continued to representhi before /udicial and 1uasi5/udicial proceedin!s. Thus on 8+ $ul# +77, his counsel filed in hisbehalf a petition for revie" before this &ourt, doc%eted as 9.R. Nos. +B6;8, and on + March +778,a eorandu before the Securities and :chan!e &oission in S:& &ase No. 876. On6 Noveber +778, durin! the preliinar# investi!ation conducted b# the panel of prosecutors,counsel a!ain anifested that 'even then and even as of this tie, I stated in # counter5affidavitthat until the atter of death is to be established in the proper proceedin!s, I shall continue topursue # duties and responsibilities as counsel for Mr. Van T"est.' 3*)ence, even 2sst. Solicitor

9eneral :stoesta believes that counsel of Van T"est doubted the latter@sdeath. 33Obviousl#, counsel hiself does not believe that his client is in fact alread# dead other"ise hisobli!ation to his client "ould have ceased ecept to copl# "ith his dut# 'to infor the court proptl# ofsuch death . . . and to !ive the nae and residence of his eecutor, adinistrator, !uardian or other le!alrepresentative,' 34"hich he did not.

0nder the circustances, "e cannot discount petitioners@ theor# that the supposed death of VanT"est "ho is reportedl# an international fu!itive fro /ustice, a fact substantiated b# petitioners andnever refuted b# P2&&, is a li%el# stor# to stop the international anhunt for his arrest. In thisre!ard, "e are reinded of the leadin! case ofU.S. v. Samarin 35decided ninet#5t"o #ears a!o "herethis &ourt ruled that "hen the supposed victi is "holl# un%no"n, his bod# not found, and there is butone "itness "ho testifies to the %illin!, the corpus delicti is not sufficientl# proved.

Then, the etra/udicial stateent of 0bal suffers fro aterial inconsistencies. In his s"ornstateent, he said that he to!ether "ith his cohorts "as et b# petitioners in Silahis )otel "herethe# hatched the plan to abduct Van T"est. 36)o"ever, durin! the preliinar# investi!ation, he statedthat he "as not part of the actual eetin! as he onl# "aited outside in the car for his copanions "hosupposedl# discussed the plan inside Silahis )otel. 3/

0bal also said that petitioners arrived "ith


6/10

house' at the tie Van T"est "as interro!ated and thus did not see if Van T"est indeed si!ned certaindocuents. (h# 0bal had to be sent out of the 'safe house,'no eplanation "as offered. Did these docuents reall# eistG Or could thenon5eistence of these docuents be the reason "h# P2&& "as not able to copl# "ith the order of theprosecutors to produce the durin! the preliinar# investi!ationG 2nd then, "hat happened to the P.;Mthat "as supposedl# offered b# petitioners in echan!e for the abduction of Van T"estG These and orereain unans"ered.

Most perplein! ho"ever is that "hile the "hole investi!ation "as supposedl# tri!!ered off b#0bal@s confession of +6 Septeber +778, the application of the P2&& operatives for a search"arrant to be served in thet"o *- d"ellin!s of Santia!o "as filed and !ranted b# the Re!ional Trial &ourt of Manila on +;Septeber +778, a da# before 0bal eecuted his s"orn stateent. In support of the application,the P2&& a!ents claied that 0bal had been in their custod# since +B Septeber +778.Si!nificantl#, althou!h he "as said to be alread# under their custod#, 0bal clais he "as neverinterro!ated until +6 Septeber +778 and onl# at the securit# barrac%s of Valle Verde V, Pasi!,"here he "as a securit# !uard. 39

The alle!ed counter5affidavit of SPO


7/10

ascertain. Onl# the /ud!e and the /ud!e alone a%es this deterinationC *b- The preliinar# in1uir# adeb# a prosecutor does not bind the /ud!e. It erel# assists hi in a%in! the deterination of probablecause. The /ud!e does not have to follo" "hat the prosecutor presents to hi.


8/10

of the la", the t"ofold ai of "hich is that !uilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. )e a#prosecute "ith earnestness and vi!or A indeed, he should do so.


9/10

illustrative of a disal trend. Needless in/ur# of the sort inflicted b# !overnent a!ents is notreflective of responsible !overnent. $ud!es and la" enforcers are not, b# reason of their hi!h andpresti!ious office, relieved of the coon obli!ation to avoid deliberatel# inflictin! unnecessar#in/ur#.

The soverei!n po"er has the inherent ri!ht to protect itself and its people fro vicious acts "hich

endan!er the proper adinistration of /usticeC hence, the State has ever# ri!ht to prosecute andpunish violators of the la". This is essential for its self5 preservation, na#, its ver# eistence. ;> of the Re!ional Trial &ourt of Ma%ati.

SO ORD:R:D

+ru,( -avide( Jr.( uiason and /apunan( JJ.( concur.


10/10

2llado vs. Dio%no, 9.R. No. ++868B Ma# ;, +77=+rim Pro 0 Jurisdiction

a2&

On Septeber +6, +778, a Securit# 9uard and a dischar!ed Philippine &onstabular#naed :scolastico 0bal eecuted a s"orn stateent iplicatin! petitioners Diosdado

$ose 2llado and Roberto Mendo4a "ho are partners in the 3a" Fir of Salon!a,

)ernande4 and 2llado. )e accused the as the brains behind the alle!ed %idnappin!

and sla#in! of :u!en 2leander Van T"est, a 9eran national.

allado v diokno gr no. 113630

Documents