Anda di halaman 1dari 4

Saturnino Ocampo v. Hon. Ephrem S.

Abando, Cesar Merin, approving prosecutor, Rosulo Vivero, investigating


prosecutor, Raul M. Gonzalez, Secretary of Department of Justice
Sereno, CJ
February 11, 2014
G.R. No. 176830

Doctrine

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. 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 respondents 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.

Summary

Petitioners were charged with the murder of the victims found in a mass graveyard and with the
crime of rebellion as leaders of the CPP/NPA/NPDF. They claimed that copies of the subpoena, the
complaint and other supporting documents never reached them so that they were denied due
process during the preliminary investigation, but the Court held that efforts were made by sending
these to their addresses. Also, the judge complied with the Constitutional requirements in his
determination of probable cause for the issuance of the warrants of arrest.

Facts R

A mass graveyard was found at Sitio Sapang Daco, Barangay Kaulisihan, Inopacan, Leyte by the
43rd 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 Peoples 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 complaintaffidavits. 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 prosecutors 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

Ratio/Issues

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 Abandos orders.
Echanis also prayed for his release.
- Both Ocampo and Echanis were granted provisional release by the Supreme Court under cash
bonds.
- As to Ladlads Motion to Quash, it was denied by respondent judge and the same happened to his
Motion for Reconsideration. Ladlad sought to annul the latters 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. theyre
consultants of the NDFP negotiating team, then having talks with the GRP peace panel).
1. Whether or not the petitioners right to due process was violated (NO)
See doctrine. The essence of due process is reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in
support of one's defense. Thus, one who has been afforded a chance to present ones own side of the story
cannot claim denial of due process.
a) Echanis and Baylosis: We were not given a copy of the complaint and the attached documents or
evidence!
COURT: 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. It was only because a majority of them could no longer be found at their last
known addresses that they were not served copies.The rule was meant to foil underhanded attempts of a
respondent to delay the prosecution of offenses.
b) Ladlad: I was not served with the subpoena because of the false address in those undated letters. Even
though my counsels filed their formal entry of appearance, still no receipt of the subpoena.
COURT: The subpoena was sent to his wife in the same address, yet she was able to have submitted her
counter-affidavit. Also, because his counsels filed the formal entry of appearance, Pros. Vivero had reason
to believe he received the subpoena. Ladlad had the opportunity to secure copies of the complaint and other
documents, but litigants represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax
and await the outcome of their case.
c) Ocampo: Pros. Vivero colluded with Almaden and Tiu in inserting the Supplemental Affidavit of Zacarias
Piedad in the records of the case without giving me a copy. Said affidavit alleged that I was the one who
presided the meeting where the operation vd was launched in 1984. How can I be there when I was in
military custody from 1976 until my escape in 1985? Prosecutor Vivero also delayed the service of his
resolution by 19 days, denying me my right to due process.
COURT: i. Nothing surreptitious about the Supplemental Affidavit since it clearly alludes to an earlier
affidavit and admits the mistake committed regarding the date of the alleged meeting, thus making it clear
that this was executed after Ocampo submitted his counter-affidavit.
ii. The case of the prosecution does not rest on Zacarias supplemental affidavit so Ocampo cant claim that
his right to due process was infringed just because he wasnt able to receive it. In fact, his indictment was
based on the collective affidavits of other witnesses, says the OSG.
iii. The period for filing a motion for reconsideration or an appeal to the Secretary of Justice is counted from
the date of the receipt, not from the date of the resolution. This is provided in Section 3 of the 2000 National
Prosecution Service Rule on Appeal:
2. Whether or not Judge Abando complied with the requirements of the Constitution in finding the

existence of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest (YES)


a) Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall be determined by the judge after an
examination under oath or an affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses, we have ruled that a hearing
is not necessary for its determination.
b) It is enough that the judge personally evaluates the prosecutors report and supporting documents
showing the existence of probable cause for the indictment and then issue a warrant of arrest. Or, if he finds
no probable cause, he can require submission of additional affidavits of the witnesses.
c) The judges review of the Information and other supporting documents was clearly set forth in his order.
d) Such issues are questions of fact and are not within the purview of a petition for certiorari.
3. Whether or not the political offense may be used as the grounds to dismiss the charge prior to
determination by the trial court that the murders were committed in the furtherance of rebellion
(NO)
a) Under this doctrine, common crimes committed in the furtherance of a political offense, are divested of
its common character and assume the political complexion of the main crime. Thus, when the killing was is
done in furtherance of a rebellion, it assumes the political complexion of a rebellion and it must be
prosecuted as rebellion alone.
b) Petitioners say that records show the murders were done in furtherance of rebellion and that the political
motivation can be seen from the charge against the groups top leaders as co-conspirators. The burden of
proof is on the defense and this must be adduced during the trial.
c) If they were able to prove it, then the remedy is provided by Sec. 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court on
the amendment or substitution of a complaint or information.1 When this is done before plea and it
downgrades the nature of the offense, it can only be done upon motion of the prosecutor with notice to the
offended party and leave of court.
d) If at any time before judgement, it is shown that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense,
the court shall dismiss the original complaint upon filing of the new one, as long as the accused is not
placed in double jeopardy.
e) In this case, however, though they were charged with an Information for rebellion before RTC Makati,
petitioners already filed a petition before this Court to seek the nullification of the Orders of the DOJ
denying their motion for the inhibition of the members of the prosecution panel due to lack of impartiality
and independence. Also, they filed supplemental petitions to enjoin the prosecution of the criminal case so
that they were never arraigned. The Court finally dismissed the rebellion case.
f) The requisites for double jeopardy were that a first jeopardy attached; it has been validly terminated; and
a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first2. The first jeopardy attaches only after the accused
has been acquitted or convicted, or the case has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent, by a competent court in a valid indictment for which the accused has entered a valid plea during
arraignment.
g) With the petitioners having never been arraigned, the first jeopardy does not attach in this case.

Held

Instant consolidated petitions are dismissed. Petitioner Saturnino C. Ocampo shall remain on temporary liberty under
the same bail granted by this Court until the termination of the proceedings before the RTC Manila. Petitioners Randall
B. Echanis, Rafael G. Baylosis and Vicente P. Ladlad shall remain on temporary liberty under the same bail granted by
this Court until their actual participation as CPP-NDF consultants in the peace negotiations with the government are
concluded or terminated, or until the termination of the proceedings before the RTC Manila, whichever is sooner.

SECTION 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of
court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made
with leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
2

Section 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. When an accused has been
convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of
competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case
shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for
any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.

Prepared by: Eunice V. Guadalope

Anda mungkin juga menyukai