tuliao jurisdiction over the person vs custody of law and grave abuse of discretion

7/24/2019 Tuliao Jurisdiction Over the Person vs Custody of Law and Grave Abuse of Discretion

1/10

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 )**1Resolution 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. 11$)1 and 11$)# are hereb2 RVRSD and ST +SID forhavin% 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. 11$)1 and 11$)# 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. 11$)1 and 11$)#. )

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 Aauon and lier Tuliao, son of private

respondent Vir%ilio Tuliao (ho )* "o( +"#r -h ()-"** ro-c-)o" ro/ra.

T"o infor(ations for (urder "ere filed a%ainst SPO& 5ilfredo =eaEo, SPO& Ferdinand Maran,

SPO& Ruben A. +%ustin, SPO) +le8ander Micu, SPO) Rodel Maderal, and SPO# (ilio Ra(ire 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 )**&, ac+)--# -h acc+*# -hr)" o" -h /ro+"# o

ra*o"a4 #o+-.

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 !ru and +(ado Doe, as the persons responsible for the deaths of

Vicente Aauon and lier Tuliao.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt1


2/10

Respondent Tuliao filed a cri(inal co(plaint for (urder a%ainst petitioners, Ao2et dela !ru, 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 andor Guash 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 acGuire 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. !onseGuentl2, 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 #4)ra-4 a"# ()44+44 co)--# co"-- o co+r- (h" h )**+# o"

15 Nor 2001 -h Or#r #a-# 1 Nor 2001 #)*)**)"/ -h )"ora-)o"* or

+r#r. O" 21 Nor 2001, ( rrr# *a)# o-)o" -o -h Co+r- o Aa4* )" )( o

-h r)o+* rrra4 -o )- o r*o"#"-9* -)-)o" or cr-)orar), roh))-)o" a"# a"#a+*.

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 11$)1 and 11$)#@ 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 acc+*# ca""o- *: a" ;+#)c)a4 r4) )

h #o* "o- *+)- h)* r*o" -o -h ;+r)*#)c-)o" o -h co+r-.

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. 11$)1 and 11$)# in the doc7et of +ctive !ri(inal !ases of Aranch 1 of the


3/10

Re%ional Trial !ourt of Santia%o !it2, Philippines, and in orderin% the public respondent to reissue

the "arrants of arrest a%ainst herein petitioners.

T6IRD +SSI-NMNT OF RROR

5ith all due respect, the 6onorable !ourt of +ppeals co((itted a reversible error in orderin% the

reinstate(ent of !ri(inal !ases No. 11$)1 and No. 11$)# 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 Guash a "arrant of arrest r+)r* ")-hr ;+r)*#)c-)o" or -h r*o"

o -h acc+*#, "or c+*-o# o 4a( or -h o# o -h acc+*#.

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 thecourt. 0urisdiction over the person of the accused (a2 be acGuired 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 acGuired 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. RT0C&/#, Nove(ber , &CC)


4/10

-h r*o" o -h acc+*#.'!ustod2 of the la" is acco(plished either b2 arrest or voluntar2

surrender,

C "hile 9urisdiction over the person of the accused is acGuired 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 Guash 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 theperson, "ho is thereb2 deprived of his o"n "ill and libert2, )"#)"/ h) -o co o#)"- -o -h

()44 o -h 4a(.&)C+*-o# o -h 4a( )* 4)-ra44 c+*-o# or -h o# o -h acc+*# . It

includes, but is not li(ited to, detention.

The state(ent in Pico v. 0ud%e !o(bon%, 0r.,&1cited 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 reGuire(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

reGuired and %iven for the release of a person (ho )* )" -h c+*-o# o 4a(.3B The rationale behindthis 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%niin% the

9urisdiction of the court b2 his personal appearance therein and co(pliance "ith the reGuire(ents

therefor.&/

Thr )*, ho(r, a"


5/10

"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.

= ho4# -ha- -h c)rc+*-a"c* orc)"/ +* -o r+)r c+*-o# o -h 4a( )" a4)ca-)o"* or

a)4 ar "o- r*"- )" o-)o"* -o +a*h -h (arra"- o arr*- . 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 isproven %uilt2. On the other hand, if "e allo" the Guashal 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

scotfree. 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 Guash 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 Guashed 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

reGuire 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,)1de(andin% that due process in the deprivation of libert2

(ust co(e before its ta7in% and not after.

uashin% a "arrant of arrest based on a subseGuentl2 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.

= "r-h4** )"# /ra a+* o #)*cr-)o" )" -h a**a)4# ac-)o"* o J+#/ A"/ha#.

0ud%e +n%had see(ed a little too ea%er of dis(issin% the cri(inal cases a%ainst the petitioners.

First, he Guashed the standin% "arrant of arrest issued b2 his predecessor because of a

subseGuentl2 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, Guashed 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)#

uashal 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 Guash 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 Guashed as pre(ature on the sa(e %round.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt25


6/10

The other %round invo7ed b2 0ud%e +n%had for the Guashal of the "arrant of arrest is in order if true4

violation of the !onstitution. 6ence, 0ud%e +n%had as7ed and resolved the Guestion4

In these double (urder cases, did this !ourt co(pl2 or adhere to the aboveGuoted constitutional

proscription, "hich is Sec. ), +rticle III Aill of Ri%hts@ to Sec. ;aits? 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 seiures 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 seied.

)/

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 reGuire(ent under =i(, Sr. v. Feli81*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 -utierre@

1. +ffidavit dated &C Ma2 )**& of Ro(eo A. Ocon@

#. 0oint !ounter +ffidavit dated )1 Ma2 )**& of Ma2or 0ose !. Miranda and Re2naldo de la

!ru@

$. +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. +ffidavitco(plaint of Vir%ilio Tuliao@ and

&*. Medicole%al Reports of the cadavers of leer Tuliao and Vicente Auaon.

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
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt31


7/10

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 +lvare on the other.B1)

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 5ebb114

+ 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 reasonabledoubt 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 reGuires 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 Guashed the "arrant of arrest on the %round, a(on% other thin%s, that there "asa 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 acGuittin% 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'', acGuittin% theaccused 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, acGuittin% 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 thesituation in the cri(inal cases of the petitioners in the case at bar as there is here an e2e"itness4
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt34


8/10

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.B1$On the contrar2, if "e are to per(it the use of our decision in

=eaEo, an acGuittal 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 Guashin% the "arrants of arrest had been nullified@

therefore those "arrants of arrest are henceforth dee(ed unGuashed.

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. 11$)1 and No. 11$)#, 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 Guestioned b2 private respondent, to "it4

&.< 0oint Order dated +u%ust &/, )**&@

).< Order dated Septe(ber )&, )**&@

1.< 0oint Order dated October &, )**&@ and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt37


9/10

#.< 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. 11$)1 +ND 11$)# is NOT included in the list of the assailed Order0oint

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 reGuire

the %rantin% of opportunit2 to be heard on the part of respondent,1Cthe pra2er to cite public

respondent in conte(pt and for other reliefs 9ust and eGuitable 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 disGualif2 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. 11$)1 and No. 11$)# 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. 11$)1 and No. 11$)# 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 ofSantia%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
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt41


10/10

$< 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.

tuliao jurisdiction over the person vs custody of law and grave abuse of discretion

Documents