7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

1/48

1

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 183871 February 18, 2010

LOURDES D. RUBRCO, !E"N RUBRCO "PRUEBO, a#$ M"R% !O% RUBRCO C"RBONEL,Petitioners,vs.GLOR" M"C"P"G"L&"RRO%O, GEN. 'ERMOGENES ESPERON, P(DR. GEN. ")ELNO R"*ON, M"!. D"R+NS% a..a. D"R+N RE%ES, !MM% S"NT"N", RUBEN "LF"RO, C"PT. "NGELO CU"RESM", a -era/#!ON"T'"N, P(SUPT. EDG"R B. ROUERO, "RSENO C. GOME*, a#$ OFFCE OF T'E OMBUDSM"N, Respondents.

D E C I S I N

)EL"SCO, !R., J.:

In this petition for revie! under Rule "# of the Rules of Court in relation to Section $% $of the Rule on the &rit of A'paro)A'paro Rule*, +ourdes D. Rubrico, ean Rubrico Apruebo, and Mar- o- Rubrico Carbonel assail and see to set asidethe Decision/of the Court of Appeals )CA* dated ul- /$, (001 in CA23.R. SP No. 0000/, a petition co''enced underthe A'paro Rule.

4he petition for the !rit of a'paro dated ctober (#, (005 !as ori6inall- filed before this Court. After issuin6 the desired!rit and directin6 the respondents to file a verified !ritten return, the Court referred the petition to the CA for su''ar-hearin6 and appropriate action. 4he petition and its attach'ents contained, in substance, the follo!in6 alle6ations7

$. n April /, (005, ar'ed 'en belon6in6 to the /0$st Air Intelli6ence and Securit- S8uadron )AISS, for short* based in9ernando Air Base in +ipa Cit- abducted +ourdes D. Rubrico )+ourdes*, then attendin6 a +enten pabasa in Ba6on6Ba-an, Das'ari:as, Cavite, and brou6ht to, and detained at, the air base !ithout char6es. 9ollo!in6 a !ee of relentlessinterro6ation 2 conducted alternatel- b- hooded individuals 2 and !hat a'ounts to verbal abuse and 'ental harass'ent+ourdes, chair of the ;6na-an n6 Maralita para sa 3a!a Adhian, !as released at Das'ari:as, Cavite, her ho'eto!n,but onl- after bein6 'ade to si6n a state'ent that she !ould be a 'ilitar- asset.

After +ourdes< release, the harass'ent, co'in6 in the for' of bein6 tailed on at least t!o occasions at different placesi.e., Das'ari:as, Cavite and Baclaran in Pasa- Cit-, b- 'otorc-cle2ridin6 'en in bonnets, continued=

(. Durin6 the ti'e +ourdes !as 'issin6, P>Sr. Insp. Arsenio 3o'e? )P>Insp. 3o'e?*, then sub2station co''ander ofBa6on6 Ba-an, Das'ari:as, Cavite, ept sendin6 te@t 'essa6es to +ourdes< dau6hter, Mar- o- R. Carbonel )Mar- o-*brin6in6 her to beaches and asin6 her 8uestions about Karapatan,an alliance of hu'an ri6hts or6ani?ations. eho!ever, failed to 'ae an investi6ation even after +ourdes< disappearance had been 'ade no!n to hi'=

/. A !ee after +ourdes< release, another dau6hter, ean R. Apruebo )ean*, !as constrained to leave their housebecause of the presence of 'en !atchin6 the'=

". +ourdes has filed !ith the ffice of the 'buds'an a cri'inal co'plaint for idnappin6 and arbitrar- detention andad'inistrative co'plaint for 6ross abuse of authorit- and 6rave 'isconduct a6ainst Capt. An6elo Cuares'a )Cuares'a*

Ruben Alfaro )Alfaro*, i''- Santana )Santana* and a certain onathan, c>o ead8uarters /0$st AISS, 9ernando AirBase and Ma. S->Re-es !ith address at No. 0% A'sterda' E@t., Merville Subd., Para:a8ue Cit-, but nothin6 hashappened= and the threats and harass'ent incidents have been reported to the Das'ari:as 'unicipal and Caviteprovincial police stations, but nothin6 eventful resulted fro' their respective investi6ations.

4!o of the four !itnesses to +ourdes< abduction !ent into hidin6 after bein6 visited b- 6overn'ent a6ents in civilianclothes= and

#. arapatan conducted an investi6ation on the incidents. 4he investi6ation !ould indicate that 'en belon6in6 to theAr'ed 9orces of the Philippines )A9P*, na'el- Capt. Cuares'a of the Philippine Air 9orce )PA9*, Alfaro, Santanaonathan and Ma. Dar!in S->Re-es, led the abduction of +ourdes= that unno!n to the abductors, +ourdes !as able to

SPECIAL ISSUES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt1

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

2/48

2

pilfer a 'ission order !hich !as addressed to CA Ruben Alfaro and si6ned b- Capt. Cuares'a of the PA9.

4he petition pra-ed that a !rit of a'paro issue, orderin6 the individual respondents to desist fro' perfor'in6 an-threatenin6 act a6ainst the securit- of the petitioners and for the ffice of the 'buds'an )MB* to i''ediatel- file aninfor'ation for idnappin6 8ualified !ith the a66ravatin6 circu'stance of 6ender of the offended part-. It also pra-ed forda'a6es and for respondents to produce docu'ents sub'itted to an- of the' on the case of +ourdes.

Before the CA, respondents President 3loria Macapa6al2Arro-o, 3en. er'o6enes Esperon, then Ar'ed 9orces of thePhilippines )A9P* Chief of Staff, Police Director23eneral )P>Dir. 3en.* Avelino Ra?on, then Philippine National Police)PNP* Chief, Police Superintendent )P>Supt.* Ro8uero of the Cavite Police Provincial ffice, Police Inspector )P>Insp.*3o'e?, no! retired, and the MB )ans!erin6 respondents, collectivel-* filed, throu6h the ffice of the Solicitor 3enera)S3*, a oint return on the !rit specificall- den-in6 the 'aterial inculpator- aver'ents a6ainst the'. 4he S3 alsodenied the alle6ations a6ainst the follo!in6 i'pleaded persons, na'el-7 Cuares'a, Alfaro, Santana, onathan, andS->Re-es, for lac of no!led6e or infor'ation sufficient to for' a belief as to the alle6ations< truth. And b- !a- of 6eneraaffir'ative defenses, ans!erin6 respondents interposed the follo!in6 defenses7 )$* the President 'a- not be sued durin6her incu'benc-= and )(* the petition is inco'plete, as it fails to indicate the 'atters re8uired b- Sec. #)d* and )e* of the

A'paro Rule."

Attached to the return !ere the affidavits of the follo!in6, a'on6 other public officials, containin6 their respectiveaffir'ative defenses and>or state'ents of !hat the- had undertaen or co''itted to undertae re6ardin6 the clai'eddisappearance of +ourdes and the harass'ents 'ade to bear on her and her dau6hters7

$. 3en. Esperon attested that, pursuant to a directive of then Secretar- of National Defense )SND* 3ilberto C. 4eodoro

r., he ordered the Co''andin6 3eneral of the PA9, !ith infor'ation to all concerned units, to conduct an investi6ation toestablish the circu'stances behind the disappearance and the reappearance of +ourdes insofar as the involve'ent oalle6ed personnel>unit is concerned. 4he Provost Marshall 3eneral and the ffice of the ud6e Advocate 3eneral )A3*

A9P, also undertoo a parallel action.

3en. Esperon 'anifested his resolve to provide the CA !ith 'aterial results of the investi6ation= to continue !ith theprobe on the alle6ed abduction of +ourdes and to brin6 those responsible, includin6 'ilitar- personnel, to the bar of

ustice !hen !arranted b- the findin6s and the co'petent evidence that 'a- be 6athered in the investi6ation process b-those 'andated to loo into the 'atter=#

(. P>Dir. 3en. Ra?on 2 stated that an investi6ation he i''ediatel- ordered upon receivin6 a cop- of the petition is on26oin6 vis2F2vis +ourdes< abduction, and that a bac6round verification !ith the PNP Personnel Accountin6 and Infor'ationS-ste' disclosed that the na'es Santana, Alfaro, Cuares'a and one onathan do not appear in the police personne

records, althou6h the PNP files carr- the na'e of Dar!in Re-es G. Mu6a.

Per the initial investi6ation report of the Das'ari:as 'unicipal police station, P>Dir. 3en. Ra?on disclosed, +ourdes !asabducted b- si@ ar'ed 'en in the afternoon of April /, (005 and dra66ed aboard a 4o-ota Revo !ith plate nu'ber HRR"(1, !hich plate !as issued for a Mitsubishi van to A Cotta6e Industr- !ith address at % A'sterda' St., Merville Subd.Para:a8ue Cit-. 4he person residin6 in the apart'ent on that 6iven address is one Darius>Er!in See Darius Re-esalle6edl- !orin6, per the latteror provide positive description throu6h co'posite setchin6. Nonetheless, he 'anifested that the PNP isread- to assist and protect the petitioners and the e- !itnesses fro' threats, harass'ents and inti'idation fro'!hatever source and, at the sa'e ti'e, to assist the Court in the i'ple'entation of its orders.J1avvphi1

/. P>Supt. Ro8uero stated conductin6, upon receipt of +ourdes< co'plaint, an investi6ation and sub'ittin6 thecorrespondin6 report to the PNP Calabar?on, observin6 that neither +ourdes nor her relatives provided the police !ithrelevant infor'ation=

". P>Insp. 3o'e? alle6ed that +ourdes, her in and !itnesses refused to cooperate !ith the investi6atin6 Cavite PNP=and

#. verall Deput- 'buds'an rlando Casi'iro 2 alle6ed that cases for violation of Articles (J5 and $(", or idnappin6and arbitrar- detention, respectivel-, have been filed !ith, and are under preli'inar- investi6ation b- the MB a6ainstthose believed to be involved in +ourdes< idnappin6= that upon receipt of the petition for a !rit of amparo, propecoordination !as 'ade !ith the ffice of the Deput- 'buds'an for the Militar- and other +a! Enforce'ent fficesSPECIAL ISSUES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt6

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

3/48

3

)M+E* !here the subect cri'inal and ad'inistrative co'plaints !ere filed.

Co''entin6 on the return, petitioners pointed out that the return !as no 'ore than a 6eneral denial of aver'ents in thepetition. 4he-, thus, pleaded to be allo!ed to present evidence ex partea6ainst the President, Santana, Alfaro, CaptCuares'a, Dar!in S-, and onathan. And !ith leave of court, the- also ased to serve notice of the petition throu6hpublication, o!in6 to their failure to secure the current address of the latter five and thus sub'it, as the CA re8uired, prooof service of the petition on the'.

4he hearin6 started on Nove'ber $/, (005.5 In that settin6, petitioners< counsel pra-ed for the issuance of a te'porar-protection order )4P* a6ainst the ans!erin6 respondents on the basis of the alle6ations in the petition. At the hearin6 oNove'ber (0, (005, the CA 6ranted petitioners< 'otion that the petition and !rit be served b- the courtRe-es, Santana, Alfaro, Capt. Cuares'a, and onathan.

4he le6al sir'ishes that follo!ed over the propriet- of e@cludin6 President Arro-o fro' the petition, petitioners< 'otionsfor service b- publication, and the issuance of a 4P are not of decisive pertinence in this recital. 4he botto' line is that,b- separate resolutions, the CA dropped the President as respondent in the case= denied the 'otion for a 4P for thecourt

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

4/48

4

4his brin6s us to the correctness of the assailed dis'issal of the petition !ith respect to 3en. Esperon, P>Dir. 3en. Ra?onP>Supt. Ro8uero, P>Insp. 3o'e?, and the MB.

None of the four individual respondents i''ediatel- referred to above has been i'plicated as bein6 connected to, letalone as bein6 behind, the alle6ed abduction and harass'ent of petitioner +ourdes. 4heir na'es !ere not even'entioned in +ourdes< Sinumpaang Salaysay$$of April (005. 4he sa'e 6oes for the respective Sinumpaang Salaysayand>or Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysayof ean$(and Mar- o-.$/

As e@plained b- the CA, 3en. Esperon and P>Dir. 3en. Ra?on !ere included in the case on the theor- that the-, asco''anders, !ere responsible for the unla!ful acts alle6edl- co''itted b- their subordinates a6ainst petitioners. 4o theappellate court, the privile6e of the !rit of a'paro 'ust be denied as a6ainst 3en. Esperon and P>Dir. 3en. Ra?on forthe si'ple reason that petitioners have not presented evidence sho!in6 that those !ho alle6edl- abducted and ille6all-detained +ourdes and later threatened her and her fa'il- !ere, in fact, 'e'bers of the 'ilitar- or the police force. 4het!o 6enerals, the CAInsp. 3o'e? of actsconstitutin6 threats a6ainst Mar- o-.

&hile in a 8ualified sense tenable, the dis'issal b- the CA of the case as a6ainst 3en. Esperon and P>Dir. 3en. Ra?on isincorrect if vie!ed a6ainst the bacdrop of the stated rationale underpinnin6 the assailed decision vis2F2vis the t!o

6enerals, i.e., co''and responsibilit-. 4he Court assu'es the latter stance o!in6 to the fact that co''and responsibilit-as a concept defined, developed, and applied under international la!, has little, if at all, bearin6 in a'paro proceedin6s.

4he evolution of the co''and responsibilit- doctrine finds its conte@t in the develop'ent of la!s of !ar and ar'edco'bats. Accordin6 to 9r. Bernas, co''and responsibilit-, in its si'plest ter's, 'eans the responsibilit- oco''anders for cri'es co''itted b- subordinate 'e'bers of the ar'ed forces or other persons subect to their controin international !ars or do'estic conflict.$"In this sense, co''and responsibilit- is properl- a for' of cri'inal co'plicit-4he a6ue Conventions of $%05 adopted the doctrine of co''and responsibilit-,$# foreshado!in6 the present2da-precept of holdin6 a superior accountable for the atrocities co''itted b- his subordinates should he be re'iss in his dut-of control over the'. As then for'ulated, co''and responsibilit- is a# o//o# o$e o /#$/4/$ua5 -r//#a5 5/ab/5/-,!hereb- the superior is 'ade responsible for -r/e -o/e$b- his subordinates for failin6 to prevent or punish theperpetrators$J)as opposed to cri'es he ordered*.

4he doctrine has recentl- been codified in the Ro'e Statute $5 of the International Cri'inal Court )ICC* to !hich thePhilippines is si6nator-. Sec. (1 of the Statute i'poses individual responsibilit- on 'ilitar- co''anders for cri'esco''itted b- forces under their control. 4he countr- is, ho!ever, not -et for'all- bound b- the ter's and provisionse'bodied in this treat-2statute, since the Senate has -et to e@tend concurrence in its ratification.$1

&hile there are several pendin6 bills on co''and responsibilit-,$%there is still no Philippine la! that provides for cri'inaliabilit- under that doctrine.(0

It 'a- plausibl- be contended that co''and responsibilit-, as le6al basis to hold 'ilitar->police co''anders liable fore@tra2le6al illin6s, enforced disappearances, or threats, 'a- be 'ade applicable to this urisdiction on the theor- that theco''and responsibilit- doctrine no! constitutes a principle of international la! or custo'ar- international la! inaccordance !ith the incorporation clause of the Constitution.($ Still, it !ould be inappropriate to appl- to theseproceedin6s the doctrine of co''and responsibilit-, as the CA see'ed to have done, as a for' of cri'inal co'plicit-

throu6h o'ission, for individual respondents< cri'inal liabilit-, if there be an-, is be-ond the reach of a'paro. In other!ords, the Court does not rule in such proceedin6s on an- issue of cri'inal culpabilit-, even if incidentall- a cri'e or aninfraction of an ad'inistrative rule 'a- have been co''itted. As the Court stressed in Secretar- of National Defense vManalo )Manalo*,(( the !rit of a'paro !as conceived to provide e@peditious and effective procedural relief a6ainstviolations or threats of violation of the basic ri6hts to life, libert-, and securit- of persons= the correspondin6 a'paro suit,ho!ever, is not an action to deter'ine cri'inal 6uilt re8uirin6 proof be-ond reasonable doubt @ @ @ or ad'inistrativeliabilit- re8uirin6 substantial evidence that !ill re8uire full and e@haustive proceedin6s. (/f the sa'e tenor, and b- !a-of e@poundin6 on the nature and role of a'paro, is !hat the Court said in a!on v. "agitis7

It does not deter'ine 6uilt nor pinpoint cri'inal culpabilit- for the disappearance Kthreats thereof or e@tra2udicial illin6sL=it deter'ines responsibilit-, or at least accountabilit-, for the enforced disappearance Kthreats thereof or e@tra2udicialillin6sL for purposes of i'posin6 the appropriate re'edies to address the disappearance Kor e@tra2udicial illin6sL.

SPECIAL ISSUES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt23

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

5/48

5

@ @ @ @

As the la! no! stands, e@tra2udicial illin6s and enforced disappearances in this urisdiction are not cri'es penali?edseparatel- fro' the co'ponent cri'inal acts undertaen to carr- out these illin6s and enforced disappearances and areno! penali?ed under the Revised Penal Code and special la!s. 4he si'ple reason is that the +e6islature has not spoenon the 'atter= the deter'ination of !hat acts are cri'inal @ @ @ are 'atters of substantive la! that onl- the +e6islature hasthe po!er to enact.("@ @ @

If co''and responsibilit- !ere to be invoed and applied to these proceedin6s, it should, at 'ost, be onl- to deter'inethe author !ho, at the f irst instance, is accountable for, and has the dut- to address, the disappearance and harass'entsco'plained of, so as to enable the Court to devise re'edial 'easures that 'a- be appropriate under the pre'ises toprotect ri6hts covered b- the !rit of a'paro. As inti'ated earlier, ho!ever, the deter'ination should not be pursued to fi@cri'inal liabilit- on respondents preparator- to cri'inal prosecution, or as a prelude to ad'inistrative disciplinar-proceedin6s under e@istin6 ad'inistrative issuances, if there be an-.

Petitioners, as the CA has declared, have not adduced substantial evidence pointin6 to 6overn'ent involve'ent in thedisappearance of +ourdes. 4o a concrete point, petitioners have not sho!n that the actual perpetrators of the abductionand the harass'ents that follo!ed for'all- or infor'all- for'ed part of either the 'ilitar- or the police chain of co''and

A preli'inar- police investi6ation report, ho!ever, !ould tend to sho! a lin, ho!ever ha?-, bet!een the license plate)HRR "(1* of the vehicle alle6edl- used in the abduction of +ourdes and the address of Dar!in Re-es>S-, !ho !asalle6ed to be !orin6 in Ca'p A6uinaldo.(#4hen, too, there !ere affidavits and testi'onies on events that transpired!hich, if taen to6ether, lo6icall- point to 'ilitar- involve'ent in the alle6ed disappearance of +ourdes, such as, but noli'ited to, her abduction in broad da-li6ht, her bein6 forcibl- dra66ed to a vehicle blindfolded and then bein6 brou6ht to a

place !here the sounds of planes tain6 off and landin6 could be heard. Mention 'a- also be 'ade of the fact that+ourdes !as ased about her 'e'bership in the Co''unist Part- and of bein6 released !hen she a6reed to beco'e anasset.

Still and all, the identities and lins to the A9P or the PNP of the alle6ed abductors, na'el- Cuares'a, Alfaro, Santanaonathan, and S->Re-es, have -et to be established.

Based on the separate s!orn state'ents of Ma. Paul Ciano(Jand 4echnical Ser6eant ohn N. Ro'ano,(5officer2in2char6eand a staff of the /0$st AISS, respectivel-, none of the alle6ed abductors of +ourdes belon6ed to the /0$st AISS based inSan 9ernando Air Base. Neither !ere the- 'e'bers of an- unit of the Philippine Air 9orce, per the certification (1of ColRaul Di'atactac, Air 9orce Adutant. And as stated in the challen6ed CA decision, a verification !ith the Personnel

Accountin6 and Infor'ation S-ste' of the PNP -ielded the infor'ation that, e@cept for a certain Dar!in Re-es - Mu6athe other alle6ed abductors, i.e., Cuares'a, Alfaro, Santana and onathan, !ere not 'e'bers of the PNP. Petitioners

!hen 6iven the opportunit- to identif- Police fficer $ Dar!in Re-es - Mu6a, 'ade no effort to confir' if he !as the sa'eMa. Dar!in Re-es a..a. Dar!in S- the- !ere i'plicatin6 in +ourdes< abduction.

Petitioners, to be sure, have not successfull- controverted ans!erin6 respondents< docu'entar- evidence, adduced todebun the for'erRe-es!as an NBI a6ent.(%4he Court is, of course, a!are of !hat !as referred to in Ra?on /0as the evidentiar- difficultiespresented b- the nature of, and encountered b- petitioners in, enforced disappearance cases. But it is precisel- for thisreason that the Court should tae care too that no !ron6 'essa6e is sent, lest one conclude that an- ind or de6ree ofevidence, even the outlandish, !ould suffice to secure a'paro re'edies and protection.

Sec. $5, as co'ple'ented b- Sec. $1 of the A'paro Rule, e@pressl- prescribes the 'ini'u' evidentiar- substantiationre8uire'ent and nor' to support a cause of action under the Rule, thus7

Sec. $5. Burden of Proof and Standard of Dili6ence Re8uired.4he parties shall establish their clai's b- substantiaevidence.

@ @ @ @

Sec. $1. ud6'ent.@ @ @ If the alle6ations in the petition are proven b- substantial evidence, the court shall 6rant theprivile6e of the !rit and such reliefs as 'a- be proper and appropriate= other!ise, the privile6e shall be denied.)E'phasis added.*

Substantial evidence is 'ore than a 'ere i'putation of !ron6doin6 or violation that !ould !arrant a findin6 of liabilit-a6ainst the person char6ed=/$it is 'ore than a scintilla of evidence. It 'eans such a'ount of relevant evidence !hich aSPECIAL ISSUES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt31

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

6/48

6

reasonable 'ind 'i6ht accept as ade8uate to support a conclusion, even if other e8uall- reasonable 'inds 'i6ht opineother!ise./(Per the CASupt. Ro'ero and P>Insp. 3o'e?, the Court is 'ore than satisfied that the- have no direct or indirect handin the alle6ed enforced disappearance of +ourdes and the threats a6ainst her dau6hters. As police officers, thou6h, theirs!as the dut- to thorou6hl- investi6ate the abduction of +ourdes, a dut- that !ould include looin6 into the cause, 'annerand lie details of the disappearance= identif-in6 !itnesses and obtainin6 state'ents fro' the'= and follo!in6 evidentiar-leads, such as the 4o-ota Revo vehicle !ith plate nu'ber HRR "(1, and securin6 and preservin6 evidence related to theabduction and the threats that 'a- aid in the prosecution of the person>s responsible. As !e said in Manalo,//the ri6ht tosecurit-, as a 6uarantee of protection b- the 6overn'ent, is breached b- the superficial and one2sidedhenceineffectiveinvesti6ation b- the 'ilitar- or the police of reported cases under their urisdiction. As found b- the CA, thelocal police stations concerned, includin6 P>Supt. Ro8uero and P>Insp. 3o'e?, did conduct a preli'inar- fact2findin6 onpetitioners< co'plaint. 4he- could not, ho!ever, 'ae an- head!a-, o!in6 to !hat !as perceived to be the refusal of

+ourdes, her fa'il-, and her !itnesses to cooperate. Petitioners< counsel, Att-. Re@ .M.A. 9ernande?, provided aplausible e@planation for his clients and their !itnesses< attitude, K4he-L do not trust the 6overn'ent a6encies to protectthe'./" 4he difficult- arisin6 fro' a situation !here the part- !hose co'plicit- in e@tra2udicial illin6 or enforceddisappearance, as the case 'a- be, is alle6ed to be the sa'e part- !ho investi6ates it is understandable, thou6h.

4he see'in6 reluctance on the part of the Rubricos or their !itnesses to cooperate ou6ht not to pose a hindrance to thepolice in pursuin6, on its o!n initiative, the investi6ation in 8uestion to its natural end. 4o repeat !hat the Court said inManalo, the ri6ht to securit- of persons is a 6uarantee of the protection of oneSr. 3o'e? )ret* co''itted a6ainst her orher 'other and sister, Mar- o- replied None /J

Si'ilarl-, there appears to be no basis for petitioners< alle6ations about the MB failin6 to act on their co'plaint a6ainstthose !ho alle6edl- abducted and ille6all- detained +ourdes. Contrar- to petitioners< contention, the MB has taen the

necessar- appropriate action on said co'plaint. As culled fro' the affidavit/5

of the Deput- verall 'buds'an and theoint affidavits/1of the desi6nated investi6ators, all dated Nove'ber 5, (005, the MB had, on the basis of said co'plaintco''enced cri'inal/% and ad'inistrative"0 proceedin6s, doceted as MB2P2C20520J0(2E and MB2P2A 052#J52Erespectivel-, a6ainst Cuares'a, Alfaro, Santana, onathan, and S->Re-es. 4he re8uisite orders for the sub'ission ofcounter2affidavits and verified position papers had been sent out.

4he privile6e of the !rit of a'paro, to reiterate, is a re'ed- available to victi's of e@tra2udicial illin6s and enforceddisappearances or threats of si'ilar nature, re6ardless of !hether the perpetrator of the unla!ful act or o'ission is apublic official or e'plo-ee or a private individual.

At this uncture, it bears to state that petitioners have not provided the CA !ith the correct addresses of respondentsCuares'a, Alfaro, Santana, onathan, and S->Re-es. 4he 'ailed envelopes containin6 the petition for a !rit of a'paro

SPECIAL ISSUES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt40

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

7/48

7

individuall- addressed to each of the' have all been returned unopened. And petitioners< 'otion interposed before theappellate court for notice or service via publication has not been acco'panied b- supportin6 affidavits as re8uired b- theRules of Court. Accordin6l-, the appealed CA partial ud6'entdisposin6 of the underl-in6 petition for a !rit of a'paro!ithout )$* pronounce'ent as to the accountabilit-, or lac of it, of the four non2ans!erin6 respondents or )(* outri6htdis'issal of the sa'e petition as to the'he!s to the prescription of Sec. (0 of the A'paro Rule on archivin6 andrevivin6 cases."$Parentheticall-, petitioners have also not furnished this Court !ith sufficient data as to !here the afore2na'ed respondents 'a- be served a cop- of their petition for revie!.

Apart fro' the fore6oin6 considerations, the petition did not alle6e ulti'ate facts as !ould lin the MB in an- 'anner tothe violation or threat of violation of the petitioners< ri6hts to life, libert-, or personal securit-.

4he privile6e of the !rit of a'paro is envisioned basicall- to protect and 6uarantee the ri6hts to life, libert-, and securit- ofpersons, free fro' fears and threats that vitiate the 8ualit- of this life. "(It is an e@traordinar- !rit conceptuali?ed andadopted in li6ht of and in response to the prevalence of e@tra2le6al illin6s and enforced disappearances. "/Accordin6l-the re'ed- ou6ht to be resorted to and 6ranted udiciousl-, lest the ideal sou6ht b- the A'paro Rule be diluted andunder'ined b- the indiscri'inate filin6 of a'paro petitions for purposes less than the desire to secure a'paro reliefs andprotection and>or on the basis of unsubstantiated alle6ations.

In their petition for a !rit of a'paro, petitioners ased, as their 'ain pra-er, that the Court order the i'pleadedrespondents to i''ediatel- desist fro' doin6 an- acts that !ould threaten or see' to threaten the securit- of thePetitioners and to desist fro' approachin6 Petitioners, @ @ @ their residences and offices !here the- are !orin6 undepain of conte'pt of KthisL Court. Petitioners, ho!ever, failed to adduce the threshold substantive evidence to establish thepredicate facts to support their cause of action, i.e., the adverted harass'ents and threats to their life, libert-, or securit-,

a6ainst respondin6 respondents, as responsible for the disappearance and harass'ents co'plained of. 4his is not to sa-ho!ever, that petitioners< alle6ation on the fact of the abduction incident or harass'ent is necessaril- contrived. 4herealit- on the 6round, ho!ever, is that the 'ilitar- or police connection has not been ade8uatel- proved either b-identif-in6 the 'alefactors as co'ponents of the A9P or PNP= or in case identification is not possible, b- sho!in6 thatthe- acted !ith the direct or indirect ac8uiescence of the 6overn'ent. 9or this reason, the Court is unable to ascribe theauthorship of and responsibilit- for the alle6ed enforced disappearance of +ourdes and the harass'ent and threats on hedau6hters to individual respondents. 4o this e@tent, the dis'issal of the case a6ainst the' is correct and 'ustaccordin6l-, be sustained.

Prescindin6 fro' the above considerations, the Court distinctl- notes that the appealed decision veritabl- e@tended theprivile6e of the !rit of a'paro to petitioners !hen it 6ranted !hat to us are a'paro reliefs. Consider7 the appellate courtdecreed, and ri6htl- so, that the police and the 'ilitar- tae specific 'easures for the protection of petitioners< ri6ht orthreatened ri6ht to libert- or securit-. 4he protection ca'e in the for' of directives specificall- to 3en. Esperon and P>Dir

3en. Ra?on, re8uirin6 each of the' )$* to ensure that the investi6ations alread- co''enced b- the A9P and PNP units,respectivel-, under the' on the co'plaints of +ourdes and her dau6hters are bein6 pursued !ith ur6enc- to brin6 to

ustice the perpetrators of the acts co'plained of= and )(* to sub'it to the CA, cop- furnished the petitioners, a re6ulareport on the pro6ress and status of the investi6ations. 4he directives obviousl- 6o to 3en. Esperon in his capacit- ashead of the A9P and, in a sense, chief 6uarantor of order and securit- in the countr-. n the other hand, P>Dir. 3en.Ra?on is called upon to perfor' a dut- pertainin6 to the PNP, a cri'e2preventin6, investi6ator-, and arrestin6 institution.

As the CA, ho!ever, for'ulated its directives, no definitive ti'e fra'e !as set in its decision for the co'pletion of theinvesti6ation and the reportorial re8uire'ents. It also failed to consider 3en. Esperon and P>Dir. 3en. Ra?on

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

8/48

8

ou6ht to have been dis'issed at the outset. But as thin6s stand, the outri6ht dis'issal of the petition b- force of thatsection is no lon6er technicall- feasible in li6ht of the interpla- of the follo!in6 factual 'i@7 )$* the Court has, pursuant toSec. J"5of the Rule, alread- issued e@ parte the !rit of a'paro= )(* the CA, after a su''ar- hearin6, has dis'issed thepetition, but not on the basis of Sec. ((= and )/* the co'plaint in MB2P2C2520J0(2E na'ed as respondents onl- thosebelieved to be the actual abductors of +ourdes, !hile the instant petition i'pleaded, in addition, those tased toinvesti6ate the idnappin6 and detention incidents and their superiors at the top. Get, the acts and>or o'issions subect ofthe cri'inal co'plaint and the a'paro petition are so lined as to call for the consolidation of both proceedin6s to obviatethe 'ischief inherent in a 'ultiplicit-2of2suits situation.

3iven the above perspective and to full- appl- the beneficial nature of the !rit of a'paro as an ine@pensive and effectivetool to protect certain ri6hts violated or threatened to be violated, the Court hereb- adusts to a de6ree the literalapplication of Secs. (( and (/ of the A'paro Rule to fittin6l- address the situation obtainin6 under the pre'ises. "

4o!ards this end, t!o thin6s are at once indicated7 )$* the consolidation of the probe and fact2findin6 aspects of theinstant petition !ith the investi6ation of the cri'inal co'plaint before the MB= and )(* the incorporation in the sa'ecri'inal co'plaint of the alle6ations in this petition bearin6 on the threats to the ri6ht to securit-. &ithal, the MB shouldbe furnished copies of the investi6ation reports to aid that bod- in its o!n investi6ation and eventual resolution of MB2PC2520J0(2E. 4hen, too, the MB shall be 6iven eas- access to all pertinent docu'ents and evidence, if an-, adducedbefore the CA. Necessaril-, +ourdes, as co'plainant in MB2P2C2520J0(2E, should be allo!ed, if so 'inded, to a'endher basic cri'inal co'plaint if the consolidation of cases is to be full- effective.

&ERE9RE, the Court PAR4IA++G 3RAN4S this petition for revie! and 'aes a decision7

)$* Affir'in6 the droppin6 of President 3loria Macapa6al2Arro-o fro' the petition for a !rit of a'paro=

)(* Affir'in6 the dis'issal of the a'paro case as a6ainst 3en. er'o6enes Esperon, and P>Dir. 3en. Avelino Ra?on,insofar as it tended, under the co''and responsibilit- principle, to attach accountabilit- and responsibilit- to the', asthen A9P Chief of Staff and then PNP Chief, for the alle6ed enforced disappearance of +ourdes and the ensuin6harass'ents alle6edl- co''itted a6ainst petitioners. 4he dis'issal of the petition !ith respect to the MB is alsoaffir'ed for failure of the petition to alle6e ulti'ate facts as to 'ae out a case a6ainst that bod- for the enforceddisappearance of +ourdes and the threats and harass'ent that follo!ed= and

)/* Directin6 the incu'bent Chief of Staff, A9P, or his successor, and the incu'bent Director23eneral of the PNP, or hissuccessor, to ensure that the investi6ations alread- co''enced b- their respective units on the alle6ed abduction of+ourdes Rubrico and the alle6ed harass'ents and threats she and her dau6hters !ere 'ade to endure are pursued !ithe@traordinar- dili6ence as re8uired b- Sec. $5"% of the A'paro Rule. 4he- shall order their subordinate officials, inparticular, to do the follo!in67

)a* Deter'ine based on records, past and present, the identities and locations of respondents Ma. Dar!in S-, a..aDar!in Re-es, i''- Santana, Ruben Alfaro, Capt. An6elo Cuares'a, and one onathan= and sub'it certifications of thisdeter'ination to the MB !ith cop- furnished to petitioners, the CA, and this Court=

)b* Pursue !ith e@traordinar- dili6ence the evidentiar- leads relatin6 to Ma. Dar!in S- and the 4o-ota Revo vehicle !ithPlate No. HRR "(1= and

)c* Prepare, !ith the assistance of petitioners and>or !itnesses, carto6raphic setches of respondents Ma. S->Re-es,i''- Santana, Ruben Alfaro, Capt. An6elo Cuares'a, and a certain onathan to aid in positivel- identif-in6 and locatin6the'.

4he investi6ations shall be co'pleted not later than si@ )J* 'onths fro' receipt of this Decision= and !ithin thirt- )/0* da-s

after co'pletion of the investi6ations, the Chief of Staff of the A9P and the Director23eneral of the PNP shall sub'it a fulreport of the results of the investi6ations to the Court, the CA, the MB, and petitioners.

4his case is accordin6l- referred bac to the CA for the purpose of 'onitorin6 the investi6ations and the actions of theA9P and the PNP.

Subect to the fore6oin6 'odifications, the Court A99IRMS the partial ud6'ent dated ul- /$, (001 of the CA.

S RDERED.

SPECIAL ISSUES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#fnt49

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

9/48

9

Foo#oe

SEC. $%.Appeal. An- part- 'a- appeal fro' the final ud6'ent or order to the Supre'e Court under Rule "#. 4he appeal 'a- raise 8uestions of factor la! or both. @ @ @

"Sec. #. Contents of the Petition.4he petition @ @ @ shall alle6e the follo!in67 @ @ @ d* 4he investi6ation conducted, if an-, specif-in6 the na'es andpersonal circu'stances and addresses of the investi6atin6 authorit- or individuals, as !ell as the 'anner and conduct of the investi6ation, to6ether !ithan- report= e* 4he actions and recourses taen b- the petitioner to deter'ine the fate or !hereabouts of the a66rieved part- and the identit- of theperson responsible for the threat, act or o'ission.

1Sec. $5. %eave of &ourt. An- application to the court under this Rule for leave to effect service in an- 'anner !hich leave of court is necessar- shallbe 'ade b- 'otion in !ritin6, supported b- an affidavit of the plaintiff or so'e person on his behalf, settin6 forth the 6rounds for the application.

4he atte'pt of the $%1J Constitutional Co''ission to incorporate said doctrine in the Bill of Ri6hts that !ould have obli6ed the State to co'pensatevicti's of abuses co''itted a6ainst the ri6ht to life b- 6overn'ent forces !as shot do!n, on the 6round that the proposal !ould violate a funda'entalprinciple of cri'inal liabilit- under the Penal Code upholdin6 the tenet nullu' cri'en, nulla poena sine le6e )there is no cri'e !hen there is no la!punishin6 it*. I Record of the $%1J Constitutional Co''ission, pp. 5#/2#".

($4he incorporation clause )Art. II, Sec. (* of the Constitution states that the Philippines adopts the 6enerall- accepted principles of international la! aspart of the la! of the land.

SPECIAL ISSUES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183871_2010.html#rnt21

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

10/48

10

G.R. NO. 183871 February 18, 2010

Rubr/-o 4. "rroyo

F"CTS

Rubrico, in her petition, said she !as abducted on April /, (005 b- ar'ed 'en belon6in6 to the /0$st Air Intelli6ence and Securit-

S8uadron, based at the Philippine Air 9orce 9ield Station at 9ernando Air Base in +ipa Cit-, Batan6as. Durin6 her detention, the

petitioner added, her dau6hters Mar- o- Rubrico Carbonel and ean Rubrico Apruebo !ere harassed b- Senior Insp. Arsenio 3o'e?

and that there !ere also ar'ed 'en follo!in6 the'. 4he petitioners pra-ed that a !rit of a'paro be issued, orderin6 the individual

respondents to desist fro' perfor'in6 an- threatenin6 act a6ainst the securit- of the petitioners and for the ffice of the 'buds'an

)MB* to i''ediatel- file an infor'ation for idnappin6 8ualified !ith the a66ravatin6 circu'stance of 6ender of the offended part-. I

also pra-ed for da'a6es and for respondents to produce docu'ents sub'itted to an- of the' on the case of +ourdes.

4he respondents then filed a oint return on the !rit specificall- den-in6 the 'aterial inculpator- aver'ents a6ainst the'. Respondents

interposed the defense that the President 'a- not be sued durin6 her incu'benc-.

Petitioners pleaded bac to be allo!ed to present evidence ex partea6ainst the President, et al.

B- a separate resolution, the CA dropped the President as respondent in the case .

SSUE

&E4ER R N4 the KCAL co''itted reversible error in dis'issin6 KtheirL Petition and droppin6 President 3loria Macapa6al Arro-o

as part- respondent.

'ELD

4he presidential i''unit- fro' suit re'ains preserved under our s-ste' of 6overn'ent, albeit not e@pressl- reserved in the presen

constitution. Addressin6 a concern of his co2'e'bers in the $%1J Constitutional Co''ission on the absence of an e@press provision

on the 'atter, 9r. oa8uin Bernas, S.. observed that it !as alread- understood in urisprudence that the President 'a- not be sued

durin6 his or her tenure.

Settled is the doctrine that the President, durin6 his tenure of office or actual incu'benc-, 'a- not be sued in an- civil or cri'inal case

and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or la!. It !ill de6rade the di6nit- of the hi6h office of the President, the ead of

State, if he can be dra66ed into court liti6ations !hile servin6 as such.

4he Court also affir'ed the dis'issal of the a'paro case a6ainst other respondents for failure of the petition to alle6e ulti'ate facts as

to 'ae out a case a6ainst that bod- for the enforced disappearance of +ourdes and the threats and harass'ent that follo!ed.

SPECIAL ISSUES

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

11/48

11

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECND DIOISIN

G.R. No. 191298 February 1, 2012

"RTEMO )LL"RE"L,Petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF T'E P'LPPNES,Respondent.

@ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 @

G.R. No. 19:;9:

PEOPLE OF T'E P'LPPNES,Petitioner,vs.

Te 'ONOR"BLE COURT OF "PPE"LS, "NTONO M"R"NO "LMED", D"LM"CO LM, !r., !UNEL "NT'ON%"M", ERNESTO !OSE MONTECLLO, )NCENT TECSON, "NTONO GENER"L, S"NT"GO R"N"D" , NELSON)CTORNO, !"ME M"R" FLORES , *OSMO MENDO*", MC'"EL MUSNG, )CENTE )ERD"DERO, ETENNEGUERRERO, !UDE FERN"NDE*, "M"NTE PURSM" , EULOGO S"BB"N, PERC)"L BRGOL", P"UL"NGELO S"NTOS, !ON"S

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

12/48

12

Ca'ali6an of San Beda Colle6e= 9elipe Narne of Pa'antasan n6 Araullo in Cabanatuan Cit-= Dennis Cenedo?a of theCavite Naval 4rainin6 Center= oselito Man66a of the Philippine Merchant Marine Institute= and oselito ernande? of the;niversit- of the Philippines in Ba6uio Cit-.J

Althou6h courts 'ust not re'ain indifferent to public senti'ents, in this case the 6eneral conde'nation of a ha?in62related death, the- are still bound to observe a funda'ental principle in our cri'inal ustice s-ste' KNLo act constitutesa cri'e unless it is 'ade so b- la!.5Nullu' cri'en, nulla poena sine le6e. Even if an act is vie!ed b- a lar6e sectionof the populace as i''oral or inurious, it cannot be considered a cri'e, absent an- la! prohibitin6 its co''ission. Asinterpreters of the la!, ud6es are called upon to set aside e'otion, to resist bein6 s!a-ed b- stron6 public senti'ents,and to rule strictl- based on the ele'ents of the offense and the facts allo!ed in evidence.

Before the Court are the consolidated cases doceted as 3.R. No. $#$(#1 )Oillareal v. People*, 3.R. No. $#"%#" )Peoplev. Court of Appeals*, 3.R. No. $##$0$ )Di?on v. People*, and 3.R. Nos. $510#5 and $51010 )Oilla v. Escalona*.

9acts

4he pertinent facts, as deter'ined b- the Court of Appeals )CA*1and the trial court,%are as follo!s7

In 9ebruar- $%%$, seven fresh'en la! students of the Ateneo de Manila ;niversit- School of +a! si6nified their intentionto oin the A8uila +e6is uris 9raternit- )A8uila 9raternit-*. 4he- !ere Caesar Bo6s Asuncion, Sa'uel Sa' Belle?a,Bienvenido Bien Mar8ue? III, Roberto 9rancis Bert Navera, 3eroni'o Rand- Recinto, 9eli@ S-, r., and +eonardo+enn- Oilla )neoph-tes*.

n the ni6ht of 1 9ebruar- $%%$, the neoph-tes !ere 'et b- so'e 'e'bers of the A8uila 9raternit- )A8uilans* at thelobb- of the Ateneo +a! School. 4he- all proceeded to Rufo

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

13/48

13

!as pronounced dead on arrival.

Conse8uentl-, a cri'inal case for ho'icide !as filed a6ainst the follo!in6 /# A8uilans7

In Cri'inal Case No. C2/1/"0)%$*

$. 9idelito Di?on )Di?on*

(. Arte'io Oillareal )Oillareal*

/. Efren de +eon )De +eon*

". Oincent 4ecson )4ecson*

#. unel Anthon- A'a )A'a*

J. Antonio Mariano Al'eda )Al'eda*

5. Renato Bantu6, r. )Bantu6*

1. Nelson Oictorino )Oictorino*

%. Eulo6io Sabban )Sabban*

$0. oseph +ledo )+ledo*

$$. Etienne 3uerrero )3uerrero*

$(. Michael Musn6i )Musn6i*

$/. onas arl Pere? )Pere?*

$". Paul An6elo Santos )Santos*

$#. Ronan de 3u?'an )De 3u?'an*

$J. Antonio 3eneral )3eneral*

$5. ai'e Maria 9lores II )9lores*

$1. Dal'acio +i', r. )+i'*

$%. Ernesto ose Montecillo )Montecillo*

(0. Santia6o Ranada III )Ranada*

($. osi'o Mendo?a )Mendo?a*

((. Oicente Oerdadero )Oerdadero*

(/. A'ante Purisi'a II )Purisi'a*

(". ude 9ernande? ). 9ernande?*

(#. Adel Abas )Abas*

(J. Percival Bri6ola )Bri6ola*

In Cri'inal Case No. C2/1/"0

SPECIAL ISSUES

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

14/48

14

$. Manuel Escalona II )Escalona*

(. Crisanto Saruca, r. )Saruca*

/. Ansel'o Adriano )Adriano*

". Marcus oel Ra'os )Ra'os*

#. Re-naldo Concepcion )Concepcion*

J. 9lorentino A'pil )A'pil*

5. Enrico de Oera III )De Oera*

1. Stanle- 9ernande? )S. 9ernande?*

%. Noel Caban6on )Caban6on*

4!ent-2si@ of the accused A8uilans in Cri'inal Case No. C2/1/"0)%$* !ere ointl- tried.$$n the other hand, the triaa6ainst the re'ainin6 nine accused in Cri'inal Case No. C2/1/"0 !as held in abe-ance due to certain 'atters that hadto be resolved first.$(

n 1 Nove'ber $%%/, the trial court rendered ud6'ent in Cri'inal Case No. C2/1/"0)%$*, holdin6 the (J accused 6uilt-be-ond reasonable doubt of the cri'e of ho'icide, penali?ed !ith reclusion te'poral under Article ("% of the RevisedPenal Code.$/A fe! !ees after the trial court rendered its ud6'ent, or on (% Nove'ber $%%/, Cri'inal Case No. C2/1/"0 a6ainst the re'ainin6 nine accused co''enced ane!.$"

n $0 anuar- (00(, the CA in )CA23.R. No. $##(0*$#set aside the findin6 of conspirac- b- the trial court in Cri'inaCase No. C2/1/"0)%$* and 'odified the cri'inal liabilit- of each of the accused accordin6 to individual participation

Accused De +eon had b- then passed a!a-, so the follo!in6 Decision applied onl- to the re'ainin6 (# accused, vi?7

$. Nineteen of the accused2appellants Oictorino, Sabban, +ledo, 3uerrero, Musn6i, Pere?, De 3u?'an, Santos3eneral, 9lores, +i', Montecillo, Ranada, Mendo?a, Oerdadero, Purisi'a, 9ernande?, Abas, and Bri6ola )Oictorino et al.

!ere ac8uitted, as their individual 6uilt !as not established b- proof be-ond reasonable doubt.

(. 9our of the accused2appellants Oincent 4ecson, unel Anthon- A'a, Antonio Mariano Al'eda, and Renato Bantu6, r)4ecson et al.* !ere found 6uilt- of the cri'e of sli6ht ph-sical inuries and sentenced to (0 da-s of arresto 'enor. 4he-!ere also ordered to ointl- pa- the heirs of the victi' the su' of P/0,000 as inde'nit-.

/. 4!o of the accused2appellants 9idelito Di?on and Arte'io Oillareal !ere found 6uilt- be-ond reasonable doubt othe cri'e of ho'icide under Article ("% of the Revised Penal Code. avin6 found no 'iti6atin6 or a66ravatin6circu'stance, the CA sentenced the' to an indeter'inate sentence of $0 -ears of prision 'a-or to $5 -ears of reclusionte'poral. 4he- !ere also ordered to inde'nif-, ointl- and severall-, the heirs of +enn- Oilla in the su' of P #0,000 and topa- the additional a'ount of P $,000,000 b- !a- of 'oral da'a6es.

n # Au6ust (00(, the trial court in Cri'inal Case No. /1/"0 dis'issed the char6e a6ainst accused Concepcion on the6round of violation of his ri6ht to speed- trial.$JMean!hile, on different dates bet!een the -ears (00/ and (00#, the triacourt denied the respective Motions to Dis'iss of accused Escalona, Ra'os, Saruca, and Adriano. $5n (# ctobe(00J, the CA in CA23.R. SP Nos. 1%0J0 Q %0$#/ $1 reversed the trial court

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

15/48

15

Au6ust (0$$. Accordin6 to the Notice, petitioner Oillareal died on $/ March (0$$. Counsel thus asserts that the subect'atter of the Petition previousl- filed b- petitioner does not survive the death of the accused.

3.R. No. $##$0$ Di?on v. People

Accused Di?on filed a Rule "# Petition for Revie! on Certiorari, 8uestionin6 the CA

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

16/48

16

ctober (00J and Resolution dated $5 Ma- (005 in CA23.R. S.P. Nos. 1%0J0 and %0$#/. /04he Petition involves thedis'issal of the cri'inal char6e filed a6ainst Escalona, Ra'os, Saruca, and Adriano.

Due to several pendin6 incidents, the trial court ordered a separate trial for accused Escalona, Saruca, Adriano, Ra'osA'pil, Concepcion, De Oera, S. 9ernande?, and Caban6on )Cri'inal Case No. C2/1/"0* to co''ence after proceedin6sa6ainst the (J other accused in Cri'inal Case No. C2/1/"0)%$* shall have ter'inated. n 1 Nove'ber $%%/, the triacourt found the (J accused 6uilt- be-ond reasonable doubt. As a result, the proceedin6s in Cri'inal Case No. C2/1/"0involvin6 the nine other co2accused reco''enced on (% Nove'ber $%%/. 9or various reasons, the initial trial of thecase did not co''ence until (1 March (00#, or al'ost $( -ears after the arrai6n'ent of the nine accused.

Petitioner Oilla assails the CA

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

17/48

17

o!ever, on $% Au6ust $%%/, counsel for another accused 'anifested in open court that his client Antonio 3eneral !ould no lon6er present separate evidence. Instead, the counsel !ould adopt the testi'onial evidence of the otheraccused !ho had alread- testified./5Because of this develop'ent and pursuant to the trial court

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

18/48

18

have done !as to forfeit one out of the five da-s set for Di?on

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

19/48

19

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

&hile !e are prepared to concede that so'e of the fore6oin6 factors that contributed to the dela- of the trial of thepetitioners are ustifiable, &e nonetheless hold that their ri6ht to speed- trial has been utterl- violated in this case @ @ @.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

K4Lhe absence of the records in the trial court K!asL due to the fact that the records of the case !ere elevated to the Courtof Appeals, and the prosecution

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

20/48

20

Rule $$5, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, !hich i'ple'ents this particular constitutional ri6ht, provides as follo!s75/

SEC. 5. 'ormer conviction or ac$uittal( double )eopardy. &hen an accused has been convicted or ac8uitted, or thecase a6ainst hi' dis'issed or other!ise ter'inated !ithout his e@press consent b- a court of co'petent urisdiction,upon a valid co'plaint or infor'ation or other for'al char6e sufficient in for' and substance to sustain a conviction andafter the accused had pleaded to the char6e, the conviction or ac8uittal of the accused or the dis'issal of the case shallbe a bar to another prosecution for the offense char6ed, or for an- atte'pt to co''it the sa'e or frustration thereof, or foan- offense !hich necessaril- includes or is necessaril- included in the offense char6ed in the for'er co'plaint orinfor'ation.

4he rule on double eopard- thus prohibits the state fro' appealin6 the ud6'ent in order to reverse the ac8uittal or toincrease the penalt- i'posed either throu6h a re6ular appeal under Rule "$ of the Rules of Court or throu6h an appeal b-certiorari on pure 8uestions of la! under Rule "# of the sa'e Rules.5"4he re8uisites for invoin6 double eopard- are thefollo!in67 )a* there is a valid co'plaint or infor'ation= )b* it is f iled before a co'petent court= )c* the defendant pleaded tothe char6e= and )d* the defendant !as ac8uitted or convicted, or the case a6ainst hi' or her !as dis'issed or other!iseter'inated !ithout the defendant

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

21/48

21

i'position of a hi6her penalt- a6ainst the accused.%$&e have also reco6ni?ed, ho!ever, that certiorari 'a- be used tocorrect an abusive ud6'ent upon a clear de'onstration that the lo!er court blatantl- abused its authorit- to a point so6rave as to deprive it of its ver- po!er to dispense ustice.%(4he present case is one of those instances of 6rave abuse ofdiscretion.

In i'posin6 the penalt- of sli6ht ph-sical inuries on 4ecson, A'a, Al'eda, and Bantu6, the CA reasoned thus7

Based on the 'edical findin6s, it !ould appear that !ith the e@clusion of the fatal !ounds inflicted b- the accused Di?onand Oillareal, the inuries sustained b- the victi' as a result of the ph-sical punish'ent heaped on hi' !ere serious innature. o!ever, b- reason of the death of the victi', there can be no precise 'eans to deter'ine the duration of theincapacit- or the 'edical attendance re8uired. 4o do so, at this sta6e !ould be 'erel- speculative. In a prosecution forthis cri'e !here the cate6or- of the offense and the severit- of the penalt- depend on the period of illness or incapacit-for labor, the len6th of this period 'ust lie!ise be proved be-ond reasonable doubt in 'uch the sa'e 'anner as thesa'e act char6ed KPeople v. Codilla, CA23.R. No. "05%2R, une (J, $%#0L. And !hen proof of the said period is absent,the cri'e co''itted should be dee'ed onl- as sli6ht ph-sical inuries KPeople v. De los Santos, CA, #% .3. "/%/, citin6People v. Penesa, 1$ Phil. /%1L. As such, this Court is constrained to rule that the inuries inflicted b- the appellants,4ecson, A'a, Al'eda and Bantu6, r., are onl- sli6ht and not serious, in nature. %/ )E'phasis supplied and citationsincluded*

4he appellate court relied on our rulin6 in People v. Penesa%"in findin6 that the four accused should be held 6uilt- onl- osli6ht ph-sical inuries. Accordin6 to the CA, because of the death of the victi', there can be no precise 'eans todeter'ine the duration of the incapacit- or 'edical attendance re8uired. %#4he reliance on Penesa !as utterl- 'isplaced

A revie! of that case !ould reveal that the accused therein !as 6uilt- 'erel- of sli6ht ph-sical inuries, because the

victi'

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

22/48

22

rulin6 a6ainst the accused, the court a 8uo found that pursuant to Article ")$* of the Revised Penal Code, the accusedfraternit- 'e'bers !ere 6uilt- of ho'icide, as it !as the direct, natural and lo6ical conse8uence of the ph-sical inuriesthe- had intentionall- inflicted.$0"

4he CA 'odified the trial courtor proceedin6fro' an evil heart or purpose.$((&ith these ele'ents taen to6ether, the re8uire'ent of intent in intentional felon- 'ustrefer to 'alicious intent, !hich is a vicious and 'alevolent state of 'ind acco'pan-in6 a forbidden act. Stated other!iseintentional felon- re8uires the e@istence of dolus 'alus that the act or o'ission be done !illfull-, 'aliciousl-, !ithdeliberate evil intent, and !ith 'alice aforethou6ht.$(/4he 'a@i' is actus non facit reu', nisi 'ens sit rea a cri'e isnot co''itted if the 'ind of the person perfor'in6 the act co'plained of is innocent. $("As is re8uired of the otheele'ents of a felon-, the e@istence of 'alicious intent 'ust be proven be-ond reasonable doubt.$(#

In turn, the e@istence of 'alicious intent is necessar- in order for conspirac- to attach. Article 1 of the Revised Penal Code !hich provides that conspirac- e@ists !hen t!o or 'ore persons co'e to an a6ree'ent concernin6 the co''ission o

a felon- and decide to co''it it is to be interpreted to refer onl- to felonies co''itted b- 'eans of dolo or 'alice. 4hephrase co'in6 to an a6ree'ent connotes the e@istence of a prefaced intent to cause inur- to another, an ele'entpresent onl- in intentional felonies. In culpable felonies or cri'inal ne6li6ence, the inur- inflicted on another isunintentional, the !ron6 done bein6 si'pl- the result of an act perfor'ed !ithout 'alice or cri'inal desi6n. $(Jere, aperson perfor's an initial la!ful deed= ho!ever, due to ne6li6ence, i'prudence, lac of foresi6ht, or lac of sill, the deedresults in a !ron6ful act.$(5 Oeril-, a deliberate intent to do an unla!ful act, !hich is a re8uisite in conspirac-, isinconsistent !ith the idea of a felon- co''itted b- 'eans of culpa.$(1

4he presence of an initial 'alicious intent to co''it a felon- is thus a vital in6redient in establishin6 the co''ission ofthe intentional felon- of ho'icide.$(%Bein6 'ala in se, the felon- of ho'icide re8uires the e@istence of 'alice or dolo $/

i''ediatel- before or si'ultaneousl- !ith the infliction of inuries.$/$ Intent to ill or ani'us interficendi cannot andshould not be inferred, unless there is proof be-ond reasonable doubt of such intent. $/(9urther'ore, the victi'

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

23/48

23

'ust not have been the product of accident, natural cause, or suicide. $//If death resulted fro' an act e@ecuted !ithou'alice or cri'inal intent but !ith lac of foresi6ht, carelessness, or ne6li6ence the act 'ust be 8ualified as recless osi'ple ne6li6ence or i'prudence resultin6 in ho'icide.$/"

a?in6 and other for's of initiation rites

4he notion of ha?in6 is not a recent develop'ent in our societ-. $/#It is said that, throu6hout histor-, ha?in6 in so'e for'or another has been associated !ith or6ani?ations ran6in6 fro' 'ilitar- 6roups to indi6enous tribes. $/JSo'e sa- thaele'ents of ha?in6 can be traced bac to the Middle A6es, durin6 !hich ne! students !ho enrolled in Europeanuniversities !ored as servants for upperclass'en. $/5 It is believed that the concept of ha?in6 is rooted in ancient3reece,$/1!here -oun6 'en recruited into the 'ilitar- !ere tested !ith pain or challen6ed to de'onstrate the li'its oftheir lo-alt- and to prepare the recruits for battle. $/%Modern fraternities and sororities espouse so'e connection to thesevalues of ancient 3ree civili?ation.$"0Accordin6 to a scholar, this concept lends historical le6iti'ac- to a tradition orritual !hereb- prospective 'e'bers are ased to prove their !orthiness and lo-alt- to the or6ani?ation in !hich the-see to attain 'e'bership throu6h ha?in6.$"$

4hus, it is said that in the 3ree fraternit- s-ste', custo' re8uires a student !ishin6 to oin an or6ani?ation to receive aninvitation in order to be a neoph-te for a particular chapter.$"(4he neoph-te period is usuall- one to t!o se'esters lon6. $"

Durin6 the pro6ra', neoph-tes are re8uired to intervie! and to 6et to no! the active 'e'bers of the chapter= to learnchapter histor-= to understand the principles of the or6ani?ation= to 'aintain a specified 6rade point avera6e= to participatein the or6ani?ationero#> baa5 a 6/#>/A a#$ o e#$ure a Aaa5a #a 6u#ya5.A $##" a /#ae6 /# e r/ua5, e #eo6ye # eber/6 6a6er ?/ e / o?# b5oo$. $#J

It is believed that the 3ree fraternit- s-ste' !as transported b- the A'ericans to the Philippines in the late $%th centur-As can be seen in the follo!in6 instances, the 'anner of ha?in6 in the ;nited States !as arrin6l- si'ilar to that inflictedb- the A8uila 9raternit- on +enn- Oilla.

Earl- in $1J#, upperclass'en at &est Point Acade'- forced the fourth class'en to do e@haustin6 ph-sical e@ercises thatso'eti'es resulted in per'anent ph-sical da'a6e= to eat or drin unpalatable foods= and in various !a-s to hu'iliatethe'selves.$#5 In $%0$, 3eneral Dou6las MacArthur 6ot involved in a con6ressional investi6ation of ha?in6 at the

acade'- durin6 his second -ear at &est Point.$#1

In Easler v. ea? 4e'ple of 3reenville, decided in $%1#, the candidate2victi' !as inured durin6 the shriner

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

24/48

24

In State v. Allen, decided in $%%#, the Southeast Missouri State ;niversit- chapter of appa Alpha Psi invited 'alestudents to enter into a pled6eship pro6ra'.$J#4he fraternit- 'e'bers subected the pled6es to repeated ph-sical abuseincludin6 repeated, open2hand stries at the nape, the chest, and the bac= canin6 of the bare soles of the feet andbuttocs= blo!s to the bac !ith the use of a heav- boo and a cooie sheet !hile the pled6es !ere on their hands andnees= various ics and punches to the bod-= and bod- sla''in6, an activit- in !hich active 'e'bers of the fraternit-lifted pled6es up in the air and dropped the' to the 6round. $JJ4he fraternit- 'e'bers then put the pled6es throu6h aseven2station circle of ph-sical abuse.$J5

In E@ Parte Barran, decided in $%%1, the pled6e2victi' !ent throu6h ha?in6 b- fraternit- 'e'bers of the appa Alpharder at the Auburn ;niversit- in Alaba'a.$J14he ha?in6 included the follo!in67 )$* havin6 to di6 a ditch and u'p into itafter it had been filled !ith !ater, urine, feces, dinner leftovers, and vo'it= )(* receivin6 paddlin6s on the buttocs= )/*bein6 pushed and iced, often onto !alls or into pits and trash cans= )"* eatin6 foods lie peppers, hot sauce, butter, and-ers )a 'i@ture of hot sauce, 'a-onnaise, butter, beans, and other ite's*= )#* doin6 chores for the fraternit- and its'e'bers, such as cleanin6 the fraternit- house and -ard, bein6 desi6nated as driver, and runnin6 errands= )J* appearin6re6ularl- at ( a.'. 'eetin6s, durin6 !hich the pled6es !ould be ha?ed for a couple of hours= and )5* runnin6 the6auntlet, durin6 !hich the pled6es !ere pushed, iced, and hit as the- ran do!n a hall!a- and descended do!n a fli6hof stairs.$J%

In +lo-d v. Alpha Phi Alpha 9raternit-, decided in $%%%, the victi' S-lvester +lo-d !as accepted to pled6e at theCornell ;niversit- chapter of the Alpha Phi Alpha 9raternit-.$50e participated in initiation activities, !hich included variousfor's of ph-sical beatin6s and torture, ps-cholo6ical coercion and e'barrass'ent.$5$

In enner v. appa Alpha Psi 9raternit-, decided in (00(, the initiate2victi' suffered inuries fro' ha?in6 activities durin6

the fraternit-or cri'inali?in6

ha?in6.$1J

As of (001, all but si@ states had enacted cri'inal or civil statutes proscribin6 ha?in6.$15

Most anti2ha?in6 la!s inthe ;.S. treat ha?in6 as a 'isde'eanor and carr- relativel- li6ht conse8uences for even the 'ost severe situations. $1

nl- a fe! states !ith anti2ha?in6 la!s consider ha?in6 as a felon- in case death or 6reat bodil- har' occurs.$1%

;nder the la!s of Illinois, ha?in6 is a Class A 'isde'eanor, e@cept ha?in6 that results in death or 6reat bodil- har',!hich is a Class " felon-.$%0In a Class " felon-, a sentence of i'prison'ent shall be for a ter' of not less than one -earand not 'ore than three -ears.$%$Indiana cri'inal la! provides that a person !ho reclessl-, no!in6l-, or intentionall-perfor's ha?in6 that results in serious bodil- inur- to a person co''its cri'inal reclessness, a Class D felon-.$%(

4he offense beco'es a Class C felon- if co''itted b- 'eans of a deadl- !eapon.$%/As an ele'ent of a Class C felon- cri'inal reclessness resultin6 in serious bodil- inur-, death falls under the cate6or- of serious bodil- inur-.$%"Aperson !ho co''its a Class C felon- is i'prisoned for a fi@ed ter' of bet!een t!o )(* and ei6ht )1* -ears, !ith the

SPECIAL ISSUES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt165http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt166http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt167http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt168http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt168http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt169http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt170http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt170http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt170http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt171http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt172http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt172http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt173http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt174http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt174http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt174http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt175http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt176http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt177http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt177http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt178http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt179http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt180http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt181http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt182http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt183http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt183http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt184http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt185http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt186http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt187http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt187http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt188http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt189http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt190http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt190http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt191http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt192http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt192http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt193http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt194http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt194http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt165http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt166http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt167http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt168http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt169http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt170http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt171http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt172http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt173http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt174http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt175http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt176http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt177http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt178http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt179http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt180http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt181http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt182http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt183http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt184http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt185http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt186http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt187http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt188http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt189http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt190http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt191http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt192http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt193http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt194

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

25/48

25

advisor- sentence bein6 four )"* -ears.$%#Pursuant to Missouri la!, ha?in6 is a Class A 'isde'eanor, unless the actcreates a substantial ris to the life of the student or prospective 'e'ber, in !hich case it beco'es a Class C felon-.$%JAClass C felon- provides for an i'prison'ent ter' not to e@ceed seven -ears.$%5

In 4e@as, ha?in6 that causes the death of another is a state ail felon-.$%1An individual adud6ed 6uilt- of a state ail felon-is punished b- confine'ent in a state ail for an- ter' of not 'ore than t!o -ears or not less than $10 da-s.$%%;nder ;tahla!, if ha?in6 results in serious bodil- inur-, the ha?er is 6uilt- of a third2de6ree felon-. (00A person !ho has beenconvicted of a third2de6ree felon- 'a- be sentenced to i'prison'ent for a ter' not to e@ceed five -ears. (0$&est Oir6iniala! provides that if the act of ha?in6 !ould other!ise be dee'ed a felon-, the ha?er 'a- be found 6uilt- thereof andsubect to penalties provided therefor.(0(In &isconsin, a person is 6uilt- of a Class 3 felon- if ha?in6 results in the deathof another.(0/A Class 3 felon- carries a fine not to e@ceed T(#,000 or i'prison'ent not to e@ceed $0 -ears, or both. (0"

In certain states in the ;.S., victi's of ha?in6 !ere left !ith li'ited re'edies, as there !as no ha?in6 statute. (0#4hissituation !as e@e'plified in Ballou v. Si6'a Nu 3eneral 9raternit-, !herein Barr- Ballou

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

26/48

26

outside pound the van, roc the van, sir.

Att-. 4adiar &ill -ou please recall in !hat tone of voice and ho! stron6 a voice these re'ars uttered upon -our arrivalU

&itness So'e !ere al'ost shoutin6, -ou could feel the sense of e@cite'ent in their voices, sir.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Att-. 4adiar Durin6 all these ti'es that the van !as bein6 roced throu6h and throu6h, !hat !ere the voices or utterances

that -ou heardU

&itness Oilla ain a, Asuncion pata- a, Recinto pata- a sa a'in, etc., sir.

Att-. 4adiar And those utterances and threats, ho! lon6 did the- continue durin6 the rocin6 of the van !hich lasted for #'inutesU

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

&itness Even after the- roced the van, !e still ept on hearin6 voices, sir.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Att-. 4adiar Durin6 the ti'e that this rounds Kof ph-sical beatin6L !ere bein6 inflicted, !as there an- utterances b-an-bod-U

&itness Ges sir. So'e !ere piercin6, so'e !ere discoura6in6, and so'e !ere encoura6in6 others !ho !ere poundin6and beatin6 us, it !as ust lie a fiesta at'osphere, actuall- so'e of the' eno-ed looin6 us bein6 pounded, sir.

Att-. 4adiar Do -ou recall !hat !ere those voices that -ou heardU

&itness ne particular utterance al!a-s said !as, the- ased us !hether 'ati6as pa -an, a-an62a-a pa ni-an.

Att-. 4adiar Do -ou no! !ho in particular uttered those particular !ords that -ou 8uoteU

&itness I cannot particularl- point to because there !ere utterances si'ultaneousl-, I could not reall- pin point !houttered those !ords, sir.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Att-. 4adiar &ere there an- utterances that -ou heard durin6 the conduct of this Bicol E@pressU

&itness Ges, sir I heard utterances.

Att-. 4adiar &ill -ou please recall to this onorable Court !hat !ere the utterances that -ou re'e'berU

&itness 9or e@a'ple, one person particularl- Bo-et Di?on stepped on '- thi6h, he !ould sa- that and I 8uote ito, -un6pa'il-a nito a- pinapata- -un6 apatid o, so that !ould in turn sort of ustif-in6 hi' in inflictin6 'ore serious pain on'e. So instead of ust !alin6, he !ould u'p on '- thi6hs and then after on !as +enn- Oilla. e !as sa-in6 to the effecthat this 6u-, his father stole the parin6 space of '- father, sir. So, thatstate'ents so that it !ould

SPECIAL ISSUES

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

27/48

27

in turn ustif- hi' and to 6ive 'e harder blo!s, sir.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Att-. 4adiar Gou 'entioned about Di?on in particular 'entionin6 that +enn- Oilla

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

28/48

28

&itness Mr. Michael Musn6i, sir and Nelson Oictorino.

ud6e Purisi'a &ill -ou indl- tell the onorable Court !hat the- told -ou to e@pect durin6 the initiationU

&itness 4he- told us at the ti'e !e !ould be brou6ht to a particular place, !e !ould be 'oced at, sir.

ud6e Purisi'a So, -ou e@pected to be 'oced at, ridiculed, hu'iliated etc., and the liesU

&itness Ges, sir.

ud6e Purisi'a Gou !ere also told beforehand that there !ould be ph-sical contactU

&itness Ges, sir at the briefin6.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

&itness Ges, sir, because the- infor'ed that !e could i''ediatel- 6o bac to school. All the bruises !ould be li'ited toour ar's and le6s, sir. So, if !e !ear the re6ular school unifor's lie lon6 sleeves, it !ould be covered actuall- so !ehave no thinin6 that our face !ould be slapped, sir.

ud6e Purisi'a So, -ou 'ean to sa- that beforehand that -ou !ould have bruises on -our bod- but that !ill be coveredU

&itness Ges, sir.

ud6ePurisi'a So, !hat ind of ph-sical contact or i'ple'ents that -ou e@pect that !ould create bruises to -our bod-U

&itness At that point I a' alread- sure that there !ould be hittin6 b- a paddlin6 or paddle, sir.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

ud6e Purisi'a No!, !ill -ou ad'it Mr. Mar8ue? that 'uch of the initiation procedures is ps-cholo6ical in natureU

&itness Co'bination, sir.($$)E'phasis supplied*

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Att-. i'ene? 4he initiation that !as conducted did not consist onl- of ph-sical initiation, 'eanin6 bod- contact, is thacorrectU

&itness Ges, sir.

Att-. i'ene? Part of the initiation !as the so2called ps-cholo6ical initiation, correctU

&itness Ges, sir.

Att-. i'ene? And this consisted of 'ain6 -ou believe of thin6s calculated to terrif- -ou, scare -ou, correctU

&itness Ges, sir.

Att-. i'ene? In other !ords, the initiatin6 'asters 'ade belief situation intended to, I repeat, terrif- -ou, fri6hten -ou,scare -ou into perhaps 8uittin6 the initiation, is this correctU

&itness So'eti'es sir, -es.

Att-. i'ene? Gou said on direct that !hile Mr. Di?on !as initiatin6 -ou, he said or he !as supposed to have saidaccordin6 to -ou that -our fa'il- !ere responsible for the illin6 of his brother !ho !as an NPA, do -ou re'e'ber sa-in6thatU

&itness Ges, sir.

SPECIAL ISSUES

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt211http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_151258_2012.html#fnt211

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

29/48

29

Att-. i'ene? Gou also said in connection !ith that state'ent said to -ou b- Di?on that -ou did not believe hi' becausethat is not true, correctU

&itness Ges, sir.

Att-. i'ene? In other !ords, he !as onl- ps-cholo6i?in6 -ou perhaps, the purpose as I have 'entioned before, terrif-in6-ou, scarin6 -ou or fri6htenin6 -ou into 8uittin6 the initiation, this is correctU

&itness No, sir, perhaps it is one but the 'ain reason, I thin, !h- he !as sa-in6 those thin6s !as because he !anted toinflict inur-.

Att-. i'ene? e did not tell that to -ou. 4hat is -our onl- perception, correctU

&itness No, sir, because at one point, !hile he !as tellin6 this to Oillareal, he !as hittin6 'e.

Att-. i'ene? But did -ou not sa- earlier that -ou K!ereL subected to the sa'e for's of initiation b- all the initiatin6'astersU Gou said that earlier, ri6htU

&itness Ges, sir.

Att-. i'ene? Are -ou sa-in6 also that the others !ho u'ped on -ou or iced -ou said so'ethin6 si'ilar as !as told to-ou b- Mr. Di?onU

&itness No, sir.

Att-. i'ene? But the fact re'ains that in the Bicol E@press for instance, the 'asters !ould run on -our thi6hs, ri6htU

&itness Ges, sir.

Att-. i'ene? 4his !as the re6ular procedure that !as follo!ed b- the initiatin6 'asters not onl- on -ou but also on theother neoph-tesU

&itness Ges, sir.

Att-. i'ene? In other !ords, it is fair to sa- that !hatever for's of initiation !as ad'inistered b- one 'aster, !as alsoad'inistered b- one 'aster on a neoph-te, !as also ad'inistered b- another 'aster on the other neoph-te, this iscorrectU

&itness Ges, sir.($()E'phasis supplied*

Accordin6 to the Solicitor 3eneral hi'self, the ill 'otives attributed b- the CA to Di?on and Oillareal !ere baseless, ($

since the state'ents of the accused !ere ust part of the ps-cholo6ical initiation calculated to instill fear on the part of theneoph-tes= that KtLhere is no ele'ent of truth in it as testified b- Bienvenido Mar8ue?= and that the harsh !ords utteredb- Petitioner and Oillareal are part of Vtradition< concurred and accepted b- all the fraternit- 'e'bers durin6 their initiationrites.($"

&e a6ree !ith the Solicitor 3eneral.

4he fore6oin6 testi'on- of !itness Mar8ue? reveals a 6larin6 'istae of substantial proportion on the part of the CA it

'istoo the utterances of Di?on for those of Oillareal. Such inaccurac- cannot be tolerated, especiall- because it !as theCA

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

30/48

30

briefed that the- !ould be subected to ps-cholo6ical pressure in order to scare the'. 4he- ne! that the- !ould be'oced, ridiculed, and inti'idated. 4he- heard fraternit- 'e'bers shout, Pata- a, Recinto, Gari a, Recinto, Oilla,ain a, Asuncion, 6ulpi a, Putan6 ina 'o, Asuncion, Putan6 ina n-o, pata- a-o sa a'in, or so'e other !ords tothat effect.($#&hile beatin6 the neoph-tes, Di?on accused Mar8ue? of the death of the for'er

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

31/48

31

4hus, !e have ruled in a nu'ber of instances (("that the 'ere infliction of ph-sical inuries, absent 'alicious intent, doesnot 'ae a person auto'aticall- liable for an intentional felon-. In Ba6ao v. People, ((# the accused teacher, usin6 aba'boo stic, !hipped one of her students behind her le6s and thi6hs as a for' of discipline. 4he student sufferedlesions and bruises fro' the corporal punish'ent. In reversin6 the trial court

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

32/48

32

icin6, paddlin6, and other 'odes of inflictin6 ph-sical pain !ere done voluntaril-, freel-, and !ith intelli6ence, thereb-satisf-in6 the ele'ents of freedo' and intelli6ence in the felon- of ph-sical inuries, the funda'ental in6redient of cri'inaintent !as not proven be-ond reasonable doubt. n the contrar-, all that !as proven !as that the acts !ere donepursuant to tradition. Althou6h the additional rounds on the second ni6ht !ere held upon the insistence of Oillareal andDi?on, the initiations !ere officiall- reopened !ith the consent of the head of the initiation rites= and the accused fraternit-'e'bers still participated in the rituals, includin6 the paddlin6, !hich !ere perfor'ed pursuant to tradition. ther than thepaddle, no other !eapon !as used to inflict inuries on +enn-. 4he tar6eted bod- parts !ere predo'inantl- the le6s andthe ar's. 4he desi6nation of roles, includin6 the role of au@iliaries, !hich !ere assi6ned for the specific purpose oflendin6 assistance to and tain6 care of the neoph-tes durin6 the initiation rites, further belied the presence of 'aliciousintent. All those !ho !ished to oin the fraternit- !ent throu6h the sa'e process of traditional initiation= there is no proofthat +enn- Oilla !as specificall- tar6eted or 6iven a different treat'ent. &e stress that Con6ress itself reco6ni?ed thatha?in6 is uni8uel- different fro' co''on cri'es.(/# 4he totalit- of the circu'stances 'ust therefore be taen intoconsideration.

4he underl-in6 conte@t and 'otive in !hich the infliction of ph-sical inuries !as rooted 'a- also be deter'ined b-+enn-

7/23/2019 Module-3-and-4

33/48

33

Mr. President. &hereas, in these specific cri'es, Mr. President, let us sa- there is death or there is ho'icide, 'utilation, ione files a case, then the intention to co''it a !ron6 has to be proven. But if the cri'e of ha?in6 is the basis, !hat isi'portant is the result fro' the act of ha?in6.

4o 'e, that is the basic difference and that is !hat !ill prevent or deter the sororities or fraternities= that the- should reall-shun this activit- called ha?in6. Because, initiall-, these fraternities or sororities do not even consider havin6 a neoph-teilled or 'ai'ed or that acts of lasciviousness are even co''itted initiall-, Mr. President.

So, !hat !e !ant to discoura6e is the so2called initial innocent act. 4hat is !h- there is need to institute this ind oha?in6. 3ani-an po an6 nan6-ari. An6 fraternit- o an6 sororit- a- 'a6re2recruit. &ala tala6a silan6 intensi-on6'aa'ata-. indi o na baban66itin at buha- pa i-on6 aso. Pero dito sa ani' o pito na na'ata- niton6 naaraan6 taon!alan6 intensi-on6 pata-in tala6a i-on6 neoph-te. So, un6 'a6hihinta- pa ta-o, na saa la'an6 natin isasadal n6'urder un6 na'ata- na, a- after the fact ho i-on. Pero, un6 sasabihin natin sa '6a abataan na7 u!a6 nin-on66a6a!in i-on6 ha?in6. I-an a- asalanan at un6 'a'ata- di-an, 'ataas an6 penalt- sa in-o.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Senator 3uin6ona. I oin the loft- 'otives, Mr. President, of the distin6uished Sponsor. But I a' a6ain disturbed b- hisstate'ent that the prosecution does not have to prove the intent that resulted in the death, that resulted in the seriousph-sical inuries, that resulted in the acts of lasciviousness or deran6ed 'ind. &e do not have to prove the !illful intent ofthe accused in provin6 or establishin6 the cri'e of ha?in6. 4his see's, to 'e, a novel situation !here !e create thespecial cri'e !ithout havin6 to 6o into the intent, !hich is one of the basic ele'ents of an- cri'e.

If there is no intent, there is no cri'e. If the intent !ere 'erel- to initiate, then there is no offense. And even thedistin6uished Sponsor ad'its that the or6ani?ation, the intent to initiate, the intent to have a ne! societ- or a ne! club is,per se, not punishable at all. &hat are punishable are the acts that lead to the result. But if these results are not 6oin6 tobe proven b- intent, but ust because there !as ha?in6, I a' afraid that it !ill disturb the basic concepts of the RevisedPenal Code, Mr. President.

Senator +ina. Mr. President, the act of ha?in6, precisel-, is bein6 cri'inali?ed because in the conte@t of !hat is happenin6in the sororities and fraternities, !hen the- conduct ha?in6, no one !ill ad'it that their intention is to 'ai' or to ill. So,!e are alread- cri'inali?in6 the fact of inflictin6 ph-sical pain. Mr. President, it is a cri'inal act and !e !ant it stoppeddeterred, discoura6ed.

If that occurs, under this la!, there is no necessit- to prove that the 'asters intended to ill or the 'asters intended to'ai'. &hat is i'portant is the result of the act of ha?in6. ther!ise, the 'asters or those !ho inflict the ph-sical pain can

easil- escape responsibilit- and sa-, &e did not have the intention to ill. 4his is part of our initiation rites. 4his is nor'al&e do not have an- intention to ill or 'ai'.

4his is the lusot, Mr. President. 4he- 'i6ht as !ell have been char6ed therefore !ith the ordinar- cri'e of ho'icide,'utilation, et cetera, !here the prosecution !ill have a difficult- provin6 the ele'ents if the- are separate offenses.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Senator 3uin6ona. Mr. President, assu'in6 there !as a 6roup that initiated and a person died. 4he char6e is 'urder. M-8uestion is7 ;nder this bill if it beco'es a la!, !ould the prosecution have to prove conspirac- or not an-'oreU

Senator +ina. Mr. President, if the person is present durin6 ha?in6 @ @ @

Senator 3uin6ona. 4he persons are present. 9irst, !ould the prosecution have to prove conspirac-U Second, !ould theprosecution have to prove intent to ill or notU

Senator +ina. No 'ore. As to the second 8uestion, Mr. President, if that occurs, there is no need to prove intent to ill.

Senator 3uin6ona. But the char6e is 'urder.

Senator +ina. 4hat is !h- I said that it should not be 'urder. It should be ha?in6