RULE 102 - Writ of Amparo

8/19/2019 RULE 102 - Writ of Amparo

1/137

RULE 102 – WRIT OF AMPARO

[G.R. No. 139789. May 12, 2000]

ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA I. BILDNER and SL!IA

K. ILUSORIO, "O#N DOE and "ANE DOE, respondents. Mesm

[G.R. No. 139808. May 12, 2000]

$O%EN&IANO ILUSORIO, MA. ERLINDA I. BILDNER, and SL!IA

ILUSORIO, petitioners, vs. &OUR% O' A$$EALS and ERLINDA K.

ILUSORIO, respondents.

D E & I S I O N

$ARDO, J .(

May a wife secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with

her in conjugal bliss? The answer is no. Marital rights including coverture and

living in conjugal dwelling may not be enforced by the extra-ordinary writ

of habeas corpus.

A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or

detention,!"

or by which the rightful custody of a person is withheld from theone entitled thereto.#" $lx

"Habeas corpus is a writ directed to the person detaining another,

commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and

place, with the day and cause of his capture and detention, to do, submit to,

and receive whatsoever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in

that behalf.%&"

't is a high prerogative, common-law writ, of ancient origin, the great object ofwhich is the liberation of those who may be imprisoned without sufficient

cause.(" 't is issued when one is deprived of liberty or is wrongfully prevented

from exercising legal custody over another person.)"

The petition of *rlinda +. 'lusorio" is to reverse the decision" of the ourt of

Appeals and its resolution/" dismissing the application for habeas corpus to

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn1


2/137

have the custody of her husband, lawyer 0otenciano 'lusorio and enforce

consortium as the wife.

1n the other hand, the petition of 0otenciano 'lusorio2" is to annul that portion

of the decision of the ourt of Appeals giving *rlinda +. 'lusorio visitationrights to her husband and to enjoin *rlinda and the ourt of Appeals from

enforcing the visitation rights.

The undisputed facts are as follows3 $cslx

*rlinda +alaw 'lusorio is the wife of lawyer 0otenciano 'lusorio.

0otenciano 'lusorio is about / years of age possessed of extensive property

valued at millions of pesos. 4or many years, lawyer 0otenciano 'lusorio was

hairman of the 5oard and 0resident of 5aguio ountry lub.

1n 6uly !!, !2(#, *rlinda +alaw and 0otenciano 'lusorio contracted

matrimony and lived together for a period of thirty 7&89 years. 'n !2#, they

separated from bed and board for undisclosed reasons. 0otenciano lived at

:rdaneta ondominium, Ayala Ave., Ma;ati ity when he was in Manila and

at 'lusorio 0enthouse, 5aguio ountry lub when he was in 5aguio ity. 1n

the other hand, *rlinda lived in Antipolo ity.

1ut of their marriage, the spouses had six 79 children, namely3 ecember &8, !22, upon 0otencianos arrival from the :nited $tates, he

stayed with *rlinda for about five 7)9 months in Antipolo ity. The children,

$ylvia and *rlinda 7in9, alleged that during this time, their mother gave

0otenciano an overdose of #88 mg instead of !88 mg @oloft, an

antidepressant drug prescribed by his doctor in ew Bor;, :.$.A. As aconseCuence, 0otencianos health deteriorated.

1n 4ebruary #), !22/, *rlinda filed with the


3/137

1n May &!, !22/, after attending a corporate meeting in 5aguio ity,

0otenciano 'lusorio did not return to Antipolo ity and instead lived at

leveland ondominium, Ma;ati. $lxsc

1n March !!, !222, *rlinda filed with the ourt of Appeals a petitionfor habeas corpus to have the custody of lawyer 0otenciano 'lusorio. $he

alleged that respondents!!" refused petitioners demands to see and visit her

husband and prohibited 0otenciano from returning to Antipolo ity.

After due hearing, on April ), !222, the ourt of Appeals rendered decision

the dispositive portion of which reads3

%DE**'*>

>:* 1:'$M'$$*> for lac; of unlawful

restraint or detention of the subject of the petition.

%$1 1*.%!#"

Eence, the two petitions, which were consolidated and are herein jointlydecided.

As heretofore stated, a writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal

confinement or detention,!&" or by which the rightful custody of a person is

withheld from the one entitled thereto. 't is available where a person continues

to be unlawfully denied of one or more of his constitutional freedoms, where

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn13


4/137

there is denial of due process, where the restraints are not merely involuntary

but are unnecessary, and where a deprivation of freedom originally valid has

later become arbitrary.!(" 't is devised as a speedy and effectual remedy to

relieve persons from unlawful restraint, as the best and only sufficient defense

of personal freedom.!)" 6;sm

The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inCuire into

all manner of involuntary restraint, and to relieve a person therefrom if such

restraint is illegal.!"

To justify the grant of the petition, the restraint of liberty must be an illegal and

involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. !" The illegal restraint of liberty

must be actual and effective, not merely nominal or moral. !/"

The evidence shows that there was no actual and effective detention or

deprivation of lawyer 0otenciano 'lusorios liberty that would justify the

issuance of the writ. The fact that lawyer 0otenciano 'lusorio is about / years

of age, or under medication does not necessarily render him mentally

incapacitated. $oundness of mind does not hinge on age or medical condition

but on the capacity of the individual to discern his actions.

After due hearing, the ourt of Appeals concluded that there was no unlawful

restraint on his liberty.

The ourt of Appeals also observed that lawyer 0otenciano 'lusorio did not

reCuest the administrator of the leveland ondominium not to allow his wife

and other children from seeing or visiting him. Ee made it clear that he did not

object to seeing them.

As to lawyer 0otenciano 'lusorios mental state, the ourt of Appeals observed

that he was of sound and alert mind, having answered all the relevant

Cuestions to the satisfaction of the court.

5eing of sound mind, he is thus possessed with the capacity to ma;e choices.

'n this case, the crucial choices revolve on his residence and the people he

opts to see or live with. The choices he made may not appeal to some of his

family members but these are choices which exclusively belong to

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/139789_ilusorio.htm#_ftn18


5/137

0otenciano. Ee made it clear before the ourt of Appeals that he was not

prevented from leaving his house or seeing people. Dith that declaration, and

absent any true restraint on his liberty, we have no reason to reverse the

findings of the ourt of Appeals.

Dith his full mental capacity coupled with the right of choice, 0otenciano

'lusorio may not be the subject of visitation rights against his free choice.

1therwise, we will deprive him of his right to privacy. eedless to say, this will

run against his fundamental constitutional right. *s m

The ourt of Appeals exceeded its authority when it awarded visitation rights

in a petition for habeas corpus where *rlinda never even prayed for such

right. The ruling is not consistent with the finding of subjects sanity.

Dhen the court ordered the grant of visitation rights, it also emphasiGed that

the same shall be enforced under penalty of contempt in case of violation or

refusal to comply. $uch assertion of raw, na;ed power is unnecessary.

The ourt of Appeals missed the fact that the case did not involve the right of

a parent to visit a minor child but the right of a wife to visit a husband. 'n case

the husband refuses to see his wife for private reasons, he is at liberty to do

so without threat of any penalty attached to the exercise of his right.

o court is empowered as a judicial authority to compel a husband to live with

his wife. overture cannot be enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas

corpus carried out by sheriffs or by any other mesne process. That is a matter

beyond judicial authority and is best left to the man and womans free choice.

)#ERE'ORE, in F. '$M'$$*$ the petition for

lac; of merit. o costs.

'n F.


6/137

[G.R. No. 1*8*+8. "ana-y 28, 2003]

A%%. ED)ARD SERA$IO, petitioner , vs. SANDIGANBAAN %#IRD

DI!ISION/, $EO$LE O' %#E $#ILI$$INES, and $#ILI$$INENA%IONAL $OLI&E DIRE&%ORGENERAL LEANDROMENDOA, respondents.

[G.R. No. 1*87+9. "ana-y 28, 2003]

ED)ARD S. SERA$IO, petitioner , vs. #ONORABLE SANDIGANBAAN

and $EO$LE O' %#E $#ILI$$INES, respondents.

[G.R. No. 1*911+. "ana-y 28, 2003]

ED)ARD S. SERA$IO, petitioner , vs. #ONORABLE SANDIGANBAAN%#IRD DI!ISION/ and $EO$LE O' %#E$#ILI$$INES, respondents.

D E & I S I O N

&ALLE"O, SR., J .(

5efore the ourt are two petitions for certiorari filed by petitioner *dward$erapio, assailing the resolutions of the Third >ivision of the $andiganbayandenying his petition for bail, motion for a reinvestigation and motion to Cuash,and a petition for habeas corpus, all in relation to riminal ase o. #))/ for plunder wherein petitioner is one of the accused together with former 0resident 6oseph *. *strada, 6ose 6inggoy 0. *strada and several others.

The records show that petitioner was a member of the 5oard of Trusteesand the egal ounsel of the *rap Muslim Bouth 4oundation, a non-stoc;,non-profit foundation established in 4ebruary #888 ostensibly for the purposeof providing educational opportunities for the poor and underprivileged butdeserving Muslim youth and students, and support to research and advancestudies of young Muslim educators and scientists.


7/137

$ometime in April #888, petitioner, as trustee of the 4oundation, receivedon its behalf a donation in the amount of Two Eundred Million 0esos 70#88Million9 from 'locos $ur Fovernor uis havit $ingson through the lattersassistant Mrs. Bolanda


8/137

+"P%&'(! )* TH" PH('(PP(#"-, y

himself $#./)+ in !)##($#!"/!)#-P(+$! with his coaccused, 3H)

$+" 4"4&"+- )* H(- *$4(', +"'$T("- & $**(#(T )+

!)#-$#%(#(T, &%-(#"-- $--)!($T"-, -%&)+.(#$T"- $#./)+

)TH"+ P"+-)#-, & T$5(# %#.%" $.$#T$" )* H(- )**(!($'

P)-(T()#, $%TH)+(T, +"'$T()#-H(P, !)##"!T()# )+ (#*'%"#!", didthen and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and ac6uire &

H(4-"'*, .(+"!T' )+ (#.(+"!T', illgotten wealth in the aggregate

amount )+ T)T$' $'%" of *)%+ &(''()# #(#"T -""# 4(''()#

"(HT H%#.+". *)%+ TH)%-$#. )#" H%#.+". -""#T TH+""

P"-)- $#. -""#T""# !"#T$)- 7P,09,80,1:;11* a.;.a. *leuterio Tan 1< *leuteriooe a.;.a. >elia 1TE*< 61E >1*$

A> 6A* >1*$=

7c9 by directing, ordering and compelling 41< E'$ 0*TD*H* TE1:$A> A> 41:< E:> 4'4TB 0*$1$ 0((,!#,()8.88", 41 4'4TB $*H* 0*$1$ A> 4'4TB *TAH1$ 0!,/(,)/,8).)8"=


9/137

A> 5B 1*T'F 1< '1*$ A> 6A* >1*$,1MM'$$'1$ 1< 0*etermination of 0robable ause= 7c9 4or eave to 4ile AccusedsMotion for


10/137

5ail which was set for hearing on May (, #88!. " 4or his part, petitioners co-accused 6ose 6inggoy *strada filed on April #8, #88! a Hery :rgent 1mnibusMotion alleging that he was entitled to bail as a matter of right.

>uring the hearing on May (, #88! on petitioners :rgent 0etition for 5ail,

the prosecution moved for the resetting of the arraignment of the accusedearlier than the 6une #, #88! schedule. Eowever, the $andiganbayan deniedthe motion of the prosecution and issued an order declaring that the petitionfor bail can and should be heard before petitioners arraignment on 6une #,#88! and even before the other accused in riminal ase o. #))/ filedtheir respective petitions for bail. Accordingly, the $andiganbayan set thehearing for the reception of evidence on petitioners petition for bail on May #!to #), #88!.

1n May !, #88!, four days before the hearing on petitioners petition for bail, the 1mbudsman filed an urgent motion for early arraignment of 6oseph*strada, 6inggoy *strada and petitioner and a motion for joint bail hearings of 6oseph *strada, 6inggoy *strada and petitioner. The following day, petitioner filed a manifestation Cuestioning the propriety of including 6oseph *strada and6inggoy *strada in the hearing on his 7petitioners9 petition for bail.

The $andiganbayan issued a


11/137

Eowever, instead of proceeding with the bail hearing set by it on 6une !/,#88!, the $andiganbayan issued an 1rder on 6une !), #88! canceling thesaid bail hearing due to pending incidents yet to be resolved and reset anewthe hearing to 6une #, #88!. 2"

1n the eve of said hearing, the $andiganbayan issued a resolutiondenying petitioners motion for reconsideration of its May &!, #88!


12/137

counsel, received on said date a copy of said resolution. !#" The motion to fixbail filed by 6ose 6inggoy *strada was also resolved by the $andiganbayan.

1n 6uly !8, #88!, just before his arraignment in riminal ase o. #))/,petitioner manifested to the $andiganbayan that he was going to file a motion

for reconsideration of the 6uly 2, #88!


13/137

A. The Amended $n!ormation, as against petitioner $erapio, does not allege acombination or series of overt or criminal acts constitutive of plunder.

5. The Amended $n!ormation, as against petitioner $erapio, does not allege a patternof criminal acts indicative of an overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.

. The money described in paragraph 7a9 of the Amended $n!ormation and alleged to

have been illegally received or collected does not constitute ill-gotten wealth asdefined in $ection !7d9,


14/137

Sec. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. $ complaint or information is

sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense gi>en y

the statute@ the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense@ the name

of the offended party@ the approAimate date of the commission of the offense@ and the

place where the offense was committed;

Dhen the offense was committed by more than one person, all of themshall be included in the complaint or information.!)"

The acts or omissions complained or must be alleged in such form as issufficient to enable a person of common understanding to ;now what offenseis intended to be charged and enable the court to ;now the proper

judgment. The 'nformation must allege clearly and accurately the elements of the crime charged. Dhat facts and circumstances are necessary to beincluded therein must be determined by reference to the definition and

elements of the specific crimes. The purpose of the reCuirement of alleging allthe elements of the crime in the 'nformation is to inform an accused of thenature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably preparefor his defense.!" Another purpose is to enable accused, if found guilty, toplead his conviction in a subseCuent prosecution for the same offense. !" Theuse of derivatives or synonyms or allegations of basic facts constituting theoffense charged is sufficient.!/"

'n this case, the amended 'nformation specifically alleges that all theaccused, including petitioner, connived and conspired with former 0resident6oseph *. *strada to commit plunder through any or a combination or a seriesof overt or criminal acts or similar schemes or means. And in paragraph 7a9 of the amended 'nformation, petitioner and his co-accused are charged withreceiving or collecting, directly or indirectly, on several instances money in theaggregate amount of 0)(),888,888.88. 'n Jose Jinggo Estrada vs.Sandiganbaan 2(hird &ivision3, et al.,4567 we held that the word series issynonymous with the clause on several instances= it refers to a repetition of the same predicate act in any of the items in $ection !7d9 of the law. Defurther held that the word combination contemplates the commission of atleast any two different predicate acts in any of the said items. De ruled that

plainly, subparagraph 7a9 of the amended information charges accusedtherein, including petitioner, with plunder committed by a series of the samepredicate act under $ection !7d97#9 of the law and that3

A A A -uparagraph BaC alleged the predicate act of recei>ing, on se>eral instances,

money from illegal gamling, in consideration of toleration or protection of illegal

gamling, and eApressly names petitioner as one of those who conspired with former

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/148965.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/148965.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/148965.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/148965.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn19


15/137

President "strada in committing the offense; This predicate act corresponds with the

offense descried in item 72< of the enumeration in -ection 1BdC of +;$; #o; 080; A A

A;720<

't is not necessary to allege in the amended 'nformation a pattern of overt

or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracybecause as $ection & of ised Penal !odeC,

mal>ersation of pulic funds or property B$rticle 21, +e>ised Penal !odeC and

>iolations of -ec; :BeC of +epulic $ct B+$ #o; :019C and -ection BdC of +$ D1:;

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn24


16/137

This contention is patently unmeritorious; The acts alleged in the information are not

charged as separate offenses ut as predicate acts of the crime of plunder;

(t should e stressed that the $ntiPlunder law specifically -ection 1BdC thereof does

not maEe any eApress reference to any specific pro>ision of laws, other than +;$; #o;

080, as amended, which coincidentally may penaliFe as a separate crime any of theo>ert or criminal acts enumerated therein; The said acts which form part of the

comination or series of act are descried in their generic sense;Thus, aside from

mal>ersation of pulic funds, the law also uses the generic terms misappropriation,

con>ersion or misuse of said fund; The fact that the acts in>ol>ed may liEewise e

penaliFed under other laws is incidental; The said acts are mentioned only as predicate

acts of the crime of plunder and the allegations relati>e thereto are not to e taEen or

to e understood as allegations charging separate criminal offenses punished under the

+e>ised Penal !ode, the $ntiraft and !orrupt Practices $ct and !ode of !onduct

and "thical -tandards for Pulic )fficials and "mployees; 72G<

This ourt agrees with the $andiganbayan. 't is clear on the face of theamended 'nformation that petitioner and his co-accused are charged only withone crime of plunder and not with the predicate acts or crimes of plunder. 'tbears stressing that the predicate acts merely constitute acts of plunder andare not crimes separate and independent of the crime of plunder.'T'11< D'TE F'$'F TEAT TE* 1M5:>$MA EA>T1TAB >'$ *J:0AT1 F MA'4*$T *


17/137

a warrant for his arrest as well as the proceedings in riminal ase o.#))/= to conduct a determination of probable cause= and to direct the1mbudsman to conduct a reinvestigation of the charges him. 0etitioner asseverates that the 1mbudsman had totally disregarded exculpatoryevidence and committed grave abuse of discretion in charging him withplunder. Ee further argues that there exists no probable cause to support anindictment for plunder as against him.#"

0etitioner points out that the joint resolution of the 1mbudsman does noteven mention him in relation to the collection and receipt of jueteng moneywhich started in !22/#/" and that the 1mbudsman inexplicably arrived at theconclusion that the *rap Muslim Bouth 4oundation was a money launderingfront organiGation put up by 6oseph *strada, assisted by petitioner, eventhough the latter presented evidence that said 4oundation is a bona !ide andlegitimate private foundation.#2" More importantly, he claims, said joint

resolution does not indicate that he ;new that the 0#88 million he received for the 4oundation came from jueteng .&8"

0etitioner insists that he cannot be charged with plunder since3 7!9the 0#88 million he received does not constitute ill-gotten wealth as defined in$ection !7d9 of


18/137

committed errors of law or irregularities which have been prejudicial to hisinterest.&" Ee also states that during the joint preliminary investigations for thevarious charges against 6oseph *strada and his associates, of which theplunder charge was only one of the eight charges against *strada et al., hewas not furnished with copies of the other complaints nor given theopportunity to refute the evidence presented in relation to the other sevencases, even though the evidence presented therein were also used againsthim, although he was only charged in the plunder case. &/"

The 0eople maintain that the $andiganbayan committed no grave abuseof discretion in denying petitioners omnibus motion. They assert that since the1mbudsman found probable cause to charge petitioner with the crime of plunder, the $andiganbayan is bound to assume jurisdiction over the case andto proceed to try the same. They further argue that a finding of probable causeis merely preliminary and prefatory of the eventual determination of guilt or

innocence of the accused, and that petitioner still has the chance to interposehis defenses in a full blown trial where his guilt or innocence may finally bedetermined.&2"

The 0eople also point out that the $andiganbayan did not commit graveabuse of discretion in denying petitioners omnibus motion as;ing for, amongothers, a reinvestigation by the 1mbudsman, because his motion for reconsideration of the 1mbudsmans joint resolution did not raise the groundsof either newly discovered evidence, or errors of law or irregularities, whichunder


19/137

'n Cru+, Jr. vs. #eople, 4e

ause of discretion in holding that petitioner is liale for estafa through falsification of

pulic documents, petitioner is clearly raising 6uestions of fact here; His argumentsare anchored on the propriety or error in the )mudsmans appreciation of

facts; Petitioner cannot e unaware that the -upreme !ourt is not a trier of facts, more

so in the consideration of the eAtraordinary writ of certiorari where neither 6uestion of

fact nor e>en of law are entertained, ut only 6uestions of lacE or eAcess of

jurisdiction or gra>e ause of discretion; (nsofar as the third issue is concerned, we

find that no gra>e ause of discretion has een committed y respondents which

would warrant the granting of the writ of certiorari;

0etitioner is burdened to allege and establish that the $andiganbayan and

the 1mbudsman for that matter committed grave abuse of discretion inissuing their resolution and joint resolution, respectively. 0etitioner failed todischarge his burden. 'ndeed, the ourt finds no grave abuse of discretion onthe part of the $andiganbayan and the 1mbudsman in finding probable causeagainst petitioner for plunder. either did the $andiganbayan abuse itsdiscretion in denying petitioners motion for reinvestigation of the chargesagainst him in the amended'nformation. 'n its


20/137

of the 1mbudsman, pursuant to $ections !/, #& and # of


21/137

tainted with irregularity or that its findings stated in the joint resolution dated April (, #88! are not supported by the facts, and that a reinvestigation wasnecessary.

ertiorari will not lie to invalidate the $andiganbayans resolution denying

petitioners motion for reinvestigation since there is nothing to substantiatepetitioners claim that it gravely abused its discretion in ruling that there was noneed to conduct a reinvestigation of the case.)#"

The ruling in 'olito o vs. Court o! Appeals 4>:7 that an accused shall not bedeemed to have waived his right to as; for a preliminary investigation after hehad been arraigned over his objection and despite his insistence on theconduct of said investigation prior to trial on the merits does not apply in theinstant case because petitioner merely prayed for a reinvestigationon theground of a newly-discovered evidence. 'rrefragably, a preliminaryinvestigation had been conducted by the 1mbudsman prior to the filing of theamended 'nformation, and that petitioner had participated therein by filing hiscounter-affidavit. 4urthermore, the $andiganbayan had already denied hismotion for reinvestigation as well as his motion for reconsideration thereonprior to his arraignment.)(" 'n sum then, the petition is dismissed.

R( G.R. No. 1*8*+8

As synthesiGed by the ourt from the petition and the pleadings of the

parties, the issues for resolution are3 7!9 Dhether or not petitioner should firstbe arraigned before hearings of his petition for bail may be conducted= 7#9Dhether petitioner may file a motion to Cuash the amended 'nformation duringthe pendency of his petition for bail= 7&9 Dhether a joint hearing of the petitionfor bail of petitioner and those of the other accused in riminal ase o.#))/ is mandatory= 7(9 Dhether the 0eople waived their right to adduceevidence in opposition to the petition for bail of petitioner and failed to adducestrong evidence of guilt of petitioner for the crime charged= and 7)9 Dhether petitioner was deprived of his right to due process in riminal ase o. #))/and should thus be released from detention via a writ of habeas corpus.

1n the first issue, petitioner contends that the $andiganbayan committeda grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lac; of jurisdictionwhen it deferred the hearing of his petition for bail to 6uly !8, #88!, arraignedhim on said date and entered a plea of not guilty for him when he refused tobe arraigned. Ee insists that the


22/137

))" 0etitioner maintains that his arraignment before the bail hearings are set isnot necessary since he would not plead guilty to the offense charged, as isevident in his earlier statements insisting on his innocence during the $enateinvestigation of the jueteng scandal and the preliminary investigation beforethe 1mbudsman.)" either would the prosecution be prejudiced even if itwould present all its evidence before his arraignment because, under the


23/137

person is allowed to petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of his liberty byvirtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender.(" An accused need not wait for hisarraignment before filing a petition for bail.

'n %avides vs. Court o! Appeals, )" this ourt ruled on the issue of whether

an accused must first be arraigned before he may be grantedbail. %avides involved an accused charged with violation of $ection )7b9iscrimination Act9, an offense punishable by reclusiontemporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. The accused thereinassailed, inter alia, the trial courts imposition of the condition that he shouldfirst be arraigned before he is allowed to post bail.De held therein that incases where it is authoriGed, bail should be granted before arraignment,otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion to Cuash."

Eowever, the foregoing pronouncement should not be ta;en to mean thatthe hearing on a petition for bail should at all times precede arraignment,because the rule is that a person deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrestor voluntary surrender may apply for bail as soon as he is deprived of hisliberty, even before a complaint or information is filed against him. "The ourtspronouncement in %avides should be understood in light of the fact that theaccused in said case filed a petition for bail as well as a motion to Cuash theinformations filed against him. Eence, we explained therein that to conditionthe grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would be to place him in aposition where he has to choose between 7!9 filing a motion to Cuash and thus

delay his release on bail because until his motion to Cuash can be resolved,his arraignment cannot be held, and 7#9 foregoing the filing of a motion toCuash so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released onbail. This would undermine his constitutional right not to be put on trial exceptupon a valid complaint or 'nformation sufficient to charge him with a crime andhis right to bail./"

't is therefore not necessary that an accused be first arraigned before theconduct of hearings on his application for bail. 4or when bail is a matter of right, an accused may apply for and be granted bail even prior to arraignment.The ruling in %avides also implies that an application for bail in a case

involving an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua to death may also beheard even before an accused is arraigned. 4urther, if the court finds in suchcase that the accused is entitled to bail because the evidence against him isnot strong, he may be granted provisional liberty even prior to arraignment= for in such a situation, bail would be authoriGed under the circumstances. 'n fine,the $andiganbayan committed a grave abuse of its discretion amounting to

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn64http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn68http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn64http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/129670.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn68


24/137

excess of jurisdiction in ordering the arraignment of petitioner beforeproceeding with the hearing of his petition for bail.

Dith respect to the second issue of whether petitioner may file a motion toCuash during the pendency of his petition for bail, petitioner maintains that a

motion to Cuash and a petition for bail are not inconsistent, and may proceedindependently of each other. Dhile he agrees with the prosecution that amotion to Cuash may in some instances result in the termination of thecriminal proceedings and in the release of the accused therein, thus renderingthe petition for bail moot and academic, he opines that such is not always thecase= hence, an accused in detention cannot be forced to speculate on theoutcome of a motion to Cuash and decide whether or not to file a petition for bail or to withdraw one that has been filed. 2" Ee also insists that the grant of amotion to Cuash does not automatically result in the discharge of an accusedfrom detention nor render moot an application for bail under


25/137

ordered released, the petition for bail of an accused may become moot andacademic.

De now resolve the issue of whether or not it is mandatory that thehearings on the petitions for bail of petitioner and accused 6ose 6inggoy

*strada in riminal ase o. #))/ and the trial of the said case as againstformer 0resident 6oseph *. *strada be heard jointly.

0etitioner argues that the conduct of joint bail hearings would negate hisright to have his petition for bail resolved in a summary proceeding since saidhearings might be converted into a full blown trial on the merits by theprosecution."

4or their part, the 0eople claim that joint bail hearings will save the courtfrom having to hear the same witnesses and the parties from presenting thesame evidence where it would allow separate bail hearings for the accused

who are charged as co-conspirators in the crime of plunder."

'n issuing its 6une !, #88! 1rder directing all accused in riminal aseo. #))/ to participate in the bail hearings, the $andiganbayan explainedthat the directive was made was in the interest of the speedy disposition of thecase. 't stated3

A A A The o>ious fact is, if the rest of the accused other than the accused -erapio

were to e eAcused from participating in the hearing on the motion for ail of accused

-erapio, under the preteAt that the same does not concern them and that they will

participate in any hearing where e>idence is presented y the prosecution only if and

when they will already ha>e filed their petitions for ail, or should they decide not to

file any, that they will participate only during the trial proper itself, then e>eryody

will e faced with the daunting prospects of ha>ing to go through the process of

introducing the same witness and pieces of e>idence two times, three times or four

times, as many times as there are petitions for ail filed; )>iously, such procedure is

not conduci>e to the speedy termination of a case; #either can such procedure e

characteriFed as an orderly proceeding; 78<

There is no provision in the


26/137

to excess or lac; of jurisdiction is shown, the ourt will not interfere with theexercise by the $andiganbayan of its discretion.

't may be underscored that in the exercise of its discretion, the$andiganbayan must ta;e into account not only the convenience of the $tate,

including the prosecution, but also that of the accused and the witnesses of both the prosecution and the accused and the right of accused to a speedytrial. The $andiganbayan must also consider the complexities of the casesand of the factual and legal issues involving petitioner and the other accused. After all, if this ourt may echo the observation of the :nited $tates$upreme ourt, the $tate has a sta;e, with every citiGen, in his being affordedour historic individual protections, including those surrounding criminalprosecutions. About them, this ourt dares not become careless or complacent when that fashion has become rampant over the earth.2"

't must be borne in mind that in campo vs. )ernabe,4?;7 this ourt held thatin a petition for bail hearing, the court is to conduct only a summary hearing,meaning such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering theevidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of thehearing which is merely to determine the weight of evidence for purposes of bail. The court does not try the merits or enter into any inCuiry as to the weightthat ought to be given to the evidence against the accused, nor will itspeculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further evidence may beoffered therein. 't may confine itself to receiving such evidence as hasreference to substantial matters, avoiding unnecessary thoroughness in the

examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and reducing to areasonable minimum the amount of corroboration particularly on details thatare not essential to the purpose of the hearing.

A joint hearing of two separate petitions for bail by two accused will of course avoid duplication of time and effort of both the prosecution and thecourts and minimiGes the prejudice to the accused, especially so if bothmovants for bail are charged of having conspired in the commission of thesame crime and the prosecution adduces essentially the same evident againstthem. Eowever, in the cases at bar, the joinder of the hearings of the petitionfor bail of petitioner with the trial of the case against former 0resident 6oseph

*. *strada is an entirely different matter. 4or, with the participation of theformer president in the hearing of petitioners petition for bail, the proceedingassumes a completely different dimension. The proceedings will no longer besummary. As against former 0resident 6oseph *. *strada, the proceedingswill be a full-blown trial which is antithetical to the nature of a bailhearing. Moreover, following our ruling in Jose Estrada vs. Sandiganbaan,supra where we stated that 6ose 6inggoy *strada can only be charged with

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn79http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn80http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn79http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn80


27/137

conspiracy to commit the acts alleged in sub-paragraph 7a9 of the amended'nformation since it is not clear from the latter if the accused in sub-paragraphs 7a9 to 7d9 thereof conspired with each other to assist 6oseph*strada to amass ill-gotten wealth, we hold that petitioner can only be chargedwith having conspired with the other co-accused named in sub-paragraph 7a9by receiving or collecting, directly or indirectly, on several instances, money xx x from illegal gambling, x x x in consideration of toleration or protection of illegal gambling./!" Thus, with respect to petitioner, all that the prosecutionneeds to adduce to prove that the evidence against him for the charge of plunder is strong are those related to the alleged receipt or collection of money from illegal gambling as described in sub-paragraph 7a9 of theamended 'nformation. Dith the joinder of the hearing of petitioners petition for bail and the trial of the former 0resident, the latter will have the right to cross-examine intensively and extensively the witnesses for the prosecution inopposition to the petition for bail of petitioner. 'f petitioner will adduce evidencein support of his petition after the prosecution shall have concluded itsevidence, the former 0resident may insist on cross-examining petitioner andhis witnesses. The joinder of the hearing of petitioners bail petition with thetrial of former 0resident 6oseph *. *strada will be prejudicial to petitioner as itwill unduly delay the determination of the issue of the right of petitioner toobtain provisional liberty and see; relief from this ourt if his petition is deniedby the respondent court. The indispensability of the speedy resolution of anapplication for bail was succinctly explained by ooley in histreatise Constitutional %imitations, thus3

*or, if there were any mode short of confinement which would with reasonale

certainty insure the attendance of the accused to answer the accusation, it would not

e justifiale to inflict upon him that indignity, when the effect is to suject him in a

greater or lesser degree, to the punishment of a guilty person, while as yet it is not

determined that he has not committed any crime; 782<

Dhile the $andiganbayan, as the court trying riminal ase o. #))/, isempowered to proceed with the trial of the case in the manner it determinesbest conducive to orderly proceedings and speedy termination of the case,/&"

the ourt finds that it gravely abused its discretion in ordering that thepetition for bail of petitioner and the trial of former 0resident 6oseph *.*strada be held jointly. 't bears stressing that the $andiganbayan itself ac;nowledged in its May (, #88! 1rder the pre-eminent position andsuperiority of the rights of petitioner" to have the matter of his provisionalliberty resolved without unnecessary delay,/(" only to ma;e a volte !ace anddeclare that after all the hearing of petition for bail of petitioner and 6ose

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn81http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn82http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn83http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn84http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn81http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn82http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn83http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn84


28/137

6inggoy *strada and the trial as against former 0resident 6oseph *. *stradashould be held simultaneously. 'n ordering that petitioners petition for bail tobe heard jointly with the trial of the case against his co-accused former 0resident 6oseph *. *strada, the $andiganbayan in effect allowed further andunnecessary delay in the resolution thereof to the prejudice of petitioner.'n finethen, the $andiganbayan committed a grave abuse of its discretion in orderinga simultaneous hearing of petitioners petition for bail with the trial of the caseagainst former 0resident 6oseph *. *strada on its merits.

Dith respect to petitioners allegations that the prosecution tried to delaythe bail hearings by filing dilatory motions, the 0eople aver that it is petitioner and his co-accused who caused the delay in the trial of riminal ase o.#))/ by their filing of numerous manifestations and pleadings with the$andiganbayan. /)" They assert that they filed the motion for joint bail hearingand motion for earlier arraignment around the original schedule for the bail

hearings which was on May #!-#), #88!./"

They argue further that bail is not a matter of right in capital offenses. /" 'nsupport thereof, they cite Article ''', $ec !& of the onstitution, whichstates that

$ll persons, eAcept those charged with offenses punishale y reclusion

perpetua when e>idence of guilt is strong, shall efore con>iction e ailale y

sufficient sureties, or e released on recogniFance as may e pro>ided y law; The

right to ail shall not e impaired e>en when the pri>ilege of the writ of habeas

corpus is suspended; "Acessi>e ail shall not e re6uired;788<

The 0eople also cited


29/137

but is discretionary upon the court.28" Ead the rule been otherwise, the idence presented during the ail

hearing shall e considered automatically reproduced at the trial ut, upon motion of

either party, the court may recall any witness for additional eAamination unless the

latter is dead, outside the Philippines, or otherwise unale to testify;791<

:nder the foregoing provision, there must be a showing that the evidenceof guilt against a person charged with a capital offense is not strong for thecourt to grant him bail. Thus, upon an application for bail by the person

charged with a capital offense, a hearing thereon must be conducted, wherethe prosecution must be accorded an opportunity to discharge its burden of proving that the evidence of guilt against an accused is strong. 2#" Theprosecution shall be accorded the opportunity to present all the evidence itmay deems necessary for this purpose.2&"Dhen it is satisfactorily demonstratedthat the evidence of guilt is strong, it is the courts duty to deny the applicationfor bail. Eowever, when the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail becomes amatter of right.2("

'n this case, petitioner is not entitled to bail as a matter of right at this

stage of the proceedings. 0etitioners claim that the prosecution had refused topresent evidence to prove his guilt for purposes of his bail application and thatthe $andiganbayan has refused to grant a hearing thereon is not borne by therecords. The prosecution did not waive, expressly or even impliedly, its right toadduce evidence in opposition to the petition for bail of petitioner. 't must benoted that the $andiganbayan had already scheduled the hearing dates for petitioners application for bail but the same were reset due to pendingincidents raised in several motions filed by the parties, which incidents had tobe resolved by the court prior to the bail hearings.The bail hearing waseventually scheduled by the $andiganbayan on 6uly !8, #88! but the hearing

did not push through due to the filing of this petition on 6une #2, #88!.

The delay in the conduct of hearings on petitioners application for bail istherefore not imputable solely to the $andiganbayan or to theprosecution. 0etitioner is also partly to blame therefor, as is evident from thefollowing list of motions filed by him and by the prosecution3

Motions filed by petitioner3



30/137

:rgent 1mnibus Motion, dated April , #88!, for 7!9 leave to file motion forreconsiderationIreinvestigation and to direct ombudsman to conduct reinvestigation=7#9 conduct a determination of probable cause as would suggest the issuance ofhouse arrest= 7&9 hold in abeyance the issuance of warrant of arrest and otherproceedings pending determination of probable cause=

4otion for "arly +esolution, dated 4ay 2, 2001@

%rgent 4otion to Hold in $eyance (mplementation or -er>ice of 3arrant

of $rrest for (mmediate rant of ail or *or +elease on +ecogniFance,

dated $pril 2G, 2001@

%rgent 4otion to allow $ccused -erapio to ote at )ando, &ulacan, dated

4ay 11, 2001@

%rgent 4otion for +econsideration , dated 4ay 22, 2001, praying for

+esolution of 4ay 18, 2001 e set aside and ail hearings e set at theearliest possile time@

%rgent 4otion for (mmediate +elease on &ail or +ecogniFance, dated 4ay

2, 2001@

4otion for +econsideration of denial of %rgent )mnius 4otion, dated

June 1:, 2001, praying that he e allowed to file a 4otion for

+ein>estigation@ and

4otion to uash, dated June 2D, 2001; 79G<

4otions filed y the prosecution?

4otion for "arlier $rraignment, dated 4ay 8, 2001@ 79D<

4otion for Joint &ail Hearings of $ccused Joseph "strada, Jose Jinggoy

"strada and "dward -erapio, dated 4ay 8, 2001@79<

)pposition to the %rgent 4otion for +econsideration and )mnius 4otion

to $djust "arlier $rraignment, dated 4ay 2G, 2001@798<

and

)mnius 4otion for "Aamination, Testimony and Transcription in *ilipino,

dated June 19, 2001;799<

The other accused in !riminal !ase #o; 2DGG8 also contriuted to the aforesaid

delay y their filing of the following motions?



31/137

4otion to uash or -uspend, dated $pril 2, 2001, filed y Jinggoy

"strada, assailing the constitutionality of +;$; #o; 080 and praying that

the $mended (nformation e 6uashed@

ery %rgent )mnius 4otion, dated $pril :0, 2001, filed y Jinggoy

"strada, praying that he e B1C eAcluded from the $mended (nformation forlacE of proale cause@ B2C released from custody@ or in the alternati>e, B:C

e allowed to post ail@

%rgent "AParte 4otion to Place on House $rrest, dated $pril 2G, 2001,

filed y Joseph and Jinggoy "strada, praying that they e placed on house

arrest during the pendency of the case@

Position Paper 7re? House $rreste BGC within which to respond to the )pposition to

4otion to uash in >iew of the holidays and electionrelated distractions@

)pposition to %rgent 4otion for "arlier $rraignment, dated 4ay 10, 2001,

filed y Joseph "strada@

)mnius 4anifestation on >oting and custodial arrangement, dated 4ay 11,

2001, filed y Joseph and Jinggoy "strada, praying that they e placed on

house arrest@

4anifestation regarding house arrest, dated 4ay D, 2001, filed y Joseph

and Jinggoy "strada@

-ummation regarding house arrest, dated 4ay 2:, 2001, filed y Joseph and

Jinggoy "strada@

%rgent 4anifestation I 4otion, dated 4ay D, 2001 filed y Jinggoy

"strada@


32/137

4anifestation, dated 4ay 28, 2001, filed y Joseph and Jinggoy "strada,

praying that they e allowed to e confined in Tanay@

4otion to charge as $ccused 'uis !ha>it -ingson, filed y Joseph "strada@

)mnius 4otion, dated June 11, 2001, filed y Joseph and Jinggoy "strada,seeEing reconsideration of denial of re6uests for house arrest, for detention

in Tanay or !amp !rame@ motion for inhiition of Justice &adoy@

%rgent 4otion to $llow $ccused to !lear His .esE as 4ayor of -an Juan,

4etro 4anila, dated June 28, 2001, filed y Jinggoy "strada@

4otion for +econsideration, dated June 9, 2001, filed y Joseph and

Jinggoy "strada, praying that the resolution compelling them to e present

at petitioner -erapios hearing for ail e reconsidered@

4otion to uash, dated June , 2001, filed y Joseph "strada@

-till $nother 4anifestation, dated June 1, 2001, filed y Joseph and

Jinggoy "strada stating that &ishop Teodoro &acani fa>ors their house

arrest@

4anifestation, dated June 1G, 2001, filed y Joseph and Jinggoy "strada,

wai>ing their right to e present at the June 18 and 21, 2001 ail hearings

and reser>ing their right to trial with assessors@

)mnius 4otion for (nstructions? :0.ay House $rrest@ Production,

(nspection and !opying of .ocuments@ and Possile Trial with $ssessors,

dated June 19, 2001, filed y Joseph and Jinggoy "strada@

%rgent 4otion for $dditional Time to 3ind %p $ffairs, dated June 20,

2001, filed y Jinggoy "strada@

4anifestation, dated June 22, 2001, filed y Jinggoy "strada, asEing for free

dates for parties, claiming that denial of ail is cruel and inhuman,

reiterating re6uest for gag order of prosecution witnesses, a>ailing of production, inspection and copying of documents, re6uesting for status of

alias case@ and

!ompliance, dated June 2G, 2001, filed y Jinggoy "strada, re6uesting for

permission to attend some municipal affairs in -an Juan, 4etro 4anila;7100


33/137

4urthermore, the ourt has previously ruled that even in cases where theprosecution refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to an application for bailby an accused charged with a capital offense, the trial court is still under dutyto conduct a hearing on said application. !8!" The rationale for such reCuirementwas explained in /arciso vs. Sta. 'omana@Cru+ 7supra9, citing )asco vs.'apatalo3!8#"

3hen the grant of ail is discretionary, the prosecution has the urden of showing that

the e>idence of guilt against the accused is strong; Howe>er, the determination of

whether or not the e>idence of guilt is strong, eing a matter of judicial discretion,

remains with the judge; This discretion y the >ery nature of things, may rightly e

eAercised only after the e>idence is sumitted to the court at the hearing; -ince the

discretion is directed to the weight of the e>idence and since e>idence cannot properly

e weighed if not duly eAhiited or produced efore the court, it is o>ious that a

proper eAercise of judicial discretion re6uires that the e>idence of guilt e sumitted

to the court, the petitioner ha>ing the right of crosseAamination and to introduce his

own e>idence in reuttal;710:<

Accordingly, petitioner cannot be released from detention untilthe $andiganbayan conducts a hearing of his application for bail and resolvethe same in his favor. *ven then, there must first be a finding that theevidence against petitioner is not strong before he may be granted bail.

Anent the issue of the propriety of the issuance of a writ of habeascorpus for petitioner, he contends that he is entitled to the issuance of said

writ because the $tate, through the prosecutions refusal to present evidenceand by the $andiganbayans refusal to grant a bail hearing, has failed todischarge its burden of proving that as against him, evidence of guilt for thecapital offense of plunder is strong. 0etitioner contends that the prosecutionlaunched a seemingly endless barrage of obstructive and dilatory moves toprevent the conduct of bail hearings. $pecifically, the prosecution moved for petitioners arraignment before the commencement of bail hearings andinsisted on joint bail hearings for petitioner, 6oseph *strada and 6inggoy*strada despite the fact that it was only petitioner who as;ed for a bailhearing= manifested that it would present its evidence as if it is the

presentation of the evidence in chief, meaning that the bail hearings would beconcluded only after the prosecution presented its entire case upon theaccused= and argued that petitioners motion to Cuash and his petition for bailare inconsistent, and therefore, petitioner should choose to pursue only one of these two remedies.!8(" Ee further claims that the $andiganbayan, through itsCuestioned orders and resolutions postponing the bail hearings effectivelydenied him of his right to bail and to due process of law.!8)"

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn101http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/am_rtj_96_1335.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/am_rtj_96_1335.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn102http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn103http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn104http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn105http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn101http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/am_rtj_96_1335.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/am_rtj_96_1335.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn102http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn103http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn104http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn105


34/137

0etitioner also maintains that the issuance by the $andiganbayan of neworders canceling the bail hearings which it had earlier set did not render mootand academic the petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, since saidorders have resulted in a continuing deprivation of petitioners right to bail.!8" Ee argues further that the fact that he was arrested and is detainedpursuant to valid process does not by itself negate the efficacy of the remedyof habeas corpus. 'n support of his contention, petitioner cites -oncupa vs.Enrile,!8" where the ourt held that habeas corpus extends to instances wherethe detention, while valid from its inception, has later become arbitrary.!8/"

Eowever, the 0eople insist that habeas corpus is not proper becausepetitioner was arrested pursuant to the amended information which wasearlier filed in court,!82" the warrant of arrest issuant pursuant thereto was valid,and petitioner voluntarily surrendered to the authorities.!!8"

As a general rule, the writ of habeas corpus will not issue where theperson alleged to be restrained of his liberty in custody of an officer under aprocess issued by the court which jurisdiction to do so. !!!" 'n exceptionalcircumstances, habeas corpus may be granted by the courts even when theperson concerned is detained pursuant to a valid arrest or his voluntarysurrender, for this writ of liberty is recogniGed as the fundamental instrumentfor safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state actiondue to its ability to cut through barriers of form and procedural maGes. !!#" Thus,in previous cases, we issued the writ where the deprivation of liberty, whileinitially valid under the law, had later become invalid, !!&" andeven though the

persons praying for its issuance were not completely deprived of their liberty.!!("

The ourt finds no basis for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus infavor of petitioner. The general rule that habeas corpus does not lie where theperson alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court which had jurisdiction to issue thesame!!)" applies, because petitioner is under detention pursuant to the order of arrest issued by the $andiganbayan on April #), #88! after the filing by the1mbudsman of the amended information for plunder against petitioner and hisco-accused. 0etitioner had in fact voluntarily surrendered himself to theauthorities on April #), #88! upon learning that a warrant for his arrest had

been issued.

The ruling in -oncupa vs. Enrile4557 that habeas corpus will lie where thedeprivation of liberty which was initially valid has become arbitrary in view of subseCuent developments finds no application in the present case becausethe hearing on petitioners application for bail has yet to commence. As statedearlier, the delay in the hearing of petitioners petition for bail cannot be pinned

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn106http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn107http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn108http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn109http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn110http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn111http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn112http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn113http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn114http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn115http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn116http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn106http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn107http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn108http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn109http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn110http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn111http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn112http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn113http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn114http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn115http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn116


35/137

solely on the $andiganbayan or on the prosecution for that matter. 0etitioner himself is partly to be blamed. Moreover, a petition for habeas corpus is notthe appropriate remedy for asserting ones right to bail. !!" 't cannot be availedof where accused is entitled to bail not as a matter of right but on thediscretion of the court and the latter has not abused such discretion in refusingto grant bail,!!/" or has not even exercised said discretion. The proper recourseis to file an application for bail with the court where the criminal case ispending and to allow hearings thereon to proceed.

The issuance of a writ of habeas corpus would not only be unjustified butwould also preempt the $andiganbayans resolution of the pending applicationfor bail of petitioner. The recourse of petitioner is to forthwith proceed with thehearing on his application for bail.

IN %#E LIG#% O' ALL %#E 'OREGOING , judgment is hereby renderedas follows3

!. 'n F.. The resolutions of respondent $andiganbayan subject of saidpetitions are A44'= and

#. 'n F.*= thearraignment of petitioner on 6uly !8, #88! is also $*T A$'>*.

o costs.

SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 147780. May 10, 2001]

PANFILO LACSON, MICHAEL RAY B. AQINO a!" CESAR O.

MANCAO, petitioners, vs. SECRE#ARY HERNAN$O PERE%,

P&$IREC#OR LEAN$RO MEN$O%A, a!" P&SR. SP#. REYNAL$O

BERROYA, respondents.

[G.R. No. 147781. May 10, 2001]

MIRIAM $EFENSOR'SAN#IAGO, petitioner, vs. ANGELO REYES,

S()*(+a*y o Na+-o!a $((!/(, (+ a., respondents.

[G.R. No. 1477. May 10, 2001]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn117http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn118http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn117http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148468.htm#_ftn118


36/137


37/137

asis oth in fact an in law; -ignificantly, on 4ay D, 2001, President 4acapagal$rroyo ordered

the lifting of the declaration of a state of reellion in 4etro 4anila; $ccordingly, the instant

petitions ha>e een rendered moot and academic; $s to petitioners claim that the proclamation of

a state of reellion is eing used y the authorities to justify warrantless arrests, the -ecretary of

Justice denies that it has issued a particular order to arrest specific persons in connection with the

reellion; He states that what is eAtant are general instructions to law enforcement officers and

military agencies to implement Proclamation #o; :8;(ndeed, as stated in respondents Joint

!omments?

[I]+ -/ a*(a"y +5( "()a*(" -!+(!+-o! o +5( 36/+-)( $(a*+(!+ a!" o-)(

a6+5o*-+-(/ +o o9+a-! *(:6a* ;a**a!+/ o a**(/+/ *o +5( )o6*+/ o* a a)+/

)o-++(" *-o* +o a!" 6!+- May 1, 2001 ;5-)5 (a!/ +5a+ *(--!a*y

-!ided under -ection G, +ule 11: of the +ules of !ourt, if

the circumstances so warrant; The warrantless arrest feared y petitioners is, thus, not ased on

the declaration of a state of reellion;

4oreo>er, petitioners contention in ;+; #o; 180 B Lacson !etitionC, 181 B Defensor"

Santiago !etitionC, and 199 B Lumbao !etitionC that they are under imminent danger of eing

arrested without warrant do not justify their resort to the eAtraordinary remedies

of mandamus and prohiition, since an indi>idual sujected to warrantless arrest is not without

ade6uate remedies in the ordinary course of law; -uch an indi>idual may asE for a preliminary

in>estigation under +ule 112 of the +ules of court, where he may adduce e>idence in his

defense, or he may sumit himself to in6uest proceedings to determine whether or not he should

remain under custody and correspondingly e charged in court; *urther, a person suject of awarrantless arrest must e deli>ered to the proper judicial authorities within the periods pro>ided

in $rticle 12G of the +e>ised Penal !ode, otherwise the arresting officer could e held liale for

delay in the deli>ery of detained persons; -hould the detention e without legal ground, the

person arrested can charge the arresting officer with aritrary detention; $ll this is without

prejudice to his filing an action for damages against the arresting officer under $rticle :2 of the

!i>il !ode;erily, petitioners ha>e a surfeit of other remedies which they can a>ail themsel>es


38/137

of, therey maEing the prayer for prohiition and mandamus improper at this time B-ections 2

and :, +ule DG, +ules of !ourtC;

$side from the foregoing reasons, se>eral considerations liEewise ine>italy call for the

dismissal of the petitions at ar;

G.#. $o. %&''()

(n connection with their alleged impending warrantless arrest, petitioners 'acson, $6uino,

and 4ancao pray that the appropriate court efore whom the informations against petitioners are

filed e directed to desist from arraigning and proceeding with the trial of the case, until the

instant petition is finally resol>ed; This relief is clearly premature considering that as of this date,

no complaints or charges ha>e een filed against any of the petitioners for any crime; $nd in the

e>ent that the same are later filed, this court cannot enjoin criminal prosecution conducted in

accordance with the +ules of !ourt, for y that time any arrest would ha>e een in pursuance of

a duly issued warrant;

$s regards petitioners prayer that the hold departure orders issued against them e declared

null and >oid ab initio, it is to e noted that petitioners are not directly assailing the >alidity of

the suject hold departure orders in their petition; The are not e>en eApressing intention to lea>e

the country in the near future; The prayer to set aside the same must e made in proper

proceedings initiated for that purpose;

$nent petitioners allegations ex abundante ad cautelam in support of their application for

the issuance of a writ of haeas corpus, it is manifest that the writ is not called for since its

purpose is to relie>e petitioners from unlawful restraint B $gaya"an v. Bal*eg , 200 -!+$ 19

71991e up to this >ery day;

G.#. $o. %&''(%

The petition herein is denominated y petitioner .efensor-antiago as one for mandamus. (t

is asic in matters relating to petitions for mandamus that the legal right of the petitioner to the

performance of a particular act which is sought to e compelled must e clear and

complete; +andamus will not issue the right to relief is clear at the time of the award B !alileo v.

#ui Castro, 8G Phil; 22C; %p to the present time, petitioner .efensor-antiago has not shownthat she is in imminent danger of eing arrested without a warrant; (n point of fact, the

authorities ha>e categorically stated that petitioner will not e arrested without a warrant;

G.#. $o. %&''--

Petitioner 'umao, leader of the Peoples 4o>ement against Po>erty BP4$PC, for his part,

argues that the declaration of a state of reellion is >iolati>e of the doctrine of separation of


39/137

powers, eing an encroachment on the domain of the judiciary which has the constitutional

prerogati>e to determine or interpret what tooE place on 4ay 1, 2001, and that the declaration of

a state of reellion cannot e an eAception to the general rule on the allocation of the

go>ernmental powers;

3e disagree; To e sure, section 18, $rticle (( of the !onstitution eApressly pro>ides that

7ter it ecomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to pre>ent or suppress lawless

>iolence, in>asion or reellion thus, we held in (ntegrated &ar of the Philippines >; Hon; amora,

B;+; #o; 1128, $ugust 1G, 2000C?

AAA The factual necessity of calling out the armed forces is not easily 6uantifiale and

cannot e ojecti>ely estalished since matters considered for satisfying the same is a

comination of se>eral factors which are not always accessile to the courts; &esides

the asence of testual standards that the court may use to judge necessity, informationnecessary to arri>e at such judgment might also pro>e unmanageale for the

courts; !ertain pertinent information necessary to arri>e at such judgment might also

pro>e unmanageale for the courts; !ertain pertinent information might e difficult to

>erify, or wholly una>ailale to the courts; (n many instances, the e>idence upon

which the President might decide that there is a need to call out the armed forces may

e of a nature not constituting technical proof;

)n the other hand, the President as !ommanderin!hief has a >ast intelligence

networE to gather information, some of which may e classified as highly confidentialor affecting the security of the state; (n the eAercise of the power to call, onthespot

decisions may e imperati>ely necessary in emergency situations to a>ert great loss of

human li>es and mass destruction of property; AAA

Bat pp; 222:C

The !ourt, in a proper case, may looE into the sufficiency of the factual asis of the eAercise

of this power; Howe>er, this is no longer feasile at this time, Proclamation #o; :8 ha>ing een

lifted;

G.#. $o. %&'(%)

Petitioner Laban ng Demotrationg !ilipino is not a real partyininterest; The rule re6uires

that a party must show a personal staEe in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can

e redressed y a fa>orale decision so as to warrant an in>ocation of the courts jurisdiction and


40/137

to justify the eAercise of the courts remedial powers in his ehalf B +/ Labor Center v. Garcia,

0r., 2:9 -!+$ :8D 7199er, in

;+; #o; 180, 181, and 199, respondents, consistent and congruent with their

undertaEing earlier ad>erted to, together with their agents, representati>es, and all persons acting

for and in their ehalf, are herey enjoined from arresting petitioners therein without the re6uired

judicial warrant for all acts committed in relation to or in connection with the 4ay 1, 2001 siege

of 4alacaang;

SO OR$ERE$.

(n the matter of the Petition for 2abeas

Corpus of

CE%ARI GON%ALES a!"

3LIS MESA

ROBER#O RAFAEL PLI$O,Petitioner,

versus

;+; #o; 1092

Present?

P%#), C.0 ;,

%(-%4&(#,K

#$+"--$#T($),

-$#.)$'%T("++",KK!$+P(),

$%-T+($4$+T(#",

!)+)#$,

!$+P() 4)+$'"-,

$!%#$,

T(#$,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn2


41/137

G(!. EFREN AB, as !hief of -taff

of the $rmed *orces of

thePhilippines and all persons acting

in his stead and under his authority,

andGEN. ERNES#O $E LEON, in

his capacity as the *lag )fficer in

!ommand of the Philippine #a>y, and

all persons acting in his stead and

under his authority,

+espondents;

!H(!)#$$+(),

$+!($,

"'$-!), J+; and

#$!H%+$, 00.

Promulgated?

July , 200

A A

. " ! ( - ( ) #

!H(!)#$$+(), 0 ;?

&efore %s is a Petition for +e>iew under +ule G of the +ules of !ourt

assailing the .ecision71er the premises of the )aEwood Premiere

'uAury $partments B)aEwoodC located at the lorietta !ompleA, $yala $>enue,4aEati !ity; They disarmed the security guards of said estalishment and planted

eAplosi>es in its immediate surroundings;

The soldiers pulicly announced that they went to )aEwood to air their

grie>ances against the administration of President loria 4acapagal $rroyo

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn4


42/137

BPresident $rroyoC;They declared their withdrawal of support from the

!ommanderin!hief of the $*P President $rroyo and demanded her resignation

and that of the memers of her cainet and top officers of oth the $*P and the

Philippine #ational Police BP#PC;

$t aout one oclocE in the afternoon, President $rroyo issued Proclamation

#o; 2 declaring the country to e under a state of reellion; !onse6uently, she

issued eneral )rder #o; directing the $*P and the P#P to carry out all

reasonale measures, gi>ing due regard to constitutional rights, to suppress and

6uell the reellion;

$fter a series of negotiations etween the soldiers and the go>ernmentnegotiators, the former agreed to return to arracEs, thus ending the occupation of

)aEwood;

$mong those in>ol>ed in the occupation of )aEwood were !eFari onFales

and Julius 4esa, oth enlisted personnel of the Philippine #a>y; (t is in their ehalf

that the Petition for 2abeas Corpus was filed efore the !ourt of $ppeals;

)n 2 $ugust 200:, then $*P !hief of -taff #arciso '; $aya issued adirecti>e7:ice !ommanders and to the !hief of the (ntelligence

-er>ice of the $rmed *orces of the Philippines B(-$*PC regarding the !ustody of

4ilitary Personnel (n>ol>ed in the 2 July 200: 4utiny; )n the strength thereof,

onFales and 4esa were taEen into custody y their -er>ice !ommander;

onFales and 4esa were not charged efore a court martial with >iolation of

the $rticles of 3ar; They were, howe>er, among the soldiers charged efore

&ranch D1 of the +egional Trial !ourt B+T!C of 4aEati !ity, with the crimeof Coup Detat as defined under $rticle 1:$ of the +e>ised Penal !ode; -aid case

entitled, !eople v. Capt. +ilo D.+aestrecampo, et al. was docEeted as !riminal

!ase #o; 0:28; )n 18 #o>emer 200:, a !ommitment )rder was issued y the

+T! committing custody of the persons of onFales and 4esa to the !ommanding

)fficer of *ort -an *elipe #a>al &ase, !a>ite !ity;7


43/137

)n 8 .ecemer 200:, onFales and 4esa were discharged7Gice;

)n 1D .ecemer 200:, per order of the +T!, !riminal !ase #o; 0:28

was consolidated with !riminal !ase #o; 0:2D8 entitled, !eople v. #amon B.

Cardenas pending efore &ranch 18 of the +T! of 4aEati !ity, on the ground that

the cases are founded on the same facts and/or formed part of a series of offenses

of similar character ;7D<

(n a 4anifestation and 4otion dated : 4arch 200,

!ommodore #ormando #a>al, !ommander of #a>al &ase !a>ite, asEed the4aEati +T!, &ranch 18, to relie>e him of his duty as custodian of onFales and

4esa and that the latter e transferred to the 4aEati !ity Jail; 7ed him of his duty ut ordered the transfer of

onFales and 4esa from the #a>al &ase !a>ite in -angley Point, !a>ite !ity, to

the Philippine 4arine &rigade Head6uarters, Philippine 4arine,

*ort&onifacio, Taguig, 4etro 4anila, under the custody of the !ommander of the

4arine &rigade of the Philippine 4arines, *ort &onifacio, Taguig, 4etro 4anila;78<

(n an )rder dated 8 July 200, the +T! resol>ed the petitions for ail filed

y the accusedsoldiers; (t admitted onFales and 4esa, and twentyfi>e other co

accused to ail pegging the amount thereof at P100,000;00 each;79<

)n 19 July 200, oth onFales and 4esa posted ail;710ed for partial

reconsideration712encito +; uo, !hief -tate Prosecutor, ad>ised &rig; en; 4anuel

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn14


44/137

*; 'lena, Judge $d>ocate eneral, to defer action on the pro>isional release of

onFales and 4esa until the 4otion for +econsideration shall ha>e een resol>ed

and attained finality;71:il action

for certiorari under +ule DG of the +ules of !ourt with urgent prayer for

Temporary +estraining )rder BT+)C and/or 3rit of Preliminary (njunction, asEing

for the nullification and setting aside of the orders dated 8 July 200 and 2D

)ctoer 200 of Judge )scar &; Pimentel for ha>ing een issued without

jurisdiction and/or gra>e ause of discretion amounting to lacE or eAcess of jurisdiction; The Petition for Certiorari was raffled to the -e>enth .i>ision and

was docEeted as !$;+; -P #o; 880 entitled, !eople of the !hilippines v. 2on.

3scar B. !imentel, !residing 0udge of the #egional 4rial Court of +aati City,

Branch %&(; The !ourt of $ppeals B-e>enth .i>isionC did not issue a T+) and/or

preliminary injunction;

-ince onFales and 4esa continued to e in detention, a Petition for 2abeas

Corpus71<

was filed y petitioner Pulido on their ehalf on 22 July 200G; The casewas docEeted as !$;+; -P #o; 90GD and raffled to the Third .i>ision; (n

support thereof, it was argued that since onFales and 4esa are no longer suject

to 4ilitary 'aw as they had een discharged from the ser>ice on 8 .ecemer 200:,

and since they are not charged efore a court martial, the military authorities ha>e

no jurisdiction to detain them, and there is no legal ground to detain them further

ecause a court order for their release had already een issued;

)n 10 $ugust 200G, the !ourt of $ppeals B:rd .i>isionC issued a 3ritof 2abeas Corpus directing respondents en; "fren $u, !hief of -taff of the

$rmed *orces of the Philippines, and all persons acting in his stead and under his

authority, and en; "rnesto de 'eon, *lag )fficer in !ommand of the Philippine

#a>y, and all persons acting in his stead and under his authority, to produce the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn16


45/137

odies of onFales and 4esa efore the !ourt and to appear and show the cause

and >alidity of their detention;71G<

)n 18 $ugust 200G, a return of the 3rit of 2abeas Corpus was made;71Dision of

the !ourt of $ppeals, docEeted as !$;+; -P #o; 880@ and B2C petitioner is

guilty of forum shopping ecause of his failure to state in the petition that the order

granting ail has een ele>ated to the !ourt of $ppeals and pending efore

its

th

.i>ision;

)n 9 -eptemer 200G, the !ourt of $ppeals Bth .i>isionC rendered its

decision in !$;+; -P #o; 880 dismissing the petition that 6uestioned the

propriety of the granting of ail to onFales, 4esa, and twentyfi>e of their co

accused;71<

)n 12 -eptemer 200G, the !ourt of $ppeals B: rd .i>isionC dismissed the

Petition for 2abeas Corpus for >iolation of -ection G, +ule of the +ules of !ourt; (t ratiocinated?

$ reading of the parties sumissions re>eals a threshold issue the charge

of forum shopping and the related falsity in the certification supporting

the petition; 3e must initially resol>e these issues ecause a finding that

the petitioner >iolated -ection G, +ule of the +ules of !ourt can lead to

the outright dismissal of the present petition; A A A

A A A A

The records show that the present petition contained the following

certificate of nonforum shopping?

(, +)&"+T) +$*$"' P%'(.), with office address at

%nit 1D01, 1Dth *loor 1:9 !orporate !enter alero -treet,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/170924.htm#_ft

Documents

RULE 102 - Writ of Amparo