Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

200238 November 20, 2012 PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BAN !PSBAN " #$% PASCUAL M. GARCIA III, #& re're&e$(#()ve o* P+),)'')$e S#v)$-& B#$. #$% )$ +)& 'er&o$#, /#'#/)(0, Petitioners, vs. SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT, /o$&)&()$- o* (+e &e$#(or& o* (+e re'1b,)/ o* (+e '+),)'')$e& #/()$- #& &e$#(or 21%-e&, $#me,03 4UAN PONCE ENRILE, 4INGGO5 E4ERCITO ESTRA6A, VICENTE C. SOTTO III, ALAN PETER S. CA5ETANO, E6GAR6O 4. ANGARA, 4O ER P. ARRO5O, PIA S. CA5ETANO, 7RAN LIN M. 6RILON, 7RANCIS G. ESCU6ERO, TEO7ISTO GUINGONA III, GREGORIO B. HONASAN II, PAN7ILO M. LACSON, MANUEL M. LAPI6, LOREN B. LEGAR6A, 7ER6INAN6 R. MARCOS, 4R., SERGIO R. OSMENA III, 7RANCIS 8 I O8 PANGILINAN, A9UILINO PIMENTEL III, RALPH G. RECTO, RAMON REVILLA, 4R., ANTONIO 7. TRILLANES IV, MANN5 VILLAR: #$% THE HONORABLE MEMBERS O7 THE PROSECUTION PANEL O7 THE HOUSE O7 REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents. RESOL PERLAS;BERNABE, J.: Petitioners Philippine Savin#s Ban$ %PSBan$& and Pascual M. 'arcia """, as President of PSBan$, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition see$in# to nullit( and set aside the Resolution ) of respondent Senate of the Republic of the Philippines, sittin# as an "*peach*ent Court, +hich #ranted the prosecution,s re-uests for subpoena duces tecu* ad testificandu* . to PSBan$ and/or its representatives re-uirin# the* to testif( and produce before the "*peach*ent Court docu*ents relative to the forei#n currenc( accounts that +ere alle#ed to belon# to then Suprerpe Court Chief 0ustice Renato C. Corona. On Nove*ber 1, .2)., and durin# the pendenc( of this petition, petitioners filed a Motion +ith Leave of Court to 3ithdra+ the Petition4 averrin# that subse-uent events have overta$en the petition and that, +ith the ter*ination of the i*peach*ent proceedin#s a#ainst for*er Chief 0ustice Corona, the( are no lon#er faced +ith the dile**a of either violatin# Republic Act No. 56.5 %RA 56.5& or bein# held in conte*pt of court for refusin# to disclose the details of the sub7ect forei#n currenc( deposits. "t is +ell8settled that courts +ill not deter*ine -uestions that have beco*e *oot and acade*ic because there is no lon#er an( 7usticiable controvers( to spea$ of. !he 7ud#*ent +ill not serve an( useful purpose or have an( practical le#al effect because, in the nature of thin#s, it cannot be enforced.6 "n 'ancho8on v. Secretar( of Labor and E*plo(*ent, 1 the Court ruled9 "t is a rule of universal application that courts of 7ustice constituted to pass upon substantial ri#hts +ill not consider -uestions in +hich no actual interests are involved: the( decline 7urisdiction of *oot cases. And +here the issue has beco*e *oot and acade*ic, there is no 7usticiable controvers(, so that a declaration thereon +ould be of no practical use or value. !here is no actual substantial relief to +hich petitioners +ould be entitled and +hich +ould be ne#ated b( the dis*issal of the petition. %Citations o*itted& "ndeed, the *ain issue of +hether the "*peach*ent Court acted arbitraril( +hen it issued the assailed subpoena to obtain infor*ation concernin# the sub7ect forei#n currenc( deposits not+ithstandin# the confidentialit( of such deposits under RA 56.5 has been overta$en b( events. !he supervenin# conviction of Chief 0ustice Corona on Ma( .;, .2)., as +ell as his e<ecution of a +aiver a#ainst the confidentialit( of all his ban$ accounts, +hether in peso or forei#n currenc(, has rendered the present petition *oot and acade*ic. On the basis of the fore#oin#, the Court finds it appropriate to abstain fro* passin# upon the *erits of this case +here le#al relief is no lon#er needed nor called for.
1wphi1

!"ON

3=ERE>ORE, the petition is ?"SM"SSE? for havin# beco*e *oot and acade*ic and the te*porar( restrainin# order issued b( the Court on >ebruar( ;, .2). is L">!E?. So Ordered.

Facts: Philippine Savings Bank (PS Bank) and its President, Pascual M. Garcia III, filed bef re the Supre!e " urt an riginal civil acti n f r certi rari and pr hibiti n #ith applicati n f r te!p rar$ restraining rder and% r #rit f preli!inar$ in&uncti n. 'he '() #as s ught t st p the Senate, sitting as i!peach!ent c urt, fr ! further i!ple!enting the Subp ena Ad Testificandum et Duces Tecum, dated Februar$ *, +,-+, that it issued against the Branch Manager f PS Bank, .atipunan Branch. 'he subp ena assailed b$ petiti ners c vers the f reign currenc$ den !inated acc unts allegedl$ #ned b$ the i!peached "hief /ustice (enat " r na f the Philippine Supre!e " urt. Issue:
3hether or not the "*peach*ent Court acted arbitraril( +hen it issued the assailed subpoena to obtain infor*ation concernin# the sub7ect forei#n currenc( deposits not+ithstandin# the confidentialit( of such deposits under RA 56.5 has been overta$en b( events.

0eld:
"t is a rule of universal application that courts of 7ustice constituted to pass upon substantial ri#hts +ill not consider -uestions in +hich no actual interests are involved: the( decline 7urisdiction of *oot cases. And +here the issue has beco*e *oot and acade*ic, there is no 7usticiable controvers(, so that a declaration thereon +ould be of no practical use or value. !he supervenin# conviction of Chief 0ustice Corona as +ell as his e<ecution of a +aiver a#ainst the confidentialit( of all his ban$ accounts, +hether in peso or forei#n currenc(, has rendered the present petition *oot and acade*ic. Opinion9

'he !a& rit$ ruling in effect advises all g vern!ent fficials and e!pl $ees that the$ can legall$ evade rep rting their actual assets in their State!ent f 1ssets, 2iabilities and 3et 4 rth, #hich is re5uired b$ the " nstituti n- and (1 3 s. 6,-7+ and *8-6,6 b$ si!pl$ pening f reign currenc$ dep sit acc unts #ith l cal banks. 'he !a& rit$ h lds that under Secti n 9 f (1 3 . *:+*, f r f reign currenc$ dep sits f g vern!ent fficials and e!pl $ees are abs lutel$ c nfidential, even in i!peach!ent r briber$ cases filed against the!. 'he !a& rit$ declares that f reign currenc$ dep sit acc unts can be pened in an$ &udicial, ad!inistrative, legislative, r i!peach!ent in5uir$ nl$ if the acc unt #ner hi!self c nsents in #riting t pen his acc unt t his pr secut rs r investigat rs.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L;<1813;1= November 2>, 1>83 ROMULO CANTIMBUHAN, NELSON B. MALANA, #$% ROBERT V. LUCILA, petitioners, vs. HON. NICANOR 4. CRU?, 4R., Pre&)%)$- 41%-e o* (+e M1$)/)'#, Co1r( o* P#r#@#A1e, Me(ro M#$),#, #$% 7ISCAL LEO6EGARIO C. 9UILATAN, respondents.

Froilan M. Bacungan and Alfredo F. Tadiar for petitioners. The Solicitor General for respondents.

RELOVA, J.:

+.wph!1

Appeal fro* the Order, dated Au#ust )5, );@;, of respondent 0ud#e Nicanor 0. CruA, 0r., of the then Municipal Court of ParaBa-ue, Metro Manila, disallo+in# the appearances of petitioners Nelson B. Malana and Robert C. Lucila as private prosecutors in Cri*inal Cases Nos. 1D16; and 1D112, both for less serious ph(sical in7uries, filed a#ainst Pat. ?anilo San Antonio and Pat. Rodolfo ?iaA, respectivel(, as +ell as the Order, dated Septe*ber 6, );@;, den(in# the *otion for reconsideration holdin#, a*on# others, that Ethe fiscal,s clai* that appearances of friends of part(8liti#ants should be allo+ed onl( in places +here there is a scarcit( of le#al practitioner, to be +ell founded. >or, if +e are to allo+ non8*e*bers of the bar to appear in court and prosecute cases or defend liti#ants in the #uise of bein# friends of the liti#ants, then the re-uire*ent of *e*bership in the "nte#rated Bar of the Philippines and the additional re-uire*ent of pa(in# professional ta<es for a la+(er to appear in court, +ould be put to nau#ht. E %p. .1, Rollo& Records sho+ that on April 5, );@;, petitioner Ro*ulo Canti*buhan filed separate cri*inal co*plaints a#ainst Patrol*en ?anilo San Antonio and Rodolfo ?iaA for less serious ph(sical in7uries, respectivel(, and +ere doc$eted as Cri*inal Cases Nos. 1D16; and 1D112 in the then Municipal Court of ParaBa-ue, Metro Manila. Petitioners Nelson B. Malana and Robert C. Lucila, in );@;, +ere senior la+ students of the .P.assistance to the need( clients in the Office of the Le#al Aid. !hus, in Au#ust );@;, petitioners Malana and Lucila filed their separate appearances, as friends of co*plainant8petitioner Canti*buhan. =erein respondent >iscal Leode#ario C. Fuilatan opposed the appearances of said petitioners, and respondent 7ud#e, in an Order dated Au#ust )5, );@;, sustained the respondent fiscal and disallo+ed the appearances of petitioners Malana and Lucila, as private prosecutors in said cri*inal cases. Li$e+ise, on Septe*ber 6, );@;, respondent 0ud#e issued an order den(in# petitioners, *otion for reconsideration. =ence, this petition for certiorari, *anda*us and prohibition +ith pra(ers, a*on# others, that the Orders of respondent 7ud#e, dated Au#ust )5, );@; and Septe*ber 6, );@;, be set aside as the( are in plain violation of Section 46, Rule )4D of the Rules of Court and/or +ere issued +ith #rave abuse of discretion a*ountin# to lac$ of 7urisdiction. pon *otion, the Court, on Nove*ber D, );@;, issued a te*porar( restrainin# order Een7oinin# respondent 7ud#e and all persons actin# for and in his behalf fro* conductin# an( proceedin#s in Cri*inal Cases Nos. 1D16; %People of the Philippines vs. ?anilo San Antonio& and 1D11; %People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo ?iaA& of the Municipal Court of ParaBa-ue, Metro Manila on Nove*ber )1, );@; as scheduled or on an( such dates as *a( be fi<ed b( said respondent 7ud#e. Basis of this petition is Section 46, Rule )4D of the Rules of Court +hich states9
t. h!w

SEC. 46. B" who# litigation conducted. G "n the court of a 7ustice of the peace a part( *a( conduct his liti#ation in person, +ith the aid of an a#ent or friend appointed b( hi* for that purpose, or +ith the aid of an attorne(. "n an( other court, a part( *a( conduct his liti#ation personall( or b( aid of an attorne(, and his appearance *ust be either personal or b( a dul( authoriAed *e*ber of the bar. !hus, a non8*e*ber of the Philippine Bar G a part( to an action is authoriAed to appear in court and conduct his o+n case: and, in the inferior courts, the liti#ant *a( be aided b( a friend or a#ent or b( an attorne(. =o+ever, in the Courts of >irst "nstance, no+ Re#ional !rial Courts, he can be aided onl( b( an attorne(. On the other hand, it is the sub*ission of the respondents that pursuant to Sections 6 and )1, Rule ))2 of the Rules of Court, it is the fiscal +ho is e*po+ered to deter*ine +ho shall be the private prosecutor as +as done b( respondent fiscal +hen he ob7ected to the appearances of petitioners Malana and Lucila. Sections 6 and )1, Rule ))2 of the Rules of Court provide9
t. h!w

SEC. 6. $ho #ust prosecute cri#inal actions. G All cri*inal actions either co**enced b( co*plaint or b( infor*ation shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. <<< <<< <<< SEC. )1. %nter&ention of the offended part" in cri#inal action. G nless the offended part( has +aived the civil action or e<pressl( reserved the ri#ht to institute it separatel( fro* the cri*inal action, and sub7ect to the provisions of section 6 hereof, he *a( intervene, personall( or b( attorne(, in the prosecution of the offense. And, the( contend that the e<ercise b( the offended part( to intervene is sub7ect to the direction and control of the fiscal and that his appearance, no less than his active conduct of the case later on, re-uires the prior approval of the fiscal. 3e find *erit in the petition. Section 46, Rule )4D of the Rules of Court, clearl( provides that in the *unicipal court a part( *a( conduct his liti#ation in person +ith the aid of an a#ent appointed b( hi* for the purpose. !hus, in the case of 'aput &s. Berna(e, 11 Phil. 5.), a la+ student +as allo+ed to represent the accused in a case pendin# before the then Municipal Court, the Cit( Court of Manila, +ho +as char#ed for da*a#es to propert( throu#h rec$less i*prudence. E"t is accordin#l( our vie+ that error +as co**itted in the *unicipal court in not allo+in# Crispiniano C. Laput to act as an a#ent or friend of Catalino Salas to aid the latter in conductin# his defense.E !he per*ission of the fiscal is not necessar( for one to enter his appearance as private prosecutor. "n the first place, the la+ does not i*pose this condition. 3hat the fiscal can do, if he +ants to handle the case personall( is to disallo+ the private prosecutor,s participation, +hether he be a la+(er or not, in the trial of the case. On the other hand, if the fiscal desires the active participation of the private prosecutor, he can 7ust *anifest to the court that the private prosecutor, +ith its approval, +ill conduct the prosecution of the case under his supervision and control. >urther, 3e *a( add that if a non8la+(er can appear as defense counsel or as friend of the accused in a case before the *unicipal trial court, +ith *ore reason should he be allo+ed to appear as private prosecutor under the supervision and control of the trial fiscal. "n the t+o cri*inal cases filed before the Municipal Court of ParaBa-ue, petitioner Canti*buhan, as the offended part(, did not e<pressl( +aive the civil action nor reserve his ri#ht to institute it separatel( and, therefore, the civil action is dee*ed i*pliedl( instituted in said cri*inal cases. !hus, said co*plainant Ro*ulo Canti*buhan has personal interest in the success of the civil action and, in the prosecution of the sa*e, he cannot be deprived of his ri#ht to be assisted b( a friend +ho is not a la+(er. 3=ERE>ORE, the Orders issued b( respondent 7ud#e dated Au#ust )5, );@; and Septe*ber 6, );@; +hich disallo+ed the appearances of petitioners Nelson B. Malana and Robert C. Lucila as friends of part(8liti#ant petitioner Ro*ulo Canti*buhan. are hereb( SE! AS"?E and respondent 7ud#e is hereb( ordered to ALLO3 the appearance and intervention of petitioners Malana and Lucila as friends of Ro*ulo Canti*buhan. Accordin#l(, the te*porar( restrainin# order issued on Nove*ber D, );@; is L">!E?. SO OR?ERE?.
1)wph*1.+t

Facts:

)n 1pril *, -787, petiti ner ( !ul "anti!buhan filed separate cri!inal c !plaints against Patr l!en ;anil San 1nt ni and ( d lf ;ia< f r less seri us ph$sical in&uries, respectivel$ at M'" f Paranaue. )n 1ugust -787, petiti ners Malana and 2ucila filed their separate appearances, as friends f c !plainant=petiti ner "anti!buhan. 'he resp ndent Fiscal 2e degari ". >uilatan pp sed the appearances f said petiti ners, and resp ndent &udge sustained the resp ndent fiscal and disall #ed the appearances f petiti ners Malana and 2ucila, as private pr secut rs in said cri!inal cases. 2ike#ise, n Septe!ber :, -787, resp ndent /udge issued an rder den$ing petiti ners? ! ti n f r rec nsiderati n. Issue: 4hether r n t there is a grave abuse f discreti n n the part f the petiti ner t represent hi!self as private pr secut r in a cri!inal case. (uling: Pursuant t Secti ns : and -@, (ule --, f the (ules f " urt, it is the fiscal #h is e!p #ered t deter!ine #h shall be the private pr secut r as #as d ne b$ resp ndent fiscal #hen he b&ected t the appearances f petiti ners Malana and 2ucila. Secti ns : and -@, (ule --, f the (ules f " urt pr vide: tAB.CDh5#EC SF". :. 4h !ust pr secute cri!inal acti ns. G 1ll cri!inal acti ns either c !!enced b$ c !plaint r b$ inf r!ati n shall be pr secuted under the directi n and c ntr l f the fiscal. SF". -@. Interventi n f the ffended part$ in cri!inal acti n. G Hnless the ffended part$ has #aived the civil acti n r eIpressl$ reserved the right t institute it separatel$ fr ! the cri!inal acti n, and sub&ect t the pr visi ns f secti n : here f, he !a$ intervene, pers nall$ r b$ att rne$, in the pr secuti n f the ffense. 'he per!issi n f the fiscal is n t necessar$ f r ne t enter his appearance as private pr secut r. If the fiscal #ants t handle the case pers nall$ is t disall # the private pr secut r?s participati n, #hether he be a la#$er r n t, in the trial f the case Further, if a n n=la#$er can appear as defense c unsel r as friend f the accused in a case bef re the !unicipal trial c urt, #ith ! re reas n sh uld he be all #ed t appear as private pr secut r under the supervisi n and c ntr l f the trial fiscal.

(ules f " urt specificall$ pr vides that it is Ja part$J #h !a$ c nduct his litigati n in pers n, #ith the aid f an agent r friend app inted b$ hi! f r that purp se in the " urt f a /ustice f the Peace. ( !ul "anti!buhan is n t a part$ #ithin the !eaning f the said (ule. 1 c !plaining #itness r an ffended part$ nl$ intervene in a cri!inal acti n in respect f the civil liabilit$. Secti ns : and -@, (ule --, f the (ules f " urt, being the ! re specific pr visi ns in respect f cri!inal cases, sh uld take precedence ver Secti n 6:, (ule -69 and sh uld be c ntr lling (Bagatsing vs. 0 n. (a!ire<, 8: S"(1 6,* K-78*L). Secti n : pr vides that all cri!inal acti ns shall be pr secuted under the directi n and c ntr l f the Fiscal, #hile Secti n -@ specificall$ pr vides that the ffended part$ !a$ intervene, pers nall$ r b$ att rne$, in the pr secuti n f the ffense. 0ence, the appearances f petiti ners as private pr secut rs in the cri!inal cases is disall #ed.

EN BANC
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO. Present: ")()31, C.J., "1(PI), "1(PI) M)(12FS, MF21S"), /(., 31"0H(1, 2F)31(;)=;F "1S'(), B(I)3, PF(12'1, BF(S1MI3, ;F2 "1S'I22), 1B1;, MI221(1M1, /(., PF(FN, MF3;)N1, and SF(F3), JJ. Pr !ulgated: )ct ber -+, +,-, I ======================================================================================= I

DECISION
PER CURIAM:
'his case is c ncerned #ith charges that, in preparing a decisi n f r the " urt, a designated !e!ber plagiari<ed the # rks f certain auth rs and t#isted their !eanings t supp rt the decisi n. The Bac !"o#$% Fac&' Petiti ners Isabelita ". Minu$a and ab ut 8, ther elderl$ # !en, all !e!bers f the Mala$a 2 las )rgani<ati n, filed #ith the " urt in G.(. 3 . -*++6, a special civil acti n f certiorari #ith applicati n f r preli!inar$

!andat r$ in&uncti n against the FIecutive Secretar$, the Secretar$ f F reign 1ffairs, the Secretar$ f /ustice, and the )ffice f the S licit r General. Petiti ners clai!ed that in destr $ing villages in the Philippines during 4 rld 4ar II, the /apanese ar!$ s$ste!aticall$ raped the! and a nu!ber f ther # !en, sei<ing the! and h lding the! in h uses r cells #here s ldiers repeatedl$ ravished and abused the!. Petiti ners alleged that the$ have since -779 been appr aching the FIecutive ;epart!ent, represented b$ the resp ndent public fficials, re5uesting assistance in filing clai!s against the /apanese !ilitar$ fficers #h established the c !f rt # !en stati ns. But that ;epart!ent declined, sa$ing that petiti nersO individual clai!s had alread$ been full$ satisfied under the Peace 'reat$ bet#een the Philippines and /apan. Petiti ners #anted the " urt t render &udg!ent, c !pelling the FIecutive ;epart!ent t esp use their clai!s f r fficial ap l g$ and ther f r!s f reparati ns against /apan bef re the Internati nal " urt f /ustice and ther internati nal tribunals. )n 1pril +9, +,-,, the " urt rendered &udg!ent dis!issing petiti nersO acti n. /ustice Marian ". del "astill #r te the decisi n f r the " urt. 'he " urt essentiall$ gave t# reas ns f r its decisi n: it cann t grant the petiti n because, ()"'&, the FIecutive ;epart!ent has the eIclusive prer gative under the " nstituti n and the la# t deter!ine #hether t esp use petiti nersO clai! against /apanP and, 'eco$%, the Philippines is n t under an$ bligati n in internati nal la# t esp use their clai!s. )n /une 7, +,-,, petiti ners filed a ! ti n f r rec nsiderati n f the " urtOs decisi n. M re than a ! nth later n /ul$ -9, +,-,, c unsel f r petiti ners, 1tt$. 0er!ini 0arr$ ( 5ue, /r., ann unced in his nline bl g that his clients # uld file a supple!ental petiti n Qdetailing plagiaris! c !!itted b$ the c urtR under the 'eco$% reas n it gave f r dis!issing the petiti n and that Qthese st len passages #ere als t#isted t supp rt the c urtOs err ne us c nclusi ns that the Filipin c !f rt # !en f 4 rld 4ar '# have n further legal re!edies.R 'he !edia gave publicit$ t 1tt$. ( 5ueOs ann unce!ent. )n /ul$ -7, +,-,, petiti ners filed the supple!ental ! ti n f r rec nsiderati n that 1tt$. ( 5ue ann unced. It accused /ustice ;el "astill f Q!anifest intellectual theft and utright plagiaris!R K-L #hen he #r te the decisi n f r the " urt and f Qt#isting the true intents f the plagiari<ed s urces S t suit the argu!ents f the assailed /udg!ent.RK+L 'he$ charged /ustice ;el "astill f c p$ing #ith ut ackn #ledge!ent certain passages fr ! three f reign articles:

a. A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens b$ Fvan /. "riddle and Fvan F I=;escent, Tale / urnal f Internati nal 2a# (+,,7)P b. Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime b$ Mark Fllis, "ase 4estern (eserve / urnal f Internati nal 2a# (+,,*)P and c. nforcing rga !mnes !"ligations b$ "hristian /. 'a!s, "a!bridge Hniversit$ Press (+,,@). Petiti ners clai! that the integrit$ f the " urtOs deliberati ns in the case has been put int 5uesti n b$ /ustice ;el "astill Os fraud. 'he " urt sh uld thus Qaddress and discl se t the public the truth ab ut the !anifest intellectual theft and utright plagiaris!RK6L that resulted in gr ss pre&udice t the petiti ners. Because f the publicit$ that the supple!ental ! ti n f r rec nsiderati n generated, /ustice ;el "astill circulated a letter t his c lleagues, subse5uentl$ verified, stating that #hen he #r te the decisi n f r the " urt he had the intent t attribute all s urces used in it. 0e said in the pertinent part:
I& *#'& +e e*,ha')-e% &ha& &he"e .a' e/e"0 )$&e$&)o$ &o a&&")+#&e a11 'o#"ce', .he$e/e" %#e. A& $o ,o)$& .a' &he"e e/e" a$0 *a1)c)o#' )$&e$& &o a,,"o,")a&e a$o&he"2' .o" a' o#" o.$. 3e "eca11 &ha& &h)' ponencia .a' &h")ce )$c1#%e% )$ &he A!e$%a o( &he Co#"& en banc. I& .a' %e1)+e"a&e% #,o$ %#")$! &he Ba!#)o 'e'')o$ o$ A,")1 14, 5010, A,")1 50, 5010 a$% )$ Ma$)1a o$ A,")1 57, 5010. Each &)*e, '#!!e'&)o$' .e"e *a%e .h)ch $ece'')&a&e% *a6o" "e/)')o$' )$ &he %"a(&. So#"ce' .e"e "e-'&#%)e%, %)'c#'')o$' *o%)()e%, ,a''a!e' a%%e% o" %e1e&e%. The "e'#1&)$! %ec)')o$ co*,")'e' 47 ,a!e' .)&h 78 (oo&$o&e'. 9999 A' "e!a"%' &he c1a)* o( &he ,e&)&)o$e"' &ha& &he co$ce,&' a' co$&a)$e% )$ &he a+o/e (o"e)!$ *a&e")a1' .e"e :&.)'&e%,; &he 'a*e "e*a)$' &he)" o,)$)o$ .h)ch .e %o $o& $ece''a")10 'ha"e. K:L

)n /ul$ +8, +,-,, the " urt n Banc referred the charges against /ustice ;el "astill t its " !!ittee n Fthics and Fthical Standards, chaired b$ the "hief /ustice, f r investigati n and rec !!endati n. 'he "hief /ustice designated retired /ustice / se ". Mitug t serve as c nsultant f the " !!ittee. 0e graci usl$ accepted. )n 1ugust +, +,-,, the " !!ittee directed petiti ners t c !!ent n /ustice ;el "astill Os verified letter. 4hen this #as d ne, it set the !atter f r hearing.

In the !eanti!e, n /ul$ -7, +,-,, Fvan "riddle #r te n his bl g that he and his c =auth r Fvan F I=;escent (referred t & intl$ as "riddle=;escent) learned f alleged plagiaris! inv lving their # rk but "riddleOs c ncern, after reading the supple!ental ! ti n f r rec nsiderati n, #as the " urtOs c nclusi n that pr hibiti ns against seIual slaver$ are n t #us cogens r internati nall$ binding n r!s that treaties cann t di!inish. )n /ul$ +6, +,-,, ;r. Mark Fllis #r te the " urt eIpressing c ncern that in !enti ning his # rk, the " urt Q!a$ have !isread the argu!ent KheL !ade in the article and e!pl $ed the! f r cr ss purp ses.R ;r. Fllis said that he #r te the article precisel$ t argue f r appr priate legal re!ed$ f r victi!s f #ar cri!es. )n 1ugust 9, +,-,, after the referral f the !atter t the " !!ittee f r investigati n, the ;ean f the Hniversit$ f the Philippines (H.P.) " llege f 2a# publici<ed a State!ent fr ! his facult$, clai!ing that the $inuya decisi n #as Qan eItra rdinar$ act f in&usticeR and a Qsingularl$ reprehensible act f dish nest$ and !isrepresentati n b$ the 0ighest " urt f the land.R 'he state!ent said that /ustice ;el "astill had a Qdeliberate intenti n t appr priate the riginal auth rsO # rk,R and that the " urtOs decisi n a! unted t Qan act f intellectual fraud b$ c p$ing # rks in rder t !islead and deceive.RK@L )n 1ugust -9, +,-, Mr. "hristian /. 'a!s #r te "hief /ustice (enat ". " r na that, alth ugh relevant sentences in the " urtOs decisi n #ere taken fr ! his # rk, he #as given generic reference nl$ in the f tn te and in c nnecti n #ith a citati n fr ! an ther auth r (Brun Si!!a) rather than #ith respect t the passages taken fr ! his # rk. 0e th ught that the f r! f referencing #as inappr priate. Mr. 'a!s #as als c ncerned that the decisi n !a$ have used his # rk t supp rt an appr ach t erga omnes c ncept ( bligati ns #ed b$ individual States t the c !!unit$ f nati ns) that is n t c nsistent #ith #hat he adv cated. )n 1ugust +*, +,-,, the " !!ittee heard the partiesO sub!issi ns in the su!!ar$ !anner f ad!inistrative investigati ns. " unsels fr ! b th sides #ere given a!ple ti!e t address the " !!ittee and sub!it their evidence. 'he " !!ittee 5ueried the! n these. " unsels f r /ustice ;el "astill later asked t be heard #ith the ther parties n t in attendance s the$ c uld !ake sub!issi ns that their client regarded as sensitive and c nfidential, inv lving the drafting pr cess that #ent int the !aking f the " urtOs decisi n in the $inuya case. Petiti nersO c unsels vig r usl$ b&ected and the " !!ittee sustained the b&ecti n. 1fter c nsulting /ustice ;el "astill , his c unsels re5uested the " !!ittee t hear the /usticeOs c urt researcher, #h se na!e need n t be !enti ned here, eIplain the research

# rk that #ent int the !aking f the decisi n in the $inuya case. 'he " !!ittee granted the re5uest. 'he researcher de! nstrated b$ P #er P int presentati n h # the attributi n f the lifted passages t the #ritings f "riddle=;escent and Fllis, f und in the beginning drafts f her rep rt t /ustice ;el "astill , #ere unintenti nall$ deleted. She tearfull$ eIpressed re! rse at her Qgriev us !istakeR and grief f r having Qcaused an en r! us a! unt f suffering f r /ustice ;el "astill and his fa!il$.RK*L )n the ther hand, addressing the " !!ittee in reacti n t the researcherOs eIplanati n, c unsel f r petiti ners insisted that lack f intent is n t a defense in plagiaris! since all that is re5uired is f r a #riter t ackn #ledge that certain # rds r language in his # rk #ere taken fr ! an therOs # rk. " unsel inv ked the " urtOs ruling in %ni&ersity of the 'hilippines Board of Regents &( Court of Appeals and Arokias)amy *illiam +argaret Celine ,K8L arguing that standards n plagiaris! in the acade!e sh uld appl$ #ith ! re f rce t the &udiciar$. 1fter the hearing, the " !!ittee gave the parties ten da$s t file their respective !e! randa. 'he$ filed their !e! randa in due c urse. Subse5uentl$ after deliberati n, the " !!ittee sub!itted its unani! us findings and rec !!endati ns t the " urt. The I''#e' 'his case presents t# issues: -. 4hether r n t, in #riting the pini n f r the " urt in the $inuya case, /ustice ;el "astill plagiari<ed the published # rks f auth rs 'a!s, "riddle=;escent, and Fllis. +. 4hether r n t /ustice ;el "astill t#isted the # rks f these auth rs t !ake it appear that such # rks supp rted the " urtOs p siti n in the $inuya decisi n. The Co#"&2' R#1)$!' Because f the pending ! ti n f r rec nsiderati n in the $inuya case, the " urt like its " !!ittee n Fthics and Fthical Standards #ill purp sel$ av id t uching the !erits f the " urtOs decisi n in that case r the s undness r lack f s undness f the p siti n it has s far taken in the sa!e. 'he " urt #ill deal, n t #ith the essential !erit r persuasiveness f the f reign auth rOs # rks, but h # the decisi n that /ustice ;el "astill #r te f r the " urt appr priated parts f th se # rks and f r #hat purp se the decisi n e!pl $ed the sa!e.

1t its ! st basic, plagiaris! !eans the th ughts, r ideas. ' plagiari<e, as it is c 4ebster, is Qt take (ideas, #ritings, etc.) fr neOs #n.RK9L 'he passing ff f the # rk indispensable ele!ent f plagiaris!. The Pa''a!e' ("o* Ta*'

theft f an ther pers nOs language, !! nl$ underst d acc rding t ! (an ther) and pass the! ff as f an ther as neOs #n is thus an

Petiti ners p int ut that the $inuya decisi n lifted passages fr ! 'a!sO b k, nforcing rga !mnes !"ligations in International ,a) -.//01 and used the! in F tn te *7 #ith #hat the auth r th ught #as a !ere generic reference. But, alth ugh 'a!s hi!self !a$ have believed that the f tn ting in this case #as n t Qan appr priate f r! f referencing,RK7L he and petiti ners cann t den$ that the decisi n did attribute the s urce r s urces f such passages. /ustice ;el "astill did n t pass ff 'a!sO # rk as his #n. 'he /ustice pri!aril$ attributed the ideas e!b died in the passages t Brun Si!!a, #h ! 'a!s hi!self credited f r the!. Still, F tn te *7 !enti ned, apart fr ! Si!!a, 'a!sO article as an ther s urce f th se ideas. 'he " urt believes that #hether r n t the f tn te is sufficientl$ detailed, s as t satisf$ the f tn ting standards f c unsel f r petiti ners is n t an ethical !atter but ne c ncerning clarit$ f #riting. 'he state!ent QSee 'a!s, Fnf rcing )bligati ns rga !mnes in Internati nal 2a# (+,,@)R in the $inuya decisi n is an attributi n n !atter if 'a!s th ught that it gave hi! s !e#hat less credit than he deserved. Such attributi n alt gether negates the idea that /ustice ;el "astill passed ff the challenged passages as his #n. 'hat it # uld have been better had /ustice ;el "astill used the intr duct r$ phrase Qcited inR rather than the phrase QSeeR # uld !ake a case f !ere inadvertent slip in attributi n rather than a case f Q!anifest intellectual theft and utright plagiaris!.R If the /usticeOs citati ns #ere i!precise, it # uld &ust be a case f bad f tn ting rather than ne f theft r deceit. If it #ere ther#ise, !an$ # uld be target f abuse f r ever$ edit rial err r, f r ever$ !istake in citing paginati n, and f r ever$ technical detail f f r!. The Pa''a!e' ("o* E11)' a$% C")%%1e-De'ce$& Petiti ners als attack the " urtOs decisi n f r lifting and using as f tn tes, #ith ut attributi n t the auth r, passages fr ! the published # rk f Fllis. 'he " urt !ade the f ll #ing state!ent n page +8 f its decisi n, !arked #ith F tn te *@ at the end:

3e (#110 a!"ee &ha& "a,e, 'e9#a1 '1a/e"0, &o"&#"e, a$% 'e9#a1 /)o1e$ce a"e *o"a110 "e,"ehe$')+1e a' .e11 a' 1e!a110 ,"oh)+)&e% #$%e" co$&e*,o"a"0 )$&e"$a&)o$a1 1a.. <= 999

F tn te *@ appears d #n the b tt ! f the page. Since the length$ passages in that f tn te ca!e al! st verbati! fr ! FllisO article, K-,L such passages ught t have been intr duced b$ an ackn #ledge!ent that the$ are fr ! that article. 'he f tn te c uld ver$ #ell have read:
<= I$ a$ a"&)c1e, Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime , Ca'e 3e'&e"$ Re'e"/e Jo#"$a1 o( I$&e"$a&)o$a1 La. >500<?, Ma" E11)' 'a)%@ 'he c ncept f rape as an internati nal cri!e is relativel$ ne#. 'his is n t t sa$ that rape has never been hist ricall$ pr hibited, particularl$ in #ar. But ! dern=da$ sensitivit$ t the cri!e f rape did n t e!erge until after 4 rld 4ar II. In the 3ure!berg "harter, the # rd rape #as n t !enti ned. 'he article n cri!es against hu!anit$ eIplicitl$ set f rth pr hibited acts, but rape #as n t !enti ned b$ na!e. (F r eIa!ple, the 'reat$ f 1!it$ and " !!erce bet#een Prussia and the Hnited States pr vides that in ti!e f #ar all # !en and children Qshall n t be ! lested in their pers ns.R 'he 'reat$ f 1!it$ and " !!erce, Bet#een his Ma&est$ the .ing f Prussia and the Hnited States f 1!erica, art. +6, Sept. -,, -89@, H.S.=Pruss., 9 '(F1'IFS U )'0F( I3'?2 1G(FFMF3'S )F '0F H.S. 89, 9@. 'he -9*6 2ieber Instructi ns classified rape as a cri!e f Qtr p discipline.R (Mitchell, The Pr hibiti n f (ape in Internati nal 0u!anitarian 2a# as a 3 r! f /us c gens: "larif$ing the ; ctrine, -@ ;H.F /. ")MP. I3'O2. 2. +-7, ++:). It specified rape as a capital cri!e punishable b$ the death penalt$ ( Id. at +6*). 'he -7,8 0ague " nventi n pr tected # !en b$ re5uiring the pr tecti n f their Qh n ur.R (QFa!il$ h n ur and rights, the lives f pers ns, and private pr pert$, as #ell as religi us c nvicti ns and practice, !ust be respected.R " nventi n (IM) (especting the 2a#s U "ust !s f 4ar n 2and, art. :*, )ct. -9, -7,8. General 1sse!bl$ res luti n 7@ (I) f ;ece!ber --, -7:* entitled, Q1ffir!ati n f the Principles f Internati nal 2a# rec gni<ed b$ the "harter f the 3Vrnberg 'ribunalRP General 1sse!bl$ d cu!ent 1%*:%1dd.- f -7:*P See 1gree!ent f r the Pr secuti n and Punish!ent f the Ma& r 4ar "ri!inals f the Fur pean 1Iis, 1ug. 9, -7:@, @7 Stat. -@::, 9+ H.3.'.S. +87. 1rticle *(c) f the "harter established cri!es against hu!anit$ as the f ll #ing: "(IMFS 1G1I3S' 0HM13I'T: na!el$, !urder, eIter!inati n, enslave!ent, dep rtati n, and ther inhu!ane acts c !!itted against an$ civilian p pulati n, bef re r during the #ar, r persecuti ns n p litical, racial r religi us gr unds in eIecuti n f r in c nnecti n #ith an$ cri!e #ithin the /urisdicti n f the 'ribunal, #hether r n t in vi lati n f the d !estic la# f the c untr$ #here perpetrated. 'he 3ure!berg /udg!ent did n t !ake an$ reference t rape and rape #as n t pr secuted. (/udge Gabrielle .irk Mc; nald, The Internati nal "ri!inal 'ribunals "ri!e

and Punish!ent in the Internati nal 1rena,8 I2S1 /. I3'O2. ")MP. 2. **8, *8*.) 0 #ever, Internati nal Militar$ 'ribunal f r the Far Fast pr secuted rape cri!es,
even th ugh its Statute did n t eIplicitl$ cri!inali<e rape. 'he Far Fast 'ribunal held General I#ane Matsui, " !!ander Shunr ku 0ata and F reign Minister 0ir ta cri!inall$ resp nsible f r a series f cri!es, including rape, c !!itted b$ pers ns under their auth rit$. ('0F ').T) /H;GMF3': /H;GMF3' )F '0F I3'F(31'I)312 MI2I'1(T '(IBH312 F)( '0F F1( F1S' ::@=@: (-788). 'he first !enti n f rape as a specific cri!e ca!e in ;ece!ber -7:@ #hen " ntr l " uncil 2a# 3 . -, included the ter! rape in the definiti n f cri!es against hu!anit$. 2a# 3 . -,, ad pted b$ the f ur ccup$ing p #ers in Ger!an$, #as devised t establish a unif r! basis f r pr secuting #ar cri!inals in Ger!an c urts. (" ntr l " uncil f r Ger!an$, 2a# 3 . -,: Punish!ent f Pers ns Guilt$ f 4ar "ri!es, "ri!es 1gainst Peace and 1gainst 0u!anit$, ;ec. +,, -7:@, 6 )fficial Ga<ette " ntr l " uncil f r Ger!an$ @,, @6 (-7:*)) 'he -7:7 Geneva " nventi n (elative t the 'reat!ent f Pris ners f 4ar #as the first ! dern=da$ internati nal instru!ent t establish pr tecti ns against rape f r # !en. Geneva " nventi n (elative t the Pr tecti n f "ivilian Pers ns in 'i!e f 4ar, 1ug. -+, -7:7, art. +8, * H.S.'. 66-*, 8@ H.3.'.S. +98 (entr$ int f rce )ct. +,, -7@,) Khereinafter F urth Geneva " nventi nL.Further! re, the I"", the I"'T, and the Internati nal "ri!inal 'ribunal f r (#anda (I"'() have significantl$ advanced the cri!e f rape b$ enabling it t be pr secuted as gen cide, a #ar cri!e, and a cri!e against hu!anit$.

But, as it happened, the ackn #ledg!ent ab ve r a si!ilar intr ducti n #as !issing fr ! F tn te *@. 3eIt, petiti ners als p int ut that the f ll #ing eight sentences and their acc !pan$ing f tn tes appear in teIt n pages 6,=6+ f the $inuya decisi n:
999 I$ )$&e"$a&)o$a1 1a., &he &e"* : jus cogens; >1)&e"a110, :co*,e11)$! 1a.;? "e(e"' &o $o"*' &ha& co**a$% ,e"e*,&o"0 a#&ho")&0, '#,e"'e%)$! co$(1)c&)$! &"ea&)e' a$% c#'&o*. Jus cogens $o"*' a"e co$')%e"e% ,e"e*,&o"0 )$ &he 'e$'e &ha& &he0 a"e *a$%a&o"0, %o $o& a%*)& %e"o!a&)o$, a$% ca$ +e *o%)()e% o$10 +0 !e$e"a1 )$&e"$a&)o$a1 $o"*' o( eA#)/a1e$& a#&ho")&0. 71 Ea"10 '&"a)$' o( &he jus cogens %oc&")$e ha/e e9)'&e% ')$ce &he 1700', +#& ,e"e*,&o"0 $o"*' +e!a$ &o a&&"ac& !"ea&e" 'cho1a"10 a&&e$&)o$ .)&h &he ,#+1)ca&)o$ o( A1("e% /o$ Be"%"o''C' )$(1#e$&)a1 1D47 a"&)c1e, Fo"+)%%e$ T"ea&)e' )$ I$&e"$a&)o$a1 La..74 The "eco!$)&)o$ o( jus cogens !a)$e% e/e$ *o"e (o"ce )$ &he 1D=0' a$% 1D<0' .)&h &he ILC2' ,"e,a"a&)o$ o( &he B)e$$a Co$/e$&)o$ o$ &he La. o( T"ea&)e' >BCLT?.77 Tho#!h &he"e .a' a co$'e$'#' &ha& ce"&a)$ )$&e"$a&)o$a1 $o"*' ha% a&&a)$e% &he '&a&#' o( jus cogens,7= &he ILC .a' #$a+1e &o "each a co$'e$'#' o$ &he ,"o,e" c")&e")a (o" )%e$&)(0)$! ,e"e*,&o"0 $o"*'.
75

A(&e" a$ e9&e$%e% %e+a&e o/e" &he'e a$% o&he" &heo")e' o( jus cogens, &he ILC co$c1#%e% "#e(#110 )$ 1D<4 &ha& :&he"e )' $o& a' 0e& a$0 !e$e"a110 acce,&e% c")&e")o$ +0 .h)ch &o )%e$&)(0 a !e$e"a1 "#1e o( )$&e"$a&)o$a1 1a. a' ha/)$! &he cha"ac&e" o( jus cogens.;7< I$ a co**e$&a"0 acco*,a$0)$! &he %"a(& co$/e$&)o$, &he ILC )$%)ca&e% &ha& :&he ,"#%e$& co#"'e 'ee*' &o +e &o 9 9 9 1ea/e &he (#11 co$&e$& o( &h)' "#1e &o +e .o" e% o#& )$ S&a&e ,"ac&)ce a$% )$ &he 6#")',"#%e$ce o( )$&e"$a&)o$a1 &")+#$a1'.;77 Th#', .h)1e &he e9)'&e$ce o( jus cogens )$ )$&e"$a&)o$a1 1a. )' #$%)',#&e%, $o co$'e$'#' e9)'&' o$ )&' '#+'&a$ce,77 +e0o$% a &)$0 co"e o( ,")$c),1e' a$% "#1e'.78

1d!ittedl$, the $inuya decisi n lifted the ab ve, including their f tn tes, fr ! "riddle=;escentOs article, A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens .K--L "riddle= ;escentOs f tn tes #ere carried int the $inuya decisi nOs #n f tn tes but n attributi ns #ere !ade t the t# auth rs in th se f tn tes. The E9,1a$a&)o$ Hnless a!pl$ eIplained, the ab ve lifting fr ! the # rks f Fllis and "riddle=;escent c uld be c nstrued as plagiaris!. But ne f /ustice ;el "astill Os researchers, a c urt=e!pl $ed att rne$, eIplained h # she accidentall$ deleted the attributi ns, riginall$ planted in the beginning drafts f her rep rt t hi!, #hich rep rt eventuall$ beca!e the # rking draft f the decisi n. She said

that, f r ! st parts, she did her research electr nicall$. F r internati nal !aterials, she s urced these !ainl$ fr ! 4estla#, an nline research service f r legal and la#=related !aterials t #hich the " urt subscribes. In the ld da$s, the c !! n practice #as that after a /ustice # uld have assigned a case f r stud$ and rep rt, the researcher # uld s urce his !aterials ! stl$ fr ! available la# b ks and published articles n print. 4hen he f und a relevant ite! in a b k, #hether f r ne side f the issue r f r the ther, he # uld place a strip f paper !arker n the appr priate page, pencil !ark the ite!, and place the b k n his desk #here ther relevant b ks # uld have piled up. 0e # uld later paraphrase r c p$ the !arked ut passages fr ! s !e f these b ks as he t$ped his !anuscript n a !anual t$pe#riter. 'his ccasi n # uld give hi! a clear pp rtunit$ t attribute the !aterials used t their auth rs r s urces. 4ith the advent f c !puters, h #ever, as /ustice ;el "astill Os researcher als eIplained, ! st legal references, including the c llecti n f decisi ns f the " urt, are f und in electr nic diskettes r in internet #ebsites that ffer virtual libraries f b ks and articles. 0ere, as the researcher f und ite!s that #ere relevant t her assign!ent, she d #nl aded r c pied the! int her Q!ain !anuscript,R a s! rgasb rd plate f !aterials that she th ught she !ight need. 'he researcherOs techni5ue in this case is n t t far different fr ! that e!pl $ed b$ a carpenter. 'he carpenter first gets the pieces f lu!ber he # uld need, ch sing the kinds and si<es suitable t the b&ect he has in !ind, sa$ a table. 4hen read$, he # uld !easure ut the p rti ns he needs, cut the! ut f the pieces f lu!ber he had c llected, and c nstruct his table. 0e # uld get rid f the scraps. 0ere, /ustice ;el "astill Os researcher did &ust that. She electr nicall$ QcutR relevant !aterials fr ! b ks and & urnals in the 4estla# #ebsite and QpastedR these t a Q!ain !anuscriptR in her c !puter that c ntained the issues f r discussi n in her pr p sed rep rt t the /ustice. She used the Micr s ft 4 rd pr gra!.K-+L 2ater, after she decided n the general shape that her rep rt # uld take, she began pruning fr ! that !anuscript th se !aterials that did n t fit, changing the p siti ns in the general sche!e f th se that re!ained, and adding and deleting paragraphs, sentences, and # rds as her c ntinuing discussi ns #ith /ustice ;el "astill , her chief edit r, de!anded. Parentheticall$, this is the standard sche!e that c !puter=literate c urt researchers use ever$da$ in their # rk. /ustice ;el "astill Os researcher sh #ed the " !!ittee the earl$ drafts f her rep rt in the $inuya case and these included the passages lifted fr ! the separate articles f "riddle=;escent and f Fllis #ith pr per attributi ns t these auth rs. But, as it happened, in the c urse f editing and cleaning up her draft, the researcher accidentall$ deleted the attributi ns.

F)"'& F)$%)$! 'he " urt ad pts the " !!itteeOs finding that the researcherOs eIplanati n regarding the accidental re! val f pr per attributi ns t the three auth rs is credible. Given the perati nal pr perties f the Micr s ft pr gra! in use b$ the " urt, the accidental decapitati n f attributi ns t s urces f research !aterials is n t re! te. F r ! st seni r la#$ers and &udges #h are n t c !puter literate, a fa!iliar eIa!ple si!ilar t the circu!stances f the present case # uld pr babl$ help illustrate the likelih d f such an accident happening. If researcher W, f r eIa!ple, happens t be interested in Qthe inalienable character f &uridical pers nalit$R in c nnecti n #ith an assign!ent and if the b k f the learned "ivilist, 1rtur M. ' lentin , happens t have been published in a #ebsite, researcher W # uld pr babl$ sh # interest in the f ll #ing passage fr ! that b k:
999 Bo&h 6#")%)ca1 ca,ac)&0 a$% ca,ac)&0 &o ac& a"e $o& ")!h&', +#& A#a1)&)e' o( ,e"'o$'E he$ce, &he0 ca$$o& +e a1)e$a&e% o" "e$o#$ce%.1= 999 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1= 4 Bo$ T#h" 5D<E 1 Ba1/e"%e 5D1.

Because the sentence has a f tn te !ark (F1=? that attributes the idea t ther s urces, it is evident that ' lentin did n t riginate it. 'he idea is n t a pr duct f his intellect. 0e !erel$ lifted it fr ! M n 'uhr and Malverde, t# reputable f reign auth rs. 4hen researcher W c pies and pastes the ab ve passage and its f tn te int a !anuscript=in=the=!aking in his c !puter, the f tn te nu!ber # uld, given the c !puter pr gra! in use, aut !aticall$ change and ad&ust t the f tn ting se5uence f researcher WOs !anuscript. 'hus, if the preceding f tn te in the !anuscript #hen the passage fr ! ' lentin #as pasted n it is +6, ' lentin Os f tn te # uld aut !aticall$ change fr ! the riginal F tn te -@ t F tn te +:. But then, t be f use in his !aterials=gathering sche!e, researcher W # uld have t tag the ' lentin passage #ith a sh rt descripti n f its sub&ect f r eas$ reference. 1 suitable sub&ect descripti n # uld be: QThe inaliena"le character of #uridical personality.54R 'he f tn te !ark, 54 F"o* To1e$&)$o, #hich researcher W attaches t the sub&ect tag, serves as re!inder t hi! t attribute the passage in its

final f r! t ' lentin . 1fter the passage has been tagged, it # uld n # appear like this:
he inalienable character o! juri"ical personalit#. 54 999 Bo&h 6#")%)ca1 ca,ac)&0 a$% ca,ac)&0 &o ac& a"e $o& ")!h&', +#& A#a1)&)e' o( ,e"'o$'E he$ce, &he0 ca$$o& +e a1)e$a&e% o" "e$o#$ce%.57 999 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 54 F"o* To1e$&)$o. 57 4 Bo$ T#h" 5D<E 1 Ba1/e"%e 5D1.

'he tag is f c urse te!p rar$ and # uld later have t g . It serves but a !arker t help researcher W !aneuver the passage int the right sp t in his final !anuscript. 'he !istake f /ustice ;el "astill Os researcher is that, after the /ustice had decided #hat teIts, passages, and citati ns #ere t be retained including th se fr ! "riddle=;escent and Fllis, and #hen she #as alread$ cleaning up her # rk and deleting all sub&ect tags, she unintenti nall$ deleted the f tn tes that #ent #ith such tagsG#ith disastr us effect. ' understand this, in ' lentin Os eIa!ple, the e5uivalent # uld be researcher WOs re! val during cleanup f the tag, Q The inaliena"le character of #uridical personality(542R b$ a si!ple QdeleteR perati n, and the unintended re! val as #ell f the acc !pan$ing f tn te >F54?. 'he erasure f the f tn te eli!inates the link bet#een the lifted passage and its s urce, ' lentin Os b k. )nl$ the f ll #ing # uld re!ain in the !anuscript:
999 Bo&h 6#")%)ca1 ca,ac)&0 a$% ca,ac)&0 &o ac& a"e $o& ")!h&', +#& A#a1)&)e' o( ,e"'o$'E he$ce, &he0 ca$$o& +e a1)e$a&e% o" "e$o#$ce%.74 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 74 4 Bo$ T#h" 5D<E 1 Ba1/e"%e 5D1.

1s it happened, the Micr s ft # rd pr gra! d es n t have a functi n that raises an alar! #hen riginal !aterials are cut up r pruned. 'he p rti ns that re!ain si!pl$ blend in #ith the rest f the !anuscript, ad&usting the f tn te nu!ber and re! ving an$ clue that #hat sh uld stick t gether had &ust been severed. 'his #as #hat happened in the attributi ns t Fllis and "riddle= ;escent. 'he researcher deleted the sub&ect tags and, accidentall$, their

acc !pan$ing f tn tes that served as re!inder f the s urces f the lifted passages. 4ith --7 s urces cited in the decisi n, the l ss f the + f the! #as n t easil$ detectable. Petiti ners p int ut, h #ever, that /ustice ;el "astill Os verified letter f /ul$ ++, +,-, is inc nsistent #ith his researcherOs clai! that the !issi ns #ere !ere err rs in attributi n. 'he$ cite the fact that the /ustice did n t discl se his researcherOs err r in that letter despite the latterOs c nfessi n regarding her !istake even bef re the /ustice sent his letter t the "hief /ustice. B$ den$ing plagiaris! in his letter, /ustice ;el "astill allegedl$ per&ured hi!self and s ught t #hite#ash the case.K-6L But n thing in the /ul$ ++ letter supp rts the charge f false testi! n$. /ustice ;el "astill !erel$ eIplained Qthat there #as ever$ intenti n t attribute all s urces #henever dueR and that there #as never Qan$ !alici us intent t appr priate an therOs # rk as ur #n,R #hich as it turns ut is a true state!ent. 0e recalled h # the " urt deliberated up n the case ! re than nce, pr !pting !a& r revisi ns in the draft f the decisi n. In the pr cess, Q(s) urces #ere re=studied, discussi ns ! dified, passages added r deleted.R 3 thing in the letter suggests a c ver=up. Indeed, it did n t preclude a researcherOs inadvertent err r. 1nd it is understandable that /ustice ;el "astill did n t initiall$ discl se his researcherOs err r. 0e #r te the decisi n f r the " urt and #as eIpected t take full resp nsibilit$ f r an$ lapse arising fr ! its preparati n. 4hat is ! re, the pr cess f drafting a particular decisi n f r the " urt is c nfidential, #hich eIplained his initial re5uest t be heard n the !atter #ith ut the attendance f the ther parties. 3 tabl$, neither /ustice ;el "astill n r his researcher had a ! tive r reas n f r !itting attributi n f r the lifted passages t "riddle=;escent r t Fllis. 'he latter auth rs are highl$ respected pr fess rs f internati nal la#. 'he la# & urnals that published their # rks have eIcepti nal reputati ns. It did n t !ake sense t intenti nall$ !it attributi n t these auth rs #hen the decisi n cites an abundance f ther s urces. "iting these auth rs as the s urces f the lifted passages # uld enhance rather than di!inish their inf r!ative value. B th /ustice ;el "astill and his researcher gain n thing fr ! the !issi n. 'hus, the failure t !enti n the # rks f "riddle=;ecent and Fllis #as un5uesti nabl$ due t inadvertence r pure versight. Petiti ners f c urse insist that intent is n t !aterial in c !!itting plagiaris! since all that a #riter has t d , t av id the charge, is t encl se lifted p rti ns #ith 5u tati n !arks and ackn #ledge the s urces fr ! #hich these #ere taken.K-:L Petiti ners p int ut that the " urt sh uld appl$ t this case the ruling

in %ni&ersity of the 'hilippines Board of Regents &( Court of Appeals and Arokias)amy *illiam +argaret Celine.K-@L 'he$ argue that standards n plagiaris! in the acade!e sh uld appl$ #ith ! re f rce t the &udiciar$. But petiti nersO the r$ ign res the fact that plagiaris! is essentiall$ a f r! f fraud #here intent t deceive is inherent. 'heir the r$ pr vides n r ! f r err rs in research, an unrealistic p siti n c nsidering that there is hardl$ an$ substantial #ritten # rk in an$ field f discipline that is free f an$ !istake. 'he the r$ places an aut !atic universal curse even n err rs that, as in this case, have reas nable and l gical eIplanati ns. Indeed, the 9th editi n f BlackOs 2a# ;icti nar$ defines plagiaris! as the Qdeliberate and kn #ing presentati n f an ther pers n?s riginal ideas r creative eIpressi ns as ne?s #n.RK-*L 'hus, plagiaris! presupp ses intent and a deliberate, c nsci us eff rt t steal an therOs # rk and pass it ff as neOs #n. Besides, the " urt said n thing in %('( Board of Regents that # uld indicate that an intent t pass ff an therOs # rk as neOs #n is n t re5uired in plagiaris!. 'he " urt !erel$ affir!ed the acade!ic freed ! f a universit$ t #ithdra# a !asterOs degree that a student btained based n evidence that she !isappr priated the # rk f thers, passing the! ff as her #n. 'his is n t the case here since, as alread$ stated, /ustice ;el "astill actuall$ i!puted the b rr #ed passages t thers.

Seco$% F)$%)$! 'he " urt als ad pts the " !!itteeOs finding that the !issi n f attributi ns t "riddle=;escent and Fllis did n t bring ab ut an i!pressi n that /ustice ;el "astill hi!self created the passages that he lifted fr ! their published articles. 'hat he !erel$ g t th se passages fr ! thers re!ains self=evident, despite the accidental deleti n. 'he fact is that he still i!puted the passages t the s urces fr ! #hich "riddle=;escent and Fllis b rr #ed the! in the first place. 'his is best illustrated in the fa!iliar eIa!ple ab ve. 1fter the deleti n f the sub&ect tag and, accidentall$, its f tn te #hich c nnects t the s urce, the lifted passage # uld appear like this:
999 Bo&h 6#")%)ca1 ca,ac)&0 a$% ca,ac)&0 &o ac& a"e $o& ")!h&', +#& A#a1)&)e' o( ,e"'o$'E he$ce, &he0 ca$$o& +e a1)e$a&e% o" "e$o#$ce%.74 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 74 4 Bo$ T#h" 5D<E 1 Ba1/e"%e 5D1.

1lth ugh the unintended deleti n severed the passageOs link t ' lentin , the passage re!ains t be attributed t M n 'uhr and Malverde, the riginal s urces that ' lentin hi!self cites. 'he teIt and its f tn te reference cancel ut an$ i!pressi n that the passage is a creati n f researcher W. It is the sa!e #ith the passages fr ! "riddle=;escent and Fllis. Because such passages re!ained attributed b$ the f tn tes t the auth rsO riginal s urces, the !issi n f attributi ns t "riddle=;escent and Fllis gave n i!pressi n that the passages #ere the creati ns f /ustice ;el "astill . 'his #h ll$ negates the idea that he #as passing the! ff as his #n th ughts. 'rue the sub&ect passages in this case #ere repr duced in the $inuya decisi n #ith ut placing the! in 5u tati n !arks. But such passages are !uch unlike the creative line fr ! ( bert Fr st, K-8L Q'he # ds are l vel$, dark, and deep, but I have pr !ises t keep, and !iles t g bef re I sleep, and !iles t g bef re I sleep.R 'he passages here c nsisted f c !! n definiti ns and ter!s, abridged hist r$ f certain principles f la#, and si!ilar fre5uentl$ repeated phrases that, in the # rld f legal literature, alread$ bel ng t the public real!. ' paraphrase Bast and Sa!uels,K-9L #hile the acade!ic publishing ! del is based n the riginalit$ f the #riterOs thesis, the &udicial s$ste! is based n the d ctrine f stare decisis, #hich enc urages c urts t cite hist rical legal data, precedents, and related studies in their decisi ns. 'he &udge is n t eIpected t pr duce riginal sch larship in ever$ respect. 'he strength f a decisi n lies in the s undness and general acceptance f the precedents and l ng held legal pini ns it dra#s fr !. Th)"% F)$%)$! Petiti ners allege that the decisi n t#isted the passages fr ! 'a!s, "riddle= ;escent, and Fllis. 'he " urt ad pts the " !!itteeOs finding that this is n t s . Indeed, this allegati n f t#isting r !isrepresentati n re!ains a !$ster$ t the " urt. ' t#ist !eans Qt dist rt r pervert the !eaning f.RK-7L F r eIa!ple, if ne lifts the l$rics f the 3ati nal 1nthe!, uses it in his # rk, and declares that / se Pal!a #h #r te it Qdid n t l ve his c untr$,R then there is Qt#istingR r !isrepresentati n f #hat the anthe!Os l$rics said. 0ere, n thing in the $inuya decisi n said r i!plied that, based n the lifted passages, auth rs 'a!s, "riddle=;escent, and Fllis supp rted the " urtOs c nclusi n that the Philippines is n t under an$ bligati n in internati nal la# t esp use Minu$a et al(3s clai!s.

'he fact is that, ()"'&, since the attributi ns t "riddle=;escent and Fllis #ere accidentall$ deleted, it is i!p ssible f r an$ pers n reading the decisi n t c nnect the sa!e t the # rks f th se auth rs as t c nclude that in #riting the decisi n /ustice ;el "astill Qt#istedR their intended !essages. 1nd, 'eco$%, the lifted passages pr vided !ere backgr und facts that established the state f internati nal la# at vari us stages f its devel p!ent. 'hese are neutral data that c uld supp rt c nflicting the ries regarding #hether r n t the &udiciar$ has the p #er t da$ t rder the FIecutive ;epart!ent t sue an ther c untr$ r #hether the dut$ t pr secute vi lat rs f internati nal cri!es has attained the status f #us cogens. " nsidering h # it #as i!p ssible f r /ustice ;el "astill t have t#isted the !eaning f the passages he lifted fr ! the # rks f 'a!s, "riddle=;escent, and Fllis, the charge f Qt#istingR r !isrepresentati n against hi! is t sa$ the least, unkind. ' be ! re accurate, h #ever, the charge is reckless and btuse. No M)'co$%#c& )n ccasi ns &udges and &ustices have !istakenl$ cited the #r ng s urces, failed t use 5u tati n !arks, inadvertentl$ !itted necessar$ inf r!ati n fr ! f tn tes r endn tes. But these d n t, in ever$ case, a! unt t !isc nduct. )nl$ err rs that are tainted #ith fraud, c rrupti n, r !alice are sub&ect f disciplinar$ acti n.K+,L 'his is n t the case here. /ustice ;el "astill Os acts r !issi ns #ere n t sh #n t have been i!pelled b$ an$ f such disreputable ! tives(K+-L If the rule #ere ther#ise, n &udge r &ustice, h #ever c !petent, h nest, r dedicated he !a$ be, can ever h pe t retire fr ! the &udiciar$ #ith an unble!ished rec rd.K++L No I$e9c#'a+1e Ne!1)!e$ce Finall$, petiti ners assert that, even if the$ #ere t c ncede that the !issi n #as the result f plain err r, /ustice ;el "astill is n netheless guilt$ f gr ss ineIcusable negligence. 'he$ p int ut that he has full c ntr l and supervisi n ver his researcher and sh uld n t have surrendered the #riting f the decisi n t the latter.K+6L But this assu!es that /ustice ;el "astill abdicated the #riting f the $inuya decisi n t his researcher, #hich is c ntrar$ t the evidence adduced during the hearing. 1s his researcher testified, the /ustice set the directi n that the research and stud$ #ere t take b$ discussing the issues #ith her, setting f rth his p siti n n th se issues, and revie#ing and c !!enting n the stud$ that she #as putting t gether until he #as c !pletel$ satisfied #ith it. K+:L In ever$ sense, /ustice ;el "astill #as in c ntr l f the #riting f the rep rt t the " urt, #hich

rep rt eventuall$ beca!e the basis f r the decisi n, and deter!ined its final utc !e. 1ssigning cases f r stud$ and research t a c urt att rne$, the e5uivalent f a Qla# clerkR in the Hnited States Supre!e " urt, is standard practice in the high c urts f all nati ns. 'his is dictated b$ necessit$. 4ith ab ut 9, t -,, cases assigned t a /ustice in ur " urt each ! nth, it # uld be trul$ senseless f r hi! t d all the studies and research, g ing t the librar$, searching the internet, checking f tn tes, and #atching the punctuati ns. If he d es all these b$ hi!self, he # uld have t all cate at least ne t t# #eeks f # rk f r each case that has been sub!itted f r decisi n. 'he #heels f &ustice in the Supre!e " urt #ill grind t a halt under such a pr p siti n. 4hat is i!p rtant is that, in this case, /ustice ;el "astill retained c ntr l ver the #riting f the decisi n in the $inuya case #ith ut, h #ever, having t l k ver his researcherOs sh ulder as she cleaned up her draft rep rt t ensure that she hit the right c !puter ke$s. 'he /usticeOs researcher #as after all c !petent in the field f assign!ent given her. She finished la# fr ! a leading la# sch l, graduated third in her class, served as Fdit r=in "hief f her sch lOs 2a# / urnal, and placed f urth in the bar eIa!inati ns #hen she t k it. She earned a !asterOs degree in Internati nal 2a# and 0u!an (ights fr ! a prestigi us universit$ in the Hnited States under the Gl bal=0auser pr gra!, #hich c unsel f r petiti ners c ncedes t be ne f the t p p st graduate pr gra!s n Internati nal 2a# in the # rld. /ustice ;el "astill did n t eIercise bad &udg!ent in assigning the research # rk in the $inuya case t her. "an err rs in preparing decisi ns be preventedY 3 t until c !puters cease t be perated b$ hu!an beings #h are vulnerable t hu!an err rs. 'he$ are h$p crites #h believe that the c urts sh uld be as err r=free as the$ the!selves are. Incidentall$, in the c urse f the sub!issi n f petiti nersO eIhibits, the " !!ittee n ted that petiti nersO FIhibit /, the accusing state!ent f the Facult$ f the H.P. " llege f 2a# n the allegati ns f plagiaris! and !isinterpretati n, #as a !ere du!!$. 'he #h le f the state!ent #as repr duced but the signatures p rti n bel # !erel$ listed the na!es f 69 facult$ !e!bers, in s lid r #s, #ith the letters QSgdR r QsignedR printed beside the na!es #ith ut eIcepti n. 'hese included the na!e f retired Supre!e " urt /ustice Micente M. Mend <a, a H.P. pr fess r. Because the " !!ittee declined t ad!it a !ere du!!$ f FIhibit /, it directed 1tt$. ( 5ue t present the signed c p$ #ithin three da$s f the 1ugust +* hearing.K+@L 0e c !plied. 1s it turned ut, the riginal state!ent #as signed b$ nl$ a !in rit$ f the facult$ !e!bers n the list. 'he set f signat ries that

appeared like s lid teeth in the du!!$ turned ut t be br ken teeth in the riginal. Since nl$ 68 ut f the 9- n the list signed the d cu!ent, it d es n t appear t be a state!ent f the Facult$ but f &ust s !e f its !e!bers. 1nd retired /ustice M. M. Mend <a did n t sign the state!ent, c ntrar$ t #hat the du!!$ represented. 'he " !!ittee # ndered #h$ the ;ean sub!itted a du!!$ f the signed d cu!ent #hen H.P. has an abundance f c p$ing !achines. Since the ab ve circu!stances appear t be related t separate en "anc !atter c ncerning the supp sed Facult$ state!ent, there is a need f r the " !!ittee t turn ver the signed c p$ f the sa!e t the en "anc f r its c nsiderati n in relati n t that !atter. 3HEREFORE, in vie# f all f the ab ve, the " urt: -. DISMISSES f r lack f !erit petiti ner Minu$a, et al(3s charges f plagiaris!, t#isting f cited !aterials, and gr ss neglect against /ustice Marian ". del "astill P +. DIRECTS the Public Inf r!ati n )ffice t send c pies f this decisi n t Pr fess rs Fvan /. "riddle and Fvan F I=;escent, ;r. Mark Fllis, and Pr fess r "hristian /. 'a!s at their kn #n addressesP 6. DIRECTS the "lerk f " urt t pr vide all c urt att rne$s inv lved in legal research and rep rting #ith c pies f this decisi n and t en& in the! t av id editing err rs c !!itted in the $inuya case #hile using the eIisting c !puter pr gra! especiall$ #hen the v lu!e f citati ns and f tn ting is substantialP and :. Finall$, DIRECTS the "lerk f " urt t ac5uire the necessar$ s ft#are f r use b$ the " urt that can prevent future lapses in citati ns and attributi ns. Further, the " urt DIRECTS the " !!ittee n Fthics and Fthical Standards t turn ver t the en banc the du!!$ as #ell as the signed c p$ f petiti nersO FIhibit /, entitled Q(est ring Integrit$,R a state!ent b$ the Facult$ f the Hniversit$ f the Philippines " llege f 2a# f r the en bancOs c nsiderati n in relati n t the separate pending !atter c ncerning that supp sed Facult$ state!ent. SO ORDERED.

Facts: In Minu$a vs. eIecutive Secretar$, pr !ulgated last 1pril +9, +,-,, the Supre!e " urt ;ISMISSF; the petiti n filed b$ a gr up f Filipin Qc !f rt # !enR during the /apanese !ilitar$ ccupati n f the Philippines. 'he " urt, speaking thr ugh /ustice Marian ". del "astill , held that the petiti n seeking t c !pel the FIecutive ;epart!ent t esp use the petiti nersO clai!s f r fficial ap l g$ and ther f r!s f reparati ns against /apan bef re the Internati nal " urt f /ustice and ther internati nal tribunals has 3) MF(I' because: (-) the prer gative t deter!ine #hether t esp use petiti nersO clai!s against /apan bel ngs eIclusivel$ t the FIecutive ;epart!entP and (+) the Philippines is n t under an$ internati nal bligati n t esp use the petiti nersO clai!s. ;isc ntented #ith the f reg ing decisi n, the petiti ners in Minu$a filed a ! ti n f r rec nsiderati n. Subse5uentl$, the$ als filed a supple!ental ! ti n f r rec nsiderati n, this ti!e accusing the /ustice del "astill f plagiari<ing (c p$ing #ith ut attributi n) and t#isting passages fr ! three f reign legal articles t supp rt the " urtOs p siti n in the Minu$a decisi n: (-) 1 Fiduciar$ 'he r$ f /us " gens b$ Pr fess rs Fvan /. "riddle (1ss ciate Pr fess r f S$racuse Hniversit$ " llege f 2a#) and Fvan F I=;escent (1ssistant Pr fess r f McGill Hniversit$ Facult$ f 2a#) published in the Tale / urnal f Internati nal 2a# in +,,7P (+) Breaking the Silence: (ape as an Internati nal "ri!e b$ Mark Fllis (FIecutive ;irect r f the Internati nal Bar 1ss ciati n), published in the "ase 4estern (eserve / urnal f Internati nal 2a# in +,,*P and

(6) Fnf rcing Frga )!nes )bligati ns in Internati nal 2a# b$ Pr fess r "hristian /. 'a!s ("hair f Internati nal 2a# f Hniversit$ f Glasg # Sch l f 2a#), published in "a!bridge Hniversit$ Press (+,,@). 'he " urt then referred the charges against /ustice ;el "astill t its " !!ittee n Fthics and Fthical Standards, chaired b$ "hief /ustice (enat " r na, f r investigati n and rec !!endati n. 1fter the pr ceedings bef re it, the " !!ittee sub!itted its findings and rec !!endati ns t the " urt en banc, #hich then treated and decided the c ntr vers$ as an ad!inistrative !atter.

Issues: -. ;id /ustice ;el "astill , in #riting the pini n f r the " urt in the Minu$a case, plagiari<e the published # rks f auth rs 'a!s, "riddle=;escent, and FllisY +. ;id /ustice ;el "astill t#ist the # rks f these auth rs t !ake it appear that such # rks supp rted the " urtOs p siti n in the Minu$a decisi nY

0eld: -. Plagiaris! !eans the theft f an ther pers nOs language, th ughts, r ideas. ' plagiari<e, as it is c !! nl$ underst d acc rding t 4ebster, is Qt take (ideas, #ritings, etc.) fr ! (an ther) and pass the! ff as neOs #n.R 'he passing ff f the # rk f an ther as neOs #n is thus an indispensable ele!ent f plagiaris!. +. 'he state!ent QSee 'a!sR in the Minu$a decisi n is an attributi n n !atter if 'a!s th ught that it gave hi! s !e#hat less credit than he deserved. 'hat it # uld have been better had /ustice ;el "astill used the intr duct r$ phrase Qcited inR rather than the phrase QSeeR # uld !ake a case f !ere inadvertent slip in attributi n rather than a case f Q!anifest intellectual theft and utright plagiaris!.R If the /usticeOs citati ns #ere i!precise, it # uld &ust be a case f bad f tn ting rather than ne f theft r deceit. It #as n table that neither /ustice ;el "astill n r his researcher had a ! tive r reas n f r !itting attributi n f r the lifted passages t "riddle=;escent r t Fllis. 'he latter auth rs are highl$ respected pr fess rs f internati nal la#. 'he la# & urnals that published their # rks have eIcepti nal reputati ns. It did n t !ake sense t intenti nall$ !it attributi n t these auth rs #hen the decisi n cites an abundance f ther s urces. "iting these auth rs as the s urces f the lifted passages # uld enhance rather than di!inish their inf r!ative value. B th /ustice ;el "astill and his researcher gain n thing fr ! the !issi n. 'hus, the failure t !enti n the # rks f "riddle=;ecent and Fllis #as un5uesti nabl$ due t inadvertence r pure versight.

+. 3 thing in the Minu$a decisi n said r i!plied that, based n the lifted passages, auth rs 'a!s, "riddle=;escent, and Fllis supp rted the " urtOs c nclusi n that the Philippines is n t under an$ bligati n in internati nal la# t esp use Minu$a et al.Os clai!s.

'he !a& rit$ ;ecisi n that n plagiaris! #as c !!itted ste!s fr ! its failure t distinguish bet#een the deter!inati n f the b&ective, factual eIistence f plagiaris! in the Minu$a decisi nK-L and the deter!inati n f the liabilit$ that results fr ! a finding f plagiaris!. Specificall$, it !ade Q!alici us intentR, #hich heret f re had n t been relevant t a finding f plagiaris!, an essential ele!ent. 'he !a& rit$ ;ecisi n #ill thus stand against the ver#hel!ing c nventi ns n #hat c nstitutes plagiaris!. In d ing s , the ;ecisi n has created uni!aginable pr ble!s f r Philippine acade!ia, #hich #ill fr ! n # n have t find a disciplinar$ resp nse t plagiaris! c !!itted b$ students and researchers n the &ustificati n f the !a& rit$ ;ecisi n. It has als under!ined the pr tecti n f c p$righted # rk b$ !aking available t plagiarists Qlack f !alici us intentR as a defense t a charge f vi lati n f c p$ r ec n !ic rights f the c p$right #ner c !!itted thr ugh lack f attributi n. (b) the !aking f 5u tati ns fr ! a published # rk if the$ are c !patible #ith fair use and nl$ t the eItent &ustified f r the purp se, including 5u tati ns fr ! ne#spaper articles and peri dicals in the f r! f press su!!aries: Pr vided that the s urce and the na!e f the auth r, if appearing n the # rk, are !enti ned. (F!phasis supplied) Because the !a& rit$ ;ecisi n has eIcused the lack f attributi n t the c !plaining auth rs in the Minu$a decisi n t edit rial err rs and lack f !alici us intent t appr priate Z and that theref re there #as n plagiaris! Z lack f intent t infringe c p$right in the case f lack f attributi n !a$ n # als bec !e a defense, rendering the ab ve legal pr visi n !eaningless.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. >110B 41$e 1>, 1>>1 THE PEOPLE O7 THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff8appellee, vs. MI AEL MALMSTE6T, Cdefendant8appellant. The Solicitor General for plaintiff,appellee. -o#ulo. Ma(anta. Buena&entura. Sa"oc / 0e los Angeles for defendant,appellant.

PA6ILLA, J.:p "n an infor*ation dated )1 0une );D;, accused8appellant Mi$ael Mal*stedt %hereinafter referred to as the accused& +as char#ed before the Re#ional !rial Court %R!C& of La !rinidad, Ben#uet, Branch )2, in Cri*inal Case No. D;8CR82554, for violation of Section 6, Art. "" of Republic Act 56.1, as a*ended, other+ise $no+n as the ?an#erous ?ru#s Act of );@., as a*ended. !he factual bac$#round of the case is as follo+s9 Accused Mi$ael Mal*stedt, a S+edish national, entered the Philippines for the third ti*e in ?ece*ber );DD as a tourist. =e had visited the countr( so*eti*e in );D. and );D1. "n the evenin# of @ Ma( );D;, accused left for Ba#uio Cit(. pon his arrival thereat in the *ornin# of the follo+in# da(, he too$ a bus to Sa#ada and sta(ed in that place for t+o %.& da(s. At around @922 o,cloc$ in the *ornin# of )) Ma( );D;, accused +ent to the Nan#ono#an bus stop in Sa#ada to catch the first available trip to Ba#uio Cit(. >ro* Ba#uio Cit(, accused planned to ta$e a late afternoon trip to An#eles Cit(, then proceed to Manila to catch his fli#ht out of the countr(, scheduled on )4 Ma( );D;. >ro* Sa#ada, accused too$ a S$(line bus +ith bod( nu*ber D221 and Plate nu*ber ACC ;2.. 1 At about D9 22 o,cloc$ in the *ornin# of that sa*e da( %)) Ma( );D;&, Captain Alen Casco, the Co**andin# Officer of the >irst Re#ional Co**and %NARCOM& stationed at Ca*p ?an#+a, ordered his *en to set up a te*porar( chec$point at Hilo*eter )6, Acop, !ubla(, Mountain Province, for the purpose of chec$in# all vehicles co*in# fro* the Cordillera Re#ion. !he order to establish a chec$point in the said area +as pro*pted b( persistent reports that vehicles co*in# fro* Sa#ada +ere transportin# *ari7uana and other prohibited dru#s. Moreover, infor*ation +as received b( the Co**andin# Officer of NARCOM, that sa*e *ornin#, that a Caucasian co*in# fro* Sa#ada had in his possession prohibited dru#s. 2 !he #roup co*posed of seven %@& NARCOM officers, in coordination +ith !ubla( Police Station, set up a chec$point at the desi#nated area at about )2922 o,cloc$ in the *ornin# and inspected all vehicles co*in# fro* the Cordillera Re#ion. At about )942 o,cloc$ in the afternoon, the bus +here accused +as ridin# +as stopped. S#t. >ider and C"C 'alutan boarded the bus and announced that the( +ere *e*bers of the NARCOM and that the( +ould conduct an inspection. !he t+o %.& NARCOM officers started their inspection fro* the front #oin# to+ards the rear of the bus. Accused +ho +as the sole forei#ner ridin# the bus +as seated at the rear thereof. ?urin# the inspection, C"C 'alutan noticed a bul#e on accused,s +aist. Suspectin# the bul#e on accused,s +aist to be a #un, the officer as$ed for accused,s passport and other identification papers. 3hen accused failed to co*pl(, the officer re-uired hi* to brin# out +hatever it +as that +as bul#in# on his +aist. !he bul#in# ob7ect turned out to be a pouch ba# and +hen accused opened the sa*e ba#, as ordered, the officer noticed four %6& suspicious8loo$in# ob7ects +rapped in bro+n pac$in# tape, pro*ptin# the officer to open one of the +rapped ob7ects. !he +rapped ob7ects turned out to contain hashish, a derivative of *ari7uana. !hereafter, accused +as invited outside the bus for -uestionin#. But before he ali#hted fro* the bus, accused stopped to #et t+o %.& travellin# ba#s fro* the lu##a#e carrier. pon steppin# out of the bus, the officers #ot the ba#s and opened the*. A tedd( bear +as found in each ba#. >eelin# the tedd( bears, the officer noticed that there +ere bul#es inside the sa*e +hich did not feel li$e foa* stuffin#. "t +as onl( after the officers had opened the ba#s that accused finall( presented his passport. Accused +as then brou#ht to the head-uarters of the NARCOM at Ca*p ?an#+a, La !rinidad, Ben#uet for further investi#ation. At the investi#ation roo*, the officers opened the tedd( bears and the( +ere found to also contain hashish. Representative sa*ples +ere ta$en fro* the hashish found a*on# the personal effects of accused and the sa*e +ere brou#ht to the PC Cri*e Laborator( for che*ical anal(sis.

"n the che*istr( report, it +as established that the ob7ects e<a*ined +ere hashish. a prohibited dru# +hich is a derivative of *ari7uana. !hus, an infor*ation +as filed a#ainst accused for violation of the ?an#erous ?ru#s Act. ?urin# the arrai#n*ent, accused entered a plea of Enot #uilt(.E >or his defense, he raised the issue of ille#al search of his personal effects. =e also clai*ed that the hashish +as planted b( the NARCOM officers in his pouch ba# and that the t+o %.& travellin# ba#s +ere not o+ned b( hi*, but +ere *erel( entrusted to hi* b( an Australian couple +ho* he *et in Sa#ada. =e further clai*ed that the Australian couple intended to ta$e the sa*e bus +ith hi* but because there +ere no *ore seats available in said bus, the( decided to ta$e the ne<t ride and as$ed accused to ta$e char#e of the ba#s, and that the( +ould *eet each other at the ?an#+a Station. Li$e+ise, accused alle#ed that +hen the NARCOM officers de*anded for his passport and other "dentification papers, he handed to one of the officers his pouch ba# +hich +as han#in# on his nec$ containin#, a*on# others, his passport, return tic$et to S+eden and other papers. !he officer in turn handed it to his co*panion +ho brou#ht the ba# outside the bus. 3hen said officer ca*e bac$, he char#ed the accused that there +as hashish in the ba#. =e +as told to #et off the bus and his picture +as ta$en +ith the pouch ba# placed around his nec$. !he trial court did not #ive credence to accused,s defense. !he clai* of the accused that the hashish +as planted b( the NARCOM officers, +as belied b( his failure to raise such defense at the earliest opportunit(. 3hen accused +as investi#ated at the Provincial >iscal,s Office, he did not infor* the >iscal or his la+(er that the hashish +as planted b( the NARCOM officers in his ba#. "t +as onl( t+o %.& *onths after said investi#ation +hen he told his la+(er about said clai*, den(in# o+nership of the t+o %.& travellin# ba#s as +ell as havin# hashish in his pouch ba#. "n a decision dated ). October );D;, the trial court found accused #uilt( be(ond reasonable doubt for violation of the ?an#erous ?ru#s Act, specificall( Section 6, Art. "" of RA 56.1, as a*ended. 3 !he dispositive portion of the decision reads as follo+s9 3=ERE>ORE, findin# the #uilt of the accused Mi$ael Mal*stedt established be(ond reasonable doubt, this Court finds hi* ' "L!I of violation of Section 6, Article )) of Republic Act 56.1, as a*ended, and hereb( sentences hi* to suffer the penalt( of life i*prison*ent and to pa( a fine of !+ent( !housand Pesos %P.2,222.22&, +ith subsidiar( i*prison*ent in case of insolvenc( and to pa( the costs. Let the hashish sub7ect of this case be turned over to the >irst Narcotics Re#ional nit at Ca*p Bado: ?an#+a, La !rinidad Ben#uet for proper disposition under Section .2, Article "C of Republic Act 56.1, as a*ended.
SO OR?ERE?. =

See$in# the reversal of the decision of the trial court findin# hi* #uilt( of the cri*e char#ed, accused ar#ues that the search of his personal effects +as ille#al because it +as *ade +ithout a search +arrant and, therefore, the prohibited dru#s +hich +ere discovered durin# the ille#al search are not ad*issible as evidence a#ainst hi*. !he Constitution #uarantees the ri#ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects a#ainst unreasonable searches and seiAures. < =o+ever, +here the search is *ade pursuant to a la+ful arrest, there is no need to obtain a search +arrant. A la+ful arrest +ithout a +arrant *a( be *ade b( a peace officer or a private person under the follo+in# circu*stances. D Sec. 1 Arrest without warrant: when lawful. JJ A peace officer or a private person *a(, +ithout a +arrant, arrest a person9 %a& 3hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co**itted is actuall( co**ittin#, or is atte*ptin# to co**it an offense: %b& 3hen an offense has in fact 7ust been co**itted, and he has personal $no+led#e of facts indicatin# that the person to be arrested has co**itted it: and

%c& 3hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner +ho has escaped fro* a penal establish*ent or place +here he is servin# final 7ud#*ent or te*poraril( confined +hile his case is pendin#, or has escaped +hile bein# transferred fro* one confine*ent to another. "n cases fallin# under para#raphs %a& and %b& hereof, the person arrested +ithout a +arrant shall be forth+ith delivered to the nearest police station or 7ail, and he shall be proceeded a#ainst in accordance +ith Rule ))., Section @. %5a )@a&. Accused +as searched and arrested +hile transportin# prohibited dru#s %hashish&. A cri*e +as actuall( bein# co**itted b( the accused and he +as cau#ht in flagrante delicto. !hus, the search *ade upon his personal effects falls s-uarel( under para#raph %)& of the fore#oin# provisions of la+, +hich allo+ a +arrantless search incident to a la+ful arrest. B 3hile it is true that the NARCOM officers +ere not ar*ed +ith a search +arrant +hen the search +as *ade over the personal effects of accused, ho+ever, under the circu*stances of the case, there +as sufficient probable cause for said officers to believe that accused +as then and there co**ittin# a cri*e. Probable cause has been defined as such facts and circu*stances +hich could lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent *an to believe that an offense has been co**itted, and that the ob7ects sou#ht in connection +ith the offense are in the place sou#ht to be searched. 8 !he re-uired probable cause that +ill 7ustif( a +arrantless search and seiAure is not deter*ined b( an( fi<ed for*ula but is resolved accordin# to the facts of each case. > 3arrantless search of the personal effects of an accused has been declared b( this Court as valid, because of e<istence of probable cause, +here the s*ell of *ari7uana e*anated fro* a plastic ba# o+ned b( the accused, 10or +here the accused +as actin# suspiciousl(, 11 and atte*pted to flee. 12 Aside fro* the persistent reports received b( the NARCOM that vehicles co*in# fro* Sa#ada +ere transportin# *ari7uana and other prohibited dru#s, their Co**andin# Officer also received infor*ation that a Caucasian co*in# fro* Sa#ada on that particular da( had prohibited dru#s in his possession. Said infor*ation +as received b( the Co**andin# Officer of NARCOM the ver( sa*e *ornin# that accused ca*e do+n b( bus fro* Sa#ada on his +a( to Ba#uio Cit(. 3hen NARCOM received the infor*ation, a fe+ hours before the apprehension of herein accused, that a Caucasian travellin# fro* Sa#ada to Ba#uio Cit( +as carr(in# +ith hi* prohibited dru#s, there +as no ti*e to obtain a search +arrant. "n the Tangli(en case, 13 the police authorities conducted a surveillance at the Cictor( Liner !er*inal located at B#(. San Nicolas, San >ernando Pa*pan#a, a#ainst persons en#a#ed in the traffic of dan#erous dru#s, based on infor*ation supplied b( so*e infor*ers. Accused !an#liben +ho +as actin# suspiciousl( and pointed out b( an infor*er +as apprehended and searched b( the police authorities. "t +as held that +hen faced +ith on8the8spot infor*ation, the police officers had to act -uic$l( and there +as no ti*e to secure a search +arrant. "t *ust be observed that, at first, the NARCOM officers *erel( conducted a routine chec$ of the bus %+here accused +as ridin#& and the passen#ers therein, and no e<tensive search +as initiall( *ade. "t +as onl( +hen one of the officers noticed a bul#e on the +aist of accused, durin# the course of the inspection, that accused +as re-uired to present his passport. !he failure of accused to present his identification papers, +hen ordered to do so, onl( *ana#ed to arouse the suspicion of the officer that accused +as tr(in# to hide his identit(. >or is it not a re#ular nor* for an innocent *an, +ho has nothin# to hide fro* the authorities, to readil( present his identification papers +hen re-uired to do soK !he receipt of infor*ation b( NARCOM that a Caucasian co*in# fro* Sa#ada had prohibited dru#s in his possession, plus the suspicious failure of the accused to produce his passport, ta$en to#ether as a +hole, led the NARCOM officers to reasonabl( believe that the accused +as tr(in# to hide so*ethin# ille#al fro* the authorities. >ro* these circu*stances arose a pro(a(le cause +hich 7ustified the +arrantless search that +as *ade on the personal effects of the accused. "n other +ords, the acts of the NARCOM officers in re-uirin# the accused to open his pouch ba# and in openin# one of the +rapped ob7ects found inside said ba# %+hich +as discovered to contain hashish& as +ell as the t+o %.& travellin# ba#s containin# t+o %.& tedd( bears +ith hashish stuffed inside the*, +ere pro*pted b( accused,s o+n atte*pt to hide his identit( b( refusin# to present his passport, and b( the infor*ation received b( the NARCOM that a Caucasian co*in# fro* Sa#ada had prohibited dru#s in his possession. !o deprive the NARCOM a#ents of the abilit( and facilit( to

act accordin#l(, includin#, to search even +ithout +arrant, in the li#ht of such circu*stances, +ould be to sanction i*potence and ineffectiveness in la+ enforce*ent, to the detri*ent of societ(. 3=ERE>ORE, pre*ises considered, the appealed 7ud#*ent of conviction b( the trial court is hereb( A>>"RME?. Costs a#ainst the accused8appellant. SO OR?ERE?.

NARVASA, J., concurrin# and dissentin#9 !he ancient tradition that a *an,s ho*e is his castle, safe fro* intrusion even b( the $in#, has not onl( found its niche in all our charters, fro* );41 to the present: it has also received unvar(in# reco#nition and acceptance in our case la+. 1 !he present Constitution 2 declares that G !he ri#ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects a#ainst unreasonable searches and seiAures of +hatever nature and for an( purpose, shall be inviolable, and no search +arrant or +arrant of arrest shall issue e<cept upon probable cause to be deter*ined personall( b( the 7ud#e after e<a*ination under oath or affir*ation of the co*plainant and the +itnesses he *a( produce, and particularl( describin# the place to be searched, and the persons or thin#& to be seiAed.

"t further ordains that an( evidence obtained in violation of said ri#ht, a*on# others, Eshall be inad*issible for an( purpose in an( proceedin#.E 3 !he rule is that no person *a( be sub7ected b( the police or other #overn*ent authorit( to a search of his bod(, or his personal effects or belon#in#s, or his residence e<cept b( virtue of a search +arrant or on the occasion of a le#iti*ate arrest. = An arrest is le#iti*ate, of course, if effected b( virtue of a +arrant of arrest. Even +ithout a +arrant, an arrest *a( also be la+full( *ade b( a peace officer or a private person9 < %a& +hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co**itted is actuall( co**ittin#, or is atte*ptin# to co**it an offense: %b& 3hen an offense has in fact 7ust been co**itted, and he has personal $no+led#e of facts indicatin# that the person to be arrested has co**itted it: and %c& 3hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner +ho has escaped fro* a penal establish*ent or place +here he is servin# final 7ud#*ent or te*poraril( confined +hile his case is pendin#, or has escaped +hile bein# transferred fro* one confine*ent to another. "n cases fallin# under para#raphs %a& and %b& hereof, the person arrested +ithout a +arrant shall be forth+ith delivered to the nearest police station or 7ail, and he shall be proceeded a#ainst in accordance +ith Rule ))., Section @. "n an( of these instances of a la+ful arrest, the person arrested E*a( be searched for dan#erous +eapons or an(thin# +hich *a( be used as proof of the co**ission of an offense, +ithout a search +arrant.E D And it has been held that the search *a( e<tend to the area E+ithin his i**ediate control,E i.e., the area fro* +hich said person arrested *i#ht #ain possession of a +eapon or destructible evidence. B Apart fro* Esearch incidental to an arrest,E a +arrantless search has also been held to be proper in cases of Esearch of a *ovin# vehicle, 8 and EseiAure of evidence in plain vie+.E > !his +as the pronounce*ent in Manipon, 0r. v. Sandi#anba(an, )64 SCRA .5@, .@5, +hich dre+ attention to Moreno &. Ago 1hi: 10 Al&ero &. 0i2on. 11 3apa &.Mago. 12 and an A*erican precedent, =arris v. .S. 13 "f, on the other, a person is searched without a warrant. or under circu#stances other than those 4ustif"ing an arrest without warrant in accordance with law. supra. *erel( on suspicion that he is en#a#ed in so*e felonious enterprise, and in order to discover if he has indeed co**itted a cri*e, it is not onl( the arrest +hich is ille#al but also, the search on the occasion thereof, as bein# Ethe fruit of the poisonous tree. 1= "n that event, an( evidence ta$en, even if confir*ator( of the initial suspicion, is inad*issible Efor an( purpose in an( proceedin#.E 1< But the ri#ht a#ainst an unreasonable search and seiAure *a( be +aived b( the person arrested, provided he $ne+ of such ri#ht and $no+in#l( decided not to invo$e it. 1D !here is unani*it( a*on# the *e*bers of the Court upon the continuin# validit( of these established principles. =o+ever, the Court is divided as re#ards the ulti*ate conclusions +hich *a( properl( be derived fro* the proven facts and conse-uentl(, the *anner in +hich the principles 7ust cited should appl( thereto. !he proofs of the prosecution and those of the defense are dia*etricall( at odds. 3hat is certain, ho+ever, is that the soldiers had no +arrant of arrest +hen the( conducted a search of Mal*stedt,s person and the thin#s in his possession at the ti*e. "ndeed, the Court a !uo ac$no+led#ed that the soldiers could Enot be e<pected to be ar*ed +ith a +arrant or arrest nor a search +arrant ever(ti*e the( establish a te*porar( chec$point . . . %and& no 7ud#e +ould issue the* one considerin# that searchin# -uestions have to be as$ed before a +arrant could be issued.E E-uall( plain is that prior to the search, a +arrantless arrest of Mal*stedt could not validl( have been in accordance +ith the nor*s of the la+. >or Mal*stedt had not co**itted, nor +as he actuall( co**ittin# or atte*ptin# to co**it a cri*e, in the soldiers, presence, nor did said soldiers have personal and co*petent $no+led#e that Mal*stedt had in fact 7ust co**itted a cri*e. All the( had +as a suspicion that Mal*stedt *i#ht have so*e prohibited dru# on hi* or in his ba#s: all the( had +as, in the +ords of the !rial Court, Ethe hope of interceptin# an( dan#erous dru# bein# transported,E or, as the Office of

the Solicitor 'eneral asserts, Einfor*ation that *ost of the buses co*in# . . . %fro* the Cordillera& +ere transportin# *ari7uana and other prohibited dru#s.E !his case, is re*ar$abl( si*ilar to 3eo. &. A#innudin, decided on 0ul( 5, );DD also b( the >irst ?ivision. 1B !here, A*innudin +as arrested +ithout a +arrant b( PC officers as he +as dise*bar$in# fro* an inter8island vessel. !he officers +ere +aitin# for hi* because he +as, accordin# to an infor*er,s report, then transportin# *ari7uana. !he search of A*innudin,s ba# confir*ed the infor*er,s report: the ba# indeed contained *ari7uana. !he Court nevertheless held that since the PC officers had failed to procure a search +arrant althou#h the( had sufficient ti*e %t+o da(s& to do so and therefore, the case presented no such ur#enc( as to 7ustif( a +arrantless search, the search of A*innudin,s person and ba#, the seiAure of the *ari7uana and his subse-uent arrest +ere ille#al: and the *ari7uana +as inad*issible in evidence in the cri*inal action subse-uentl( instituted a#ainst A*innudin for violatin# the ?an#erous ?ru#s Act. !here are, on the other hand, other cases ad7udicated b( this Court in +hich apparentl( different conclusions +ere reached. "t is needful to devote a fe+ +ords to the* so that the relevant constitutional and le#al propositions are not *isunderstood. "n 3eople &. 1laudio %decision pro*ul#ated on April )1, );DD&, 18 the accused boarded a ECictor( LinerE passen#er bus #oin# to Olon#apo fro* Ba#uio Cit(. She placed the plastic ba# she +as carr(in# at the bac$ of the seat then occupied b( ObiBa, an "NP *e*ber Eon ?etached Service +ith the Anti8Narcotics nit.E !his avo+edl( aroused ObiBa,s suspicion, and at the first opportunit(, and +ithout Claudio,s $no+led#e, he surreptitiousl( loo$ed into the plastic ba# and noted that it contained ca*ote tops as +ell as a pac$a#e, and that there e*anated fro* the pac$a#e the s*ell of *ari7uana +ith +hich he had beco*e fa*iliar on account of his +or$. So +hen the bus stopped at Sta. Rita, and Claudio ali#hted, ObiBa accosted her, sho+ed her his "?, identified hi*self as a police*an, and announced his intention to search her ba# +hich he said contained *ari7uana because of the distinctive odor detected b( hi*. "#norin# her plea G EPlease #o +ith *e, let us settle this at ho*eE G he brou#ht her to the police head-uarters., +here e<a*ination of the pac$a#e in Claudio,s ba# confir*ed his suspicion that it indeed contained *ari7uana. !he Court held the +arrantless arrest under the circu*stances to be la+ful, the search 7ustified, and the evidence thus discovered ad*issible in evidence a#ainst the accused. "n 3eople &. Tangli(en %decision pro*ul#ated on April 5, );;2&, 1> t+o police officers and a (aranga" tanod +ere conductin# a Esurveillance *issionE at the Cictor( Liner !er*inal at San Nicolas, San >ernando, Pa*pan#a, Eai*ed not onl( a#ainst persons +ho *a( co**it *isde*eanors . . . %there& but also on persons +ho *a( be en#a#in# in the traffic of dan#erous dru#s based on infor*ation supplied b( infor*ers: . . . the( noticed a person carr(in# a red travellin# ba# . . +ho +as actin# suspiciousl(:E the( as$ed hi* to open the ba#: the person did so onl( after the( identified the*selves as peace officers: found in the ba# +ere *ari7uana leaves +rapped in plastic +ei#hin# one $ilo#ra*, *ore or less: the person +as then ta$en to the police head-uarters at San >ernando, Pa*pan#a, +here he +as investi#ated: and an infor*ation +as thereafter filed a#ainst that person, !an#liben, char#in# hi* +ith a violation of the ?an#erous ?ru#s Act of );@. %RA 56.1&, as a*ended. pon these facts it +as ruled, citing 1laudio. supra, that there +as a valid +arrantless arrest and a proper +arrantless search incident thereto. !he facts in Tangli(en +ere pronounced to be different fro* those in 3eople &. A#innudin. supra. E"n contrastE toA#innudin +here the Court perceived no ur#enc( as to preclude the application for and obtention of a search +arrant, it +as declared that the Tangli(en case G . . . presented urgenc". . . %!he evidence revealed& that there +as an infor*er +ho pointed to the accused8appellant as carr(in# *ari7uana . . . >aced +ith such on8the8 spot infor*ation, the police officers had to act -uic$l(. !here +as not enou#h ti*e to secure a search +arrant . . . !o re-uire search +arrants durin# on8the8spot apprehensions of dru# pushers, ille#al possessors of firear*s, 7ueten# collectors, s*u##lers of contraband #oods, robber, etc. +ould *a$e it e<tre*el( difficult, if not i*possible to contain the cri*es +ith +hich these persons are associated. "n Tangli(en. therefore, there +as in the Court,s vie+ sufficient evidence on hand to enable the PC officers to secure a search +arrant, had there been ti*e. But because there +as actuall( no ti*e to #et the +arrant, and there +ere Eon8the8spotE indications that !an#liben +as then actuall( co**ittin# a cri*e, the search of his person and his effects +as considered valid.

!+o other decisions presented substantiall( si*ilar circu*stance instances9 3osadas &. 1.A., et al., decided on Au#ust ., );;2, 20 and 3eople &. Moises Maspil. 5r., et al., decided on Au#ust .2, );;2. 21 "n the first case, Posadas +as seen to be actin# suspiciousl( b( t+o *e*bers of the "NP, ?avao Metrodisco*, and +hen he +as accosted b( the t+o, +ho identified the*selves as police officers, he suddenl( fled. =e +as pursued, overta$en and, not+ithstandin# his resistance, placed in custod(. !he (uri ba# Posadas +as then carr(in# +as found to contain a revolver, for +hich he could produce no license or authorit( to possess, four rounds of live a**unition, and a tear #as #renade. =e +as prosecuted for ille#al possession of firear*s and a**unition and convicted after trial. !his Court affir*ed Posadas, conviction, holdin# that there +as, in the pre*ises, probable cause for a search +ithout +arrant, i.e., the appellant +as actin# suspiciousl( and atte*pted to flee +ith the (uriba# he had +ith hi* at the ti*e. !he Court cited +ith approval the rulin# of the .S. >ederal Supre*e Court in 5ohn $. Terr" &. State of 6hio. 22 a );5D case, +hich the Solicitor 'eneral had invo$ed to 7ustif( the search. "n the case of Maspil. et al., a chec$point +as set up b( ele*ents of the >irst Narcotics Re#ional nit of the Narcotics Co**and at Sa(an#an, Ato$, Ben#uet, to *onitor, inspect and scrutiniAe vehicles on the hi#h+a( #oin# to+ards Ba#uio Cit(. !his +as done because of a confidential report b( infor*ers that Maspil and another person, Ba#$in#, +ould be transportin# a lar#e -uantit( of *ari7uana to Ba#uio Cit(. "n fact, the infor*ers +ere +ith the police*en *annin# the chec$point. As e<pected, at about . o,cloc$ in the earl( *ornin# of Nove*ber ), );D5, a 7eepne( approached the chec$point, driven b( Maspil, +ith Ba#$in# as passen#er. !he officers stopped the vehicle and sa+ that on it +ere loaded . plastic sac$s, a 7ute sac$, and 4 bi# round tin cans. 3hen opened, the sac$s and cans +ere seen to contain +hat appeared to be *ari7uana leaves. !he police*en thereupon placed Maspil and Ba#$in# under arrest, and confiscated the leaves +hich, upon scientific e<a*ination, +ere verified to be *ari7uana leaves. !he Court upheld the validit( of the search thus conducted, as bein# incidental to a la+ful +arrantless arrest,23 and declared that, as in Tangli(en. supra, Maspil and Ba#$in# had been cau#ht in flagrante delicto transportin# prohibited dru#s at the ti*e of their arrest. A#ain, the Court too$ occasion to distin#uish the case fro* A#innudin 2=in +hich, as aforestated, it appeared that the police officers +ere a+are of A*innudin,s identit(, his pro7ected cri*inal enterprise and the vessel on +hich he +ould be arrivin#, and, e-uall( as i*portantl(, had sufficient ti*e and opportunit( to obtain a search +arrant. "n the case of Maspil and Ba#$in#, the Court found that the officers concerned had no e<act description of the vehicle the for*er +ould be usin# to transport *ari7uana, and no in$lin# of the definite ti*e of the suspects, arrival, and pointed out that a 7eepne( on the road is not the sa*e as a passen#er boat on the hi#h seas +hose route and ti*e of arrival are *ore or less certain, and +hich ordinaril( cannot deviate fro* or other+ise alter its course, or select another destination. 2< !he *ost recent decision treatin# of +arrantless search and seiAure appears to be 3eople &. 'o 7o $ing8 et al., '.R. No. DD2)@, decided on 0anuar( .), );;) %per 'anca(co, 5.&. "n that case, an undercover or Edeep penetrationE a#ent, !ia, *ana#ed so*eho+ to #ain acceptance into a #roup of suspected dru# s*u##lers, +hich included Peter Lo and Li* Chin# =uat. !ia acco*panied Peter Lo to 'uan#Ahou, China, +here he sa+ hi* and other person e*pt( the contents of si< %5& tins of tea and replace the* +ith +hite po+der. On their return to Manila +ith the cans of substituted Etea,E the( +ere *et at the airport b( Li*. As the( +ere leavin# the airport in separate vehicles, the( +ere intercepted b( officers and operatives of the Narcotics Co**and %NARCOM&, +ho had earlier been tipped off b( !ia, and placed under arrest. As search of the lu##a#e brou#ht in b( !ia and Peter Lo, loaded on the #roup,s vehicles, -uic$l( disclosed the si< %5& tin cans containin# fift(8si< %15& ba#s of +hite cr(stalline po+der +hich, upon anal(sis, +as identified as *eta*pheta*ine . !ia, Lo and Li* +ere indicted for violation of the ?an#erous ?ru#s Act of );@.. !ia +as dischar#ed as state +itness. Lo and Li* +ere subse-uentl( convicted and sentenced to life i*prison*ent. One of the -uestions raised b( the* in this Court on appeal +as +hether the +arrantless search of their vehicles and personal effects +as le#al. !he Court, citing Manipon. 5r. &.Sandigan(a"an. )64 SCRA .5@ %);D5&, 2D held le#al the search of the appellants, *ovin# vehicles and the seiAure therefro* of the dan#erous dru#, considerin# that there +as intelli#ence infor*ation, includin# clandestine reports b( a planted sp( actuall( participatin# in the activit(, that the appellants +ere brin#in# prohibited dru#s into the countr(: that the re-uire*ent of obtainin# a search +arrant Eborders on the i*possible in the case of s*u##lin# effected b( the use of a *ovin# vehicle that can transport contraband fro* one place to another +ith i*punit(,E and Eit is not practicable to secure a +arrant because the vehicle can be -uic$l( *oved out of the localit( or 7urisdiction in +hich the +arrant *ust be sou#ht. 2B "n all five cases, 1laudio. Tangli(en. 3osadas. Maspil. and 'o 7o $ing. facts e<isted +hich +ere found b( the Court as 7ustif(in# +arantless arrests. "n 1laudio. the arrestin# officer had secretl( ascertained that the +o*an he +as arrestin# +as in fact in possession of *ari7uana: he had

personall( seen that her ba# contained not onl( ve#etables but also a pac$a#e e*ittin# the odor of *ari7uana. "n Tangli(en. the person arrested and searched +as actin# suspiciousl(, and had been positivel( pointed to as carr(in# *ari7uana. And in both cases, the accused +ere about to board passen#er buses, *a$in# it ur#ent for the police officers concerned to ta$e -uic$ and decisive action. "n 3osadas. the person arrested and searched +as actin# suspiciousl(, too, and +hen accosted had atte*pted to flee fro* the police officers. And in Maspil and 'o 7o $ing. there +as definite infor*ation of the precise identit( of the persons en#a#ed in transportin# prohibited dru#s at a particular ti*e and place. No+, as re#ards the precise issue at hand, +hether or not the facts in the case at bar *a$e out a le#iti*ate instance of a +arrantless search and seiAure, there is, as earlier pointed out, a re#rettable diver#ence of vie+s a*on# the *e*bers of the Court. Contrar( to the conclusion reached b( the *a7orit(, " believe that the appellant should be absolved on reasonable doubt. !here +as in this case no confidential report fro*, or positive identification b( an infor*er: no atte*pt to flee: no ba# or pac$a#e e*ittin# tell8tale odors: no other reasonabl( persuasive indications that Mal*stedt +as at the ti*e in process of perpetratin# the offense for +hich he +as subse-uentl( prosecuted. =ence, +hen the soldiers searched Mal*stedt,s pouch and the ba#s in his possession, the( +ere si*pl( Efishin#E for evidence. "t *atters not that the search disclosed that the ba#s contained prohibited substances, confir*in# their initial infor*ation and suspicion. !he search +as not *ade b( virtue of a +arrant or as an incident of a la+ful +arrantless arrest, i.e., under circu*stances sufficient to en#ender a reasonable belief that so*e cri*e +as bein# or about to be co**itted, or ad7ust been co**itted. !here +as no intelli#ent and intentional +aiver of the ri#ht a#ainst unreasonable searches and seiAure. !he search +as therefore ille#al, since the la+ re-uires that there first be a la+ful arrest of an individual before a search of his bod( and his belon#in#s *a( licitl( be *ade. !he process cannot be reversed, i.e., a search be first underta$en, and then an arrest effected, on the stren#th of the evidence (ielded b( the search. An arrest *ade in that case +ould be unla+ful, and the search underta$en as an incident of such an unla+ful arrest, also unla+ful. !he fact that +hen investi#ated at the head-uarters of the Narcotic Co**and at Ca*p ?an#+a, La !rinidad, Mal*stedt had, it is said, +illin#l( ad*itted that there +ere +as hashish inside the Etedd( bearsE in the lu##a#e found in his possession G an ad*ission subse-uentl( confir*ed b( laborator( e<a*ination G does not help the cause of the prosecution one bit. Nothin# in the record even re*otel( su##ests that Mal*stedt +as accorded the ri#hts #uaranteed b( the Constitution to all persons under custodial investi#ation. 28 =e +as not infor*ed, prior to bein# interro#ated, that he had the Eri#ht to re*ain silent and to have co*petent and independent counsel preferabl( of his o+n choice,E and that if he could not afford the services of counsel, he +ould be provided +ith one: not does it appear at all that he +aived those ri#hts Ein +ritin# and in the presence of counsel.E !he soldiers and the police officers si*pl( +ent ahead +ith the investi#ation of Mal*stedt, +ithout counsel. !he ad*issions elicited fro* Mal*stedt under these circu*stances, as the Constitution clearl( states, are Einad*issible in evidence a#ainst hi*. 2> !he prohibited dru#s supposedl( discovered in Mal*stedt,s ba#s, havin# been ta$en in violation of the constitutional ri#ht a#ainst unreasonable searches and seiAures, are inad*issible a#ainst hi* Efor an( purpose in an( proceedin#.E Also pronounced as inco*petent evidence a#ainst hi* are the ad*issions supposedl( *ade b( hi* +ithout his first bein# accorded the constitutional ri#hts of persons under custodial investi#ation. 3ithout such ob7ect evidence and ad*issions, nothin# re*ains of the case a#ainst Mal*stedt. "t *a( be conceded that, as the !rial Court points out, the evidence presented b( Mal*stedt in his defense is feeble, un+orth( of credence. !his is beside the point: for confor*abl( to the fa*iliar a<io*, the State *ust rel( on the stren#th of its evidence and not on the +ea$ness of the defense. !he unfortunate fact is that althou#h the e<istence of the hashish is an ob7ective ph(sical realit( that cannot but be conceded, there is in la+ no evidence to de*onstrate +ith an( de#ree of persuasion, *uch less be(ond reasonable doubt, that Mal*stedt +as en#a#ed in a cri*inal activit(. !his is the parado< created b( the disre#ard of the applicable constitutional safe#uards. !he tan#ible benefit is that the hashish in -uestion has been correctl( confiscated and thus effectivel( +ithdra+n fro* private use. 3hat is here said should not b( an( *eans be ta$en as a disapproval or a dispara#e*ent of the efforts of the police and *ilitar( authorities to deter and detect offenses, +hether the( be possession of and traffic in prohibited dru#s, or so*e other. !hose efforts obviousl( *erit the support and co**endation of the Courts and indeed of ever( responsible citiAen. But those efforts *ust ta$e

account of the basic ri#hts #ranted b( the Constitution and the la+ to persons +ho *a( fall under suspicion of en#a#in# in cri*inal acts. ?isre#ard of those ri#hts *a( not be 7ustified b( the ob7ective of ferretin# out and punishin# cri*e, no *atter ho+ e*inentl( desirable attain*ent of that ob7ective *i#ht be. ?isre#ard of those ri#hts, as this Court has earlier stressed, *a( result in the escape of the #uilt(, and all because the Econstable has blundered,E renderin# the evidence inad*issible even if truthful or other+ise credible. 30 " therefore vote to reverse the !rial Court,s 7ud#*ent of October )., );D; and to ac-uit the appellant on reasonable doubt.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 83>88 Se'(ember 2>, 1>8> RICAR6O C. VALMONTE AN6 UNION O7 LAE5ERS AN6 A6VOCATES 7OR PEOPLEFS RIGHTS !ULAP",petitioners, vs. GEN. RENATO 6E VILLA AN6 NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION 6ISTRICT COMMAN6, respondents. -icardo 1. 9al#onte for hi#self and his co,petitioners.

PA6ILLA, J.: !his is a petition for prohibition +ith preli*inar( in7unction and/or te*porar( restrainin# order, see$in# the declaration of chec$points in CalenAuela, Metro Manila or else+here, as unconstitutional

and the dis*antlin# and bannin# of the sa*e or, in the alternative, to direct the respondents to for*ulate #uidelines in the i*ple*entation of chec$points, for the protection of the people. Petitioner Ricardo C. Cal*onte sues in his capacit( as citiAen of the Republic, ta<pa(er, *e*ber of the "nte#rated Bar of the Philippines %"BP&, and resident of CalenAuela, Metro Manila: +hile petitioner nion of La+(ers and Advocates for People,s Ri#hts % LAP& sues in its capacit( as an association +hose *e*bers are all *e*bers of the "BP. !he factual bac$#round of the case is as follo+s9 On .2 0anuar( );D@, the National Capital Re#ion ?istrict Co**and %NCR?C& +as activated pursuant to Letter of "nstruction 2./D@ of the Philippine 'eneral =ead-uarters, A>P, +ith the *ission of conductin# securit( operations +ithin its area of responsibilit( and peripheral areas, for the purpose of establishin# an effective territorial defense, *aintainin# peace and order, and providin# an at*osphere conducive to the social, econo*ic and political develop*ent of the National Capital Re#ion. 1 As part of its dut( to *aintain peace and order, the NCR?C installed chec$points in various parts of CalenAuela, Metro Manila. Petitioners aver that, because of the installation of said chec$points, the residents of CalenAuela are +orried of bein# harassed and of their safet( bein# placed at the arbitrar(, capricious and +hi*sical disposition of the *ilitar( *annin# the chec$points, considerin# that their cars and vehicles are bein# sub7ected to re#ular searches and chec$8ups, especiall( at ni#ht or at da+n, +ithout the benefit of a search +arrant and/or court order. !heir alle#ed fear for their safet( increased +hen, at da+n of ; 0ul( );DD, Ben7a*in Parpon, a suppl( officer of the Municipalit( of CalenAuela, Bulacan, +as #unned do+n alle#edl( in cold blood b( the *e*bers of the NCR?C *annin# the chec$point alon# McArthur =i#h+a( at Malinta, CalenAuela, for i#norin# and/or refusin# to sub*it hi*self to the chec$point and for continuin# to speed off inspire of +arnin# shots fired in the air. Petitioner Cal*onte also clai*s that, on several occasions, he had #one thru these chec$points +here he +as stopped and his car sub7ected to search/chec$8up +ithout a court order or search +arrant. Petitioners further contend that the said chec$points #ive the respondents a blan$et authorit( to *a$e searches and/or seiAures +ithout search +arrant or court order in violation of the Constitution: 2 and, instances have occurred +here a citiAen, +hile not $illed, had been harassed. Petitioners, concern for their safet( and apprehension at bein# harassed b( the *ilitar( *annin# the chec$points are not sufficient #rounds to declare the chec$points as per se ille#al. No proof has been presented before the Court to sho+ that, in the course of their routine chec$s, the *ilitar( indeed co**itted specific violations of petitioners, ri#ht a#ainst unla+ful search and seiAure or other ri#hts. "n a case filed b( the sa*e petitioner or#aniAation, :nion of 'aw"ers and Ad&ocates for 3eople;s -ight <:'A3= &s. %ntegrated >ational 3olice, 3 it +as held that individual petitioners +ho do not alle#e that an( of their ri#hts +ere violated are not -ualified to brin# the action, as real parties in interest. !he constitutional ri#ht a#ainst unreasonable searches and seiAures is a personal ri#ht invocable onl( b( those +hose ri#hts have been infrin#ed, = or threatened to be infrin#ed. 3hat constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search and seiAure in an( particular case is purel( a 7udicial -uestion, deter*inable fro* a consideration of the circu*stances involved. < Petitioner Cal*onte,s #eneral alle#ation to the effect that he had been stopped and searched +ithout a search +arrant b( the *ilitar( *annin# the chec$points, +ithout *ore, i.e., +ithout statin# the details of the incidents +hich a*ount to a violation of his ri#ht a#ainst unla+ful search and seiAure, is not sufficient to enable the Court to deter*ine +hether there +as a violation of Cal*onte,s ri#ht a#ainst unla+ful search and seiAure. Not all searches and seiAures are prohibited. !hose +hich are reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be deter*ined b( an( fi<ed for*ula but is to be resolved accordin# to the facts of each case. D 3here, for e<a*ple, the officer *erel( dra+s aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle +hich is par$ed on the public fair #rounds, B or si*pl( loo$s into a vehicle, 8 or flashes a li#ht therein, > these do not constitute unreasonable search. !he settin# up of the -uestioned chec$points in CalenAuela %and probabl( in other areas& *a( be considered as a securit( *easure to enable the NCR?C to pursue its *ission of establishin#

effective territorial defense and *aintainin# peace and order for the benefit of the public. Chec$points *a( also be re#arded as *easures to th+art plots to destabiliAe the #overn*ent, in the interest of public securit(. "n this connection, the Court *a( ta$e 7udicial notice of the shift to urban centers and their suburbs of the insur#enc( *ove*ent, so clearl( reflected in the increased $illin#s in cities of police and *ilitar( *en b( NPA Esparro+ units,E not to *ention the abundance of unlicensed firear*s and the alar*in# rise in la+lessness and violence in such urban centers, not all of +hich are reported in *edia, *ost li$el( brou#ht about b( deterioratin# econo*ic conditions G +hich all su* up to +hat one can ri#htl( consider, at the ver( least, as abnor*al ti*es. Bet+een the inherent ri#ht of the state to protect its e<istence and pro*ote public +elfare and an individual,s ri#ht a#ainst a +arrantless search +hich is ho+ever reasona(l" conducted, the for*er should prevail. !rue, the *annin# of chec$points b( the *ilitar( is susceptible of abuse b( the *en in unifor*, in the sa*e *anner that all #overn*ental po+er is susceptible of abuse. But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience, disco*fort and even irritation to the citiAen, the chec$points durin# these abnor*al ti*es, +hen conducted +ithin reasonable li*its, are part of the price +e pa( for an orderl( societ( and a peaceful co**unit(. >inall(, on )@ 0ul( );DD, *ilitar( and police chec$points in Metro Manila +ere te*poraril( lifted and a revie+ and refine*ent of the rules in the conduct of the police and *ilitar( *annin# the chec$points +as ordered b( the National Capital Re#ional Co**and Chief and the Metropolitan Police ?irector. 10 3=ERE>ORE, the petition is ?"SM"SSE?. SO OR?ERE?.

CRU?, J., dissentin#9 " dissent. !he s+eepin# state*ents in the *a7orit( opinion are as dan#erous as the chec$points it +ould sustain and frau#ht +ith serious threats to individual libert(. !he bland declaration that individual ri#hts *ust (ield to the de*ands of national securit( i#nores the fact that the Bill of Ri#hts +as intended precisel( to li*it the authorit( of the State even if asserted on the #round of national securit(. 3hat is +orse is that the searches and seiAures are pere*ptoril( pronounced to be reasonable even +ithout proof of probable cause and *uch less the re-uired +arrant. !he i*probable e<cuse is that the( are ai*ed at ,establishin# an effective territorial defense, *aintainin# peace and order, and providin# an at*osphere conducive to the social, econo*ic and political develop*ent of the National Capital Re#ion.E >or these purposes, ever( individual *a( be stopped and searched at rando* and at an( ti*e si*pl( because he e<cites the suspicion, caprice, hostilit( or *alice of the officers *annin# the chec$points, on pain of arrest or +orse, even bein# shot to death, if he resists. " have no -uarrel +ith a police*an flashin# a li#ht inside a par$ed vehicle on a dar$ street as a routine *easure of securit( and curiosit(. But the case at bar is different. Militar( officers are s(ste*aticall( stationed at strate#ic chec$point to activel( ferret out suspected cri*inals b( detainin# and searchin# an( individual +ho in their opinion *i#ht i*pair Ethe social, econo*ic and political develop*ent of the National Capital Re#ion.E "t is incredible that +e can sustain such a *easure. And +e are not even under *artial la+. nless +e are vi#ilant of our ri#hts, +e *a( find ourselves bac$ to the dar$ era of the truncheon and the barbed +ire, +ith the Court itself a captive of its o+n co*plaisance and sittin# at the death8bed of libert(.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. L;D211> A1-1&( 2B, 1>8= IN THE MATTER O7 THE PETITION 7OR THE ISSUANCE O7 A ERIT O7 HABEAS CORPUS 7OR ARISTE6ES SARMIENTO AN6 LAURA 6EL CASTILLO SARMIENTO, IGNACIO 6EL CASTILLO, petitioner, vs. HON. 4UAN PONCE ENRILE, LT. GEN. 7I6EL V. RAMOS AN6 MA4. GEORGE L. ALIGOM, respondents. 'oren2o M. Taada. 5ose $. 0io?no. 5o?er 3. Arro"o. -ene Sar#iento and Felicitas A!uino for petitioner. The Solicitor General for respondent @nrile. RESOL ABA6 SANTOS, J.: At about ;922 p.*. on October ;, );D., Aristedes Sar*iento and his +ife, Laura del Castillo Sar*iento, +ere apprehended b( ar*ed *en in civilian attire as the couple left the Rosarian =otel in 'u*aca, FueAon. !he( +ere brou#ht to Ca*p Arsenio Natividad, also in 'u*aca, +here the( +ere interro#ated +ithout benefit of counsel. Laura +as then ei#ht *onths pre#nant. She +as not *altreated: at least she *ade no clai* to that effect. But Aristedes co*plained that he +as struc$ at his side +ith the barrel of an Ar*alite rifle. !he spouses +ere not released fro* detention despite the fact that the( +ere said to have been *erel( invited for -uestionin#. >or this reason, "#nacio del Castillo, father of Laura, filed the instant petition for the issuance of a +rit of habeas corpus on October .2, );D., +ith the assistance of the >ree Le#al Assistance 'roup %>LA'&. 3e issued the +rit on October .), );D.: re-uired the respondents to *a$e a return on October .@, );D.: and set the case for hearin# on October .D, );D.. !he return of the +rit states in part9 .. !he evidence in the hands of the *ilitar( sho+s that at the ti*e of his arrest, Aristedes Sar*iento headed an operatin# unit of the Ne+ People,s Ar*( %NPA& called the Pan#$at 0AC"N!O BON">AC"O. !his unit conducts a#itation propa#anda a*on# the far*ers and directl( recruits *e*bers for the NPA. Laura Sar*iento +as the unit,s finance officer. 4. On October l6, );D.,Aristedes and Laura Sar*iento +ere char#ed +ith violation of the Revised Anti8Subversion La+ %P.?. DD1& as ran$in# leaders of the NPA in a co*plaint filed before the Municipal Court of 'u*aca, FueAon in Cri*inal Case No. D214. A cop( of that Co*plaint is hereb( attached as Anne< ). 6. pon preli*inar( e<a*ination dul( had, the court found probable cause a#ainst the sub7ect accused. Accordin#l(, the( +ere ordered detained pendin# further proceedin#s in their case. A cop( of the court,s directive co**ittin# the persons of the accused to the custod( of the .4.nd PC Co*pan( is attached hereto as Anne< .. 1. Since Aristedes and Laura Sar*iento are bein# held b( virtue of a valid order of the Municipal Court of 'u*aca, FueAon, the +rit of habeas corpus +ill not lie in their case. %Luna vs. PlaAa, .5 SCRA 4)2: Celeste vs. People, 4) SCRA 4;): Canar( vs. ?irector of Prisons, 45 SCRA .;&. On Nove*ber 4, );D., the respondents filed a supple*ent to the return of the +rit. "t states, inter alia. that Ea Presidential Co**it*ent Order a#ainst Aristedes and Laura Sar*iento +as issued b( the President of the Philippines on October .@, );D., for the cri*e of subversion.E A cop( of the PCO +as attached as Anne< ) to the supple*ent. %Rollo, p. 61.& Laura Sar*iento +as te*poraril( released on March )6, );D4, for hu*anitarian reasons. She #ave birth durin# detention and she +as released to enable her to provide proper care for the infant child. !"ON

On March 4), );D4, the Sar*iento spouses +ere accused of subversion in t+o separate infor*ations filed +ith the Re#ional !rial Court of 'u*aca, FueAon. After the prosecution had presented its evidence and rested its case, the defense *oved to dis*iss the char#es for insufficienc( of evidence. And on March )1, );D6, the trial court issued an order dis*issin# the cases a#ainst the Sar*iento spouses. "n doin# so, the trial court said in part9 After a careful and thorou#h e<a*ination and evaluation of the entire records in these t+o cases, this Court has arrived at the conclusion, that there is no pri*a facie case, or *uch less, probable cause, to let the Sar*iento couple stand trial on the char#es a#ainst the* !he s+orn state*ent of prosecution +itness, Luisito Marcuap, %E<h. A& e<ecuted b( hi* to#ether +ith P/Cpl. Rolando 'onAales and C.C 0ai*e MendoAa, states, that he ca*e to $no+ about the Sar*iento couple onl( on October ;, );D., +hich he confir*ed in open court, upon clarificator( -uestion b( this Court, +hen he ad*itted that before said date he never had opportunit( to see +hat said couple +as doin#, and that his $no+led#e about the* +as *erel( based upon infor*ation. "ndeed, there is nothin# that the Ar*ed >orces of the Philipp*es or an( of the la+ enforce*ent a#encies of the 'overn*ent, could offer to prove an( connection of the Sar*iento couple +ith an( subversive or#aniAation, even +ith the Ne+ People,s Ar*(, if ever it is to be considered such, and *uch *ore as leaders thereof. "t see*s that the investi#ative a#encies of the Ar*ed >orces, notabl( the Philippine Constabular( +ith its hi#hl( efficient intelli#ence net+or$, did not have an( docu*ented dossier a#ainst the Sar*iento couple, such as their bein# in the order of battle of the NPA as ran$in# leaders or even as *e*bers or *ere s(*pathiAers. All infor*ation obtained b( the*, co*e fro* surrenderees. But then, even the infor*ation #athered b( the* fro* such surrenderees, +ho +ere not presented on the +itness stand, especiall( =onorio Estrada, +ould see* to indicate, that the NPA itself +as not certain +hether or not the Sar*iento couple +ere +ith it, so *uch so, that said surrenderee +as sent to verif( such fact. %Rollo, pp. )2D8 )2;.& ?espite the dis*issal of the char#es, Aristedes Sar*iento +as not released fro* confine*ent. "n a letter dated March .;, );D6, addressed to ?efense Minister 0uan Ponce Enrile, Att(. 0ose 3. ?io$no of >LA' as$ed for the i**ediate release of Aristedes. =e +as not released. Accordin#l(, an r#ent Motion +as filed +ith this Court on Ma( )5, );D6, +herein it is pra(ed that the i**ediate release of Aristedes Sar*iento be ordered. !he respondents +ere re-uired to co**ent on the r#ent Motion and after considerable dela( the( did so on 0ul( )6, );D6. !he( said that the Minister of ?efense ordered the release of Aristedes on 0ul( 5, );D6, and he +as actuall( released on 0ul( )), );D6, at .942 p.*. !he( pra( that the petition for habeas corpus bein# *oot and acade*ic be dis*issed. !he *a7orit( of the Court, +hich does not include the undersi#ned ponente, is of the opinion that the petition for habeas corpus has beco*e *oot and acade*ic because the Sar*iento spouses are no lon#er in detention. 3=ERE>ORE, the instant petition is hereb( dis*issed on the #round that it has been rendered *oot and acade*ic and it is so ordered. !he undersi#ned ponente is constrained to disa#ree +ith the *a7orit( of the Court and the state*ents follo+in# are entirel( his o+n9 l. " believe that the Court should have resolved the petition on the *erits and it is for this reason that on the face of the r#ent Motion pra(in# for the release of Aristedes Sar*iento after the trial court had dis*issed the t+o cases a#ainst the spouses that " voted for i**ediate affir*ative relief. !he unstated pre*ise of the *a7orit( opinion is that a person +ho is detained under a PCO cannot be released e<cept b( e<ecutive action even if the char#es a#ainst hi* have been dis*issed or he has been ac-uitted b( a court of co*petent 7urisdiction. " hold the contrar( vie+: it is consistent +ith +hat " have previousl( adopted, na*el(9 Eif and +hen a for*al co*plaint is presented, the court steps in and the e<ecutive steps out.E %Morales, 0r. vs. Enrile, '.R. No. 5)2)5, April .5, );D4, ).)

SCRA 14D, 1;681;5.& "n the case at bar since the Sar*iento spouses had been brou#ht before a court of co*petent 7urisdiction, the fact that the( +ere covered b( a PCO is of no conse-uence: the court +hich ac-uired 7urisdiction over the* could order their release +ithout recourse to e<ecutive action. .. !he *ilitar( authorities acted in a cavalier fashion in assessin# the evidence a#ainst the Sar*ientos +hich proved to be so +orthless that the( did not even have to rebut it. !he +hole process, fro* their arrest to their continued detention under a PCO, +as a serious affront to their liberties. SO OR?ERE?.

TEEHAN EE, 4., dissentin#9 " a* constrained to dissent fro* the Court *a7orit(,s dis*issal of the case for Ebein# *oot and acade*icE because the accused8detainee, Aristedes Sar*iento, +as eventuall( released fro* detention on 0ul( )), );D6 or four %6& *onths after his ac-uittal. " a#ree +ith the disa#ree*ent of the ponente, Mr. 0ustice Abad Santos, +ith such dis*issal and +ith the #rounds stated b( hi* that Ethe Court should have resolved the petition on the *eritsE and that Esince the Sar*iento spouses had been brou#ht before a court of co*petent 7urisdiction, the fact that the( +ere covered b( a PCO is of no conse-uence: the court +hich ac-uired 7urisdiction over the* could order their release +ithout recourse to e<ecutive action.E 1 " li$e+ise a#ree +ith his state*ent that E%!&he +hole process, fro* their arrest to their continued detention under a PCO, +as a serious affront to their libertiesE as +ell as +ith Mr. 0ustice >eli< C. Ma$asiar,s su##estion that E%!&he *ilitar( establish*ent should in-uire into +hether the President +as deceived into issuin# the PCO and +ho initiated the arrest of the couple +ithout supportin# evidence.E 3ith the re#ional trial court,s dis*issal on March )1, );D6 of the char#es for subversion a#ainst the accused Sar*iento spouses for utter E+orthlessness of evidence,E the ur#ent *otion filed on Ma( )5,);D6 in this habeas corpus proceedin# for Aristedes Sar*iento,s i**ediate release 2 %after his counsel,s ad*inistrative appeal throu#h the Minister of National ?efense for his release had failed and t+o *onths had alread( #one b( since the spouses, ac-uittal& should have been i**ediatel( #ranted not+ithstandin# Aristedes Sar*iento,s detention under a Presidential Co**it*ent Order %PCO&. As it is, Aristedes +as released on 0ul( )), );D6 onl( after still t+o *ore *onths, dela(, +hen the PCO +as finall( lifted G an a#oniAin# +ait after al*ost t+o (ears %short b( three *onths& of detention found b( final 7ud#*ent to be totall( bereft of basis and evidence. "f the Rule of La+ *eans an(thin#, a 7ud#*ent of ac-uittal *ust prevail over the PCO. 3hen the co*petent court has rendered a 7ud#*ent of ac-uittal of char#es of subversion and/or other national securit(8related offenses, the accused +ho is held on no other la+ful cause is entitled to be forth+ith set at libert( re#ardless of the PCO. Aristedes therefore +as entitled to his release fro* the date of his ac-uittal on March )1, );D6. !he Court should so rule s-uarel(, instead of dis*issin# the case as *oot. !he issue at bar is a decisive and funda*ental issue of public interest and i*portance affectin# the ver( liberties of the people. !he vital issue de*ands to be resolved, rather than e*asculated +ith a dis*issal of the case as *oot, for the #uidance of public respondents and all concerned. !his case is but a replica of the CaBete case, 3 +herein the public respondents li$e+ise failed and for refused to release the therein accused, Renato CaBete, despite his ac-uittal b( the trial court, on the #round that such ac-uittal Edoes not affect the effectivit( of the PCO %+hich is& be(ond the a*bit of 7udicial in-uir(,E citin# the *a7orit( rulin# in the 3adilla,3arong = and Morales < cases. " have filed *(

separate opinion in the said case, dissentin# fro* the Court,s dis*issal of the case as havin# li$e+ise beco*e *oot after CaBete,s eventual release b( the *ilitar( on Ma( @, );D4, three *onths after his ac-uittal G not b( virtue of his ac-uittal but because the PCO had been lifted. " li$e+ise ur#ed that the Court should have therein ruled s-uarel( on the funda*ental issue of the effect of a decision of ac-uittal upon a PCO, and to hold that a verdict of ac-uittal entities the accused to his libert(, despite the PCO, +hich thereb( beca*e functus officio. "t is i*perative then, in order to avoid countless other 1aetes and Sar#ientos, that in the lan#ua#e of the no+ Chief 0ustice in 0e la 1a#ara &s. @nage, D Ethe fact that this case is *oot and acade*ic should not preclude this !ribunal fro* settin# forth in lan#ua#e clear and un*ista$able . . . . for the #uidance of lo+er court 7ud#es, the controllin# and authoritative doctrines that should be observedE in accordin# full respect to constitutional ri#hts %referrin# in said case to the constitutional *andate that e<cessive bail shall not be re-uired8not+ithstandin# that petitioner8accused had *ean+hile escaped fro* the provincial 7ail G since the issue in the case +as not alone the fate of therein petitioner&. As stressed b( the late Chief 0ustice >red RuiA Castro in A!uino. 5r. &. @nrile, B Ethe fact that a final deter*ination of a -uestion involved in an action is needed +ill be useful as a #uide for the conduct of public officers or tribunals is a sufficient reason for retainin# an action +hich +ould or should other+ise be dis*issed. Li$e+ise appeals *a( be retained if the -uestions involved are li$el( to arise fre-uentl( in the future unless the( are settled b( a court of last resort.E " reiterate *( stand in the above8cited case of 1aete 8 that in such cases of conflictin# clai*s of authorit(, the individual,s ri#ht to be set at libert( b( virtue of his ac-uittal b( the courts *ust prevail over the *ilitar(,s clai* of a ri#ht to continue holdin# hi* in detention under the PCO. >or*er Chief 0ustice Roberto Concepcion ri#htfull( observed in 3eople &s. 7ernande2 > that Eindividual freedo* is too basic, too transcendental and vital in a republican state, li$e ours, to be denied upon *ere #eneral principles and abstract considerations of public safet(. E >or brevit(,s sa$e, " here+ith reproduce b( reference *( said separate opinion +hich full( applies, *utatis *utandis, in vie+ of the "dentical issues involved, to the case at bar.

EN BANC
PHILIP SIGFRID A. FORTUN a$% ALBERT LEE G. ANGELES, Petiti ners, G.R. No. 1D05D4 Present: ")()31, C.J., "1(PI), MF21S"), /(., 2F)31(;)=;F "1S'(), B(I)3, PF(12'1, BF(S1MI3, ;F2 "1S'I22), 1B1;, MI221(1M1, /(., PF(FN, MF3;)N1, SF(F3), (FTFS, and PF(21S=BF(31BF, JJ.

= versus =

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROGO, a' Co**a$%e"-)$-Ch)e( a$% P"e')%e$& o( &he Re,#+1)c o( &he Ph)1),,)$e', EDUARDO ERMITA, E9ec#&)/e Sec"e&a"0, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES >AFP?, o" a$0 o( &he)" #$)&', PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE >PNP?, o" a$0 o( &he)" #$)&', JOHN DOES a$% JANE DOES ac&)$! #$%e" &he)" %)"ec&)o$ a$% co$&"o1, (esp ndents. I ==================================================== I DIDAGEN P. DILANGALEN, Petiti ner, = versus = EDUARDO R. ERMITA )$ h)' ca,ac)&0 a' E9ec#&)/e Sec"e&a"0, NORBERTO GONHALES )$ h)' ca,ac)&0 a' Sec"e&a"0 o( Na&)o$a1 De(e$'e, RONALDO PUNO )$ h)' ca,ac)&0 a' Sec"e&a"0 o( I$&e")o" a$% Loca1 Go/e"$*e$&, (esp ndents. I ==================================================== I NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLES2 G.R. No. 1D0401 LA3GERS >NUPL? SECRETARG GENERAL NERI JABIER COLMENARES, BAGAN MUNA REPRESENTATIBE SATUR C. OCAMPO, G.R. No. 1D05D7

GABRIELA 3OMEN2S PARTG REPRESENTATIBE LIHA L. MAHA, ATTG. JULIUS GARCIA MATIBAG, ATTG. EPHRAIM B. CORTEH, ATTG. JOBERT ILARDE PAHILGA, ATTG. BOLTAIRE B. AFRICA, BAGONG ALGANSANG MAIABAGAN >BAGAN? SECRETARG GENERAL RENATO M. REGES, JR. a$% ANTHONG IAN CRUH, Petiti ners, = versus = PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROGO, EJECUTIBE SECRETARG EDUARDO R. ERMITA, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL BICTOR S. IBRADO, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL JESUS A. BERHOSA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARG AGNES BST DEBANADERA, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES EASTERN MINDANAO COMMAND CHIEF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RAGMUNDO B. FERRER, (esp ndents. I ==================================================== I JOSEPH NELSON K. LOGOLA, Petiti ner, = versus = HER EJCELLENCG PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROGO, ARMED FORCES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL BICTOR IBRADO, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE >PNP?, DIRECTOR GENERAL JESUS BERHOSA, EJECUTIBE SECRETARG EDUARDO ERMITA, (esp ndents. I ==================================================== I JOBITO R. SALONGA, RAUL C. G.R. No. 1D0407 PANGALANGAN, H. HARRG L. ROKUE, JR., JOEL R. BUTUGAN, EMILIO CAPULONG, FLORIN T. HILBAG, ROMEL R. BAGARES, DEJTER DONNE B. DIHON, ALLAN JONES F. LARDIHABAL a$% GILBERT T. ANDRES, '#)$! a' &a9,a0e"' a$% a' CONCERNED F)1),)$o c)&)-e$', G.R. No. 1D0405

Petiti ners, = versus = GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROGO, )$ h)' > sic? ca,ac)&0 a' P"e')%e$& o( &he Re,#+1)c o( &he Ph)1),,)$e', HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, JR., )$ h)' ca,ac)&0 a' E9ec#&)/e Sec"e&a"0, a$% HON. ROLANDO ANDAGA )$ h)' ca,ac)&0 a' Sec"e&a"0 o( &he De,a"&*e$& o( B#%!e& a$% Ma$a!e*e$&, GENERAL BICTOR IBRADO, )$ h)' ca,ac)&0 a' A"*e% Fo"ce' o( &he Ph)1),,)$e' Ch)e( o( S&a((, DIRECTOR JESUS BERHOSA, )$ h)' ca,ac)&0 a' Ch)e( o( &he Ph)1),,)$e Na&)o$a1 Po1)ce, (esp ndents. I ==================================================== I BAILENG S. MANTA3IL, DENGCO G.R. No. 1D04=< SABAN, E$!". OCTOBER CHIO, AIBAGAN PARTG LIST REPRESENTATIBES 3ALDEN F. BELLO a$% ANA THERESIA HONTIBEROS-BARAKUEL, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MARBIC M.B.F. LEONEN, THEODORE O. TE a$% IBARRA M. GUTIERREH III, Petiti ners, = versus = THE EJECUTIBE SECRETARG, THE SECRETARG OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE SECRETARG OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARG OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOBERNMENT, THE SECRETARG OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, a$% THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, (esp ndents. I ==================================================== I CHRISTIAN MONSOD a$% CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR., Petiti ners, = versus = EDUARDO R. ERMITA, )$ h)' ca,ac)&0 a' E9ec#&)/e Sec"e&a"0, (esp ndent. Pr !ulgated: March +,, +,-+ G.R. No. 1D0480

I ======================================================================================== I

DECISION
ABAD, J.:
'hese cases c ncern the c nstituti nalit$ f a presidential pr cla!ati n f !artial la# and suspensi n f the privilege f ha"eas corpus in +,,7 in a pr vince in Mindana #hich #ere #ithdra#n after &ust eight da$s. The Fac&' a$% &he Ca'e 'he essential backgr und facts are n t in dispute. )n 3 ve!ber +6, +,,7 heavil$ ar!ed !en, believed led b$ the ruling 1!patuan fa!il$, gunned d #n and buried under sh veled dirt @8 inn cent civilians n a high#a$ in Maguindana . In resp nse t this carnage, n 3 ve!ber +: President 1rr $ issued Presidential Pr cla!ati n -7:*, declaring a state f e!ergenc$ in Maguindana , Sultan .udarat, and " tabat "it$ t prevent and suppress si!ilar la#less vi lence in "entral Mindana . Believing that she needed greater auth rit$ t put rder in Maguindana and secure it fr ! large gr ups f pers ns that have taken up ar!s against the c nstituted auth rities in the pr vince, n ;ece!ber :, +,,7 President 1rr $ issued Presidential Pr cla!ati n -7@7 declaring !artial la# and suspending the privilege f the #rit f ha"eas corpus in that pr vince eIcept f r identified areas f the M r Isla!ic 2iberati n Fr nt. '# da$s later r n ;ece!ber *, +,,7 President 1rr $ sub!itted her rep rt t " ngress in acc rdance #ith Secti n -9, 1rticle MII f the -798 " nstituti n #hich re5uired her, #ithin :9 h urs fr ! the pr cla!ati n f !artial la# r the suspensi n f the privilege f the #rit f ha"eas corpus, t sub!it t that b d$ a rep rt in pers n r in #riting f her acti n. In her rep rt, President 1rr $ said that she acted based n her finding that la#less !en have taken up ar!s in Maguindana and risen against the g vern!ent. 'he President described the sc pe f the uprising, the nature, 5uantit$, and 5ualit$ f the rebelsO #eap nr$, the ! ve!ent f their heavil$ ar!ed units in strategic p siti ns, the cl sure f the Maguindana Pr vincial "apit l, 1!patuan Municipal 0all, ;atu Hnsa$ Municipal 0all, and -: ther !unicipal halls, and the use f ar! red vehicles, tanks, and patr l cars #ith unauth ri<ed QP3P%P liceR !arkings.

)n ;ece!ber 7, +,,7 " ngress, in & int sessi n, c nvened pursuant t Secti n -9, 1rticle MII f the -798 " nstituti n t revie# the validit$ f the PresidentOs acti n. But, t# da$s later r n ;ece!ber -+ bef re " ngress c uld act, the President issued Presidential Pr cla!ati n -7*6, lifting !artial la# and rest ring the privilege f the #rit f ha"eas corpus in Maguindana . Petiti ners Philip Sigfrid 1. F rtun and the ther petiti ners in G.(. -7,+76, -7,+7:, -7,6,-,-7,6,+, -7,6,8, -7,6@*, and -7,69, br ught the present acti ns t challenge the c nstituti nalit$ f President 1rr $ Os Pr cla!ati n -7@7 affecting Maguindana . But, given the pr !pt lifting f that pr cla!ati n bef re " ngress c uld revie# it and bef re an$ seri us 5uesti n affecting the rights and liberties f Maguindana Os inhabitants c uld arise, the " urt dee!s an$ revie# f its c nstituti nalit$ the e5uivalent f beating a dead h rse. Prudence and respect f r the c =e5ual depart!ents f the g vern!ent dictate that the " urt sh uld be cauti us in entertaining acti ns that assail the c nstituti nalit$ f the acts f the FIecutive r the 2egislative depart!ent. 'he issue f c nstituti nalit$, said the " urt in Biraogo &( 'hilippine Truth Commission of ./4/,K-L !ust be the ver$ issue f the case, that the res luti n f such issue is unav idable. 'he issue f the c nstituti nalit$ f Pr cla!ati n -7@7 is n t unav idable f r t# reas ns: O$e. President 1rr $ #ithdre# her pr cla!ati n f !artial la# and suspensi n f the privilege f the #rit f ha"eas corpus bef re the & int h uses f " ngress c uld fulfill their aut !atic dut$ t revie# and validate r invalidate the sa!e. 'he pertinent pr visi ns f Secti n -9, 1rticle MII f the -798 " nstituti n state:
Sec. -9. 'he President shall be the " !!ander=in="hief f all ar!ed f rces f the Philippines and #henever it bec !es necessar$, he !a$ call ut such ar!ed f rces t prevent r suppress la#less vi lence, invasi n r rebelli n. In case f invasi n r rebelli n, #hen the public safet$ re5uires it, he !a$, f r a peri d n t eIceeding siIt$ da$s, suspend the privilege f the #rit f ha"eas corpus r place the Philippines r an$ part there f under !artial la#. 4ithin f rt$=eight h urs fr ! the pr cla!ati n f !artial la# r the suspensi n f the privilege f #rit f ha"eas corpus, the President shall sub!it a rep rt in pers n r in #riting t the " ngress. 'he " ngress, v ting & intl$, b$ a v te f at least a !a& rit$ f all its Me!bers in regular r special sessi n, !a$ rev ke such pr cla!ati n r suspensi n, #hich rev cati n shall n t be set aside b$ the President. Hp n the initiative f the President, the " ngress !a$, in the sa!e !anner, eItend such pr cla!ati n r suspensi n f r a peri d t be deter!ined b$ the " ngress, if the invasi n r rebelli n shall persist and public safet$ re5uires it.

'he " ngress, if n t in sessi n, shall, #ithin t#ent$=f ur h urs f ll #ing such pr cla!ati n r suspensi n, c nvene in acc rdance #ith its rules #ith ut an$ need f a call. IIII

1lth ugh the ab ve vests in the President the p #er t pr clai! !artial la# r suspend the privilege f the #rit f ha"eas corpus, he shares such p #er #ith the " ngress. 'hus: g -. 'he PresidentOs pr cla!ati n r suspensi n is te!p rar$, d f r nl$ *, da$sP r

+. 0e !ust, #ithin :9 h urs f the pr cla!ati n suspensi n, rep rt his acti n in pers n r in #riting t " ngressP

6. B th h uses f " ngress, if n t in sessi n !ust & intl$ c nvene #ithin +: h urs f the pr cla!ati n r suspensi n f r the purp se f revie#ing its validit$P and :. 'he " ngress, v ting & intl$, !a$ rev ke r affir! the PresidentOs pr cla!ati n r suspensi n, all # their li!ited effectivit$ t lapse, r eItend the sa!e if " ngress dee!s #arranted. It is evident that under the -798 " nstituti n the President and the " ngress act in tande! in eIercising the p #er t pr clai! !artial la# r suspend the privilege f the #rit f ha"eas corpus. 'he$ eIercise the p #er, n t nl$ se5uentiall$, but in a sense & intl$ since, after the President has initiated the pr cla!ati n r the suspensi n, nl$ the " ngress can !aintain the sa!e based n its #n evaluati n f the situati n n the gr und, a p #er that the President d es n t have. " nse5uentl$, alth ugh the " nstituti n reserves t the Supre!e " urt the p #er t revie# the sufficienc$ f the factual basis f the pr cla!ati n r suspensi n in a pr per suit, it is i!plicit that the " urt !ust all # " ngress t eIercise its #n revie# p #ers, #hich is aut !atic rather than initiated. )nl$ #hen " ngress defaults in its eIpress dut$ t defend the " nstituti n thr ugh such revie# sh uld the Supre!e " urt step in as its final ra!part. 'he c nstituti nal validit$ f the PresidentOs pr cla!ati n f !artial la# r suspensi n f the #rit f ha"eas corpus is first a p litical 5uesti n in the hands f " ngress bef re it bec !es a &usticiable ne in the hands f the " urt. 0ere, President 1rr $ #ithdre# Pr cla!ati n -7@7 bef re the & int h uses f " ngress, #hich had in fact c nvened, c uld act n the sa!e. " nse5uentl$, the petiti ns in these cases have bec !e ! t and the " urt has n thing t

revie#. 'he lifting f !artial la# and rest rati n f the privilege f the #rit f ha"eas corpus in Maguindana #as a supervening event that bliterated an$ &usticiable c ntr vers$.K+L T.o. Since President 1rr $ #ithdre# her pr cla!ati n f !artial la# and suspensi n f the privilege f the #rit f ha"eas corpus in &ust eight da$s, the$ have n t been !eaningfull$ i!ple!ented. 'he !ilitar$ did n t take ver the perati n and c ntr l f l cal g vern!ent units in Maguindana . 'he President did n t issue an$ la# r decree affecting Maguindana that sh uld rdinaril$ be enacted b$ " ngress. 3 indiscri!inate !ass arrest had been rep rted. 'h se #h #ere arrested during the peri d #ere either released r pr !ptl$ charged in c urt. Indeed, n petiti n f r ha"eas corpus had been filed #ith the " urt respecting arrests !ade in th se eight da$s. 'he p int is that the President intended b$ her acti n t address an uprising in a relativel$ s!all and sparsel$ p pulated pr vince. In her &udg!ent, the rebelli n #as l cali<ed and s#iftl$ disintegrated in the face f a deter!ined and a!pl$ ar!ed g vern!ent presence. In ,ansang &( 5arcia,K6L the " urt received evidence in eIecutive sessi n t deter!ine if President Marc sO suspensi n f the privilege f the #rit f ha"eas corpus in -78- had sufficient factual basis. In A6uino2 Jr( &( nrile,K:L #hile the " urt t k &udicial n tice f the factual bases f r President Marc sO pr cla!ati n f !artial la# in -78+, it still held hearings n the petiti ns f r ha"eas corpus t deter!ine the c nstituti nalit$ f the arrest and detenti n f the petiti ners. 0ere, h #ever, the " urt has n t b thered t eIa!ine the evidence up n #hich President 1rr $ acted in issuing Pr cla!ati n -7@7, precisel$ because it felt n need t , the pr cla!ati n having been #ithdra#n #ithin a fe# da$s f its issuance. /ustice 1nt ni '. "arpi p ints ut in his dissenting pini n the finding f the (egi nal 'rial " urt (('") f >ue< n "it$ that n pr bable cause eIist that the accused bef re it c !!itted rebelli n in Maguindana since the pr secuti n failed t establish the ele!ents f the cri!e. But the " urt cann t use such finding as basis f r striking d #n the PresidentOs pr cla!ati n and suspensi n. F r, firstl$, the " urt did n t delegate and c uld n t delegate t the ('" f >ue< n "it$ its p #er t deter!ine the factual basis f r the presidential pr cla!ati n and suspensi n. Sec ndl$, there is n sh #ing that the ('" f >ue< n "it$ passed up n the sa!e evidence that the President, as " !!ander=in= "hief f the 1r!ed F rces, had in her p ssessi n #hen she issued the pr cla!ati n and suspensi n. 'he " urt d es n t res lve purel$ acade!ic 5uesti ns t satisf$ sch larl$ interest, h #ever intellectuall$ challenging these are.K@L 'his is especiall$ true, said the " urt in 'hilippine Association of Colleges and %ni&ersities &( Secretary of ducation,K*L #here the issues Qreach c nstituti nal di!ensi ns, f r then there c !es int pla$ regard f r the c urtOs dut$ t av id decisi n f c nstituti nal

issues unless av idance bec !es evasi n.R 'he " urtOs dut$ is t steer clear f declaring unc nstituti nal the acts f the FIecutive r the 2egislative depart!ent, given the assu!pti n that it carefull$ studied th se acts and f und the! c nsistent #ith the funda!ental la# bef re taking the!. Q' d ubt is t sustain.RK8L 3 tabl$, under Secti n -9, 1rticle MII f the -798 " nstituti n, the " urt has nl$ 6, da$s fr ! the filing f an appr priate pr ceeding t revie# the sufficienc$ f the factual basis f the pr cla!ati n f !artial la# r the suspensi n f the privilege f the #rit f ha"eas corpus. 'hus [
'he Supre!e " urt !a$ revie#, in an appr priate pr ceeding filed b$ an$ citi<en, the sufficienc$ f the factual basis f the pr cla!ati n f !artial la# r the suspensi n f the privilege f the #rit f ha"eas corpus r the eItensi n there f, and *#'& ,"o*#1!a&e )&' %ec)')o$ &he"eo$ .)&h)$ &h)"&0 %a0' ("o* )&' ()1)$! . (F!phasis supplied)

M re than t# $ears have passed since petiti ners filed the present acti ns t annul Pr cla!ati n -7@7. 4hen the " urt did n t decide it then, it actuall$ pted f r a default as #as its dut$, the 5uesti n having bec !e ! t and acade!ic. /ustice "arpi f c urse p ints ut that sh uld the " urt regard the p #ers f the President and " ngress respecting the pr cla!ati n f !artial la# r the suspensi n f the privilege f the #rit f ha"eas corpus as se5uential r & int, it # uld be i!p ssible f r the " urt t eIercise its p #er f revie# #ithin the 6, da$s given it. But th se 6, da$s, fiIed b$ the " nstituti n, sh uld be en ugh f r the " urt t fulfill its dut$ #ith ut pre=e!pting c ngressi nal acti n. Secti n -9, 1rticle MII, re5uires the President t rep rt his acti ns t " ngress, in pers n r in #riting, #ithin :9 h urs f such pr cla!ati n r suspensi n. In turn, the " ngress is re5uired t c nvene #ith ut need f a call #ithin +: h urs f ll #ing the PresidentOs pr cla!ati n r suspensi n. "learl$, the " nstituti n calls f r 5uick acti n n the part f the " ngress. 4hatever f r! that acti n takes, theref re, sh uld give the " urt sufficient ti!e t fulfill its #n !andate t revie# the factual basis f the pr cla!ati n r suspensi n #ithin 6, da$s f its issuance. If the " ngress pr crastinates r alt gether fails t fulfill its dut$ respecting the pr cla!ati n r suspensi n #ithin the sh rt ti!e eIpected f it, then the " urt can step in, hear the petiti ns challenging the PresidentOs acti n, and ascertain if it has a factual basis. If the " urt finds n ne, then it can annul the pr cla!ati n r the suspensi n. But #hat if the 6, da$s given it b$ the " nstituti n pr ves inade5uateY /ustice "arpi hi!self ffers the ans#er in his dissent: that 6,=da$

peri d d es n t perate t divest this " urt f its &urisdicti n ver the case. 'he settled rule is that &urisdicti n nce ac5uired is n t l st until the case has been ter!inated. 'he pr ble! in this case is that the President ab rted the pr cla!ati n f !artial la# and the suspensi n f the privilege f the #rit f ha"eas corpus in Maguindana in &ust eight da$s. In a real sense, the pr cla!ati n and the suspensi n never t k ff. 'he " ngress itself ad& urned #ith ut t uching the !atter, it having bec !e ! t and acade!ic. )f c urse, the " urt has in eIcepti nal cases passed up n issues that rdinaril$ # uld have been regarded as ! t. But the present cases d n t present sufficient basis f r the eIercise f the p #er f &udicial revie#. 'he pr cla!ati n f !artial la# and the suspensi n f the privilege f the #rit f ha"eas corpus in this case, unlike si!ilar Presidential acts in the late *,s and earl$ 8,s, appear ! re like saber=rattling than an actual depl $!ent and arbitrar$ use f p litical p #er. 3HEREFORE, the " urt DISMISSES the c ns lidated petiti ns n the gr und that the sa!e have bec !e ! t and acade!ic. SO ORDERED.

The facts !hese consolidated cases +ere an offshoot of the so8called Ma#uindanao Massacre. On Nove*ber .4, .22;, heavil( ar*ed *en believed to be led b( the rulin# A*patuan fa*il( of Ma#uindanao #unned do+n 1@ innocent civilians,includin# the +ife of then Buluan, Ma#uindanao Cice8Ma(or Es*ail L!otoM Man#udadatu. She +as supposed to file her husbandNs certificate of candidac( for 'overnor of Ma#uindanao +ith the Provincial Office of the OMELEC in Shariff A#ua$, Ma#uindanao. !he other victi*s of this #rueso*e incident +ere Man#udadatuNs relatives, la+(ers and *e*bers of the press, a*on# others. >ive others +ho onl( happened to be travellin# on the sa*e hi#h+a( traversed b( the Man#udadatu convo( +ere also $illed. "n response to this carna#e, President Arro(o issued on Nove*ber .6, .22; PP );65 declarin# a state of e*er#enc( in Ma#uindanao, Sultan Hudarat, and Cotabato Cit(. On ?ece*ber 6, .22;, President Arro(o issued PP );1; declarin# *artial la+ and suspendin# the privile#e of the +rit of ha(eas corpus in Ma#uindanao e<cept for identified areas of the M"L>. On ?ece*ber 5, .22;, President Arro(o sub*itted her report to Con#ress. On ?ece*ber ;, .22;, Con#ress convened in 7oint session to revie+ the validit( of the PresidentNs action. !+o da(s later, or on ?ece*ber )., .22;, before Con#ress could act, the President issued PP );54, liftin# *artial la+ and restorin# the privile#e of the +rit. The pivotal issue "n decidin# the consolidated petitions, the ponencia stuc$ to the *ost funda*ental issue9 ?id the issuance of PP );54, liftin# *artial la+ and restorin# the privile#e of the +rit in Ma#uindanao, render the issues *oot and acade*icK
!he constitutional validit( of the PresidentNs procla*ation of *artial la+ or suspension of the +rit of ha(eas corpus is first a political -uestion in the hands of Con#ress before it beco*es a 7usticiable one in the hands of the Court. Since President Arro(o +ithdre+ her procla*ation of *artial la+ and suspension of the privile#e of the +rit of ha(eas corpus in 7ust ei#ht da(s, the( have not been *eanin#full( i*ple*ented. !he *ilitar( did not ta$e over the operation and control of local #overn*ent units in Ma#uindanao. !he President did not issue an( la+ or decree affectin# Ma#uindanao that should ordinaril( be enacted b( Con#ress. No indiscri*inate *ass arrest had been reported. !hose +ho +ere arrested durin# the period +ere either released or pro*ptl( char#ed in court. "ndeed, no petition for ha(eas corpus had been filed +ith the Court respectin# arrests *ade in those ei#ht da(s. !he point is that the President intended b( her action to address an uprisin# in a relativel( s*all and sparsel( populated province. "n her 7ud#*ent,

the rebellion +as localiAed and s+iftl( disinte#rated in the face of a deter*ined and a*pl( ar*ed #overn*ent presence. <<< <<< <<<

<<<. "n a real sense, the procla*ation and the suspension never too$ off. !he Con#ress itself ad7ourned +ithout touchin# the *atter, it havin# beco*e *oot and acade*ic.

Li*itation of the !i7a* v. Sibon#hano( ?octrine %0urisdiction !hrou#h Estoppel b( Laches& 9 Rec$less "*prudence Resultin# in =o*icide Case Erroneousl( >iled 3ith the R!C, >i#ueroa vs. People, '.R. No. )6@625, 0ul( )6, .22D

6ECISION !3r% 6)v)&)o$"

NACHURA, J.3

I.

THE 7ACTS

On 0ul( D, );;6, an infor*ation for re/.,e&& )m'r1%e$/e re&1,()$- )$ +om)/)%e +as filed a#ainst the petitioner before the R!C of Bulacan. !rial on the *erits ensued and on Au#ust );, );;D, the trial court convicted the petitioner as char#ed. "n his appeal before the CA, the petitioner -uestioned, a*on# others, for the first ti*e, the trial court,s 7urisdiction. !he appellate court, ho+ever, in the challen#ed decision, considered the petitioner to have activel( participated in the trial and to have belatedl( attac$ed the 7urisdiction of the R!C: thus, he +as alread( estopped b( laches fro* assertin# the trial court,s lac$ of 7urisdiction. >indin# no other #round to reverse the trial court,s decision, the CA affir*ed the petitioner,s conviction but *odified the penalt( i*posed and the da*a#es a+arded. ?issatisfied, the petitioner filed a petition for revie+ on certiorari +ith the Supre*e Court. II. THE ISSUES

?oes the failure of the petitioner to raise the issue of Olac$ ofP 7urisdiction durin# the trial of this case, +hich +as initiated and filed b( the public prosecutor before the +ron# court Othe respondent R!CP, constitutelaches in relation to the doctrine laid do+n in Ti4a# &. Si(onghano", not+ithstandin# the fact that said issue +as i**ediatel( raised in petitioner,s appeal to the =onorable Court of AppealsK Conversel(, does the active participation of the petitioner in the trial of his case, +hich is initiated and filed not b( hi* but b( the public prosecutor, a*ount to estoppelK III. THE RULING AThe Supre#e 1ourt GRANT ! the petition and !"#$"## ! the case without pre4udice.B N%, the failu&e of the petitio'e& to &aise the issue of (lac) of* +u&is,ictio' ,u&i'- the t&ial of this case !% # N%T co'stitute laches i' &elatio' to the ,oct&i'e lai, ,ow' i' Ti+a. v. #i/o'-ha'o01 N%, the active pa&ticipatio' of the petitio'e& i' the t&ial of his case !% # N%T a.ou't to estoppel. Applied unifor*l( is the fa*iliar rule that the 7urisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred b( the la+ in force at the ti*e of the institution of the action, unless such statute provides for a retroactive application thereof. "n this case, at the ti*e the cri*inal infor*ation for rec$less i*prudence resultin# in ho*icide +ith violation of the Auto*obile La+ %no+ Land !ransportation and !raffic Code& +as filed, Section 4.%.& of B.P. ).; had alread( been a*ended b( R.A. @5;). !he said provision reads9
Sec. 4.. 5urisdiction of Metropolitan Trial 1ourts. Municipal Trial 1ourts and Municipal 1ircuit Trial 1ourts in 1ri#inal 1ases. ,, E<cept in cases fallin# +ithin the e<clusive ori#inal 7urisdiction of Re#ional !rial Courts and the Sandi#anba(an, the Metropolitan !rial Courts, Municipal !rial Courts, and Municipal Circuit !rial Courts shall e<ercise9 <<<< %.& E<clusive ori#inal 7urisdiction over all offenses punishable +ith i*prison*ent not e<ceedin# si< %5& (ears irrespective of the a*ount of fine, and re#ardless of other i*posable accessor( or other penalties, includin# the civil liabilit( arisin# fro* such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of $ind, nature, value or a*ount thereof9 3ro&ided. howe&er. !hat in offenses involvin# da*a#e to propert( throu#h cri*inal ne#li#ence, the( shall have e<clusive ori#inal 7urisdiction thereof.

As the i*posable penalt( for the cri*e char#ed herein is prision correccional in its *ediu* and *a<i*u* periods or i*prison*ent for . (ears, 6 *onths and ) da( to 5 (ears, 7urisdiction to hear and tr( the sa*e is conferred on the Municipal !rial Courts %M!Cs&. Clearl(, therefore, the R!C of Bulacan does not have 7urisdiction over Cri*inal Case No. ..418M8;6. 3hile both the appellate court and the Solicitor 'eneral ac$no+led#e this fact, the( nevertheless are of the position that the principle of estoppel b( laches has alread( precluded the petitioner fro* -uestionin# the 7urisdiction of the R!C88the trial +ent on for 6 (ears +ith the petitioner activel( participatin# therein and +ithout hi* ever raisin# the 7urisdictional infir*it(. !he petitioner, for his part, counters that the lac$ of 7urisdiction of a court over the sub7ect *atter *a( be raised at an( ti*e even for the first ti*e on appeal. As undue dela( is further absent herein, the principle of laches +ill not be applicable.

!he #eneral rule OisP that the issue of 4urisdiction #a" (e raised at an" stage of the proceedings. e&en on appeal. and is not lost (" wai&er or (" estoppel. @stoppel (" laches. to (ar a litigant fro# asserting the court;s a(sence or lac? of 4urisdiction. onl" super&enes in eCceptional cases si#ilar to the factual #ilieu of Ti4a# &. Si(onghano". "ndeed, the fact that a person atte*pts to invo$e unauthoriAed 7urisdiction of a court does not estop hi* fro* thereafter challen#in# its 7urisdiction over the sub7ect *atter, since such 7urisdiction *ust arise b( la+ and not b( *ere consent of the parties. !his is especiall( true +here the person see$in# to invo$e unauthoriAed 7urisdiction of the court does not thereb( secure an( advanta#e or the adverse part( does not suffer an( har*. Appl(in# the said doctrine to the instant case, the petitioner is in no +a( estopped b( laches in assailin# the 7urisdiction of the R!C, considerin# that he raised the lac$ thereof in his appeal before the appellate court. At that ti*e, no considerable period had (et elapsed for laches to attach. !rue, dela( alone, thou#h unreasonable, +ill not sustain the defense of Lestoppel b( lachesM unless it further appears that the part". ?nowing his rights. has not sought to enforce the# until the condition of the part" pleading laches has in good faith (eco#e so changed that he cannot (e restored to his for#er state. if the rights (e then enforced. due to loss of e&idence. change of title. inter&ention of e!uities. and other causes. "n appl(in# the principle of estoppel b( laches in the e<ceptional case of Si(onghano", the Court therein considered the patent and revoltin# ine-uit( and unfairness of havin# the 7ud#*ent creditors #o up their Calvar( once *ore after *ore or less )1 (ears. !he sa*e, ho+ever, does not obtain in the instant case.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila !="R? ?"C"S"ON G.R. No. 1=B=0D 41,0 1=, 2008

VENANCIO 7IGUEROA 0 CERVANTES,) Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE O7 THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. ?EC"S"ON NACHURA, J.: 3hen is a liti#ant estopped b( laches fro* assailin# the 7urisdiction of a tribunalK !his is the para*ount issue raised in this petition for revie+ of the >ebruar( .D, .22) ?ecision . of the Court of Appeals %CA& in CA8'.R. CR No. ..5;@. Pertinent are the follo+in# antecedent facts and proceedin#s9 On 0ul( D, );;6, an infor*ation4 for rec$less i*prudence resultin# in ho*icide +as filed a#ainst the petitioner before the Re#ional !rial Court %R!C& of Bulacan, Branch )D. 6 !he case +as doc$eted as Cri*inal Case No. ..418M8;6.1 !rial on the *erits ensued and on Au#ust );, );;D, the trial court convicted the petitioner as char#ed.5 "n his appeal before the CA, the petitioner -uestioned, a*on# others, for the first ti*e, the trial courtNs 7urisdiction. @ !he appellate court, ho+ever, in the challen#ed decision, considered the petitioner to have activel( participated in the trial and to have belatedl( attac$ed the 7urisdiction of the R!C: thus, he +as alread( estopped b( laches fro* assertin# the trial courtNs lac$ of 7urisdiction. >indin# no other

#round to reverse the trial courtNs decision, the CA affir*ed the petitionerNs conviction but *odified the penalt( i*posed and the da*a#es a+arded.D ?issatisfied, the petitioner filed the instant petition for revie+ on certiorari raisin# the follo+in# issues for our resolution9 a. ?oes the fact that the petitioner failed to raise the issue of 7urisdiction durin# the trial of this case, +hich +as initiated and filed b( the public prosecutor before the +ron# court, constitute laches in relation to the doctrine laid do+n in !i7a* v. Sibon#hano(, not+ithstandin# the fact that said issue +as i**ediatel( raised in petitionerNs appeal to the =onorable Court of AppealsK Conversel(, does the active participation of the petitioner in the trial of his case, +hich is initiated and filed not b( hi* but b( the public prosecutor, a*ount to estoppelK b. ?oes the ad*ission of the petitioner that it is difficult to i**ediatel( stop a bus +hile it is runnin# at 62 $ilo*eters per hour for the purpose of avoidin# a person +ho une<pectedl( crossed the road, constitute enou#h incri*inatin# evidence to +arrant his conviction for the cri*e char#edK c. "s the =onorable Court of Appeals 7ustified in considerin# the place of accident as fallin# +ithin "te* 6 of Section 41 %b& of the Land !ransportation and !raffic Code, and subse-uentl( rulin# that the speed li*it thereto is onl( .2 $ilo*eters per hour, +hen no evidence +hatsoever to that effect +as ever presented b( the prosecution durin# the trial of this caseK d. "s the =onorable Court of Appeals 7ustified in convictin# the petitioner for ho*icide throu#h rec$less i*prudence %the le#all( correct desi#nation is Erec$less i*prudence resultin# to ho*icideE& +ith violation of the Land !ransportation and !raffic Code +hen the prosecution did not prove this durin# the trial and, *ore i*portantl(, the infor*ation filed a#ainst the petitioner does not contain an alle#ation to that effectK e. ?oes the uncontroverted testi*on( of the defense +itness Leonardo =ernal that the victi* une<pectedl( crossed the road resultin# in hi* #ettin# hit b( the bus driven b( the petitioner not enou#h evidence to ac-uit hi* of the cri*e char#edK ; Applied unifor*l( is the fa*iliar rule that the 7urisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred b( the la+ in force at the ti*e of the institution of the action, unless such statute provides for a retroactive application thereof. )2 "n this case, at the ti*e the cri*inal infor*ation for rec$less i*prudence resultin# in ho*icide +ith violation of the Auto*obile La+ %no+ Land !ransportation and !raffic Code& +as filed, Section 4.%.& of Batas Pa*bansa %B.P.& Bl#. ).; )) had alread( been a*ended b( Republic Act No. @5;). ). !he said provision thus reads9 Sec. 4.. 0urisdiction of Metropolitan !rial Courts, Municipal !rial Courts and Municipal Circuit !rial Courts in Cri*inal Cases.GE<cept in cases fallin# +ithin the e<clusive ori#inal 7urisdiction of Re#ional !rial Courts and the Sandi#anba(an, the Metropolitan !rial Courts, Municipal !rial Courts, and Municipal Circuit !rial Courts shall e<ercise9 <<<< %.& E<clusive ori#inal 7urisdiction over all offenses punishable +ith i*prison*ent not e<ceedin# si< %5& (ears irrespective of the a*ount of fine, and re#ardless of other i*posable accessor( or other penalties, includin# the civil liabilit( arisin# fro* such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of $ind, nature, value or a*ount thereof9 Provided, ho+ever, !hat in offenses involvin# da*a#e to propert( throu#h cri*inal ne#li#ence, the( shall have e<clusive ori#inal 7urisdiction thereof. As the i*posable penalt( for the cri*e char#ed herein is prision correccional in its *ediu* and *a<i*u* periods or i*prison*ent for . (ears, 6 *onths and ) da( to 5 (ears, )4 7urisdiction to hear and tr( the sa*e is conferred on the Municipal !rial Courts %M!Cs&. Clearl(, therefore, the R!C of Bulacan does not have 7urisdiction over Cri*inal Case No. ..418M8;6. 3hile both the appellate court and the Solicitor 'eneral ac$no+led#e this fact, the( nevertheless are of the position that the principle of estoppel b( laches has alread( precluded the petitioner fro*

-uestionin# the 7urisdiction of the R!CGthe trial +ent on for 6 (ears +ith the petitioner activel( participatin# therein and +ithout hi* ever raisin# the 7urisdictional infir*it(. !he petitioner, for his part, counters that the lac$ of 7urisdiction of a court over the sub7ect *atter *a( be raised at an( ti*e even for the first ti*e on appeal. As undue dela( is further absent herein, the principle of laches +ill not be applicable. !o settle once and for all this proble* of 7urisdiction vis8Q8vis estoppel b( laches, +hich continuousl( confounds the bench and the bar, +e shall anal(Ae the various Court decisions on the *atter. As earl( as );2), this Court has declared that unless 7urisdiction has been conferred b( so*e le#islative act, no court or tribunal can act on a *atter sub*itted to it. )6 3e +ent on to state in v. ?e La Santa)1 that9

.S.

"t has been fre-uentl( held that a lac$ of 7urisdiction over the sub7ect8*atter is fatal, and sub7ect to ob7ection at an( sta#e of the proceedin#s, either in the court belo+ or on appeal %Enc(. of Pl. R Pr., vol. )., p. )D;, and lar#e arra( of cases there cited&, and indeed, +here the sub7ect8*atter is not +ithin the 7urisdiction, the court *a( dis*iss the proceedin# e< *ero *otu. %6 "ll., )44: );2 "nd., @;: Chip*an vs. 3aterbur(, 1; Conn., 6;5.& 0urisdiction over the sub7ect8*atter in a 7udicial proceedin# is conferred b( the soverei#n authorit( +hich or#aniAes the court: it is #iven onl( b( la+ and in the *anner prescribed b( la+ and an ob7ection based on the lac$ of such 7urisdiction can not be +aived b( the parties. < < < )5 Later, in People v. Casiano,)@ the Court e<plained9 6. !he operation of the principle of estoppel on the -uestion of 7urisdiction see*in#l( depends upon +hether the lo+er court actuall( had 7urisdiction or not. "f it had no 7urisdiction, but the case +as tried and decided upon the theor( that it had 7urisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, fro* assailin# such 7urisdiction, for the sa*e E*ust e<ist as a *atter of la+, and *a( not be conferred b( consent of the parties or b( estoppelE %1 C.0.S., D5)8D54&. =o+ever, if the lo+er court had 7urisdiction, and the case +as heard and decided upon a #iven theor(, such, for instance, as that the court had no 7urisdiction, the part( +ho induced it to adopt such theor( +ill not be per*itted, on appeal, to assu*e an inconsistent positionGthat the lo+er court had 7urisdiction. =ere, the principle of estoppel applies. !he rule that 7urisdiction is conferred b( la+, and does not depend upon the +ill of the parties, has no bearin# thereon. !hus, Corpus 0uris Secundu* sa(s9 3here accused has secured a decision that the indict*ent is void, or has been #ranted an instruction based on its defective character directin# the 7ur( to ac-uit, he is estopped, +hen subse-uentl( indicted, to assert that the for*er indict*ent +as valid. "n such case, there *a( be a ne+ prosecution +hether the indict*ent in the for*er prosecution +as #ood or bad. Si*ilarl(, +here, after the 7ur( +as i*paneled and s+orn, the court on accused,s *otion -uashed the infor*ation on the erroneous assu*ption that the court had no 7urisdiction, accused cannot successfull( plead for*er 7eopard( to a ne+ infor*ation. < < < %.. C.0.S., sec. .1., pp. 4DD84D;: italics ours.& 3here accused procured a prior conviction to be set aside on the #round that the court +as +ithout 7urisdiction, he is estopped subse-uentl( to assert, in support of a defense of previous 7eopard(, that such court had 7urisdiction.E %.. C.0.S. p. 4@D.& )D But in PindaB#an A#ricultural Co., "nc. v. ?ans,); the Court, in not sustainin# the plea of lac$ of 7urisdiction b( the plaintiff8appellee therein, *ade the follo+in# observations9 "t is surprisin# +h( it is onl( no+, after the decision has been rendered, that the plaintiff8appellee presents the -uestion of this CourtNs 7urisdiction over the case. Republic Act No. .5)4 +as enacted on Au#ust ), );1;. !his case +as ar#ued on 0anuar( .;, );52. Not+ithstandin# this fact, the 7urisdiction of this Court +as never i*pu#ned until the adverse decision of this Court +as handed do+n. !he conduct of counsel leads us to believe that the( *ust have al+a(s been of the belief that not+ithstandin# said enact*ent of Republic Act .5)4 this Court has 7urisdiction of the case, such conduct bein# born out of a conviction that the actual real value of the properties in -uestion actuall( e<ceeds the 7urisdictional a*ount of this Court %over P.22,222&. Our *inute resolution in '.R. No. L8 )22;5, =(son !an, et al. vs. >ilipinas Co*paBa de Se#uros, et al., of March .4, );15, a parallel case, is applicable to the conduct of plaintiff8appellee in this case, thus9

< < < that an appellant +ho files his brief and sub*its his case to the Court of Appeals for decision, +ithout -uestionin# the latterNs 7urisdiction until decision is rendered therein, should be considered as havin# voluntaril( +aived so *uch of his clai* as +ould e<ceed the 7urisdiction of said Appellate Court: for the reason that a contrar( rule +ould encoura#e the undesirable practice of appellants sub*ittin# their cases for decision to the Court of Appeals in e<pectation of favorable 7ud#*ent, but +ith intent of attac$in# its 7urisdiction should the decision be unfavorable9 < < < .2 !hen ca*e our rulin# in !i7a* v. Sibon#hano( .) that a part( *a( be barred b( laches fro* invo$in# lac$ of 7urisdiction at a late hour for the purpose of annullin# ever(thin# done in the case +ith the active participation of said part( invo$in# the plea. 3e e<pounded, thus9 A part( *a( be estopped or barred fro* raisin# a -uestion in different +a(s and for different reasons. !hus, +e spea$ of estoppel in pais, of estoppel b( deed or b( record, and of estoppel b( laches. Laches, in a #eneral sense, is failure or ne#lect, for an unreasonable and une<plained len#th of ti*e, to do that +hich, b( e<ercisin# due dili#ence, could or should have been done earlier: it is ne#li#ence or o*ission to assert a ri#ht +ithin a reasonable ti*e, +arrantin# a presu*ption that the part( entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. !he doctrine of laches or of Estale de*andsE is based upon #rounds of public polic( +hich re-uires, for the peace of societ(, the discoura#e*ent of stale clai*s and, unli$e the statute of li*itations, is not a *ere -uestion of ti*e but is principall( a -uestion of the ine-uit( or unfairness of per*ittin# a ri#ht or clai* to be enforced or asserted. "t has been held that a part( cannot invo$e the 7urisdiction of a court to secure affir*ative relief a#ainst his opponent and, after obtainin# or failin# to obtain such relief, repudiate or -uestion that sa*e 7urisdiction %?ean vs. ?ean, )45 Or. 5;6, D5 A.L.R. @;&. "n the case 7ust cited, b( +a( of e<plainin# the rule, it +as further said that the -uestion +hether the court had 7urisdiction either of the sub7ect *atter of the action or of the parties +as not i*portant in such cases because the part( is barred fro* such conduct not because the 7ud#*ent or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an ad7udication, but for the reason that such a practice cannot be toleratedGobviousl( for reasons of public polic(. >urther*ore, it has also been held that after voluntaril( sub*ittin# a cause and encounterin# an adverse decision on the *erits, it is too late for the loser to -uestion the 7urisdiction or po+er of the court %Pease vs. Rathbun80ones etc., .64 .S. .@4, 5) L. Ed. @)1, 4@ S.Ct. .D4: St. Louis etc. vs. McBride, )6) .S. ).@, 41 L. Ed. 51;&. And in Littleton vs. Bur#ess, )5 3(o. 1D, the Court said that it is not ri#ht for a part( +ho has affir*ed and invo$ed the 7urisdiction of a court in a particular *atter to secure an affir*ative relief, to after+ards den( that sa*e 7urisdiction to escape a penalt(. pon this sa*e principle is +hat 3e said in the three cases *entioned in the resolution of the Court of Appeals of Ma( .2, );54 %supra&Gto the effect that +e fro+n upon the Eundesirable practiceE of a part( sub*ittin# his case for decision and then acceptin# the 7ud#*ent, onl( if favorable, and attac$in# it for lac$ of 7urisdiction, +hen adverseGas +ell as in PindaB#an etc. vs. ?ans et al., '.R. L8)61;), Septe*ber .5, );5.: Montelibano et al. vs. Bacolod8Murcia Millin# Co., "nc., '.R. L8)12;.: Ioun# Men Labor nion etc. vs. !he Court of "ndustrial Relations et al., '.R. L8.242@, >eb. .5, );51, and Me7ia vs. Lucas, )22 Phil. p. .@@. !he facts of this case sho+ that fro* the ti*e the Suret( beca*e a -uasi8part( on 0ul( 4), );6D, it could have raised the -uestion of the lac$ of 7urisdiction of the Court of >irst "nstance of Cebu to ta$e co#niAance of the present action b( reason of the su* of *one( involved +hich, accordin# to the la+ then in force, +as +ithin the ori#inal e<clusive 7urisdiction of inferior courts. "t failed to do so. "nstead, at several sta#es of the proceedin#s in the court a -uo, as +ell as in the Court of Appeals, it invo$ed the 7urisdiction of said courts to obtain affir*ative relief and sub*itted its case for a final ad7udication on the *erits. "t +as onl( after an adverse decision +as rendered b( the Court of Appeals that it finall( +o$e up to raise the -uestion of 7urisdiction. 3ere +e to sanction such conduct on its part, 3e +ould in effect be declarin# as useless all the proceedin#s had in the present case since it +as co**enced on 0ul( );, );6D and co*pel the 7ud#*ent creditors to #o up their Calvar( once *ore. !he ine-uit( and unfairness of this is not onl( patent but revoltin#. .. >or -uite a ti*e since +e *ade this pronounce*ent in Sibon#hano(, courts and tribunals, in resolvin# issues that involve the belated invocation of lac$ of 7urisdiction, have applied the principle

of estoppel b( laches. !hus, in Cali*li* v. Ra*ireA,.4 +e pointed out that Sibon#hano( +as developin# into a #eneral rule rather than the e<ception9 A rule that had been settled b( un-uestioned acceptance and upheld in decisions so nu*erous to cite is that the 7urisdiction of a court over the sub7ect8*atter of the action is a *atter of la+ and *a( not be conferred b( consent or a#ree*ent of the parties. !he lac$ of 7urisdiction of a court *a( be raised at an( sta#e of the proceedin#s, even on appeal. !his doctrine has been -ualified b( recent pronounce*ents +hich ste**ed principall( fro* the rulin# in the cited case of Sibon#hano(. "t is to be re#retted, ho+ever, that the holdin# in said case had been applied to situations +hich +ere obviousl( not conte*plated therein. !he e<ceptional circu*stance involved in Sibon#hano( +hich 7ustified the departure fro* the accepted concept of non8+aivabilit( of ob7ection to 7urisdiction has been i#nored and, instead a blan$et doctrine had been repeatedl( upheld that rendered the supposed rulin# in Sibon#hano( not as the e<ception, but rather the #eneral rule, virtuall( overthro+in# alto#ether the ti*e8honored principle that the issue of 7urisdiction is not lost b( +aiver or b( estoppel. "n Sibon#hano(, the defense of lac$ of 7urisdiction of the court that rendered the -uestioned rulin# +as held to be barred b( estoppel b( laches. "t +as ruled that the lac$ of 7urisdiction havin# been raised for the first ti*e in a *otion to dis*iss filed al*ost fifteen %)1& (ears after the -uestioned rulin# had been rendered, such a plea *a( no lon#er be raised for bein# barred b( laches. As defined in said case, laches is Efailure or ne#lect, for an unreasonable and une<plained len#th of ti*e, to do that +hich, b( e<ercisin# due dili#ence, could or should have been done earlier: it is ne#li#ence or o*ission to assert a ri#ht +ithin a reasonable ti*e, +arrantin# a presu*ption that the part( entitled to assert has abandoned it or declined to assert it..6 "n Cali*li*, despite the fact that the one +ho benefited fro* the plea of lac$ of 7urisdiction +as the one +ho invo$ed the courtNs 7urisdiction, and +ho later obtained an adverse 7ud#*ent therein, +e refused to appl( the rulin# in Sibon#hano(. !he Court accorded supre*ac( to the ti*e8honored principle that the issue of 7urisdiction is not lost b( +aiver or b( estoppel. Iet, in subse-uent cases decided after Cali*li*, +hich b( sheer volu*e are too plentiful to *ention, the Sibon#hano( doctrine, as foretold in Cali*li*, beca*e the rule rather than the e<ception. As such, in Soliven v. >astfor*s Philippines, "nc.,.1 the Court ruled9 3hile it is true that 7urisdiction *a( be raised at an( ti*e, Ethis rule presupposes that estoppel has not supervened.E "n the instant case, respondent activel( participated in all sta#es of the proceedin#s before the trial court and invo$ed its authorit( b( as$in# for an affir*ative relief. Clearl(, respondent is estopped fro* challen#in# the trial courtNs 7urisdiction, especiall( +hen an adverse 7ud#*ent has been rendered. "n PNOC Shippin# and !ransport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, +e held9 Moreover, +e note that petitioner did not -uestion at all the 7urisdiction of the lo+er court < < < in its ans+ers to both the a*ended co*plaint and the second a*ended co*plaint. "t did so onl( in its *otion for reconsideration of the decision of the lo+er court after it had received an adverse decision. As this Court held in Pantranco North E<press, "nc. vs. Court of Appeals %'.R. No. )21)D2, 0ul( 1, );;4, ..6 SCRA 6@@, 6;)&, participation in all sta#es of the case before the trial court, that included invo$in# its authorit( in as$in# for affir*ative relief, effectivel( barred petitioner b( estoppel fro* challen#in# the courtNs 7urisdiction. Notabl(, fro* the ti*e it filed its ans+er to the second a*ended co*plaint on April )5, );D1, petitioner did not -uestion the lo+er courtNs 7urisdiction. "t +as onl( on ?ece*ber .;, );D; +hen it filed its *otion for reconsideration of the lo+er courtNs decision that petitioner raised the -uestion of the lo+er courtNs lac$ of 7urisdiction. Petitioner thus foreclosed its ri#ht to raise the issue of 7urisdiction b( its o+n inaction. %italics ours& Si*ilarl(, in the subse-uent case of Sta. Lucia Realt( and ?evelop*ent, "nc. vs. Cabri#as , +e ruled9 "n the case at bar, it +as found b( the trial court in its 42 Septe*ber );;5 decision in LCR Case No. F852)5)%;4& that private respondents %+ho filed the petition for reconstitution of titles& failed to co*pl( +ith both sections ). and )4 of RA .5 and therefore, it had no 7urisdiction over the sub7ect *atter of the case. =o+ever, private respondents never -uestioned the trial courtNs 7urisdiction over its petition for reconstitution throu#hout the duration of LCR Case No. F852)5)%;4&. On the contrar(, private respondents activel( participated in the reconstitution proceedin#s b( filin# pleadin#s and presentin# its evidence. !he( invo$ed the trial courtNs 7urisdiction in order to obtain affir*ative relief J

the reconstitution of their titles. Private respondents have thus foreclosed their ri#ht to raise the issue of 7urisdiction b( their o+n actions. !he Court has constantl( upheld the doctrine that +hile 7urisdiction *a( be assailed at an( sta#e, a liti#antNs participation in all sta#es of the case before the trial court, includin# the invocation of its authorit( in as$in# for affir*ative relief, bars such part( fro* challen#in# the courtNs 7urisdiction %PNOC Shippin# and !ransport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals , .;@ SCRA 62. O);;DP&. A part( cannot invo$e the 7urisdiction of a court to secure affir*ative relief a#ainst his opponent and after obtainin# or failin# to obtain such relief, repudiate or -uestion that sa*e 7urisdiction % Asset PrivatiAation !rust vs. Court of Appeals, 422 SCRA 1@; O);;DP: Province of Bulacan vs. Court of Appeals, .;; SCRA 66. O);;DP&. !he Court fro+ns upon the undesirable practice of a part( participatin# in the proceedin#s and sub*ittin# his case for decision and then acceptin# 7ud#*ent, onl( if favorable, and attac$in# it for lac$ of 7urisdiction, +hen adverse % Producers Ban$ of the Philippines vs. NLRC, .;D SCRA 1)@ O);;DP, citin# "locos Sur Electric Cooperative, "nc. vs. NLRC, .6) SCRA 45 O);;1P&. %italics ours& .5 Note+orth(, ho+ever, is that, in the .221 case of Metro*edia !i*es Corporation v. Pastorin,.@ +here the issue of lac$ of 7urisdiction +as raised onl( in the National Labor Relations Co**ission %NLRC& on appeal, +e stated, after e<a*inin# the doctrines of 7urisdiction vis8Q8vis estoppel, that the rulin# in Sibon#hano( stands as an e<ception, rather than the #eneral rule. Metro*edia, thus, +as not estopped fro* assailin# the 7urisdiction of the labor arbiter before the NLRC on appeal..D
1a&&phi1

Later, in >rancel Realt( Corporation v. S(cip,.; the Court clarified that9 Petitioner ar#ues that the CANs affir*ation of the trial courtNs dis*issal of its case +as erroneous, considerin# that a full8blo+n trial had alread( been conducted. "n effect, it contends that lac$ of 7urisdiction could no lon#er be used as a #round for dis*issal after trial had ensued and ended. !he above ar#u*ent is anchored on estoppel b( laches, +hich has been used -uite successfull( in a nu*ber of cases to th+art dis*issals based on lac$ of 7urisdiction. !i7a* v. Sibon#hano(, in +hich this doctrine +as espoused, held that a part( *a( be barred fro* -uestionin# a courtNs 7urisdiction after bein# invo$ed to secure affir*ative relief a#ainst its opponent. "n fine, laches prevents the issue of lac$ of 7urisdiction fro* bein# raised for the first ti*e on appeal b( a liti#ant +hose purpose is to annul ever(thin# done in a trial in +hich it has activel( participated. Laches is defined as the Efailure or ne#lect for an unreasonable and une<plained len#th of ti*e, to do that +hich, b( e<ercisin# due dili#ence, could or should have been done earlier: it is ne#li#ence or o*ission to assert a ri#ht +ithin a reasonable ti*e, +arrantin# a presu*ption that the part( entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.E !he rulin# in Sibon#hano( on the *atter of 7urisdiction is, ho+ever, the e<ception rather than the rule. Estoppel b( laches *a( be invo$ed to bar the issue of lac$ of 7urisdiction onl( in cases in +hich the factual *ilieu is analo#ous to that in the cited case. "n such controversies, laches should be clearl( present: that is, lac$ of 7urisdiction *ust have been raised so belatedl( as to +arrant the presu*ption that the part( entitled to assert it had abandoned or declined to assert it. !hat Sibon#hano( applies onl( to e<ceptional circu*stances is clarified in Cali*li* v. Ra*ireA, +hich +e -uote9
1a&&phi1

A rule that had been settled b( un-uestioned acceptance and upheld in decisions so nu*erous to cite is that the 7urisdiction of a court over the sub7ect8*atter of the action is a *atter of la+ and *a( not be conferred b( consent or a#ree*ent of the parties. !he lac$ of 7urisdiction of a court *a( be raised at an( sta#e of the proceedin#s, even on appeal. !his doctrine has been -ualified b( recent pronounce*ents +hich ste**ed principall( fro* the rulin# in the cited case of Sibon#hano(. "t is to be re#retted, ho+ever, that the holdin# in said case had been applied to situations +hich +ere obviousl( not conte*plated therein. !he e<ceptional circu*stance involved in Sibon#hano( +hich 7ustified the departure fro* the accepted concept of non8+aivabilit( of ob7ection to 7urisdiction has been i#nored and, instead a blan$et doctrine had been repeatedl( upheld that rendered the supposed rulin# in Sibon#hano( not as the e<ception, but rather the #eneral rule, virtuall( overthro+in# alto#ether the ti*e8honored principle that the issue of 7urisdiction is not lost b( +aiver or b( estoppel.

"ndeed, the #eneral rule re*ains9 a courtNs lac$ of 7urisdiction *a( be raised at an( sta#e of the proceedin#s, even on appeal. !he reason is that 7urisdiction is conferred b( la+, and lac$ of it affects the ver( authorit( of the court to ta$e co#niAance of and to render 7ud#*ent on the action. Moreover, 7urisdiction is deter*ined b( the aver*ents of the co*plaint, not b( the defenses contained in the ans+er.42 Also, in Man#alia# v. Catubi#8Pastoral, 4) even if the pleader of lac$ of 7urisdiction activel( too$ part in the trial proceedin#s b( presentin# a +itness to see$ e<oneration, the Court, reiteratin# the doctrine in Cali*li*, said9 Private respondent ar#ues that the defense of lac$ of 7urisdiction *a( be +aived b( estoppel throu#h active participation in the trial. Such, ho+ever, is not the #eneral rule but an e<ception, best characteriAed b( the peculiar circu*stances in Ti4a# &s. Si(onghano". "n Si(onghano", the part( invo$in# lac$ of 7urisdiction did so onl( after fifteen (ears and at a sta#e +hen the proceedin#s had alread( been elevated to the CA. Si(onghano" is an e<ceptional case because of the presence of laches, +hich +as defined therein as failure or ne#lect for an unreasonable and une<plained len#th of ti*e to do that +hich, b( e<ercisin# due dili#ence, could or should have been done earlier: it is the ne#li#ence or o*ission to assert a ri#ht +ithin a reasonable ti*e, +arrantin# a presu*ption that the part( entitled to assert has abandoned it or declined to assert it.4. And in the *ore recent Re#alado v. 'o,44 the Court a#ain e*phasiAed that laches should be clearl( present for the Sibon#hano( doctrine to be applicable, thus9 'aches is defined as the Efailure or ne#lect for an unreasonable and une<plained len#th of ti*e, to do that +hich, b( e<ercisin# due dili#ence, could or should have been done earlier, it is ne#li#ence or o*ission to assert a ri#ht +ithin a reasonable len#th of ti*e, +arrantin# a presu*ption that the part( entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.E !he rulin# in People v. Re#alario that +as based on the land*ar$ doctrine enunciated in !i7a* v. Sibon#hano( on the *atter of 7urisdiction b( estoppel is the e<ception rather than the rule. @stoppel b( laches *a( be invo$ed to bar the issue of lac$ of 7urisdiction onl( in cases in +hich the factual *ilieu is analo#ous to that in the cited case. "n such controversies, laches should have been clearl( present: that is, lac$ of 7urisdiction *ust have been raised so belatedl( as to +arrant the presu*ption that the part( entitled to assert it had abandoned or declined to assert it. "n Si(onghano", the defense of lac$ of 7urisdiction +as raised for the first ti*e in a *otion to dis*iss filed b( the Suret( al*ost )1 (ears after the -uestioned rulin# had been rendered. At several sta#es of the proceedin#s, in the court a -uo as +ell as in the Court of Appeals, the Suret( invo$ed the 7urisdiction of the said courts to obtain affir*ative relief and sub*itted its case for final ad7udication on the *erits. "t +as onl( +hen the adverse decision +as rendered b( the Court of Appeals that it finall( +o$e up to raise the -uestion of 7urisdiction. Clearl(, the factual settin#s attendant in Si(onghano" are not present in the case at bar. Petitioner Att(. Re#alado, after the receipt of the Court of Appeals resolution findin# her #uilt( of conte*pt, pro*ptl( filed a Motion for Reconsideration assailin# the said courtNs 7urisdiction based on procedural infir*it( in initiatin# the action. =er co*pliance +ith the appellate courtNs directive to sho+ cause +h( she should not be cited for conte*pt and filin# a sin#le piece of pleadin# to that effect could not be considered as an active participation in the 7udicial proceedin#s so as to ta$e the case +ithin the *ilieu of Si(onghano". Rather, it is the natural fear to disobe( the *andate of the court that could lead to dire conse-uences that i*pelled her to co*pl(. 46 !he Court, thus, +avered on +hen to appl( the e<ceptional circu*stance in Sibon#hano( and on +hen to appl( the #eneral rule enunciated as earl( as in ?e La Santa and e<pounded at len#th in Cali*li*. !he #eneral rule should, ho+ever, be, as it has al+a(s been, that the issue of 7urisdiction *a( be raised at an( sta#e of the proceedin#s, even on appeal, and is not lost b( +aiver or b( estoppel. Estoppel b( laches, to bar a liti#ant fro* assertin# the courtNs absence or lac$ of 7urisdiction, onl( supervenes in e<ceptional cases si*ilar to the factual *ilieu of !i7a* v. Sibon#hano(. "ndeed, the fact that a person atte*pts to invo$e unauthoriAed 7urisdiction of a court does not estop hi* fro* thereafter challen#in# its 7urisdiction over the sub7ect *atter, since such 7urisdiction *ust arise b( la+ and not b( *ere consent of the parties. !his is especiall( true +here the person see$in# to invo$e unauthoriAed 7urisdiction of the court does not thereb( secure an( advanta#e or the adverse part( does not suffer an( har*. 41

Appl(in# the said doctrine to the instant case, the petitioner is in no +a( estopped b( laches in assailin# the 7urisdiction of the R!C, considerin# that he raised the lac$ thereof in his appeal before the appellate court. At that ti*e, no considerable period had (et elapsed for laches to attach. !rue, dela( alone, thou#h unreasonable, +ill not sustain the defense of Eestoppel b( lachesE unless it further appears that the part(, $no+in# his ri#hts, has not sou#ht to enforce the* until the condition of the part( pleadin# laches has in #ood faith beco*e so chan#ed that he cannot be restored to his for*er state, if the ri#hts be then enforced, due to loss of evidence, chan#e of title, intervention of e-uities, and other causes.45 "n appl(in# the principle of estoppel b( laches in the e<ceptional case of Sibon#hano(, the Court therein considered the patent and revoltin# ine-uit( and unfairness of havin# the 7ud#*ent creditors #o up their Calvar( once *ore after *ore or less )1 (ears. 4@ !he sa*e, ho+ever, does not obtain in the instant case. 3e note at this point that estoppel, bein# in the nature of a forfeiture, is not favored b( la+. "t is to be applied rarel(Gonl( fro* necessit(, and onl( in e<traordinar( circu*stances. !he doctrine *ust be applied +ith #reat care and the e-uit( *ust be stron# in its favor. 4D 3hen *isapplied, the doctrine of estoppel *a( be a *ost effective +eapon for the acco*plish*ent of in7ustice. 4; Moreover, a 7ud#*ent rendered +ithout 7urisdiction over the sub7ect *atter is void. 62 =ence, the Revised Rules of Court provides for re*edies in attac$in# 7ud#*ents rendered b( courts or tribunals that have no 7urisdiction over the concerned cases. No laches +ill even attach +hen the 7ud#*ent is null and void for +ant of 7urisdiction.6) As +e have stated in =eirs of 0ulian ?ela CruA and Leonora !alaro v. =eirs of Alberto CruA,6. "t is a<io*atic that the 7urisdiction of a tribunal, includin# a -uasi87udicial officer or #overn*ent a#enc(, over the nature and sub7ect *atter of a petition or co*plaint is deter*ined b( the *aterial alle#ations therein and the character of the relief pra(ed for, irrespective of +hether the petitioner or co*plainant is entitled to an( or all such reliefs. 0urisdiction over the nature and sub7ect *atter of an action is conferred b( the Constitution and the la+, and not b( the consent or +aiver of the parties +here the court other+ise +ould have no 7urisdiction over the nature or sub7ect *atter of the action. Nor can it be ac-uired throu#h, or +aived b(, an( act or o*ission of the parties. Moreover, estoppel does not appl( to confer 7urisdiction to a tribunal that has none over the cause of action. < < < "ndeed, the 7urisdiction of the court or tribunal is not affected b( the defenses or theories set up b( the defendant or respondent in his ans+er or *otion to dis*iss. 0urisdiction should be deter*ined b( considerin# not onl( the status or the relationship of the parties but also the nature of the issues or -uestions that is the sub7ect of the controvers(. < < < < !he proceedin#s before a court or tribunal +ithout 7urisdiction, includin# its decision, are null and void, hence, susceptible to direct and collateral attac$s.64 3ith the above considerations, +e find it unnecessar( to resolve the other issues raised in the petition. 3=ERE>ORE, pre*ises considered, the petition for revie+ on certiorari is 'RAN!E?. Cri*inal Case No. ..418M8;6 is hereb( ?"SM"SSE? +ithout pre7udice. SO OR?ERE?.

EN BANC
ARNEL COLINARES, Petiti ner, G.R. No. 185778 Present: ")()31, C.J., "1(PI), MF21S"), /(., 2F)31(;)=;F "1S'(), B(I)3, PF(12'1, BF(S1MI3, ;F2 "1S'I22), 1B1;, MI221(1M1, /(., PF(FN, MF3;)N1, SF(F3), (FTFS, and PF(21S=BF(31BF, JJ. Pr !ulgated: ;ece!ber -6, +,-I ======================================================================================== I

= versus =

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, (esp ndent.

DECISION
ABAD, J.:
'his case is ab ut a) the need, #hen inv king self=defense, t pr ve all that it takesP b) #hat distinguishes frustrated h !icide fr ! atte!pted h !icideP and c) #hen an accused #h appeals !a$ still appl$ f r pr bati n n re!and f the case t the trial c urt. The Fac&' a$% &he Ca'e 'he public pr secut r f "a!arines Sur charged the accused 1rnel " linares (1rnel) #ith frustrated h !icide bef re the (egi nal 'rial " urt (('") f San / se, "a!arines Sur, in "ri!inal "ase '=++-6.K-L " !plainant (ufin P. Buena ((ufin ) testified that at ar und 8:,, in the evening n /une +@, +,,,, he and /esus Paulite (/esus) #ent ut t bu$ cigarettes at

a nearb$ st re. )n their #a$, /esus t k a leak b$ the r adside #ith (ufin #aiting nearb$. Fr ! n #here, 1rnel sneaked behind and struck (ufin t#ice n the head #ith a huge st ne, ab ut -@ \ inches in dia!eter. (ufin fell unc nsci us as /esus fled. 1nanias /all res (1nanias) testified that he #as #alking h !e #hen he sa# (ufin l$ing b$ the r adside. 1nanias tried t help but s !e ne struck hi! #ith s !ething hard n the right te!ple, kn cking hi! ut. 0e later learned that 1rnel had hit hi!. Pacian 1lan (Pacian ) testified that he sa# the #h le incident since he happened t be s! king utside his h use. 0e s ught the help f a "arangay tanod and the$ br ught (ufin t the h spital. ;r. 1lbert Belle<a issued a Medic =2egal "ertificateK+L sh #ing that (ufin suffered t# lacerated # unds n the f rehead, al ng the hairline area. 'he d ct r testified that these in&uries #ere seri us and p tentiall$ fatal but (ufin ch se t g h !e after initial treat!ent. 'he defense presented 1rnel and ;i !edes Paulite (;i !edes). 1rnel clai!ed self=defense. 0e testified that he #as n his #a$ h !e that evening #hen he !et (ufin , /esus, and 1nanias #h #ere all 5uite drunk. 1rnel asked (ufin #here he supp sed the Ma$ r f 'iga n #as but, rather than repl$, (ufin pushed hi!, causing his fall. /esus and 1nanias then b Ied 1rnel several ti!es n the back. (ufin tried t stab 1rnel but !issed. 'he latter picked up a st ne and, defending hi!self, struck (ufin n the head #ith it. 4hen 1nanias sa# this, he charged t #ards 1rnel and tried t stab hi! #ith a gaff. 1rnel #as able t av id the attack and hit 1nanias #ith the sa!e st ne. 1rnel then fled and hid in his sisterOs h use. )n Septe!ber :, +,,,, he v luntaril$ surrendered at the 'iga n Municipal P lice Stati n. ;i !edes testified that he, (ufin , /esus, and 1nanias attended a pre= #edding part$ n the night f the incident. 0is three c !pani ns #ere all drunk. )n his #a$ h !e, ;i !edes sa# the three engaged in heated argu!ent #ith 1rnel. )n /ul$ -, +,,@ the ('" rendered &udg!ent, finding 1rnel guilt$ be$ nd reas nable d ubt f frustrated h !icide and sentenced hi! t suffer i!pris n!ent fr ! t# $ears and f ur ! nths f prision correccional, as !ini!u!, t siI $ears and ne da$ f prision mayor, as !aIi!u!. Since the !aIi!u! pr bati nable i!pris n!ent under the la# #as nl$ up t siI $ears, 1rnel did n t 5ualif$ f r pr bati n. 1rnel appealed t the " urt f 1ppeals ("1), inv king self=defense and, alternativel$, seeking c nvicti n f r the lesser cri!e f atte!pted h !icide #ith the c nse5uent reducti n f the penalt$ i!p sed n hi!. 'he "1 entirel$ affir!ed the ('" decisi n but deleted the a#ard f r l st inc !e in the absence f evidence t supp rt it.K6L 3 t satisfied, 1rnel c !es t this " urt n petiti n f r revie#.

In the c urse f its deliberati n n the case, the " urt re5uired 1rnel and the S licit r General t sub!it their respective p siti ns n #hether r n t, assu!ing 1rnel c !!itted nl$ the lesser cri!e f atte!pted h !icide #ith its i!p sable penalt$ f i!pris n!ent f f ur ! nths f arresto mayor, as !ini!u!, t t# $ears and f ur ! nths f prision correccional, as !aIi!u!, he c uld still appl$ f r pr bati n up n re!and f the case t the trial c urt. B th c !plied #ith 1rnel taking the p siti n that he sh uld be entitled t appl$ f r pr bati n in case the " urt !etes ut a ne# penalt$ n hi! that !akes his ffense pr bati nable. 'he language and spirit f the pr bati n la# #arrants such a stand. 'he S licit r General, n the ther hand, argues that under the Pr bati n 2a# n applicati n f r pr bati n can be entertained nce the accused has perfected his appeal fr ! the &udg!ent f c nvicti n. The I''#e' P"e'e$&e% 'he case essentiall$ presents three issues: -. 4hether r n t 1rnel acted in self=defense #hen he struck (ufin the head #ith a st neP n

+. 1ssu!ing he did n t act in self=defense, #hether r n t 1rnel is guilt$ f frustrated h !icideP and 6. Given a finding that 1rnel is entitled t c nvicti n f r a l #er ffense and a reduced pr bati nable penalt$, #hether r n t he !a$ still appl$ f r pr bati n n re!and f the case t the trial c urt. The Co#"&2' R#1)$!' O$e. 1rnel clai!s that (ufin , /esus, and 1nanias attacked hi! first and that he !erel$ acted in self=defense #hen he hit (ufin back #ith a st ne. 4hen the accused inv kes self=defense, he bears the burden f sh #ing that he #as legall$ &ustified in killing the victi! r inflicting in&ur$ t hi!. 'he accused !ust establish the ele!ents f self=defense b$ clear and c nvincing evidence. 4hen successful, the ther#ise fel ni us deed # uld be eIcused, !ainl$ predicated n the lack f cri!inal intent f the accused.K:L In h !icide, #hether c nsu!!ated, frustrated, r atte!pted, self=defense re5uires (-) that the pers n #h ! the ffender killed r in&ured c !!itted unla#ful aggressi nP (+) that the ffender e!pl $ed !eans that is reas nabl$ necessar$ t prevent r repel the unla#ful aggressi nP and (6) that the pers n defending hi!self did n t act #ith sufficient pr v cati n.K@L If the victi! did n t c !!it unla#ful aggressi n against the accused, the latter has n thing t prevent r repel and the ther t# re5uisites f self=defense # uld have n basis f r being appreciated. Hnla#ful aggressi n c nte!plates an actual, sudden, and uneIpected attack r an i!!inent danger f such attack. 1

!ere threatening r inti!idating attitude is n t en ugh. 'he victi! !ust attack the accused #ith actual ph$sical f rce r #ith a #eap n.K*L 0ere, the l #er c urts f und that 1rnel failed t pr ve the ele!ent f unla#ful aggressi n. 0e al ne testified that /esus and 1nanias rained fist bl #s n hi! and that (ufin and 1nanias tried t stab hi!. 3 ne c rr b rated 1rnelOs testi! n$ that it #as (ufin #h started it. 1rnelOs nl$ ther #itness, ;i !edes, !erel$ testified that he sa# th se inv lved having a heated argu!ent in the !iddle f the street. 1rnel did n t sub!it an$ !edical certificate t pr ve his p int that he suffered in&uries in the hands f (ufin and his c !pani ns.K8L In c ntrast, the three #itnessesG/esus, Pacian , and 1naniasGtestified that 1rnel #as the aggress r. 1lth ugh their versi ns #ere ! ttled #ith inc nsistencies, these d n t detract fr ! their c re st r$. 'he #itnesses #ere ne in #hat 1rnel did and #hen and h # he did it. " !pared t 1rnelOs testi! n$, the pr secuti nOs versi n is ! re believable and c nsistent #ith realit$, hence deserving credence.K9L T.o. But given that 1rnel, the accused, #as indeed the aggress r, # uld he be liable f r frustrated h !icide #hen the # unds he inflicted n (ufin , his victi!, #ere n t fatal and c uld n t have resulted in death as in fact it did n tY 'he !ain ele!ent f atte!pted r frustrated h !icide is the accusedOs intent t take his victi!Os life. 'he pr secuti n has t pr ve this clearl$ and c nvincingl$ t eIclude ever$ p ssible d ubt regarding h !icidal intent. K7L 1nd the intent t kill is ften inferred fr !, a! ng ther things, the !eans the ffender used and the nature, l cati n, and nu!ber f # unds he inflicted n his victi!.K-,L 0ere, 1rnel struck (ufin n the head #ith a huge st ne. 'he bl # #as s f rceful that it kn cked (ufin ut. " nsidering the great si<e f his #eap n, the i!pact it pr duced, and the l cati n f the # unds that 1rnel inflicted n his victi!, the " urt is c nvinced that he intended t kill hi!. 'he " urt is inclined, h #ever, t h ld 1rnel guilt$ nl$ f atte!pted, n t frustrated, h !icide. In 'alaganas &( 'eople,K--L #e ruled that #hen the accused intended t kill his victi!, as sh #n b$ his use f a deadl$ #eap n and the # unds he inflicted, but the victi! did n t die because f ti!el$ !edical assistance, the cri!e is frustrated !urder r frustrated h !icide. If the victi!Os # unds are n t fatal, the cri!e is nl$ atte!pted !urder r atte!pted h !icide. 'hus, the pr secuti n !ust establish #ith certaint$ the nature, eItent, depth, and severit$ f the victi!Os # unds. 4hile ;r. Belle<a testified that Qhead in&uries are al#a$s ver$ seri us,RK-+L he c uld n t categ ricall$ sa$ that (ufin Os # unds in this case #ere Qfatal.R 'hus:
K@ A@ Doc&o", a11 &he )$6#")e' )$ &he hea% a"e (a&a1L No, a11 &"a#*a&)c )$6#")e' a"e ,o&e$&)a110 &"ea&e%.

K@ A@

B#& )$ &he ca'e o( &he /)c&)* .he$ 0o# &"ea&e% h)* &he .o#$%' ac&#a110 a"e $o& (a&a1 o$ &ha& /e"0 %a0L I co#1% $o& 'a0, .)&h &he &"ea&*e$& .e %)%, ,"e/e$& ("o* +eco*)$! (a&a1. B#& o$ &ha& ca'e &he ,a&)e$& ,"e(e""e% &o !o ho*e a& &ha& &)*e. The ()$%)$!' a1'o )$%)ca&e% )$ &he *e%)ca1 ce"&)()ca&e o$10 "e(e"' &o &he 1e$!&h o( &he .o#$% $o& &he %e,&h o( &he .o#$%L 3he$ 0o# 'a0 1ace"a&e% .o#$%, &he e$&)"e 1e$!&h o( &he 1a0e" o( 'ca1,. So 0o# co#1% $o& ()$% o#& a$0 a+"a')o$L I& )' %)((e"e$& 1ace"a&)o$ a$% a+"a')o$ 'o o$ce &he ' )$ )' +"o e$ #, &he 1a+e1 o( &he ("o$&a1 1oM+Ne, .e a1.a0' ca11 )& 1ace"a&e% .o#$%, +#& )$ &ha& )$% o( .o#$%, .e %)% $o& *ea'#"e &he %e,&h.K-6L

K@ A@ K@ A@

Indeed, (ufin had t# lacerati ns n his f rehead but there #as n indicati n that his skull incurred fracture r that he bled internall$ as a result f the p unding f his head. 'he # unds #ere n t s deep, the$ !erel$ re5uired suturing, and #ere esti!ated t heal in seven r eight da$s. ;r. Belle<a further testified:
K@ A@ K@ A@ So, )$ &he *e%)ca1 ce"&)()ca&e &he .o#$%' .)11 $o& "eA#)"e '#"!e"0L Ge', Ma%a*. The )$6#")e' a"e '1)!h&L 7 &o 8 %a0' 1o$!, .ha& .e a"e 1oo )$! )' $o& *#ch, .e !)/e a$&)+)o&)c' a$% a$&)&MeN&a$#' O &he ,"o+1e* &he co$&#')o$ &ha& occ#""e% )$ &he +"a)$. 9999 K@ A@ K@ A@ K@ A@ K@ A@ 3ha& *e%)ca1 )$&e"/e$&)o$ &ha& 0o# #$%e"&a eL 3e !)/e a$&)+)o&)c', Go#" Ho$o", a$&)&MeN&a$#' a$% '#&#")$! &he .o#$%'. Fo" ho. *a$0 %a0' %)% he '&a0 )$ &he ho',)&a1L Hea% )$6#"0 a& 1ea'& +e o+'e"/e% .)&h)$ 57 ho#"', +#& 'o*e o( &he* .o#1% "a&he" !o ho*e a$% &he$ co*e +ac . So &he ,a&)e$& %)% $o& '&a0 57 ho#"' )$ &he ho',)&a1L No, Go#" Ho$o". D)% he co*e +ac &o 0o# a(&e" 57 ho#"'L I a* $o& '#"e .he$ he ca*e +ac (o" (o11o.-#,.K-:L

'aken in its entiret$, there is a dearth f !edical evidence n rec rd t supp rt the pr secuti nOs clai! that (ufin # uld have died #ith ut ti!el$ !edical interventi n. 'hus, the " urt finds 1rnel liable nl$ f r atte!pted h !icide and entitled t the !itigating circu!stance f v luntar$ surrender. Th"ee. )rdinaril$, 1rnel # uld n l nger be entitled t appl$ f r pr bati n, he having appealed fr ! the &udg!ent f the ('" c nvicting hi! f r frustrated h !icide. But, the " urt finds 1rnel guilt$ nl$ f the lesser cri!e f atte!pted h !icide and h lds that the !aIi!u! f the penalt$ i!p sed n hi! sh uld be l #ered t i!pris n!ent f f ur ! nths f arresto mayor, as !ini!u!, t t# $ears and f ur ! nths f prision correccional, as !aIi!u!. 4ith this ne# penalt$, it # uld be but fair t all # hi! the right t appl$ f r pr bati n up n re!and f the case t the ('". S !e in the " urt disagrees. 'he$ c ntend that pr bati n is a !ere privilege granted b$ the state nl$ t 5ualified c nvicted ffenders. Secti n : f the pr bati n la# (P; 7*9) pr vides: Q'hat n applicati n f r pr bati n shall be entertained r granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal fr ! the &udg!ent f c nvicti n.RK-@L Since 1rnel appealed his c nvicti n f r frustrated h !icide, he sh uld be dee!ed per!anentl$ dis5ualified fr ! appl$ing f r pr bati n. But, firstl$, #hile it is true that pr bati n is a !ere privilege, the p int is n t that 1rnel has the right t such privilegeP he certainl$ d es n t have. 4hat he has is the right t appl$ f r that privilege. 'he " urt finds that his !aIi!u! &ail ter! sh uld nl$ be + $ears and : ! nths. If the " urt all #s hi! t appl$ f r pr bati n because f the l #ered penalt$, it is still up t the trial &udge t decide #hether r n t t grant hi! the privilege f pr bati n, taking int acc unt the full circu!stances f his case. Sec ndl$, it is true that under the pr bati n la# the accused #h appeals Qfr ! the &udg!ent f c nvicti nR is dis5ualified fr ! availing hi!self f the benefits f pr bati n. But, as it happens, t# &udg!ents f c nvicti n have been !eted ut t 1rnel: ne, a c nvicti n f r frustrated h !icide b$ the regi nal trial c urt, n # set asideP and, t# , a c nvicti n f r atte!pted h !icide b$ the Supre!e " urt. If the " urt ch ses t g b$ the dissenting pini nOs hard p siti n, it #ill appl$ the pr bati n la# n 1rnel based n the trial c urtOs annulled &udg!ent against hi!. 0e #ill n t be entitled t pr bati n because f the severe penalt$ that such &udg!ent i!p sed n hi!. M re, the Supre!e " urtOs &udg!ent f c nvicti n f r a lesser ffense and a lighter penalt$ #ill als have t bend ver t the trial c urtOs &udg!entGeven if this has been f und in err r. 1nd, # rse, 1rnel #ill n # als be !ade t pa$ f r the trial c urtOs err ne us &udg!ent #ith the f rfeiture f his right t appl$ f r pr bati n. Ang ka"ayo ang nagkasala2 ang

hagupit ay sa kala"a) (the h rse errs, the caraba gets the #hip). 4here is &ustice thereY 'he dissenting pini n als eIpresses apprehensi n that all #ing 1rnel t appl$ f r pr bati n # uld dilute the ruling f this " urt in Francisco &( Court of AppealsK-*L that the pr bati n la# re5uires that an accused !ust n t have appealed his c nvicti n bef re he can avail hi!self f pr bati n. But there is a huge difference bet#een Francisco and this case. In Francisco, the Metr p litan 'rial " urt (Me'") f Makati f und the accused guilt$ f grave ral defa!ati n and sentenced hi! t a pris n ter! f ne $ear and ne da$ t ne $ear and eight ! nths f prision correccional, a clearl$ pr bati nable penalt$. Pr bati n #as his t ask] Still, he ch se t appeal, seeking an ac5uittal, hence clearl$ #aiving his right t appl$ f r pr bati n. 4hen the ac5uittal did n t c !e, he #anted pr bati n. 'he " urt # uld n t f c urse let hi!. It served hi! right that he #anted t save his cake and eat it t . 0e certainl$ c uld n t have b th appeal and pr bati n. 'he Pr bati n 2a#, said the " urt in Francisco, re5uires that an accused !ust n t have appealed his c nvicti n bef re he can avail hi!self f pr bati n. 'his re5uire!ent Q utla#s the ele!ent f speculati n n the part f the accusedGt #ager n the result f his appealGthat #hen his c nvicti n is finall$ affir!ed n appeal, the ! !ent f truth #ell=nigh at hand, and the service f his sentence inevitable, he n # applies f r pr bati n as an ^escape hatchO thus rendering nugat r$ the appellate c urtOs affir!ance f his c nvicti n.RK-8L 0ere, h #ever, 1rnel did n t appeal fr ! a &udg!ent that # uld have all #ed hi! t appl$ f r pr bati n. 0e did n t have a ch ice bet#een appeal and pr bati n. 0e #as n t in a p siti n t sa$, QB$ taking this appeal, I ch se n t t appl$ f r pr bati n.R 'he stiff penalt$ that the trial c urt i!p sed n hi! denied hi! that ch ice. 'hus, a ruling that # uld all # 1rnel t n # seek pr bati n under this " urtOs greatl$ di!inished penalt$ #ill n t dilute the s und ruling in Francisco. It re!ains that th se #h #ill appeal fr ! &udg!ents f c nvicti n, #hen the$ have the pti n t tr$ f r pr bati n, f rfeit their right t appl$ f r that privilege. Besides, in appealing his case, 1rnel raised the issue f c rrectness f the penalt$ i!p sed n hi!. 0e clai!ed that the evidence at best #arranted his c nvicti n nl$ f r atte!pted, n t frustrated, h !icide, #hich cri!e called f r a pr bati nable penalt$. In a #a$, theref re, 1rnel s ught fr ! the beginning t bring d #n the penalt$ t the level #here the la# # uld all # hi! t appl$ f r pr bati n. In a real sense, the " urtOs finding that 1rnel #as guilt$, n t f frustrated h !icide, but nl$ f atte!pted h !icide, is an riginal c nvicti n that f r the first ti!e i!p ses n hi! a pr bati nable penalt$. 0ad the ('" d ne hi! right fr ! the start, it # uld have f und hi! guilt$ f the c rrect ffense and i!p sed n hi! the right penalt$ f t# $ears and f ur ! nths !aIi!u!. 'his # uld have aff rded 1rnel the right t appl$ f r pr bati n.

'he Pr bati n 2a# never intended t den$ an accused his right t pr bati n thr ugh n fault f his. 'he underl$ing phil s ph$ f pr bati n is ne f liberalit$ t #ards the accused. Such phil s ph$ is n t served b$ a harsh and stringent interpretati n f the statut r$ pr visi ns.K-9L 1s /ustice Micente M. Mend <a said in his dissent in Francisco, the Pr bati n 2a# !ust n t be regarded as a !ere privilege t be given t the accused nl$ #here it clearl$ appears he c !es #ithin its letterP t d s # uld be t disregard the teaching in !an$ cases that the Pr bati n 2a# sh uld be applied in fav r f the accused n t because it is a cri!inal la# but t achieve its beneficent purp se.K-7L )ne f th se #h dissent fr ! this decisi n p ints ut that all #ing 1rnel t appl$ f r pr bati n after he appealed fr ! the trial c urtOs &udg!ent f c nvicti n # uld n t be c nsistent #ith the pr visi n f Secti n + that the pr bati n la# sh uld be interpreted t Qpr vide an pp rtunit$ f r the ref r!ati n f a penitent ffender.R 1n accused like 1rnel #h appeals fr ! a &udg!ent c nvicting hi!, it is clai!ed, sh #s n penitence. 'his !a$ be true if the trial c urt !eted ut t 1rnel a c rrect &udg!ent f c nvicti n. 0ere, h #ever, it c nvicted 1rnel f the #r ng cri!e, frustrated h !icide, that carried a penalt$ in eIcess f * $ears. 0 # can the " urt eIpect hi! t feel penitent ver a cri!e, #hich as the " urt n # finds, he did n t c !!itY 0e nl$ c !!itted atte!pted h !icide #ith its !aIi!u! penalt$ f + $ears and : ! nths. Ir nicall$, if the " urt denies 1rnel the right t appl$ f r pr bati n under the reduced penalt$, it # uld be sending hi! straight behind bars. It # uld be r bbing hi! f the chance t instead underg ref r!ati n as a penitent ffender, defeating the ver$ purp se f the pr bati n la#. 1t an$ rate, #hat is clear is that, had the ('" d ne #hat #as right and i!p sed n 1rnel the c rrect penalt$ f t# $ears and f ur ! nths !aIi!u!, he # uld have had the right t appl$ f r pr bati n. 3 ne c uld sa$ #ith certaint$ that he # uld have availed hi!self f the right had the ('" d ne right b$ hi!. 'he idea !a$ n t even have cr ssed his !ind precisel$ since the penalt$ he g t #as n t pr bati nable. 'he 5uesti n in this case is ulti!atel$ ne f fairness. Is it fair t den$ 1rnel the right t appl$ f r pr bati n #hen the ne# penalt$ that the " urt i!p ses n hi! is, unlike the ne err ne usl$ i!p sed b$ the trial c urt, sub&ect t pr bati nY 3HEREFORE, the " urt PARTIALLG GRANTS the petiti n, MODIFIES the ;ecisi n dated /ul$ 6-, +,,8 f the " urt f 1ppeals in "1=G.(. "( +7*67, FINDS petiti ner 1rnel " linares GUILTG be$ nd reas nable d ubt f atte!pted h !icide, and SENTENCES hi! t suffer an indeter!inate penalt$ fr ! f ur ! nths f arresto mayor, as !ini!u!, t t#

$ears and f ur ! nths f prision correccional, as !aIi!u!, and t pa$ (ufin P. Buena the a! unt fP+,,,,,.,, as ! ral da!ages, #ith ut pre&udice t petiti ner appl$ing f r pr bati n #ithin -@ da$s fr ! n tice that the rec rd f the case has been re!anded f r eIecuti n t the (egi nal 'rial " urt f San / se, "a!arines Sur, in "ri!inal "ase '=++-6.

I.

THE 7ACTS

Accused8appellant Arnel Colinares %Arnel& +as char#ed +ith frustrated ho*icide for hittin# the head of the private co*plainant +ith a piece of stone. =e alle#ed self8defense but the trial court found hi* #uilt( of the cri*e char#ed and sentenced hi* to suffer i*prison*ent fro* . (ears and 6 *onths of prision correccional, as *ini*u*, to 5 (ears and ) da( of prision #a"or, as *a<i*u*. Since the *a<i*u* probationable i*prison*ent under the la+ +as onl( up to 5 (ears, Arnel did not -ualif( for probation. Arnel appealed to the Court of Appeals %CA&, invo$in# self8defense and, alternativel(, see$in# conviction for the lesser cri*e of atte*pted ho*icide +ith the conse-uent reduction of the penalt( i*posed on hi*. =is conviction +as affir*ed b( the CA. =ence, this appeal to the Supre*e Court.

II.

THE ISSUES

'iven a findin# that Arnel is entitled to conviction for a lo+er OlesserP offense Oof atte*pted ho*icideP and a reduced probationable penalt(, *a( he *a( still appl( for probation on re*and of the case to the trial courtK

III. THE RULING AThe Supre#e 1ourt &oted to 3A-T%A''D G-A>T the appeal. M60%F%@0 the 1A decision and found Arnel G:%'TD of ATT@M3T@0 <not frustrated= 76M%1%0@ and S@>T@>1@0 hi# to and indeter#inate (ut 3-6BAT%6>AB'@ penalt" of E #onths of arresto #a"or as #ini#u# and F "ears and E #onths of prision correccional as #aCi#u#. The 1ourt also vote, 234 to allow A&'el to A5567 8%R 5R%9AT"%N within 1G da"s fro# notice that the record of the case has (een re#anded for eCecution to trial court.B 7 #, A&'el .a0 still appl0 fo& p&o/atio' o' &e.a', of the case to the t&ial cou&t.

Ordinaril(, Arnel +ould no lon#er be entitled to appl( for probation, he havin# appealed fro* the 7ud#*ent of the R!C convictin# hi* for frustrated ho*icide. But, the Court finds Arnel #uilt( onl( of the lesser cri*e of atte*pted ho*icide and holds that the *a<i*u* of the penalt( i*posed on hi* should be lo+ered to i*prison*ent of four *onths of arresto #a"or, as *ini*u*, to t+o (ears and four *onths of prision correccional, as *a<i*u*. 3ith this ne+ penalt(, it +ould be but fair to allo+ hi* the ri#ht to appl( for probation upon re*and of the case to the R!C. O3Phile it is true that probation is a *ere privile#e, the point is not that Arnel has the ri#ht to such privile#e: he certainl( does not have. 3hat he has is the ri#ht to appl( for that privile#e. !he Court finds that his *a<i*u* 7ail ter* should onl( be . (ears and 6 *onths. "f the Court allo+s hi* to appl( for probation because of the lo+ered penalt(, it is still up to the trial 7ud#e to decide +hether or not to #rant hi* the privile#e of probation, ta$in# into account the full circu*stances of his case. "f the Court chooses to #o b( the dissentin# opinionNs hard position, it +ill appl( the probation la+ on Arnel based on the trial courtNs annulled 7ud#*ent a#ainst hi*. =e +ill not be entitled to probation because of the severe penalt( that such 7ud#*ent i*posed on hi*. More, the Supre*e CourtNs 7ud#*ent of conviction for a lesser offense and a li#hter penalt( +ill also have to bend over to the trial courtNs 7ud#*entGeven if this has been found in error. And, +orse, Arnel +ill no+ also be *ade to pa( for the trial courtNs erroneous 7ud#*ent +ith the forfeiture of his ri#ht to appl( for probation. Ang ?a(a"o ang nag?asala. ang hagupit a" sa ?ala(aw %the horse errs, the carabao #ets the +hip&. 3here is 7ustice thereK =ere, Arnel did not appeal fro* a 7ud#*ent that +ould have allo+ed hi* to appl( for probation. =e did not have a choice bet+een appeal and probation. =e +as not in a position to sa(, LB( ta$in# this appeal, " choose not to appl( for probation.M !he stiff penalt( that the trial court i*posed on hi* denied hi* that choice. !hus, a rulin# that +ould allo+ Arnel to no+ see$ probation under this CourtNs #reatl( di*inished penalt( +ill not dilute the sound rulin# in Francisco. "t re*ains that those +ho +ill appeal fro* 7ud#*ents of conviction, +hen the( have the option to tr( for probation, forfeit their ri#ht to appl( for that privile#e. "n a real sense, the CourtNs findin# that Arnel +as #uilt(, not of frustrated ho*icide, but onl( of atte*pted ho*icide, is an ori#inal conviction that for the first ti*e i*poses on hi* a probationable penalt(. =ad the R!C done hi* ri#ht fro* the start, it +ould have found hi* #uilt( of the correct offense and i*posed on hi* the ri#ht penalt( of t+o (ears and four *onths *a<i*u*. !his +ould have afforded Arnel the ri#ht to appl( for probation.

6ISSENTING #$% CONCURRING OPINION

PERALTA, J.3 "n vie+ of the provision in Section 6 of the Probation La+ that Lno application for pro(ation shall (e entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal fro# the 4udg#ent of con&iction,M prevailin# 7urisprudence treats appeal and probation as *utuall( e<clusive re*edies because the la+ is un*ista$able about it. =o+ever, it has been proposed that an appeal should not bar the accused fro* appl(in# for probation if the appeal is solel( to reduce the penalt( to +ithin the probationable li*it, as this is e-uitable. "n this re#ard, an accused *a( be allo+ed to appl( for probation even if he has filed a notice of appeal, provided that his appeal is li*ited to the follo+in# #rounds9

). 3hen the appeal is *erel( intended for the correction of the penalt" i#posed b( the lo+er court, +hich +hen corrected +ould entitle the accused to appl( for probation: and .. 3hen the appeal is *erel( intended to re&iew the cri#e for +hich the accused +as convicted and that the accused should onl( be liable to the lesser offense +hich is necessaril( included in the cri*e for +hich he +as ori#inall( convicted and the proper penalt( i*posable is +ithin the probationable period. "n both instances, the penalt( i*posed b( the trial court for the cri*e co**itted b( the accused is *ore than si< (ears: hence, the sentence dis-ualifies the accused fro* appl(in# for probation. !hus, the accused should be allo+ed to file an appeal under the aforestated #rounds to see$ arev)eH o* (+e /r)me #$%Ior 'e$#,(0 )m'o&e% b( the trial court. "f, on appeal, the appellate court finds it proper to *odif( the cri*e and/or the penalt( i*posed, and the penalt( finall( i*posed is +ithin the probationable period, then the accused should be allo+ed to appl( for probation. "n addition, (efore an appeal is filed based on the #rounds enu*erated above, the accused should first file a *otion for reconsideration of the decision of the trial court anchored on the above8 stated #rounds and *anifest his intent to appl( for probation if the *otion is #ranted. !he *otion for reconsideration +ill #ive the trial court an opportunit( to revie+ and rectif( an( errors in its 7ud#*ent, +hile the *anifestation of the accused +ill i**ediatel( sho+ that he is a#reeable to the 7ud#*ent of conviction and does not intend to appeal fro* it, but he onl( see$s a revie+ of the cri*e and/or penalt( i*posed, so that in the event that the penalt( +ill be *odified +ithin the probationable li*it, he +ill appl( for probation. "t is believed that the reco**ended #rounds for appeal do not contravene Section 6 of the Probation La+, +hich e<pressl( prohibits onl( an appeal fro* the 7ud#*ent of conviction. "n such instances, the ulti*ate reason of the accused for filin# the appeal based on the aforestated #rounds is to deter*ine +hether he *a( avail of probation based on the revie+ b( the appellate court of the cri*e and/or penalt( i*posed b( the trial court. Allo+in# the aforestated #rounds for appeal +ould #ive a -ualified convicted offender the opportunit( to appl( for probation if his #round for appeal is found to be *eritorious b( the appellate court, thus, servin# the purpose of the Probation La+ to pro*ote the refor*ation of a penitent offender outside of prison. On the other hand, probation should not be #ranted to the accused in the follo+in# instances9 ). 3hen the accused is convicted b( the trial court of a cri*e where the penalt" i#posed is within the pro(ationa(le period or a fine, and the accused files a notice of appeal: and .. 3hen the accused files a notice of appeal +hich puts the #erits of his con&iction in issue, e&en if there is an alternative pra(er for the correction of the penalt( i*posed b( the trial court or for a conviction to a lesser cri*e, +hich is necessaril( included in the cri*e in +hich he +as convicted +here the penalt( is +ithin the probationable period. !here is +isdo* to the *a7orit( opinion, but the proble* is that the la+ e<pressl( prohibits the filin# of an application for probation be(ond the period for filin# an appeal. 3hen the *eanin# is clearl( discernible fro* the lan#ua#e of the statute, there is no roo* for construction or interpretation. !hus, the re*ed( is the a*end*ent of Section 6 of P.?. No. ;5D, and not adaptation throu#h 7udicial interpretation.

CONCURRING AN6 6ISSENTING OPINION

VILLARAMA, 4R., J.3 "t *ust be stressed that in foreclosin# the ri#ht to appeal his conviction once the accused files an application for probation, the State proceeds fro* the reasonable assu*ption that the accusedNs sub*ission to rehabilitation and refor* is indicative of re*orse. And in prohibitin# the trial court fro* entertainin# an application for probation if the accused has perfected his appeal, the State ensures that the accused ta$es seriousl( the privile#e or cle*enc( e<tended to hi*, that at the ver( least he disavo+s cri*inal tendencies. Conse-uentl(, this CourtNs #rant of relief to herein accused +hose sentence +as reduced b( this Court to +ithin the probationable li*it, +ith a declaration that accused *a( no+ appl( for probation, +ould di*inish the seriousness of that privile#e because in -uestionin# his conviction accused never ad*itted his #uilt. "t is of no *o*ent that the trial courtNs conviction of petitioner for frustrated ho*icide is no+ corrected b( this Court to onl( atte*pted ho*icide. PetitionerNs ph(sical assault on the victi* +ith intent to $ill is unla+ful or cri*inal re-#r%,e&& o* H+e(+er (+e &(#-e o* /omm)&&)o$ H#& *r1&(r#(e% or #((em'(e% o$,0. Allo+in# the petitioner the ri#ht to appl( for probation under the reduced penalt( #losses over the fact that accusedNs avail*ent of appeal +ith such e<pectation a*ounts to the sa*e thin#9 speculation and opportunis* on the part of the accused in violation of the rule that appeal and probation are *utuall( e<clusive re*edies.

EN BANC
ARTHUR BALAO, WINSTON BALAO, NONETTE BALAO, JONILYN BALAO-STRUGAR and BEVERLY LONGID, Petitioners, G.R. No. 186050

- versus -

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, EDUARDO ERMITA, GILBERTO TEODORO, RONALDO PUNO, NORBERTO GONZALES, Gen. ALEXANDER YANO, Gen. JESUS VERZOSA, B !". Gen. REYNALDO MAPAGU, L#. P$D! . EDGARDO DOROMAL, Ma%. Gen. ISAGANI CACHUELA, C&''and!n" O((!)e &( #*e A+P-ISU ,a-ed !n Ba".!& C!#/, PSS EUGENE MARTIN and -e0e a1 JOHN DOES, Responden ts. 2------------------------ 2 PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, SECRETARY GILBERTO TEODORO, SECRETARY RONALDO PUNO, SECRETARY NORBERTO GONZALES, GEN. ALEXANDER YANO, P$DGEN. JESUS VERZOSA, BRIG GEN. REYNALDO MAPAGU, MAJ. GEN. ISAGANI CACHUELA ANDPOL. SR. SUPT. EUGENE MARTIN, Petitione rs,

G.R. N&. 345678 Present: CORONA,C.J., CARPIO, E!A"CO, #R., !EONAR$O-$E CA"%RO, BRION, PERA!%A BER"A&IN, $E! CA"%I!!O, ABA$,

I!!ARA&A, #R., - versus PERE', &EN$O'A, "ERENO, RE(E", )nd ARTHUR BALAO, WINSTON BALAO, NONETTE BALAO, JONILYN BALAO-STRUGAR and BEVERLY LONGID, Respondents. $e-e*.er 1/, 0011 2- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2 PER!A"-BERNABE, JJ. Pro*u+,)ted:

$ECI"ION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Be1ore us )re -onso+id)ted )ppe)+s under "e-tion 12 o1 t3e Ru+e on t3e 4rit o1 Amparo1ro* t3e #)nu)r5 12, 0002 #ud,*ent617 o1 t3e Re,ion)+ %ri)+ Court 8R%C9 o1 !) %rinid)d, Ben,uet, Br)n-3 6/, in "pe-i)+ Pro-eedin, No. 08-A&P-0001, entit+ed :In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Amparo in favor of James Balao, Arthur Balao, et al. v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.; %3e R%C ,r)nted t3e petition 1or t3e <rit o1 amparo .ut denied t3e pr)5er 1or issu)n-e o1 inspe-tion, produ-tion )nd <itness prote-tion orders.

T*e An#e)eden#-

On O-to.er 8, 0008, Art3ur B)+)o, 4inston B)+)o, Nonette B)+)o )nd #oni+5n B)+)o-"tru,)r, si.+in,s o1 #)*es B)+)o, )nd Bever+5 !on,id 8petitioners9, 1i+ed <it3 t3e R%C o1 !) %rinid)d, Ben,uet ) Petition 1or t3e Issu)n-e o1 ) 4rit o1 Amparo607 in 1)vor

o1 #)*es B)+)o <3o <)s ).du-ted .5 unidenti1ied )r*ed *en on "epte*.er 1=, 0008 in %o*)5, !) %rinid)d, Ben,uet. N)*ed respondents in t3e petition <ere t3en President G+ori) &)-)p),)+Arro5o, E>e-utive "e-ret)r5 Edu)rdo R. Er*it), $e1ense "e-ret)r5 Gi+.erto C. %eodoro, #r.,Interior )nd !o-)+ Govern*ent "e-ret)r5 Ron)+do . Puno, N)tion)+ "e-urit5 Adviser 8N"A9 Nor.erto B. Gon?)+es, Ar*ed @or-es o1 t3e P3i+ippines 8A@P9 C3ie1 o1 "t)11 Gen. A+e>)nder B. ()no, P3i+ippine N)tion)+ Po+i-e 8PNP9 Po+i-e $ire-tor Gener)+ #esus A. er?os), P3i+ippine Ar*5 8PA9 C3ie1 Bri,. Gen. Re5n)+do B. &)p),u, PNP Cri*in)+ Investi,)tion )nd $ete-tion Group 8PNP-CI$G9 C3ie1 !t. PA$ir. Ed,)rdo $oro*)+, Nort3ern !u?on Co**)nd 8NO!CO&9 Co**)nder &)B. Gen. Is),)ni C. C)-3ue+), PNP-Cordi++er) Ad*inistr)tive Re,ion Re,ion)+ $ire-tor Po+i-e "enior "upt. Eu,ene G).rie+ &)rtin, t3e Co**)ndin, O11i-er o1 t3e A@P Inte++i,en-e "ervi-e Cnit 8A@P-I"C9 .)sed in B),uio Cit5 )nd sever)+ #o3n $oes. #)*es &. B)+)o is ) Ps5-3o+o,5 )nd E-ono*i-s ,r)du)te o1 t3e Cniversit5 o1 t3e P3i+ippines-B),uio 8CP-B),uio9. In 128D, 3e <)s )*on, t3ose <3o 1ounded t3e Cordi++er) Peop+es A++i)n-e 8CPA9, ) -o)+ition o1 non-,overn*ent or,)ni?)tions 8NGOs9 <orEin, 1or t3e -)use o1 indi,enous peop+es in t3e Cordi++er) Re,ion. As 3e)d o1 CPAFs edu-)tion )nd rese)r-3 -o**ittee, #)*es )-tive+5 3e+ped in t3e tr)inin, )nd or,)ni?)tion o1 1)r*ers. Ge <)s )+so t3e President o1 O-+up)n C+)n Asso-i)tion <3i-3 undert)Ees t3e re,istr)tion )nd do-u*ent)tion o1 -+)n properties to prote-t t3eir ri,3ts over )n-estr)+ +)nds. In 1288, <3i+e <orEin, 1or t3e CPA, 3e <)s )rrested on t3e -3)r,e o1 vio+)tion o1 t3e Anti-"u.version !)< .ut t3e -)se <)s eventu)++5 dis*issed 1or +)-E o1 eviden-e. %3e testi*onies )nd st)te*ents o1 e5e<itnesses est).+is3ed t3e 1o++o<in, -ir-u*st)n-es surroundin, #)*esFs dis)ppe)r)n-e: On "epte*.er 1=, 0008, )t )round 8:/0 in t3e *ornin,, ) *)n -+)d in .+)-E B)-Eet, .+)-E s3irt, .+)-E visor )nd ,r)5 p)nts <)s st)ndin, in1ront o1 ")5*orFs6/7 "tore )t %o*)5, !) %rinid)d,

Ben,uet. Ge 3)d ) .e+t .), )nd ) tr)ve++in, .), <3i-3 <)s p+)-ed on ) .en-3. i-E5 Bone+ <)s )t t3e ti*e )ttendin, to t3e s)id store o<ned .5 3er .rot3er-in-+)< <3i+e Ani-eto G. $)<in,, #r. )nd 3is -o-e*p+o5ee <ere de+iverin, .)Eer5 produ-ts t3ere)t. A <3ite v)n t3en )rrived )nd stopped in1ront o1 t3e store. @ive *en in -ivi+i)n -+ot3es <3o <ere -)rr5in, 1ire)r*s )+i,3ted 1ro* t3e v)n )nd i**edi)te+5 )ppro)-3ed t3e *)n poEin, t3eir ,uns on 3i*. %3e5 ,r)..ed )nd 3)nd-u11ed 3i*. %3e *)n <)s )sEin, <35 3e <)s .ein, )ppre3ended. One o1 t3e )r*ed *en )ddressed t3e peop+e <itnessin, t3e in-ident, s)5in, t3e5 <ere po+i-e*en. Anot3er <)rned t3)t no one s3ou+d inter1ere .e-)use t3e *)n <)s .ein, )rrested 1or i++e,)+ dru,s. %3ere)1ter, t3e5 pus3ed t3e *)n inside t3e v)n. One o1 t3e )r*ed *en <ent .)-E to t3e store to ,et t3e *)nFs tr)ve++in, .),. Be1ore +e)vin, t3e p+)-e, one o1 t3e )r*ed *en <)s )+so 3e)rd te++in, t3e driver o1 t3e v)n t3)t t3e5 )re ,oin, to pro-eed to C)*p $)n,<) 8PNP Provin-i)+ Ge)dHu)rters in !) %rinid)d, Ben,uet9. %3e v)n 3e)ded to<)rds t3e dire-tion o1 !) %rinid)d to<n proper. %3e <itnesses +)ter identi1ied t3e *)n )s #)*es B)+)o )1ter seein, 3is p3oto,r)p3 <3i-3 )ppe)red in posters )nnoun-in, 3i* )s *issin,. %3e petition )++e,ed t3)t in &)5 0008, #)*es reported survei++)n-es on 3is person to 3is 1)*i+5, p)rti-u+)r+5 to 3is sister Nonette B)+)o 8Nonette9, )nd to CPA C3)irperson Bever+5 !on,id 8Bever+59. #)*es supposed+5 o.served -ert)in ve3i-+es t)i+in, 3i* )nd suspi-ious+5 p)rEed outside 3is residen-e, one o1 <3i-3 <)s ) v)n <it3 p+)te nu*.er C"C 200. Ge )+so -+)i*ed to 3)ve re-eived -)++s )nd *ess),es t3rou,3 3is *o.i+e p3one in1or*in, 3i* t3)t 3e <)s under survei++)n-e .5 t3e PNP Re,ion)+ O11i-e )nd t3e A@P-I"C. %o prove t3e survei++)n-e, t3e in1or*er ,)ve t3e e>)-t d)tes 3e visited 3is 1)*i+5, -+ot3es 3e <ore, )nd d)tes )nd ti*es 3e ,oes 3o*e or visits 1riends )nd re+)tives. Att)-3ed to t3e petition <ere t3e )11id)vits6D7 o1 Nonette )nd Bever+5 )ttestin, to #)*esFs reports o1 survei++)n-e to 3is 1)*i+5 )nd to t3e CPA. It <)s 1urt3er )++e,ed t3)t on "epte*.er 1=, 0008, )round =:00 in t3e *ornin,, #)*es sent ) te>t *ess),e to Nonette

in1or*in, 3er t3)t 3e <)s ).out to +e)ve 3is rented 3ouse in @)irvie< Centr)+, B),uio Cit5 )nd t3)t 3e <)s ,oin, to t3eir )n-estr)+ residen-e in Pi-o, !) %rinid)d, Ben,uet to do 3is +)undr5. %3e tr)ve+ ti*e 1ro* @)irvie<, B),uio Cit5 to Pi-o usu)++5 t)Ees on+5 00 to D5 *inutes. Around 8:00 ).*., Nonette, )1ter dis-overin, t3)t #)*es never re)-3ed t3eir p)rentsF 3ouse )t Pi-o, st)rted -ont)-tin, t3eir 1riends )nd re+)tives to )sE ).out #)*esFs <3ere).outs. No one, 3o<ever, 3)d )n5 ide) <3ere 3e <)s. %3us, t3e B)+)o 1)*i+5, <it3 t3e )ssist)n-e o1 t3e CPA )nd ot3er NGOs, tried to +o-)te #)*es. %e)*s <ere 1or*ed to 1o++o< #)*esFs route 1ro* @)irvie<, B),uio Cit5 to Pi-o, !) %rinid)d )nd peop+e )+on, t3e <)5 <ere )sEed i1 t3e5 3)ppened to see 3i*. %3ese se)r-3es, 3o<ever, 5ie+ded ne,)tive resu+ts. One o1 t3e te)*s )+so <ent to t3e o11i-e o1 t3e A@P-I"C 8PA-I"C9 in N)v5 B)se )nd t3e o11i-e o1 t3e &i+it)r5 Inte++i,en-e Group in C)*p A++en, .ot3 in B),uio Cit5, .ut t3e personne+ in s)id o11i-es denied )n5 Eno<+ed,e on #)*esFs <3ere).outs. %3e 1)*i+5 +iEe<ise <ent to B),uio Po+i-e "t)tion = to report #)*esFs dis)ppe)r)n-e. %3e report <)s du+5 entered on t3e .+otter .ut t3ere 3)ve .een no deve+op*ents )s o1 t3e 1i+in, o1 t3e petition. %3e5 )+so sou,3t t3e 3e+p o1 t3e *edi) to )nnoun-e #)*esFs dis)ppe)r)n-e )nd <rote sever)+ ,overn*ent ),en-ies to in1or* t3e* o1 3is dis)ppe)r)n-e )nd en+ist t3eir 3e+p in +o-)tin, 3i*. Petitioners, *oreover, enu*er)ted in t3eir petition sever)+ in-idents o1 3)r)ss*ents )nd 3u*)n ri,3ts vio+)tions ),)inst CPA o11i-ers, st)11 )nd *e*.ers. Contendin, t3)t t3ere is no p+)in, speed5 or )deHu)te re*ed5 1or t3e* to prote-t #)*esFs +i1e, +i.ert5 )nd se-urit5, petitioners pr)5ed 1or t3e issu)n-e o1 ) <rit o1 amparo orderin, t3e respondents to dis-+ose <3ere #)*es is det)ined or -on1ined, to re+e)se #)*es, )nd to -e)se )nd desist 1ro* 1urt3er in1+i-tin, 3)r* upon 3is person. %3e5 +iEe<ise pr)5ed 1or 819 )n inspe-tion order 1or t3e inspe-tion o1 )t +e)st 11 *i+it)r5 )nd po+i-e 1)-i+ities <3i-3 3)ve .een previous+5 reported )s detention -enters 1or

)-tivists ).du-ted .5 *i+it)r5 )nd po+i-e oper)tivesI 809 ) produ-tion order 1or )++ do-u*ents t3)t -ont)in eviden-e re+ev)nt to t3e petition, p)rti-u+)r+5 t3e Order o1 B)tt+e !ist )nd )n5 re-ord or dossier respondents 3)ve on #)*esI )nd 8/9 ) <itness prote-tion order. Petitioners si*u+t)neous+5 1i+ed )n Cr,ent E>-P)rte &otion657 1or t3e i**edi)te issu)n-e o1 ) <rit o1 amparo pursu)nt to "e-tion 6 o1 t3e Ru+e on t3e 4rit o1 Amparo. On O-to.er 2, 0008, t3e 4rit o1 Amparo667 <)s issued dire-tin, respondents to 1i+e t3eir veri1ied return to,et3er <it3 t3eir supportin, )11id)vit <it3in 1ive d)5s 1ro* re-eipt o1 t3e <rit. Respondents in t3eir #oint Return6=7 st)ted: 819 t3)t President G+ori) &)-)p),)+-Arro5o is i**une 1ro* suit )nd s3ou+d t3us .e dropped )s p)rt5-respondentI 809 t3)t on+5 Art3ur B)+)o s3ou+d .e n)*ed petitioner )nd t3e rest o1 t3e ot3er petitioners droppedI 8/9 t3)t t3ere is no )++e,)tion o1 spe-i1i- <ron,doin, ),)inst respondents t3)t <ou+d s3o< t3eir Eno<+ed,e, invo+ve*ent or p)rti-ip)tion in t3e ).du-tion o1 #)*esI 8D9 t3)t E>e-. "e-. Er*it), "e-. %eodoro, "e-. Puno, "e-. Gon?)+es, Gen. ()no, Gen. C)-3ue+), Gen. &)p),u )nd Gen. er?os) in t3eir respe-tive )11id)vits denied 3)vin, su-3 p)rti-ip)tion or Eno<+ed,e o1 #)*esFs ).du-tion, set 1ort3 t3eir )-tions t)Een in investi,)tin, t3e *)tter )nd undert)Ein, to -ontinue e>ertin, e>tr)ordin)r5 di+i,en-e in se-urin, t3e +i.ert5 o1 #)*es )nd .rin, )++ t3ose responsi.+e 1or 3is dis)ppe)r)n-e to t3e .)r o1 Busti-e, in-+udin, *i+it)r5 or po+i-e personne+ <3en <)rr)nted .5 t3e 1indin,s o1 t3e investi,)tionsI 859 t3)t "upt. &)rtin )+re)d5 ordered )n investi,)tion, -)*e up <it3 intervie<s o1 sever)+ <itnesses, )nd 3e+d ) di)+o,ue <it3 t3e Co**)nder o1 t3e &i+it)r5 Inte++i,en-e Group I 8&IG19 )nd t3e Co**)ndin, O11i-er o1 t3e Intern)+ "ervi-e Cnit-Intern)+ "e-urit5 Group, P3i+ippine Ar*5I)nd 869 t3)t petitioners t3e*se+ves did not -ooper)te <it3 po+i-e )ut3orities in t3e investi,)tion )nd neit3er did t3e5 )sE t3e N)tion)+ Bure)u o1 Investi,)tion to +o-)te #)*es.

Respondents -ontended t3)t t3e petition 1)i+ed to *eet t3e reHuire*ent in t3e Ru+e on t3e 4rit o1 Amparo t3)t -+)i*s *ust .e est).+is3ed .5 su.st)nti)+ eviden-e -onsiderin, t3)t: 819 petitionersF )++e,)tions do not *ention in )n5<)5 t3e *)nner, <3et3er dire-t+5 or indire-t+5, t3e )++e,ed p)rti-ip)tion o1 respondents in t3e purported ).du-tion o1 #)*esI 809 Nonette )nd Bever+5 do not 3)ve person)+ Eno<+ed,e o1 t3e -ir-u*st)n-es surroundin, t3e ).du-tion o1 #)*es, 3en-e, t3eir st)te*ents )re 3e)rs)5 <it3 no pro.)tive v)+ueI )nd 8/9 t3e )++e,)tions in t3e petition do not s3o< t3e *)teri)+it5 )nd re+ev)n-e o1 t3e p+)-es sou,3t to .e se)r-3edAinspe-ted )nd do-u*ents to .e produ-ed, spe-i1i-)++5 t3e reHuire*ent t3)t t3e pr)5er 1or )n inspe-tion order s3)++ .e supported .5 )11id)vits or testi*onies o1 <itnesses 3)vin, person)+ Eno<+ed,e o1 t3e <3ere).outs o1 t3e ),,rieved p)rt5. Respondents 1urt3er )r,ued t3)t it is t3e PNP )s t3e +)< en1or-e*ent ),en-5, )nd not t3e respondent *i+it)r5 )nd e>e-utive o11i-i)+s, <3i-3 3)s t3e dut5 to investi,)te -)ses o1 *issin, persons. At *ost, t3e A@P *)5 inHuire on t3e *)tters .ein, )++uded to t3e* )s *)5 .e ordered .5 t3e proper superior, <3i-3 is pri*)ri+5 done 1or possi.+e -ourt *)rti)+ pro-eedin,s. Gen-e, t3eir -o**on deni)+s o1 3)vin, )n5 Eno<+ed,e, p)rti-ip)tion or )ut3ori?)tion 1or t3e )++e,ed dis)ppe)r)n-e o1 #)*es B)+)o. Nonet3e+ess, respondents e>e-uted t3eir )11id)vits to s3o< t3e )-tions t3e5 3)ve t)Een )nd reports su.*itted to t3e* .5 t3e proper )ut3orities, )s 1o++o<s: E2e).#!0e Se) e#a / E '!#ast)ted t3)t upon re-eipt o1 -op5 o1 t3e petition 1or ) <rit o1 amparo, 3e -)used t3e issu)n-e o1 ) +etter )ddressed to t3e PNP C3ie1 )nd A@P C3ie1 o1 "t)11 1or t3e purpose o1 inHuirin, )nd est).+is3in, t3e -ir-u*st)n-es surroundin, t3e )++e,ed dis)ppe)r)n-e o1 #)*es B)+)o, )nd <3i-3 +etters )+so -)++ed 1or t3e su.*ission o1 pertinent reports on t3e resu+ts o1 t3e investi,)tion -ondu-ted, i1 )n5. 687 Se) e#a / Te&d& & de-+)red t3)t soon )1ter t3e pro*u+,)tion .5 t3is Court o1 t3e Ru+e on t3e 4rit o1 Amparo, 3e

issued :Po+i-5 $ire-tive on t3e A-tions )nd $e1enses Cnder t3e Amparo Ru+e; <3i-3 instru-ted *e*.ers o1 t3e A@P to undert)Ee spe-i1i- *e)sures even <it3out <)itin, 1or t3e 1i+in, o1 )n amparo petition in -ourt <3enever )n5 *e*.er o1 t3e A@P or )n5 o1 its -o**)nds or units 3)ve .een reported or pu.+is3ed )s .ein, invo+ved in t3e )++e,ed vio+)tion o1 )n individu)+Fs ri,3t to +i1e, +i.ert5 )nd se-urit5 or t3re)t t3ereo1, )s ) prep)r)tor5 step in t3e 1i+in, o1 ) veri1ied return )s reHuired .5 A.&. No. 0=-2-10"C. %3e A@P <)s t3erein )+so dire-ted to i**edi)te+5 -oordin)te <it3 t3e PNP, NBI, $O# )nd ot3er ,overn*ent ),en-ies in t3e )tt)in*ent o1 t3e desired )-tions in t3e event ) petition is 1i+ed. ")id po+i-5 dire-tive <)s -ont)ined in 3is &e*or)ndu* d)ted O-to.er /1, 000= to t3e C3ie1 o1 "t)11, A@P, )nd t3ere is no re)son 1or 3i* to dou.t t3)t t3e A@P <i++ -o*p+5 <it3 it inso1)r )s t3e present petition 1or <rit o1 amparo is -on-erned.627 Se) e#a / P.n& -on1ir*ed re-eipt o1 ) -op5 o1 t3e petition )nd s)id 3e <i++ <rite to t3e PNP C3ie1 to -)++ 1or pertinent reports re+)tive to t3e -ir-u*st)n-es o1 t3e )++e,ed :t)Ein,; o1 t3e person in <3ose 1)vor t3e <rit o1 amparo <)s sou,3t. Ge undertooE to *)Ee )v)i+).+e )n5 report 3e <i++ re-eive 1ro* t3e PNP on t3e *)tter.6107 NSA G&n9a1e- )sserted t3)t )s ) pu.+i- o11i-er, 3e is presu*ed to 3)ve per1or*ed 3is duties in )--ord)n-e <it3 +)<, <3i-3 presu*ption re*)ins undistur.ed )*id ,r)tuitous )ssu*ptions )nd -on-+usions in t3e petition devoid o1 1)-tu)+ )nd +e,)+ .)sis. Cpon re-eipt o1 ) -op5 o1 t3e petition, 3e -)used to .e issued +ettersA-o**uni-)tions to t3e $ire-tor Gener)+ o1 t3e N)tion)+ Inte++i,en-e Coordin)tin, A,en-5, t3e PNP C3ie1 )nd t3e A@P C3ie1 o1 "t)11 1or t3e purpose o1 *)Ein, )-tive inHuiries )nd est).+is3in, t3e -ir-u*st)n-es o1 t3e )++e,ed dis)ppe)r)n-e inso1)r )s t3e possi.+e invo+ve*ent o1 *i+it)r5Apo+i-e personne+ is -on-erned. Ge undertooE to provide t3e *)teri)+ resu+ts o1 investi,)tions -ondu-ted or to .e -ondu-ted .5 t3e -on-erned ),en-ies.6117

Gene a1 Yan& n)rr)ted t3)t prior to t3e re-eipt o1 ) -op5 o1 t3e petition, 3e re-eived ) *e*or)ndu* 1ro* t3e $ep)rt*ent o1 N)tion)+ $e1ense tr)ns*ittin, t3e +etter o1 B)5)n &un) Represent)tive %eodoro A. C)siJo inHuirin, ).out t3e )++e,ed ).du-tion o1 #)*es B)+)o. On t3e .)sis o1 s)id *e*o, 3e dire-ted .5 r)dio *ess),e t3e NO!CO& Co**)nder to -ondu-t ) t3orou,3 investi,)tion on t3e *)tter )nd to su.*it t3e resu+t t3ereo1 to t3e A@P Gener)+ Ge)dHu)rters. %3is <)s )+so done in -o*p+i)n-e <it3 t3e Po+i-5 $ire-tive issued .5 $e1ense "e-ret)r5 %eodoro. Ge reiter)ted 3is O-to.er 6, 0008 dire-tive to t3e PA Co**)ndin, Gener)+ in )not3er r)dio *ess),e d)ted O-to.er 16, 0008. Ge undertooE to provide t3e -ourt <it3 *)teri)+ resu+ts o1 t3e investi,)tions -ondu-ted .5 t3e -on-erned units )s soon )s t3e s)*e )re re-eived .5 Gi,3er Ge)dHu)rters. 6107 L#. Gen. Ca)*.e1a s)id t3)t even prior to t3e re-eipt o1 ) -op5 o1 t3e petition, 3e <)s )+re)d5 dire-ted .5 Gi,3er Ge)dHu)rters to -ondu-t ) t3orou,3 investi,)tion on t3e )++e,ed ).du-tion o1 #)*es B)+)o. A-tin, on s)id dire-tive, 3e in turn dire-ted t3e 5t3 In1)ntr5 $ivision, PA to investi,)te t3e *)tter sin-e t3e p+)-e o1 t3e -o**ission o1 t3e ).du-tion is <it3in its )re) o1 responsi.i+it5. Ge undertooE to 1urnis3 t3e -ourt <it3 ) -op5 o1 t3e resu+t o1 t3e investi,)tion -ondu-ted or to .e -ondu-ted, )s soon )s NO!CO& re-eives t3e s)*e. 61/7 BGen. Ma:a". on 3is p)rt de-+)red t3)t t3ere is not3in, in t3e )++e,)tions o1 t3e petition t3)t <ou+d s3o< t3e invo+ve*ent o1 t3e PA in t3e reported dis)ppe)r)n-e o1 #)*es B)+)o. Ge -+)i*ed t3)t 3e i**edi)te+5 -)++ed t3e )ttention o1 t3e :-on-erned st)11; to ,ive so*e in1or*)tion re,)rdin, t3e -)se )nd dire-ted t3e* to su.*it ) report i1 t3e5 )re ).+e to o.t)in in1or*)tion. 61D7 P&1. D! . Gene a1 Ve 9&-a set 1ort3 t3e )-tions )nd steps t)Een .5 t3e PNP, p)rti-u+)r+5 t3e PNP Re,ion)+ O11i-e-Cordi++er) 8PRO-COR9 3e)ded .5 PC"upt. Eu,ene &)rtin, .ein, t3e +e)d PNP unit investi,)tin, t3e -)se o1 #)*es B)+)o. 6157

P&1. C*!e( S.:#. Ma #!n re-ounted t3)t in t3e )1ternoon o1 "epte*.er 1=, 0008, CPA C3)irperson Bever+5 !on,id -)++ed up )nd in1or*ed 3i* o1 t3e dis)ppe)r)n-e o1 #)*es. On "epte*.er 00, 0008, 3e <)s in1or*ed t3)t #)*es <)s )++e,ed+5 *issin, )nd i**edi)te+5 ordered t3e O11i-e o1 t3e Re,ion)+ Inte++i,en-e $ivision 8RI$9 to send 1+)s3 )+)r* to )++ +o<er units to +ooE 1or )nd +o-)te #)*es B)+)o. %3is <)s 1o++o<ed .5 ) &e*or)ndu* <it3 3is pi-ture )nd des-ription. Cpon 3is orders, Po+i-e "t)tion 1 o1 t3e B),uio Cit5 Po+i-e O11i-e 8BCPO9 i**edi)te+5 -ondu-ted inHuiries )t t3e .o)rdin, 3ouse o1 #)*es )t B)r)n,)5 @)irvie<, B),uio Cit5. !iEe<ise, 3e ordered t3e -re)tion o1 %)sE @or-e B)+)o to 1)st tr)-E t3e investi,)tion o1 t3e -)se. Ge 1urt3er instru-ted t3e RI$ to e>ert )++ e11orts )nd supervise )++ +o<er units to intensi15 t3eir investi,)tion )nd )s-ert)in t3e <3ere).outs )nd ot3er -ir-u*st)n-es surroundin, t3e dis)ppe)r)n-e o1 #)*es. Resu+ts o1 t3e investi,)tions -ondu-ted <ere set 1ort3 in 3is )11id)vit. Ge 3)d -onst)nt -oordin)tion <it3 t3e CPA +e)ders )nd B)+)o 1)*i+5 <3o divu+,ed t3e p+)te nu*.ers o1 ve3i-+es )++e,ed+5 o.served .5 #)*es prior to 3is dis)ppe)r)n-e )s -ondu-tin, survei++)n-e on 3is person. Cpon veri1i-)tion <it3 t3e !)nd %r)nsport)tion O11i-e, t3e s)id ve3i-+es <ere 1ound to .e re,istered under t3e 1o++o<in, persons: %NG =8= K N)r-iso &),no o1 L00 $)r)s), %)n)u)n, B)t)n,)sI )nd C"C 200 K G M " %r)nsport Corp. On O-to.er 6, 0008, 3e re-eived in1or*)tion re,)rdin, )n ).du-tion in-ident in %o*)5, !) %rinid)d <3ereupon 3e ordered t3e Provin-i)+ $ire-tor o1 Ben,uet to -ondu-t )n in-dept3 investi,)tionI s)id investi,)tion dis-+osed t3)t t3e person ).du-ted <)s indeed #)*es. On O-to.er 8, 0008, %)sE @or-e B)+)o <it3 t3e 3e+p o1 t3e CPA )nd B)+)o 1)*i+5 <ere ).+e to -onvin-e t<o <itnesses in t3e ).du-tion in-ident in %o*)5, !) %rinid)d, Ben,uet to s3ed +i,3t on t3e in-identI )s ) resu+t, -)rto,r)p3i- sEet-3es o1 t3e suspe-ts <ere *)de. In t3e *ornin, o1 O-to.er 2, 0008, 3e presided over ) di)+o,ue <3i-3 <)s )ttended .5 t3e Group Co**)nder, &IG1 )nd Co**)ndin, O11i-er o1 I"C, I"G )nd PA, 1or t3e -oordin)ted e11orts to +o-)te #)*es. In t3e )1ternoon o1 t3e s)*e d)5, 3e *et <it3 t3e 1)*i+5 )nd re+)tives o1 #)*es to in1or* t3e* o1 initi)+ e11orts )nd investi,)tion o1 t3e -)se. %3e %)sE @or-e B)+)o <)s

)+so ).+e to se-ure t3e )11id)vits o1 <itnesses Ani-eto $)<in, )nd i-E5 Bone+, )nd invited so*e *e*.ers o1 t3e CPA <3o retrieved #)*esFs person)+ .e+on,in,s in @)irvie<, B),uio Cit5 )nd 3is -o*p)nions prior to 3is dis)ppe)r)n-e on "epte*.er 1=, 0008 to )ppe)r .e1ore t3e %)sE @or-e B)+)o 1or so*e -+)ri1i-)tions .ut none o1 t3e* )ppe)red. %3e -)se is sti++ under 1o++o<-up )nd -ontinuin, investi,)tion to Eno< <3)t re)++5 3)ppened, identi15 t3e ).du-tors, deter*ine t3e re)+ *otive 1or t3e ).du-tion )nd 1i+e t3e ne-ess)r5 -3)r,es in -ourt ),)inst t3ose responsi.+e. 6167 A+so )tt)-3ed to t3e Return )re t3e *ore det)i+ed reports 8<it3 )tt)-3ed )11id)vits o1 ot3er <itnesses9 d)ted O-to.er 1D, 0008 )nd O-to.er 6, 0008 su.*itted .5 %)sE @or-e B)+)o Co**)nder PA" "upt. @ortun)to B. A+.)s to t3e PNP Cordi++er) Re,ion)+ $ire-tor. Pertinent portions o1 t3e t<o reports re)d:
>>>> 0. InHuiries -ondu-ted 1ro* &r. 'usi*o Cn)ros), ) resident o1 Nr 106, PuroE /, Centr)+ @)irvie<, B),uio Cit5, -+)i*ed t3)t on t3e 1st <eeE o1 "epte*.er 0008, 3e 1reHuent+5 o.served t<o 809 unidenti1ied *)+e persons ),ed 50-=0 5e)rs o+d )nd ).out 5F1; to 5F5; in 3ei,3t, .rin,in, .o>es 1ro* t3e 3ouse, t3e -ontents o1 <3i-3 -ou+d not .e deter*ined. Go<ever, )verred t3)t t3ese t<o 809 *)+e person)+ities )re not 1)*i+i)r in t3e .)r)n,)5. Ge 1urt3er st)ted t3)t 3e 3)d never seen ) v)n -ondu-tin, survei++)n-e on t3e 3ouse )nd 3)ve not 3e)rd o1 )n5 in-ident o1 Eidn)ppin, or ).du-tion in t3e -o**unit5. /. &r6.7 Anse+*o A+uEi*, ) nei,3.or, residin, )dB)-ent to t3e 3ouse o1 t3e su.Be-t, <3en intervie<ed, )verred t3)t 3e o.served so*e unidenti1ied *)+e )nd 1e*)+e persons visitin, t3e s)id 3ouse. D. Intervie< -ondu-ted on &r6.7 $)nn5 Gri.), ) resident o1 s)id .)r)n,)5 )verred t3)t #)*es B)+)o is not ) resident or o--up)nt o1 t3e s)id 3ouse )nd -+)i*ed t3)t 3e on+5 s)< t3e su.Be-t +)st su**er )nd st)ted t3ere )re 1ive 859 unidenti1ied persons o--up5in, t3e s)id 3ouse. Ge 1urt3er st)ted t3)t t3ree 8/9 *)+e persons ),ed D0 to 50 5e)rs o+d )nd ) 1e*)+e ),ed .et<een 00-/0 5e)rs o+d ,oes out durin, d)5 ti*e <it3 sever)+ .o>es )nd returns )t ).out 6:00 P& to =:00 P& on .o)rd ) t)>i -). ),)in <it3 so*e .o>es o1 undeter*ined -ontents. 5. &rs6.7 Cor)?on Addun, resident o1 Nr 11D, PuroE /, Centr)+ @)irvie<, B),uio Cit5 )verred t3)t t3e su.Be-t is not residin, in t3e s)id p+)-e )nd s)< 3i* on+5 on-e, so*eti*e on Apri+ 0008. "3e 1urt3er n)rr)ted t3)t ) -ert)in Cn-+e #o3n ),ed D0 to 50 5e)rs o+d )nd ) *)+e person ),ed 00 to /0 )re )*on, t3e o--up)nts o1 s)id 3ouse. A--ordin,+5, on "epte*.er 01, 0008, Cn-+e #o3n <ent to t3e 3ouse o1 &rs. Addun )nd over ) -up o1 -o11ee to+d 3er t3)t 3e <i++ .e ,oin, to "),)d), &ount)in Provin-e purpose+5 to +o-)te ) *issin, -o++e),ue <3o <)s sent t3ere. A--ordin,+56,7 3e re-eived ) p3one -)++

t3)t 3is *issin, -o++e),ue 8#)*es B)+)o9 did not re)-3 t3e *uni-ip)+it5 )nd reported *issin,. A1ter t3)t s3ort t)+E, s3e never s)< Cn-+e #o3n ),)in. Addition)++5, s3e did not noti-e )n5 ve3i-+e -ondu-tin, survei++)n-e t3erein )nd )n5 unusu)+ in-idents t3)t tr)nspired in s)id p+)-e. >>>> =. %3is o11i-e 3)s +iEe<ise -oordin)ted <it3 &IG-1 )nd I"C, I"G, PA .ut .ot3 o11i-es denied )n5 Eno<+ed,e on t3e )++e,ed ).du-tion o1 #)*es B)+)o. 8. It <)s 1ound out t3)t it <)s "POD Genero Ros)+, residin, <it3in t3e vi-init5, <3o 1o++o<ed-up t3e in-ident .e-)use it <)s reported to 3i* .5 3is nei,3.ors. %3)t )1ter 3e +e)rned ).out 6#)*esF ).du-tion7, 3e -ont)-ted P$EA, !) %rinid)d P", RI$ )d Inte+ BPPO to veri15 i1 t3e5 3)d )n oper)tion in %o*)5, !) %rinid)d .ut )++ o1 t3e* )ns<ered ne,)tive. > > > >61=7

>>>> /. A p3oto-op5 o1 t3e p3oto,r)p3 o1 #)*es B)+)o <)s presented to t3e <itnesses <3erein t3e5 -on1ir*ed t3)t t3e pi-ture is t3e s)*e person <3o <)s )rrested )nd 3)nd-u11ed. Anot3er <itness divu+,ed t3)t prior to t3e )rrest o1 t3e person in t3e pi-tureAp3oto,r)p3, ) red *otor-5-+e <it3 t<o 809 *)+e riders )++e,ed+5 -ondu-ted survei++)n-e )+on, t3e 3i,3<)5 ).out ten 8109 *eters )<)5 1ro* t3e p+)-e <3ere t3e vi-ti* <)s pi-Eed-up. &inutes +)ter, ) <3ite &itsu.is3i Adventure )rrived )nd tooE t3e vi-ti* inside t3e -)r. %3e *otor-5-+e ridin, in t)nde* 1o++o<ed t3e &itsu.us3i Adventure en route to C)*p $)n,<), !) %rinid)d, Ben,uet. Anot3er <itness over3e)rd one o1 t3e ).du-tors instru-tin, t3e driver to Huote :p)re s) C)*p $)n,<) t)5o.; D. @o++o<6-7up investi,)tion resu+ted in t3e identi1i-)tion o1 ) -ert)in :NC!O%; <3o )+so <itnessed t3e )++e,ed ).du-tion. Go<ever, 3e <)s 3esit)nt to t)+E )nd inste)d pointed to t3e driver o1 t3e de+iver5 v)n o1 Ge+enFs Bre)d. At ).out 8:/0 A& o1 O-to.er 2, 0008, Ani-eto $)<in, #r6.7 5 G)no, t3e driver o1 t3e de+iver5 v)n o1 Ge+enFs Bre)d, sur1)-ed )nd ,)ve 3is st)te*ents on <3)t 3e <itnessed on t3e )++e,ed ).du-tion. 5. On O-to.er 10, 0008, one i-E5 Bone+ 5 @e+ipe, 12 5e)rs o+d, sin,+e, n)tive o1 AtoE, Ben,uet, resident o1 %o*)5, !%B )nd store Eeeper o1 ")5*or6Fs7 "tore )ppe)red .e1ore t3e o11i-e o1 Ben,uet PPO )nd ,)ve 3er s<orn st)te*ent on t3e )++e,ed ).du-tion. A -)rto,r)p3i- sEet-3 <)s *)de on t3e person <3o identi1ied 3i*se+1 )s po+i-e*)n. "3e 1urt3er st)ted t3)t it <)s <3en <3i+e s3e <)s tendin, 3er .rot3er-in-+)<Fs store, ,un-<ie+din, *en, o1 ).out si> or *ore, 3)nd-u11ed )nd s3ove t3e vi-ti* inside t3eir ve3i-+e. "3e re-)++ed t3)t s3e -)n re-o,ni?e t3e ).du-tors i1 s3e -)n see t3e* ),)in. 6. Anot3er <itness st)ted t3)t s3e <)s prep)rin, 3er *er-3)ndise in t3e <)itin, s3ed o1 !o<er %o*)5 <3en s3e noti-ed ) p)rEed *otor-5-+e .eside t3e e+e*ent)r5 s-3oo+ )t ).out =:00 A& o1 "epte*.er 1=, 0008. %3e rider o1 t3e .iEe <)s suspi-ious+5 s-ourin,

t3e )re) )nd Eept on -)++in, so*eone 1ro* 3is -e++u+)r p3one .e1ore t3e ).du-tion <)s *)de. =. B),uio Cit5 Po+i-e O11i-e -ondu-ted 1o++o<-up investi,)tion )nd <ere ).+e to se-ure )11id)vit o1 @+oren-e !uEen 5 &)5)*es, D= 5e)rs o+d, *)rried, )nd ) resident o1 1/5 Centr)+ @)irvie< )verred t3)t #)*es B)+)o to,et3er <it3 ) -ert)in Cn-+e #o3n ).out 65-=5 5e)rs o+d, ).out 5FD; in 3ei,3t )nd ) -ert)in Rene ).out /0-/5 5e)rs o+d )nd st)nds 5F5;, <ere 3er nei,3.ors 1or )+*ost one 5e)r. "3e 1urt3er st)ted t3)t #)*es B)+)o )nd -o*p)n5 do not *in,+e <it3 t3eir nei,3.ors )nd on+5 one person is usu)++5 +e1t .e3ind <3i+e #)*es )nd Rene ,oes out )t 6:00 or =:00 A& )nd ,oes .)-E )t )round 6:00 or =:00 P&. "3e 1urt3er )verred t3)t s3e did not noti-e )n5 v)n or )n5 Eind o1 ve3i-+e p)rEed )+on, t3e ro)dside in1ront o1 )n5 residen-e not 3is nei,3.ors nor )n5 person or persons o.servin, t3e o--up)nts o1 t3e s)id 3ouse. A--ordin,+5, )t )round 1:00 P& o1 "epte*.er 06, 0008, ) -+osed v)n 8C)6n7ter9 <it3 unEno<n p+)te nu*.er <)s seen p)rEed in1ront o1 t3e s)id 3ouse )nd *ore or +ess 8109 unidenti1ied *)+e person6s7 ),in, 1ro* 00-0/ )nd )n unidenti1ied 1e*)+e entered t3e )++e,ed rented 3ouse o1 #)*es B)+)o )nd tooE so*e t).+e, -3)irs )nd -).inets t3en +e1t i**edi)te+5 to unEno<n destin)tion. 8. &rs6.7 &in) C).)ti "erd)n t3e o<ner o1 t3e 3ouse .ein, rented .5 #)*es B)+)o )verred t3)t so*eti*e &)5 o1 000=, ) -ert)in &r6.7 #une, ) re)+tor ),ent, re-o**ended to 3er t3)t ) -ert)in #)*es B)+)o <i++ rent t3e 3ouse 1or one 819 5e)r ter* <it3 )n ),reed *ont3+5 rent o1 1i1teen t3ous)nd pesos 8P15,000.009. "3e st)ted t3)t #)*es B)+)o 3)d e>tended 3is st)5 1or )+*ost D *ont3s. On t3e +)st <eeE o1 Au,ust 0008, &rs6.7 "erd)n -)++ed up #)*es B)+)o t3rou,3 p3one to in1or* 3i* t3)t s3e <i++ ter*in)te 3is st)5 )t t3e rented 3ouse on "epte*.er /0, 0008. &rs6.7 "erd)n 1urt3er st)ted t3)t 6s3e7visited t3e rented 3ouse on+5 t<i-e )nd t3)t <)s t3e on+5 ti*e s3e s)< #)*es B)+)o <it3 )n unidenti1ied -o*p)nions. %3)t s3e on+5 dis-overed t3)t #)*es B)+)o <)s *issin, <3en ) -ert)in C)ro+ in1or*ed 3er t3)t 3e <)s *issin,. 6"37e 1urt3er st)ted t3)t s3e visited 3er 3ouse )nd 1ound out t3)t t3e s)id o--up)nts 3)ve )+re)d5 +e1t on "epte*.er 06, 0008 )nd dis-overed t3)t )++ person)+ .e+on,in,s o1 t3e o--up)nts 3)ve )+re)d5 .een t)Een out .5 t3e re+)tives. >>>> I. AC%ION" %ANEN: 1. %3)t ) -o*posite te)* :%A"N @ORCE BA!AO; 1ro* t3is o11i-e )nd t3e Re,ion)+ Ge)dHu)rters 3e)ded .5 6PA" "CP%7 @OR%CNA%O BA"CO A!BA" <)s 1or*ed. 0. %3)t t3e -o*posite te)* o1 investi,)tors -ondu-ted o-u+)r inspe-tion on t3e )re). /. On O-to.er 8, 0008, t<o 809 <itnesses n)*e+5: &)rBore $o*in,o Gipo+ito )nd #enn5 !5nn &)+ondon )+de? ,)ve t3eir s<orn st)te*ents )nd -)rto,r)p3i- sEet-3 o1 one o1 t3e ).du-tors. D. On t3e *ornin, o1 O-to.er 2, 0008, ) di)+o,ue <)s presided .5 R$, PRO-COR )nd )ttended .5 t3e Group Co**)nder, &IG1 )nd

Co**)ndin, O11i-er o1 I"C, "G, PA. Bot3 -o**)nders denied t3e )--us)tions ),)inst t3e*. 5. In t3e )1ternoon o1 t3e s)*e d)5, ) *eetin, <it3 t3e 1)*i+5 )nd re+)tives o1 #)*es B)+)o <)s ),)in presided .5 R$, PRO-COR <3erein t3e resu+ts o1 t3e initi)+ e11orts )nd investi,)tion <ere ,iven to t3e 1)*i+5. Ge )+so reported t3e sur1)-in, o1 )not3er t<o 809 <itnesses <3o des-ri.ed t3e suspe-t <3o 3)nd-u11ed #)*es B)+)o. 6. PRO-Cordi++er) <rote ) +etter to t3e Cordi++er) Peop+es A++i)n-e reHuestin, t3e* to present Cn-+e #o3n, Rene )nd 3is ot3er -o*p)nions <3o )re t3en residin, in t3e s)*e .o)rdin, 3ouse in-+udin, )++ 3is -o*p)nions on "epte*.er 1=, 0008 )nd prior to 3is dis)ppe)r)n-e. RE&ARN": C)se is sti++ under 1o++o<-up investi,)tion to identi15 t3e )++e,ed ).du-tors to deter*ine t3e re)+ *otive o1 t3e ).du-tion )nd to 1i+e ne-ess)r5 -3)r,es ),)inst t3e* in -ourt.6187

$urin, t3e 3e)rin,, t3e )11id)vits )nd testi*onies o1 t3e 1o++o<in, <itnesses <ere presented .5 petitioners: An!)e#& Da;!n"6127 testi1ied t3)t on "epte*.er 1=, 0008, )round 8:00 in t3e *ornin,, <3i+e 3e <)s de+iverin, .re)d )t ")5*orFs "tore in %o*)5, !) %rinid)d, Ben,uet, ) <3ite v)n stopped in1ront o1 t3e* )nd 1ive )r*ed *en )+i,3ted. %3e )r*ed *en, <3o introdu-ed t3e*se+ves )s po+i-e*en in @i+ipino, 3e+d )nd pointed ) ,un )t one *)+e person. %3e )r*ed *en to+d t3e *)+e person t3)t 3e <)s .ein, )ppre3ended 1or i++e,)+ dru,s. %3e5 t3en +et t3e *)+e person .o)rd t3e ve3i-+e )nd in1or*ed 3i* t3)t t3e5 <i++ pro-eed to C)*p $)n,<). $)<in, )d*itted t3)t 3e did not Eno< t3)t it <)s #)*es <3o* 3e s)< t3)t ti*e )nd -)*e to Eno< on+5 o1 3is identit5 <3en 3e s)< ) poster .e)rin, #)*esFs p3oto,r)p3. On -ross-e>)*in)tion, 3e st)ted t3)t t3e <3ite v)n did not 3)ve )n5 *)rEin,s t3)t it <)s ) po+i-e ve3i-+e )nd t3)t t3e )r*ed *en <ere in -ivi+i)n -+ot3es )nd did not <e)r )n5 po+i-e .)d,es or identi1i-)tion -)rds. Ge Bust )ssu*ed t3)t t3e5 <ere po+i-e*en .e-)use o1 t3eir posture )nd 3)ir-ut )nd .e-)use t3e5 introdu-ed t3e*se+ves )s su-3. An0!1 L.',a" st)ted in 3is )11id)vit6007 t3)t 3e <)s )+so )t ")5*orFs "tore in t3e *ornin, o1 "epte*.er 1=, 0008 to .u5 -3i-Een. Ge s)id t3)t ) %o5ot)Revo stopped in1ront o1 t3e store

1ro* <3ere 1our *en )+i,3ted. %3e *en 3)nd-u11ed ) *)n <3o <)s st)ndin, in1ront o1 t3e store )nd uttered : Walang ma i ialam, !rugs aso nito; <3i+e pointin, ) ,un )t t3e s)id *)n. %3en, t3e5 1or-ed t3e *)n to .o)rd t3e Revo. Be1ore t3e Revo 1+ed, !u*.), 3e)rd one o1 t3e *en s)5 t3)t t3e5 <i++ .e ,oin, to C)*p $)n,<). !u*.),Fs )11id)vit, 3o<ever, did not *ention i1 it <)s #)*es <3o <)s 1or-i.+5 t)Een .5 t3e )r*ed *en. Be0e 1/ L&n"!d6017 testi1ied t3)t s3e ,ot to Eno< #)*es <3en s3e <)s ) *e*.er o1 t3e CPA 5out3 or,)ni?)tion in 3er student d)5s. Ever5 ti*e #)*es <i++ 3)ve )n )-tivit5 t3)t is CPAre+)ted, 3e <ou+d -oordin)te <it3 Bever+5, s3e .ein, t3e CPA -3)ir. "3e )+so testi1ied t3)t prior to 3is dis)ppe)r)n-e, t3e +)st ti*e s3e t)+Eed <it3 #)*es <)s in #u+5 or Au,ust o1 0008 <3en 3e reported survei++)n-es on 3is person .5 t3e PNP )nd t3e A@P. In 3er )11id)vit, s3e )++e,ed t3)t #)*es reported to 3er sever)+ ve3i-+es t)i+in, 3i*, one o1 <3i-3 <)s ) ,reen v)n <it3 p+)te nu*.er C"C 200, t3e s)*e p+)te nu*.er s3e 3)d seen )t t3e Inte++i,en-e "e-urit5 Cnit in N)v5 B)se, B),uio Cit5, )nd <3i-3 <)s )tt)-3ed to ) si+ver ,re5 v)n. Bever+5 )d*itted t3)t )t t3e ti*e o1 t3e )++e,ed ).du-tion, s3e <)s in B),uio Cit5, )t t3e O11i-e o1 t3e Cordi++er) Peop+eFs !e,)+ Center )nd t3)t s3e on+5 -)*e to Eno< t3)t #)*es <)s *issin, in t3e )1ternoon o1 "epte*.er 18, 0008. "3e )+so -on1ir*ed t3)t t3e5 *et <it3 Po+. "upt. &)rtin to seeE )ssist)n-e re,)rdin, #)*esFs dis)ppe)r)n-e. N&ne##e Ba1a&6007 testi1ied t3)t s3e <)s )t 3er .)Ees3op +o-)ted in N*. D, !) %rinid)d, Ben,uet in t3e *ornin, o1 "epte*.er 1=, 0008. At )round 6:/0 ).*., s3e re-eived ) te>t *ess),e 1ro* #)*es s)5in, t3)t 3e <i++ .e ,oin, 3o*e to t3eir )n-estr)+ 3o*e to do so*e +)undr5. %3irt5 *inutes +)ter, s3e re-eived )not3er te>t *ess),e 1ro* #)*es s)5in, t3)t 3e <)s )+re)d5 +e)vin, 3is p+)-e in @)irvie<, B),uio Cit5. 43en )round 8:00 ).*. #)*es 3)d not 5et )rrived )t t3eir )n-estr)+ 3o*e, s3e ,ot <orried. "3e te>ted 3i* .ut 1)i+ed to ,et ) rep+5, so s3e tried

to -)++ 3i*. Gis p3one, 3o<ever, 3)d )+re)d5 .een turned o11. "3e t3en -)++ed t3e CPA o11i-e to -3e-E i1 #)*es <)s t3ere. "3e <)s to+d t3)t 3e <)s not t3ere so s3e <ent to #)*esFs 3ouse in @)irvie< )t )round 2:00 ).*. #)*esFs 3ouse*)tes, 3o<ever, to+d 3er t3)t 3e +e1t )t =:00 ).*. Nonette )+so testi1ied t3)t t3e5 on+5 reported #)*esFs dis)ppe)r)n-e to t3e po+i-e on "epte*.er 00, 0008 .e-)use t3e5 t3ou,3t t3)t it <)s ne-ess)r5 t3)t ) person .e *issin, 1or )t +e)st D8 3ours .e1ore t3e dis)ppe)r)n-e -ou+d .e reported. %3e5 <ent to "u.-"t)tion Po+i-e Pre-in-t No. 1 in B),uio )nd to t3e po+i-e pre-in-t in !) %rinid)d to report t3e *)tter. %3e5 )+so <ent to C)*p $)n,<) to see i1 #)*es <)s t3ere. Nonette -+)i*ed t3)t s3e .e-)*e <orried .e-)use #)*es never s<it-3ed o11 3is *o.i+e p3one )nd sin-e 3e )+re)d5 te>ted 3er t3)t 3e <)s -o*in, 3o*e, 3e -ou+d 3)ve te>ted ),)in i1 t3ere <)s ) -3)n,e o1 p+)ns. A+so, #)*es 3)d to+d t3e* sin-e Apri+ 0008 t3)t 3e 3)d .een under survei++)n-e. "3e does not Eno< <35 #)*es <ent to %o*)5, !) %rinid)d. Sa'.e1 An&n"&- st)ted in 3is )11id)vit60/7 t3)t 3e is ) *e*.er o1 t3e Edu-)tion Co**ission o1 t3e CPA. Ge -+)i*ed t3)t <3en t3e5 -ondu-ted tr)inin,s )nd edu-)tion)+ dis-ussions on *inin, edu-)tion in A.r), *e*.ers o1 t3e A@P 3)r)ssed t3e -o**unit5 )nd -o**itted v)rious 3u*)n ri,3ts vio+)tions. %3e A@P )+so )++e,ed+5 3e+d -o**unit5 *eetin,s <3ere t3e5 s)id t3)t t3e CPA is p)rt o1 t3e Ne< Peop+eFs Ar*5. Att)-3ed to Anon,osFs )11id)vit is ) -op5 o1 ) p)per t3)t t3e A@P <)s )++e,ed+5 distri.utin,. It s3o<s t3e or,)ni?)tion)+ stru-ture o1 t3e Co**unist P)rt5 o1 t3e P3i+ippines-Ne< Peop+eFs Ar*5 8CPP-NPA9 <3erein CPA <)s identi1ied )s one o1 t3e or,)ni?)tions under t3e N)tion)+ $e*o-r)ti- @ront 8N$@9.60D7

RTC R.1!n"

On #)nu)r5 12, 0002, t3e R%C issued t3e )ss)i+ed Bud,*ent, disposin, )s 1o++o<s:
IN IE4 O@ A!! %GE @OREGOING, Bud,*ent is 3ere.5 rendered:

I""CE ) 4rit o1 A*p)ro Orderin, t3e respondents to 8)9 dis-+ose <3ere #)*es B)+)o is det)ined or -on1ined, 8.9 to re+e)se #)*es B)+)o -onsiderin, 3is un+)<1u+ detention sin-e 3is ).du-tion )nd 8-9 to -e)se )nd desist 1ro* 1urt3er in1+i-tin, 3)r* upon 3is personI )nd $EN( t3e issu)n-e o1 IN"PEC%ION OR$ER, PRO$CC%ION OR$ER )nd 4I%NE"" PRO%EC%ION OR$ER 1or 1)i+ure o1 3erein Petitioners to -o*p+5 <it3 t3e strin,ent provisions on t3e Ru+e on t3e 4rit o1 A*p)ro )nd su.st)nti)te t3e s)*e.6057

In den5in, respondentsF pr)5er t3)t President Arro5o .e dropped )s p)rt5-respondent, t3e R%C 3e+d t3)t ) petition 1or ) <rit o1 amparo is not :.5 )n5 stret-3 o1 i*),in)tion ) ni,,+in,6,7 ve>in, or )nno5in, -ourt -)se;6067 1ro* <3i-3 s3e s3ou+d .e s3ie+ded. %3e R%C ru+ed t3)t s)id petition is not3in, *ore t3)n ) too+ to )id t3e president to ,u)r)ntee t3)t +)<s on 3u*)n ri,3ts )re devoted+5 )nd st)un-3+5 -)rried out. It )dded t3)t t3ose <3o -o*p+)in ),)inst n)*in, t3e president )s p)rt5-respondent )re on+5 t3ose <3o :eit3er do not underst)nd <3)t t3e 4rit o1 Amparo is )++ ).out or <3o do not <)nt to )id Ger E>-e++en-5 in 3er dut5 to supervise )nd -ontro+ t3e *)-3iner5 o1 ,overn*ent.;60=7 In up3o+din, t3e st)ndin, o1 #)*esFs si.+in,s )nd Bever+5 to 1i+e t3e petition, t3e R%C 3e+d t3)t <3)t "e-tion 0 o1 t3e Ru+e on t3e 4rit o1 Amparoru+es out is t3e ri,3t to 1i+e si*i+)r petitions, *e)nin, t3ere -ou+d .e no su--essive petitions 1or t3e issu)n-e o1 ) <rit o1 amparo 1or t3e s)*e p)rt5. %3e R%C 1urt3er 3e+d t3)t :*ore +iEe+5 t3)n not,; t3e *otive 1or #)*esFs dis)ppe)r)n-e is 3is )-tivistApo+iti-)+ +e)nin,s )nd t3)t #)*esFs -)se is one o1 )n en1or-ed dis)ppe)r)n-e )s de1ined under t3e Ru+e on t3e 4rit o1 Amparo. In so ru+in,, t3e R%C -onsidered 819 t3e sever)+ in-idents o1 3)r)ss*ent *entioned in Bever+5Fs testi*on5 )nd enu*er)ted in t3e petitionI )nd 809 t3e re1eren-es in t3e petition to t3e CPA )s ) 1ront 1or t3e CPP-NPA.

%3e R%C +iEe<ise ru+ed t3)t t3e ,overn*ent un*ist)E).+5 vio+)ted #)*esFs ri,3t to se-urit5 o1 person. It 1ound t3e investi,)tion -ondu-ted .5 respondents )s ver5 +i*ited, super1i-i)+ )nd one-sided. %3e po+i-e )nd *i+it)r5 t3us *iser).+5 1)i+ed to -ondu-t )n e11e-tive investi,)tion o1 #)*esFs ).du-tion )s reve)+ed .5 t3e investi,)tion report o1 respondentsF o<n <itnesses, "upt. &)rtin )nd PA" "upt. @ortun)to B)s-o A+.)s, t3e Co**)nder o1 %)sE @or-e B)+)o. It 1urt3er noted t3)t respondents did not investi,)te t3e *i+it)r5 o11i-i)+s .e+ieved to .e .e3ind t3e ).du-tion )s s)id *i+it)r5 o11i-i)+s <ere *ere+5 invited to ) di)+o,ue )nd t3ere <)s no investi,)tion *)de in C)*p $)n,<) <3ere t3e ).du-tors <ere .e+ieved to 3)ve t)Een #)*es )s n)rr)ted .5 t3e <itnesses. &oreover, t3e R%C o.served t3)t despite t3e undert)Ein, o1 respondents to investi,)te t3e ).du-tion )nd provide resu+ts t3ereo1, 1our *ont3s 3)ve p)ssed .ut petitioners 3)ve not .een 1urnis3ed reports re,)rdin, t3e investi,)tion.

As to t3e deni)+ o1 t3e interi* re+ie1s, t3e R%C st)ted t3)t t3e strin,ent provisions o1 t3e ru+es <ere not -o*p+ied <it3 )nd ,r)ntin, s)id re+ie1s *i,3t vio+)te respondentsF -onstitution)+ ri,3ts )nd Beop)rdi?e "t)te se-urit5. Bot3 p)rties )ppe)+ed to t3is Court. T*e C&n-&1!da#ed Pe#!#!&n-

Petitioners, in G.R. No. 186050, Huestion t3e R%CFs deni)+ o1 t3e interi* re+ie1s. Respondents, on t3e ot3er 3)nd, )ss)i+ in t3eir petition in G.R. No. 186052, t3e issu)n-e o1 t3e <rit o1 amparo. %3e5 r)ise t3e 1o++o<in, )r,u*ents:
I %GE %RIA! COCR%F" #C$G&EN% OR$ERING RE"PON$EN%-PE%I%IONER" %O: 8A9 $I"C!O"E 4GERE #A&E" BA!AO I" $E%AINE$ AN$ CON@INE$I 8B9 %O RE!EA"E #A&E" BA!AO CON"I$ERING GI" CN!A4@C! $E%EN%ION "INCE GI" :AB$CC%ION; AN$ 8C9 %O CEA"E AN$ $E"I"% @RO& @CR%GER IN@!IC%ING GAR& CPON GI" PER"ON I" BA"E$ PCRE!( ON CON#EC%CRE", "CR&I"E" AN$ GEAR"A( E I$ENCEI GENCE, I% &C"% BE "E% A"I$E. II RE"PON$EN%-PE%I%IONER" GA$ PRO EN %GA% %GE( OB"ER E$ EO%RAOR$INAR( $I!IGENCE A" REPCIRE$ B( APP!ICAB!E !A4", RC!E" AN$ REGC!A%ION" IN %GE PER@OR&ANCE O@ %GEIR O@@ICIA! $C%IE". III %GE @AC%CA! CIRCC&"%ANCE" AN$ %GE E I$ENCE PRE"EN%E$ IN %GE MA"A#$ CA"E ARE %O%A!!( $I@@EREN% @RO& %GE CA"E A% BARI GENCE, %GE %RIA! COCR% GRO""!( ERRE$ IN APP!(ING %GE RC!ING %GEREIN %O %GE CA"E A% BAR. I %GE %RIA! COCR% CORREC%!( $ENIE$ PE%I%IONER-RE"PON$EN%"F PRA(ER @OR %GE I""CANCE O@ AN IN"PEC%ION OR$ER, PRO$CC%ION OR$ER AN$ A 4I%NE"" PRO%EC%ION OR$ER.6087

O. R.1!n"

%3e Ru+e on t3e 4rit o1 Amparo <)s pro*u+,)ted on O-to.er 0D, 000= )*idst risin, in-iden-e o1 :e>tr)+e,)+ Ei++in,s; )nd :en1or-ed dis)ppe)r)n-es.; It <)s 1or*u+)ted in t3e e>er-ise o1 t3is CourtFs e>p)nded ru+e-*)Ein, po<er 1or t3e prote-tion )nd en1or-e*ent o1 -onstitution)+ ri,3ts ens3rined in t3e 128= Constitution, )+.eit +i*ited to t3ese t<o situ)tions. :E>tr)+e,)+ Ei++in,s; re1er to Ei++in,s -o**itted <it3out due pro-ess o1 +)<, i.e., <it3out +e,)+ s)1e,u)rds or Budi-i)+ pro-eedin,s. 6027 On

t3e ot3er 3)nd, :en1or-ed dis)ppe)r)n-es; )re )ttended .5 t3e 1o++o<in, -3)r)-teristi-s: )n )rrest, detention, or ).du-tion o1 ) person .5 ) ,overn*ent o11i-i)+ or or,)ni?ed ,roups or priv)te individu)+s )-tin, <it3 t3e dire-t or indire-t )-Huies-en-e o1 t3e ,overn*entI t3e re1us)+ o1 t3e "t)te to dis-+ose t3e 1)te or <3ere).outs o1 t3e person -on-erned or ) re1us)+ to )-Eno<+ed,e t3e depriv)tion o1 +i.ert5 <3i-3 p+)-es su-3 person outside t3e prote-tion o1 +)<.6/07 "e-tion 18 o1 t3e Amparo Ru+e provides:
"EC. 18. Ju!gment. - %3e -ourt s3)++ render Bud,*ent <it3in ten 8109 d)5s 1ro* t3e ti*e t3e petition is su.*itted 1or de-ision. I1 t3e )++e,)tions in t3e petition )re : &0en ,/ -.,-#an#!a1 e0!den)e, t3e -ourt s3)++ ,r)nt t3e privi+e,e o1 t3e <rit )nd su-3 re+ie1s )s *)5 .e proper )nd )ppropri)teI ot3er<ise, t3e privi+e,e s3)++ .e denied. 8E*p3)sis supp+ied.9

%3e t3res3o+d issue in t3is -)se is <3et3er t3e tot)+it5 o1 eviden-e s)tis1ies t3e de,ree o1 proo1 reHuired .5 t3e Amparo Ru+e to est).+is3 )n en1or-ed dis)ppe)r)n-e. In ,r)ntin, t3e privi+e,e o1 t3e <rit o1 amparo, t3e tri)+ -ourt r)tio-in)ted:
On re-ord is eviden-e pointin, to t3e *ore +iEe+5 t3)n not *otive 1or #)*es B)+)oFs dis)ppe)r)n-e K 3is )-tivistApo+iti-)+ +e)nin,s. %3is is s3o<n .5 t3e sever)+ in-idents re+)tin, to 3)r)ss*ents o1 )-tivists )s *entioned in t3e unre.utted testi*on5 o1 Bever+5 !on,id )nd t3e enu*er)tion *)de in p)r. D8 8)9 to 8--9 o1 t3e petition. %3ere <ere )+so re1eren-es in t3e petitionFs p)rs. 50 et. seH. to t3e CPA 8o1 <3i-3 #)*es B)+)o <)s )n )-tive st)119 )s ) 1ront or,)ni?)tion o1 t3e Co**unist P)rt5 o1 t3e P3i+ippines-Ne< Peop+eFs Ar*5. &ore +iEe+5 t3)n not 3e <)s not t)Een to p)rts unEno<n 1or re)sons ot3er t3)n 3is invo+ve*ent in t3e CPA, t3)t is, po+iti-)++5*otiv)ted. T*e C&. # )&n-!de #*e-e (a)#en&."* )! ).'-#an)e- #& e-#a,1!-* -.,-#an#!a1 e0!den)e &( an en(& )ed d!-a::ea an)e a- de(!ned .nde #*e R.1e &n #*e W !# &( A':a &. +& a(#e a11, -.,-#an#!a1 e0!den)e e<.! e- n&#*!n" " ea#e #*an ='& e 1!>e1/ #*an n&#? de" ee &( : &&(. 6/17 8E*p3)sis supp+ied.9

%3e tri)+ -ourt ,)ve -onsider).+e <ei,3t to t3e dis-ussion in t3e petition o1 .rie1in, p)pers supposed+5 o.t)ined 1ro* t3e A@P 8Op+)n B)nt)5-!)5) i*p+e*ented sin-e 00019 indi-)tin, t3)t t3e )nti-insur,en-5 -)*p)i,n o1 t3e *i+it)r5 under t3e

)d*inistr)tion o1 President Arro5o in-+uded t)r,etin, o1 identi1ied +e,)+ or,)ni?)tions under t3e N$@, <3i-3 in-+uded t3e CPA, )nd t3eir *e*.ers, )s :ene*ies o1 t3e st)te.; %3e petition -ited ot3er do-u*ents -on1ir*in, su-3 :)++-out <)r; po+i-5 <3i-3 resu+ted in t3e prev)+en-e o1 e>tr)Budi-i)+ Ei++in,s: n)*e+5, t3e pu.+is3ed reports o1 t3e &e+o Co**ission )nd t3e CNGRCFs "pe-i)+ R)pporteur on E>tr)Budi-i)+ "u**)r5 or Ar.itr)r5 E>e-utions, &r. P3i+ip A+ston. %3e petition )+so enu*er)ted previous+5 do-u*ented -)ses o1 e>tr)+e,)+ Ei++in,s o1 )-tivists .e+on,in, to *i+it)nt ,roups, in-+udin, CPA +e)ders )nd <orEers, )+*ost )++ o1 <3i-3 3)ve .een pre-eded .5 survei++)n-e .5 *i+it)r5 or po+i-e ),ents )nd )-ts o1 3)r)ss*ent. ConseHuent+5, petitioners postu+)ted t3)t t3e survei++)n-e on #)*es )nd 3is su.seHuent ).du-tion )re inter-onne-ted <it3 t3e 3)r)ss*ents, survei++)n-e, t3re)ts )nd po+iti-)+ )ss)ssin)tion o1 ot3er *e*.ers )nd o11i-ers o1 CPA <3i-3 is 3is or,)ni?)tion. 4e 3o+d t3)t su-3 do-u*ented pr)-ti-e o1 t)r,etin, )-tivists in t3e *i+it)r5Fs -ounter-insur,en-5 pro,r)* .5 itse+1 does not 1u+1i++ t3e evidenti)r5 st)nd)rd provided in t3e Amparo Ru+e to est).+is3 )n en1or-ed dis)ppe)r)n-e. In t3e -)se o1 %o&as v. Macapagal-Arroyo,6/07 t3e Court noted t3)t t3e si*i+)rit5 .et<een t3e -ir-u*st)n-es )ttendin, ) p)rti-u+)r -)se o1 ).du-tion <it3 t3ose surroundin, previous inst)n-es o1 en1or-ed dis)ppe)r)n-es does not, ne-ess)ri+5, -)rr5 su11i-ient <ei,3t to prove t3)t t3e ,overn*ent or-3estr)ted su-3 ).du-tion. A--ordin,+5, t3e tri)+ -ourt in t3is -)se -)nnot si*p+5 in1er ,overn*ent invo+ve*ent in t3e ).du-tion o1 #)*es 1ro* p)st si*i+)r in-idents in <3i-3 t3e vi-ti*s )+so <orEed or )11i+i)ted <it3 t3e CPA )nd ot3er +e1t-+e)nin, ,roups. %3e petition 1urt3er pre*ised ,overn*ent -o*p+i-it5 in t3e ).du-tion o1 #)*es on t3e ver5 positions 3e+d .5 t3e respondents, st)tin, t3)t -%3e ).du-tion o1 #)*es B)+)o -)n on+5 .e )ttri.uted to t3e Respondents <3o 3)ve )&''and e-:&n-!,!1!#/ o1 )++ t3e )-tions o1 t3eir su.ordin)tes )nd <3o )re t3e pri*)r5 persons in t3e

i*p+e*ent)tion o1 t3e ,overn*entFs )++ out <)r po+i-5.6//7 8E*p3)sis supp+ied.9

%3e Court in %u'rico v. Macapagal-Arroyo6/D7 3)d t3e o--)sion to e>pound on t3e do-trine o1 -o**)nd responsi.i+it5 )nd <35 it 3)s +itt+e .e)rin,, i1 )t )++, in amparo pro-eedin,s.
%3e evo+ution o1 t3e -o**)nd responsi.i+it5 do-trine 1inds its -onte>t in t3e deve+op*ent o1 +)<s o1 <)r )nd )r*ed -o*.)ts. A--ordin, to @r. Bern)s, :-o**)nd responsi.i+it5,; in its si*p+est ter*s, *e)ns t3e :responsi.i+it5 o1 -o**)nders 1or -ri*es -o**itted .5 su.ordin)te *e*.ers o1 t3e )r*ed 1or-es or ot3er persons su.Be-t to t3eir -ontro+ in intern)tion)+ <)rs or do*esti- -on1+i-t.; In t3is sense, -o**)nd responsi.i+it5 is proper+5 ) 1or* o1 -ri*in)+ -o*p+i-it5. %3e G),ue Conventions o1 120= )dopted t3e do-trine o1 -o**)nd responsi.i+it5, 1ores3)do<in, t3e present-d)5 pre-ept o1 3o+din, ) superior )--ount).+e 1or t3e )tro-ities -o**itted .5 3is su.ordin)tes s3ou+d 3e .e re*iss in 3is dut5 o1 -ontro+ over t3e*. As t3en 1or*u+)ted, -o**)nd responsi.i+it5 is :)n o*ission *ode o1 individu)+ -ri*in)+ +i).i+it5,; <3ere.5 t3e superior is *)de responsi.+e 1or -ri*es -o**itted .5 3is su.ordin)tes 1or 1)i+in, to prevent or punis3 t3e perpetr)tors 8)s opposed to -ri*es 3e ordered9. %3e do-trine 3)s re-ent+5 .een -odi1ied in t3e Ro*e "t)tute o1 t3e Intern)tion)+ Cri*in)+ Court 8ICC9 to <3i-3 t3e P3i+ippines is si,n)tor5. "e-. 08 o1 t3e "t)tute i*poses individu)+ responsi.i+it5 on *i+it)r5 -o**)nders 1or -ri*es -o**itted .5 1or-es under t3eir -ontro+. %3e -ountr5 is, 3o<ever, not 5et 1or*)++5 .ound .5 t3e ter*s )nd provisions e*.odied in t3is tre)t5-st)tute, sin-e t3e "en)te 3)s 5et to e>tend -on-urren-e in its r)ti1i-)tion. 43i+e t3ere )re sever)+ pendin, .i++s on -o**)nd responsi.i+it5, t3ere is sti++ no P3i+ippine +)< t3)t provides 1or -ri*in)+ +i).i+it5 under t3)t do-trine. It *)5 p+)usi.+5 .e -ontended t3)t -o**)nd responsi.i+it5, )s +e,)+ .)sis to 3o+d *i+it)r5Apo+i-e -o**)nders +i).+e 1or e>tr)-+e,)+ Ei++in,s, en1or-ed dis)ppe)r)n-es, or t3re)ts, *)5 .e *)de )pp+i-).+e to t3is Burisdi-tion on t3e t3eor5 t3)t t3e -o**)nd responsi.i+it5 do-trine no< -onstitutes ) prin-ip+e o1 intern)tion)+ +)< or -usto*)r5 intern)tion)+ +)< in )--ord)n-e <it3 t3e in-orpor)tion -+)use o1 t3e Constitution. S#!11, !# ;&.1d ,e !na:: &: !a#e #& a::1/ #& #*e-e : &)eed!n"- #*e d&)# !ne &( )&''and e-:&n-!,!1!#/, a- #*e CA -ee'ed #& *a0e d&ne, a- a (& ' &( ) !'!na1 )&':1!)!#/ #* &."* &'!--!&n, (& !nd!0!d.a1 e-:&nden#-@ ) !'!na1 1!a,!1!#/, !( #*e e ,e an/, !- ,e/&nd #*e ea)* &( a':a &. In ot3er <ords, #*e C&. # d&e- n&# .1e !n -.)* : &)eed!n"- &n an/ !--.e &( ) !'!na1 ).1:a,!1!#/, e0en !( !n)!den#a11/ a ) !'e & an !n( a)#!&n &( an ad'!n!-# a#!0e .1e 'a/ *a0e ,een )&''!##ed . As t3e Court stressed in (ecretary of "ational )efense v. Manalo 8Manalo9, t3e <rit o1 )*p)ro <)s -on-eived to provide e>peditious )nd e11e-tive pro-edur)+ re+ie1 ),)inst vio+)tions or t3re)ts o1 vio+)tion o1 t3e .)siri,3ts to +i1e, +i.ert5, )nd se-urit5 o1 personsI t3e -orrespondin, )*p)ro suit, 3o<ever, :is not )n )-tion to deter*ine -ri*in)+ ,ui+t reHuirin, proo1 .e5ond re)son).+e dou.t > > > or )d*inistr)tive +i).i+it5 reHuirin, su.st)nti)+ eviden-e t3)t <i++ reHuire 1u++ )nd e>3)ustive pro-eedin,s.; O1 t3e s)*e tenor, )nd .5 <)5 o1

e>poundin, on t3e n)ture )nd ro+e o1 )*p)ro, is <3)t t3e Court s)id in %a*on v. +agitis: It does not deter*ine ,ui+t nor pinpoint -ri*in)+ -u+p).i+it5 1or t3e dis)ppe)r)n-e 6t3re)ts t3ereo1 or e>tr)Budi-i)+ Ei++in,s7A !# de#e '!ne- responsibility, & a# 1ea-# accountability, (& #*e en(& )ed d!-a::ea an)e B#* ea#- #*e e&( & e2# a%.d!)!a1 >!11!n"-C (& :. :&-e- &( !':&-!n" #*e a:: &: !a#e e'ed!e- #& add e-- #*e d!-a::ea an)e B& e2# a%.d!)!a1 >!11!n"-C. >>>> As t3e +)< no< st)nds, e>tr)Budi-i)+ Ei++in,s )nd en1or-ed dis)ppe)r)n-es in t3is Burisdi-tion )re not -ri*es pen)+i?ed sep)r)te+5 1ro* t3e -o*ponent -ri*in)+ )-ts undert)Een to -)rr5 out t3ese Ei++in,s )nd en1or-ed dis)ppe)r)n-es )nd )re no< pen)+i?ed under t3e Revised Pen)+ Code )nd spe-i)+ +)<s. %3e si*p+e re)son is t3)t t3e !e,is+)ture 3)s not spoEen on t3e *)tterI t3e deter*in)tion o1 <3)t )-ts )re -ri*in)+ > > > )re *)tters o1 su.st)ntive +)< t3)t on+5 t3e !e,is+)ture 3)s t3e po<er to en)-t. > > >6/57

"u.seHuent+5, <e 3)ve -+)ri1ied t3)t t3e in)pp+i-).i+it5 o1 t3e do-trine o1 -o**)nd responsi.i+it5 in )n amparo pro-eedin, does not, .5 )n5 *e)sure, pre-+ude i*p+e)din, *i+it)r5 or po+i-e -o**)nders on t3e ,round t3)t t3e -o*p+)ined )-ts in t3e petition <ere -o**itted <it3 t3eir dire-t or indire-t )-Huies-en-e. Co**)nders *)5 t3ere1ore .e i*p+e)dedQnot )-tu)++5 on t3e .)sis o1 -o**)nd responsi.i+it5Q.ut r)t3er on t3e ,round o1 t3eir e-:&n-!,!1!#/, or )t +e)st a))&.n#a,!1!#/.
6/67

In %a*on, Jr. v. +agitis,6/=7t3e Court de1ined e-:&n-!,!1!#/ )nd a))&.n#a,!1!#/ )s t3ese ter*s )re )pp+ied to amparo pro-eedin,s, )s 1o++o<s:
> > > Re-:&n-!,!1!#/ re1ers to t3e e>tent t3e )-tors 3)ve .een est).+is3ed .5 su.st)nti)+ eviden-e to 3)ve p)rti-ip)ted in <3)tever <)5, .5 )-tion or o*ission, in )n en1or-ed dis)ppe)r)n-e, )s ) *e)sure o1 t3e re*edies t3is Court s3)++ -r)1t, )*on, t3e*, t3e dire-tive to 1i+e t3e )ppropri)te -ri*in)+ )nd -ivi+ -)ses ),)inst t3e responsi.+e p)rties in t3e proper -ourts. A))&.n#a,!1!#/, on t3e ot3er 3)nd, re1ers to #*e 'ea-. e &( e'ed!e- #*a# -*&.1d ,e add e--ed #& #*&-e <3o e>3i.ited invo+ve*ent in t3e en1or-ed dis)ppe)r)n-e <it3out .rin,in, t3e +eve+ o1 t3eir -o*p+i-it5 to t3e +eve+ o1 responsi.i+it5 de1ined ).oveI or <3o )re i*puted <it3 Eno<+ed,e re+)tin, to t3e en1or-ed dis)ppe)r)n-e )nd <3o -)rr5 t3e .urden o1 dis-+osureI or t3ose <3o )a /, ,.# *a0e (a!1ed #& d!-)*a "e, #*e

,. den &( e2# a& d!na / d!1!"en)e !n #*e !n0e-#!"a#!&n &( #*e en(& )ed d!-a::ea an)e. > > >6/87 8E*p3)sis supp+ied.9

Assessin, t3e eviden-e on re-ord, <e 1ind t3)t t3e p)rti-ip)tion in )n5 *)nner o1 *i+it)r5 )nd po+i-e )ut3orities in t3e ).du-tion o1 #)*es 3)s not .een )deHu)te+5 proven. %3e identities o1 t3e ).du-tors 3)ve not .een est).+is3ed, *u-3 +ess t3eir +inE to )n5 *i+it)r5 or po+i-e unit. %3ere is +iEe<ise no -on-rete eviden-e indi-)tin, t3)t #)*es is .ein, 3e+d or det)ined upon orders o1 or <it3 )-Huies-en-e o1 ,overn*ent ),ents. ConseHuent+5, t3e tri)+ -ourt erred in ,r)ntin, amparo re+ie1s .5 orderin, t3e respondent o11i-i)+s 819 to dis-+ose <3ere #)*es B)+)o is det)ined or -on1ined, 809 to re+e)se 3i* 1ro* su-3 detention or -on1ine*ent, )nd 8/9 to -e)se )nd desist 1ro* 1urt3er in1+i-tin, 3)r* upon 3is person. "u-3 pronoun-e*ent o1responsi'ility on t3e p)rt o1 pu.+i- respondents -)nnot .e *)de ,iven t3e insu11i-ien-5 o1 eviden-e. 6/27 Go<ever, <e ),ree <it3 t3e tri)+ -ourt in 1indin, t3)t t3e )-tions t)Een .5 respondent o11i-i)+s )re :ver5 +i*ited, super1i-i)+ )nd onesided.; Its -)ndid )nd 1ort3ri,3t o.serv)tions on t3e e11orts e>erted .5 t3e respondents )re .orne .5 t3e eviden-e on re-ord, t3us:
> > > t3e vio+)tion o1 t3e ri,3t to se-urit5 )s prote-tion .5 t3e ,overn*ent is un*ist)E).+e. %3e po+i-e )nd t3e *i+it)r5 *iser).+5 1)i+ed in -ondu-tin, )n e11e-tive investi,)tion o1 #)*es B)+)oFs ).du-tion )s reve)+ed .5 t3e investi,)tion report o1 respondentFs o<n <itnesses Gonor).+e C3ie1 "uperintendent Eu,ene &)rtin )nd Gonor).+e "enior "uperintendent @ortun)to A+.)s. %3e investi,)tion <)s K to use t3e <ords in %3e "e-ret)r5 o1 N)tion)+ $e1ense, et. )+., v. &)n)+o et. )+. K :0e /1!'!#ed, -.:e (!)!a1 and &ne--!ded.; %3e )-tions t)Een <ere si*p+5 t3ese: 8)9 or,)ni?)tion o1 t3e :%)sE @or-e B)+)o;I 8.9 -ondu-t o1 o-u+)r inspe-tion )t t3e p+)-e o1 ).du-tionI 8-9 t)Ein, o1 s<orn st)te*ents o1 -ivi+i)n <itnesses, <3ose testi*onies did not prove *u-3 )s s3o<n .5 t3e -ontinued dis)ppe)r)n-e o1 #)*es B)+)oI 8d9 di)+o,ue <it3 i*p+i-)ted *i+it)r5 o11i-i)+s )s <e++ )s 1)*i+5 *e*.ers )nd 1riends o1 #)*es B)+)oI )nd 8e9 <ritin, o1 +etter to t3e CPA. %3e Court does not <)nt to se-ond-,uess po+i-e proto-o+s in investi,)tion .ut sure+5 so*e t3in,s )re )*iss <3ere t3e investi,)tion $I$ NO% IN E"%IGA%E t3e *i+it)r5 o11i-i)+s .e+ieved to .e .e3ind t3e ).du-tion )s t3e5 <ere *ere+5 invited to ) di)+o,ue )nd <3ere t3e investi,)tion $I$ NO% !EA$ to C)*p $)n,<) <3ere t3e ).du-tors <ere supposed to 3)ve pro-eeded )s n)rr)ted .5 t3e <itnesses. %o t3e *ind o1 t3is Court, t3ere is ) see*in, preBudi-e in t3e pro-ess o1 investi,)tion to pin suspe-ts <3o )re not -onne-ted <it3 t3e *i+it)r5 est).+is3*ents. B5 )n5 *e)sure, t3is -)nnot .e )

t3orou,3 )nd ,ood 1)it3 investi,)tion .ut one t3)t 1)++s s3ort o1 t3)t reHuired .5 t3e 4rit o1 A*p)ro.6D07

Respondents reiter)te t3)t t3e5 did t3eir Bo. t3e .est t3e5 -ou+d )nd 1)u+t t3e petitioners inste)d 1or t3eir non--ooper)tion <3i-3 -)used de+)5 in t3e investi,)tion. %3e5 p)rti-u+)r+5 .+)*ed Bever+5 <3o 1)i+ed to )ttend t3e O-to.er 15, 0008 invit)tion to )ppe)r .e1ore t3e investi,)tors )nd s3ed +i,3t on #)*esFs dis)ppe)r)n-e. 4e )re not persu)ded. @irst, t3e %)sE @or-e B)+)o 3)d )-Eno<+ed,ed t3e 1)-t t3)t Po+. C3ie1 "upt. &)rtin <)s )+re)d5 in -onst)nt -oordin)tion <it3 t3e B)+)o 1)*i+5 )nd CPA, )nd 3en-e t3e investi,)tors -ou+d 3)ve re)di+5 o.t)ined <3)tever in1or*)tion t3e5 needed 1ro* Bever+5. Po+. C3ie1 "upt. &)rtin even *entioned in 3is )11id)vit t3)t %)sE @or-e B)+)o <)s ).+e to se-ure t3e testi*onies o1 t<o e5e<itnesses <it3 t3e 3e+p o1 Bever+5 )nd t3e B)+)o 1)*i+5, )nd t3)t )s ) resu+t -)rto,r)p3i- sEet-3es <ere *)de o1 so*e suspe-ts.6D17 &oreover, Bever+5 3)d e>p+)ined durin, t3e -rosse>)*in)tion -ondu-ted .5 Asso-i)te "o+i-itor P)der)n,) t3)t s3e <)s )t t3e ti*e -oordin)tin, <it3 n)tion)+ )nd +o-)+ ),en-ies even )s t3e po+i-e investi,)tion <)s on,oin,. 6D07%3ere is not3in, <ron, <it3 petitionersF si*u+t)neous re-ourse to ot3er +e,)+ )venues to ,)in pu.+i- )ttention 1or ) possi.+e en1or-ed dis)ppe)r)n-e -)se invo+vin, t3eir ver5 o<n -o++e),ue. Respondents s3ou+d even -o**end su-3 initi)tive t3)t <i++ en-our),e t3ose <3o *)5 3)ve )n5 in1or*)tion on t3e identities )nd <3ere).outs o1 #)*esFs ).du-tors to 3e+p t3e PNP in its investi,)tion. Assu*in, t3ere <)s re+u-t)n-e on t3e p)rt o1 t3e B)+)o 1)*i+5 )nd CPA to su.*it #)*esFs re+)tives or -o++e),ues 1or Huestionin, .5 ),ents o1 t3e PNP )nd A@P, t3e5 -)nnot .e 1)u+ted 1or su-3 st)n-e o<in, to t3e *i+it)r5Fs per-eption o1 t3eir or,)ni?)tion )s ) -o**unist 1ront: ergo, ene*ies o1 t3e "t)te <3o *)5 .e t)r,eted 1or +iHuid)tion. But *ore i*port)nt, su-3

non--ooper)tion provides no e>-use 1or respondentsF in-o*p+ete )nd one-sided investi,)tions. As <e 3e+d in %u'rico v. Macapagal-Arroyo6D/7:
As re,)rds PA"upt. Ro*ero )nd PAInsp. Go*e?, t3e Court is *ore t3)n s)tis1ied t3)t t3e5 3)ve no dire-t or indire-t 3)nd in t3e )++e,ed en1or-ed dis)ppe)r)n-e o1 !ourdes )nd t3e t3re)ts ),)inst 3er d)u,3ters. A- :&1!)e &((!)e -, #*&."*, #*e! - ;a- #*e d.#/ #& #*& &."*1/ !n0e-#!"a#e #*e a,d.)#!&n &( L&. de-, a d.#/ #*a# ;&.1d !n)1.de 1&&>!n" !n#& #*e )a.-e, 'anne , and 1!>e de#a!1&( #*e d!-a::ea an)eA !den#!(/!n" ;!#ne--e- and &,#a!n!n" -#a#e'en#- ( &' #*e'A and (&11&;!n" e0!den#!a / 1ead- , su-3 )s t3e %o5ot) Revo ve3i-+e <it3 p+)te nu*.er ORR D08, and -e). !n" and : e-e 0!n" e0!den)e e1a#ed #& #*e a,d.)#!&n and #*e #* ea#- #*a# 'a/ a!d !n #*e : &-e).#!&n &( #*e :e -&n$e-:&n-!,1e. As <e s)id in Manalo, t3e ri,3t to se-urit5, )s ) ,u)r)ntee o1 prote-tion .5 t3e ,overn*ent, is .re)-3ed .5 t3e super1i-i)+ )nd one-sidedKK3en-e, ine11e-tiveKKinvesti,)tion .5 t3e *i+it)r5 or t3e po+i-e o1 reported -)ses under t3eir Burisdi-tion. As 1ound .5 t3e CA, t3e +o-)+ po+i-e st)tions -on-erned, in-+udin, PA"upt. RoHuero )nd PAInsp. Go*e?, did -ondu-t ) pre+i*in)r5 1)-t-1indin, on petitionersF -o*p+)int. %3e5 -ou+d not, 3o<ever, *)Ee )n5 3e)d<)5, o<in, to <3)t <)s per-eived to .e t3e re1us)+ o1 !ourdes, 3er 1)*i+5, )nd 3er <itnesses to -ooper)te. PetitionersF -ounse+, Att5. Re> #.&.A. @ern)nde?, provided ) p+)usi.+e e>p+)n)tion 1or 3is -+ients )nd t3eir <itnessesF )ttitude, :BT*e/C d& n&# # .-# #*e "&0e n'en# a"en)!e- #& : &#e)# #*e'.%3e di11i-u+t5 )risin, 1ro* ) situ)tion <3ere t3e p)rt5 <3ose -o*p+i-it5 in e>tr)Budi-i)+ Ei++in, or en1or-ed dis)ppe)r)n-e, )s t3e -)se *)5 .e, is )++e,ed to .e t3e s)*e p)rt5 <3o investi,)tes it is underst)nd).+e, t3ou,3. T*e -ee'!n" e1.)#an)e &n #*e :a # &( #*e R., !)&- & #*e! ;!#ne--e- #& )&&:e a#e &."*# n&# #& :&-e a *!nd an)e #& #*e :&1!)e !n :. -.!n", &n !#- &;n !n!#!a#!0e, #*e !n0e-#!"a#!&n !n <.e-#!&n #& !#- na#. a1 end . %o repe)t <3)t t3e Court s)id in Manalo, #*e !"*# #& -e). !#/ &( :e -&n- !- a ".a an#ee &( #*e : &#e)#!&n &( &ne@!"*# ,/ #*e "&0e n'en#. And #*!: &#e)#!&n !n)1.de- )&nd.)#!n" e((e)#!0e !n0e-#!"a#!&n- &( e2# a-1e"a1 >!11!n"-, en(& )ed d!-a::ea an)e-, & #* ea#- &( #*e -a'e >!nd. %3e n)ture )nd i*port)n-e o1 )n investi,)tion )re -)ptured in t3e ,elas-ue* %o!rigue* -)se, in <3i-3 t3e Inter-A*eri-)n Court o1 Gu*)n Ri,3ts pronoun-ed: :6%3e dut5 to investi,)te7 *ust .e undert)Een in ) serious *)nner )nd not )s ) *ere 1or*)+it5 preord)ined to .e ine11e-tive. An investi,)tion *ust 3)ve )n o.Be-tive )nd .e )ssu*ed .5 t3e "t)te )s its o<n +e,)+ dut5, n&# a -#e: #a>en ,/ : !0a#e !n#e e-#- #*a# de:end- .:&n #*e !n!#!a#!0e &( #*e 0!)#!' or 3is 1)*i+5 or upon o11er o1 proo1, <it3out )n e11e-tive se)r-3 1or t3e trut3 .5 t3e ,overn*ent.;6DD7 8E*p3)sis supp+ied.9

Indeed, <35 ?ero in on #)*esFs o<n Ein )nd -o++e),ues <3en independent e5e<itnesses )+re)d5 provided 1irst3)nd )--ounts o1 t3e in-ident, )s <e++ )s des-riptions o1 t3e ).du-torsR 4it3 t3e

-)rto,r)p3i- sEet-3es 3)vin, .een *)de 1ro* intervie<s )nd st)te*ents o1 <itnesses, t3e po+i-e investi,)tors -ou+d 3)ve t)Een proper steps to est).+is3 t3e person)+ identities o1 s)id suspe-ts )nd 5et t3is <)s not done, t3e po+i-e investi,)tors not even +i1tin, ) 1in,er to )s-ert)in <3et3er t3e -)rto,r)p3isEet-3es <ou+d *)t-3 <it3 )n5 en+isted personne+ o1 A@P )nd PNP, or t3eir -ivi+i)n ),entsA)ssets. As to t3e ve3i-+es, t3e p+)te nu*.ers o1 <3i-3 3)ve e)r+ier .een dis-+osed .5 #)*es to 3is 1)*i+5 )nd t3e CPA )s used in -ondu-tin, survei++)n-e on 3i* prior to 3is ).du-tion, t3e *i+it)r5 *ere+5 denied 3)vin, ) ve3i-+e <it3 su-3 p+)te nu*.er on t3eir propert5 +ist despite t3e 1)-t t3)t t3e s)*e p+)te nu*.er 8C"C 2009 <)s si,3ted )tt)-3ed to ) -)r <3i-3 <)s p)rEed )t t3e PA-I"C -o*pound in N)v5 B)se, B),uio Cit5. As to t3e ot3er p+)te nu*.er ,iven .5 #)*es 8%NG =8=9, <3i+e t3e po+i-e investi,)tors <ere ).+e to veri15 t3e n)*e )nd )ddress o1 t3e re,istered o<ner o1 t3e ve3i-+e, t3ere is no s3o<in, t3)t s)id o<ner 3)d .een investi,)ted or t3)t e11orts 3)d .een *)de to +o-)te t3e s)id ve3i-+e. RespondentsF insisten-e t3)t t3e CPA produ-e t3e )++e,ed -o*p)nions o1 #)*es in 3is rented residen-e 1or investi,)tion .5 t3e PNP te)*, <3i+e Eeepin, si+ent )s to <35 t3e po+i-e investi,)tors 3)d not )-tive+5 pursued t3ose evidenti)r5 +e)ds provided .5 e5e<itnesses)nd t3e B)+)o 1)*i+5, on+5 rein1or-e t3e tri)+ -ourtFs o.serv)tion t3)t t3e investi,)tors )re see*in,+5 intent on .ui+din, up ) -)se ),)inst ot3er persons so )s to de1+e-t )n5 suspi-ion o1 *i+it)r5 or po+i-e invo+ve*ent in #)*es B)+)oFs dis)ppe)r)n-e. In vie< o1 t3e 1ore,oin, evidenti)r5 ,)ps, respondents -+e)r+5 1)i+ed to dis-3)r,e t3eir .urden o1 e>tr)ordin)r5 di+i,en-e in t3e investi,)tion o1 #)*esFs ).du-tion. "u-3 ine11e-tive investi,)tion e>t)nt in t3e re-ords o1 t3is -)se prevents us 1ro* -o*p+ete+5 e>oner)tin, t3e respondents 1ro* )++e,)tions o1 )--ount).i+it5 1or #)*esF dis)ppe)r)n-e. %3e reports su.*itted .5 t3e PNP Re,ion)+ O11i-e, %)sE @or-e B)+)o )nd B),uio Cit5 Po+i-e "t)tion do not -ont)in *e)nin,1u+ resu+ts or det)i+s on t3e dept3 )nd e>tent o1 t3e investi,)tion *)de. In %a*on, Jr. v. +agitis, t3e Court o.served t3)t su-3 reports o1 top po+i-e o11i-i)+s

indi-)tin, t3e personne+ )nd units t3e5 dire-ted to investi,)te -)n never -onstitute e>3)ustive )nd *e)nin,1u+ investi,)tion, or eHu)+ det)i+ed investi,)tive reports o1 t3e )-tivities undert)Een to se)r-3 1or t3e vi-ti*.6D57 In t3e s)*e -)se <e stressed t3)t t3e st)nd)rd o1 di+i,en-e reHuired K t3e dut5 o1 pu.+i- o11i-i)+s )nd e*p+o5ees to o.serve e>tr)ordin)r5 di+i,en-e K -)++ed 1or e>tr)ordin)r5 *e)sures e>pe-ted in t3e prote-tion o1 -onstitution)+ ri,3ts )nd in t3e -onseHuent 3)nd+in, )nd investi,)tion o1 e>tr)-Budi-i)+ Ei++in,s )nd en1or-ed dis)ppe)r)n-e -)ses. As to t3e *)tter o1 droppin, President Arro5o )s p)rt5respondent, t3ou,3 not r)ised in t3e petitions, <e 3o+d t3)t t3e tri)+ -ourt -+e)r+5 erred in 3o+din, t3)t presidenti)+ i**unit5 -)nnot .e proper+5 invoEed in )n amparo pro-eedin,. As president, t3en President Arro5o <)s enBo5in, i**unit5 1ro* suit <3en t3e petition 1or ) <rit o1 amparo <)s 1i+ed. &oreover, t3e petition is .ere1t o1 )n5 )++e,)tion )s to <3)t spe-i1i- presidenti)+ )-t or o*ission vio+)ted or t3re)tened to vio+)te petitionersF prote-ted ri,3ts.6D67 In order to e11e-tive+5 )ddress t3ru t3e amparo re*ed5 t3e vio+)tions o1 t3e -onstitution)+ ri,3ts to +i.ert5 )nd se-urit5 o1 #)*es <3o re*)ins *issin, to d)te, t3e Court dee*s it )ppropri)te to re1er t3is -)se .)-E to t3e tri)+ -ourt 1or 1urt3er investi,)tion .5 t3e PNP )nd CI$G )nd *onitorin, o1 t3eir investi,)tive )-tivities t3)t -o*p+ies <it3 t3e st)nd)rd o1 di+i,en-e reHuired .5 t3e Amparo Ru+e. "e-tion 0D o1 Repu.+iA-t No. 62=5, ot3er<ise Eno<n )s t3e :PNP !)<; 6D=7 spe-i1ies t3e PNP )s t3e ,overn*ent)+ o11i-e <it3 t3e *)nd)te to :6i7nvesti,)te )nd prevent -ri*es, e11e-t t3e )rrest o1 -ri*in)+ o11enders, .rin, o11enders to Busti-e )nd )ssist in t3eir prose-ution.; %3e tri)+ -ourt s3ou+d 1urt3er v)+id)te t3e resu+ts o1 su-3 investi,)tions )nd )-tions t3rou,3 3e)rin,s it *)5 dee* ne-ess)r5 to -ondu-t. !)st+5, on t3e deni)+ o1 t3e pr)5er 1or interi* re+ie1s under t3e Amparo Ru+e.

An inspe-tion order is )n interi* re+ie1 desi,ned to ,ive support or stren,t3en t3e -+)i* o1 ) petitioner in )n amparo petition, in order to )id t3e -ourt .e1ore *)Ein, ) de-ision.6D87 A .)si- reHuire*ent .e1ore )n amparo -ourt *)5 ,r)nt )n inspe-tion order is t3)t t3e p+)-e to .e inspe-ted is re)son).+5 deter*in).+e 1ro* t3e )++e,)tions o1 t3e p)rt5 seeEin, t3e order.6D27 In t3is -)se, t3e issu)n-e o1 inspe-tion order <)s proper+5 denied sin-e t3e petitioners spe-i1ied sever)+ *i+it)r5 )nd po+i-e est).+is3*ents .)sed *ere+5 on t3e )++e,)tion t3)t t3e testi*onies o1 vi-ti*s )nd <itnesses in previous in-idents o1 si*i+)r ).du-tions invo+vin, )-tivists dis-+osed t3)t t3ose pre*ises <ere used )s detention -enters. In t3e s)*e vein, t3e pr)5er 1or issu)n-e o1 ) produ-tion order <)s predi-)ted on petitionersF .)re )++e,)tion t3)t it o.t)ined -on1identi)+ in1or*)tion 1ro* )n unidenti1ied *i+it)r5 sour-e, t3)t t3e n)*e o1 #)*es <)s in-+uded in t3e so--)++ed Order o1 B)tt+e. Indeed, t3e tri)+ -ourt -ou+d not 3)ve s)n-tioned )n5 :1is3in, e>pedition; .5 pre-ipit)te issu)n-e o1 inspe-tion )nd produ-tion orders on t3e .)sis o1 insu11i-ient -+)i*s o1 one p)rt5. Nonet3e+ess, t3e tri)+ -ourt is not pre-+uded, )s 1urt3er eviden-e <)rr)nts, to ,r)nt t3e ).ove interi* re+ie1s to )id it in *)Ein, ) de-ision upon ev)+u)tion o1 t3e )-tions t)Een .5 t3e respondents under t3e nor* o1 e>tr)ordin)r5 di+i,en-e. WHERE+ORE, t3e petitions in G.R. Nos. 186050 )nd 186052 )re PARTLY GRANTED. %3e #ud,*ent d)ted #)nu)r5 12, 0002 o1 t3e Re,ion)+ %ri)+ Court o1 !) %rinid)d, Ben,uet, Br)n-3 6/, in "pe-i)+ Pro-eedin, No. 08-A&P-0001 isMODI+IED )s 1o++o<s: 19 REVERSING t3e ,r)nt o1 t3e privi+e,e o1 t3e <rit o1 amparoI 09 A++IRMING t3e deni)+ o1 t3e pr)5er 1or inspe-tion )nd produ-tion orders, <it3out preBudi-e to t3e su.seHuent ,r)nt t3ereo1, in t3e -ourse o1 3e)rin, )nd ot3er deve+op*ents in t3e investi,)tions .5 t3e P3i+ippine

N)tion)+ Po+i-eAP3i+ippine N)tion)+ Po+i-e Cri*in)+ Investi,)tion )nd $ete-tion Group )nd t3e Ar*ed @or-es o1 t3e P3i+ippinesI /9 ORDERING t3e in-u*.ent C3ie1 o1 "t)11 o1 t3e Ar*ed @or-es o1 t3e P3i+ippines, or 3is su--essor, )nd t3e in-u*.ent $ire-tor Gener)+ o1 t3e P3i+ippine N)tion)+ Po+i-e, or 3is su--essor, to CONTINUE t3e investi,)tions )nd )-tions )+re)d5 -o**en-ed .5 t3e P3i+ippine N)tion)+ Po+i-e Re,ion)+ O11i-eKCordi++er), B),uio Cit5 Po+i-e, Nort3ern !u?on Co**)nd, P3i+ippine N)tion)+ Po+i-eAP3i+ippine N)tion)+ Po+i-e Cri*in)+ Investi,)tion )nd $ete-tion Group, P3i+ippine Ar*5-Inte++i,en-e "ervi-e Cnit )nd ot3er -on-erned units, )nd spe-i1i-)++5 t)Ee )nd -ontinue to t)Ee t3e ne-ess)r5 steps: 8)9 to identi15 t3e persons des-ri.ed in t3e -)rto,r)p3i- sEet-3es su.*itted .5 %)sE @or-e B)+)oI 8.9 to +o-)te )nd se)r-3 t3e ve3i-+es .e)rin, t3e p+)te nu*.ers su.*itted .5 t3e petitioners )nd <3i-3 #)*es B)+)o 3)d reported to .e -ondu-tin, survei++)n-e on 3is person prior to 3is ).du-tion on "epte*.er 1=, 0008, )nd investi,)te t3e re,istered o<ners or <3oever t3e previous )nd present possessorsAtr)ns1erees t3ereo1I )nd to pursue )n5 ot3er +e)ds re+ev)nt to t3e ).du-tion o1 #)*es B)+)oI %3e in-u*.ent Ar*ed @or-es o1 t3e P3i+ippines C3ie1 o1 "t)11, P3i+ippine N)tion)+ Po+i-e $ire-tor Gener)+, or t3eir su--essors, s3)++ ensure t3)t t3e investi,)tions )nd )-tions o1 t3eir respe-tive units on t3e ).du-tion o1 #)*es B)+)o )re pursued <it3 e>tr)ordin)r5 di+i,en-e )s reHuired .5 "e-. 1= o1 t3e Amparo Ru+e. @or purposes o1 t3ese investi,)tions, t3e P3i+ippine N)tion)+ Po+i-eAP3i+ippine N)tion)+ Po+i-e Cri*in)+

Investi,)tion )nd $ete-tion Group s3)++ periodi-)++5 report t3e det)i+ed resu+ts o1 its investi,)tion to t3e tri)+ -ourt 1or its -onsider)tion )nd )-tion. On .e3)+1 o1 t3is Court, t3e tri)+ -ourt s3)++ p)ss upon t3e su11i-ien-5 o1 t3eir investi,)tive e11orts. %3e P3i+ippine N)tion)+ Po+i-e )nd t3e P3i+ippine N)tion)+ Po+i-e Cri*in)+ Investi,)tion )nd $ete-tion Group s3)++ 3)ve si> 869 *ont3s 1ro* noti-e 3ereo1 to undert)Ee t3eir investi,)tions. 4it3in 1i1teen 8159 d)5s )1ter -o*p+etion o1 t3e investi,)tions, t3e C3ie1 o1 "t)11 o1 t3e Ar*ed @or-es o1 t3e P3i+ippines )nd t3e $ire-torGener)+ o1 t3e P3i+ippine N)tion)+ Po+i-e s3)++ su.*it ) 1u++ report o1 t3e resu+ts o1 t3e s)id investi,)tions to t3e tri)+ -ourt. 4it3in t3irt5 8/09 d)5s t3ere)1ter, t3e tri)+ -ourt s3)++ su.*it its (.11 e:& #to t3is Court.

%3ese dire-tives )nd t3ose o1 t3e tri)+ -ourt *)de pursu)nt to t3is $e-ision s3)++ .e ,iven to, )nd s3)++ .e dire-t+5 en1or-e).+e ),)inst, <3oever *)5 .e t3e in-u*.ent Ar*ed @or-es o1 t3e P3i+ippines C3ie1 o1 "t)11, $ire-tor Gener)+ o1 t3eP3i+ippine N)tion)+ Po+i-e )nd C3ie1 o1 t3e P3i+ippine N)tion)+ Po+i-e Cri*in)+ Investi,)tion )nd $ete-tion Group )nd ot3er -on-erned units, under p)in o1 -onte*pt 1ro* t3is Court <3en t3e initi)tives )nd e11orts )t dis-+osure )nd investi,)tion -onstitute +ess t3)n t3e EO%RAOR$INAR( $I!IGENCE t3)t t3e Amparo Ru+e )nd t3e -ir-u*st)n-es o1 t3e -)se de*)ndI )nd D9 DROPPING 1or*er President G+ori) &)-)p),)+-Arro5o )s p)rt5-respondent in t3e petition 1or <rit o1 amparoI

%3is -)se is 3ere.5 REMANDED to t3e Re,ion)+ %ri)+ Court o1 !) %rinid)d, Ben,uet, Br)n-3 6/ 1or -ontinu)tion o1 pro-eedin,s in "pe-i)+ Pro-eedin, No. 08-A&P-0001 1or t3e purposes o1 *onitorin, -o*p+i)n-e <it3 t3e ).ove dire-tives )nd deter*inin, <3et3er, in t3e +i,3t o1 )n5 re-ent reports or

re-o**end)tions, t3ere <ou+d )+re)d5 .e su11i-ient eviden-e to 3o+d )n5 o1 t3e pu.+i- respondents responsi.+e, or, )t +e)st, )--ount).+e. A1ter *)Ein, su-3 deter*in)tion, t3e tri)+ -ourt s3)++ su.*it its o<n report )nd re-o**end)tion to t3is Court 1or 1in)+ )-tion. %3e tri)+ -ourt <i++ -ontinue to 3)ve Burisdi-tion over t3is -)se in order to )--o*p+is3 its t)sEs under t3is de-isionI A--ordin,+5, t3e pu.+i- respondents s3)++ re*)in person)++5 i*p+e)ded in t3is petition to )ns<er 1or )n5 responsi.i+ities )ndAor )--ount).i+ities t3e5 *)5 3)ve in-urred durin, t3eir in-u*.en-ies. No pronoun-e*ent )s to -osts. SO ORDERED.

The main issues in the consolidated cases of Arthur Balao, et al. vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al. and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al. vs. Arthur Balao, et al. have to do with the standards for the issuance of a writ of Amparo as well as Presidential immunity.

Sometime in September of 2008, James M. Balao, a Psychology and Economics graduate of the University of the Philippines-Baguio and among other things, a founder of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA), a coalition of non-government organizations working for the cause of indigenous peoples in the Cordillera Region, was abducted by unidentified men in la Trinidad, Benguet. Inquiries and investigations followed the disappearance of James Balao but even so, on October 8, 2008, Jamess siblings filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in favor of James Balao with an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the immediate issuance of the writ of Amparo. Officials of the Military, the Defense Department, the Executive Secretary and the President of the Philippines were included as respondents. The following day, October 9, 2008, the Writ of Amparo was issued directing respondents to file their verified return together with their supporting affidavit within five days from receipt of the writ. In their return, the respondents contended that the petition failed to meet the requirement in the Rules on the Writ of Amparo that claims must be established by substantial evidence. They also moved to have President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo dropped as a party on account of Presidential immunity. In its decision, the RTC ordered the issuance of a Writ of Amparo ordering the respondents to (a) disclose where James Balao is detained or confined, (b) to release James Balao considering his unlawful detention since his abduction and (c) to cease and desist from further inflicting harm upon his person. The RTC believed that more likely than not, the motive for Jamess disappearance is his activist/political leanings and that Jamess case is one of an enforced disappearance as defined under the Rules on the Writ of Amparo considering the several incidents of harassment mentioned in testimonies and in the petition; and the references in the petition to the CPA as a front for the CPP-NPA. The RTC likewise ruled that the government violated Jamess right to security of person as the investigation conducted by respondents was very limited, superficial and one-sided. It also denied the prayer to drop the President as a party. However, certain interim reliefs sought by the petitioners (inspection, production and witness protection orders) were denied by the RTC due to the failure of the petitioners to comply with the stringent provisions on the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and substantiate the same. Both parties appealed to this Court. In disposing of the consolidated cases, Justice Martic S. Villarama, Jr., as ponente, zeroed in on Section 18 of the Amparo Rule which states: (.C. /0. Ju!gment. - +he court shall ren!er 1u!gment 2ithin ten 3/45 !ays from the time the petition is su'mitte! for !ecision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the 2rit an! such reliefs as may 'e proper an! appropriate6 other2ise, the privilege shall 'e !enie!. 3.mphasis supplie!.5 Therefore, according the Justice Villarama, the threshold issue is whether the totality of evidence satisfied the degree of proof required by the Amparo Rule to establish an enforced disappearance. The majority observed that the trial court gave considerable weight to briefing papers supposedly obtained from the AFP indicating that the anti-insurgency campaign of the military under the administration of President Arroyo included targeting of identified legal organizations under the NDF,

which included the CPA, and their members, as enemies of the state and that this campaign resulted in the prevalence of extrajudicial killings. Based on such, the petitioners postulated that the surveillance on James and his subsequent abduction are interconnected with the harassments, surveillance, threats and political assassination of other members and officers of CPA which is his organization. The majority decision held that such documented practice of targeting activists in the militarys counter-insurgency program by itself does not fulfill the evidentiary standard provided in theAmparo Rule to establish an enforced disappearance. Justice Villarama wrote that the similarity 'et2een the circumstances atten!ing a particular case of a'!uction 2ith those surroun!ing previous instances of enforce! !isappearances !oes not, necessarily, carry sufficient 2eight to prove that the government orchestrate! such a'!uction. Accor!ingly, the trial court in this case cannot simply infer government involvement in the a'!uction of James from past similar inci!ents in 2hich the victims also 2or e! or affiliate! 2ith the CPA an! other left-leaning groups. Moreover, the Court held that the participation in any manner of military and police authorities, who had been impleaded on the basis of a command responsibility assertion, in the abduction of James has not been adequately proven. On the matter of President Arroyos inclusion as party-respondent, the ponente stated that the RTC clearly erred in holding that presidential immunity cannot be properly invoked in an Amparoproceeding. As president, then President Arroyo enjoyed immunity from suit at the time the petition for a writ of Amparo was filed and moreover, the petition did not allege what specific presidential act or omission violated or threatened to violate petitioners protected rights. The sole dissenter, Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, took the view that [w]hile the substantial evidence rule remains the standard in Amparo proceedings, flexibility should be observed. Courts must consider evidence adduced in its totality, including that which would otherwise be deemed inadmissible if consistent with the admissible evidence adduced. Justice Sereno took issue with the majority decisions thesis that the similarity between past abductions and the present case of enforced disappearance is not sufficient basis for the issuance of a writ of Amparo. Citing international jurisprudence, specifically the ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in ,elas-ue* %o!rigue* v. Honduras, the dissenting opinion noted that inn that case, the tribunal found that once a pattern or practice of enforced disappearances supported or tolerated by the government is established, a present case of disappearance may be linked to that practice and proven through circumstantial evidence or logical inference. On the issue of Presidential immunity, the dissenter opined that [t] he majority Decision states that former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (former President Arroyo) should have been accorded presidential immunity, as she was the incumbent President when the present Petitions were filed. This position is not in accord with the ruling of this Court in .stra!a v. )esierto, in which it was explicitly held that a non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit e0en (& a)#)&''!##ed d. !n" #*e 1a##e @- #en. e. Instead of dropping president Arroyo as a party on the basis of Presidential immunity, Justice Sereno argued that the dismissal should have been on a finding that petitioners failed to make allegations or adduce evidence to show her responsibility or accountability for violation of or threat to James Balaos right to life, liberty and security.

ACTS: 'he siblings f /a!es Bala , and 2 ngid (petiti ners), filed #ith the ('" f 2a 'rinidad, Benguet a Petiti n f r the Issuance f a 4rit f 1!par in fav r f /a!es Bala #h #as abducted b$ unidentified ar!ed !en earlier. 3a!ed resp ndents in the petiti n #ere then President GM1, FIec Sec Fduard Fr!ita, ;efense Sec Gilbert 'e d r , /r., I2G Secretar$ ( nald Pun , 3ati nal Securit$ 1dviser (3S1) 3 rbert G n<ales, 1FP "hief f Staff Gen. 1leIander . Tan , P3P P lice ;irect r General /esus Mer< sa, a! ng thers. /a!es M. Bala is a Ps$ch l g$ and Fc n !ics graduate f the HP=Bagui . In -79:, he #as a! ng th se #h f unded the " rdillera Pe ples 1lliance ("P1), a c aliti n f 3G)s # rking f r the cause f indigen us pe ples in the " rdillera (egi n. 1cc rding t #itnessesO testi! n$, /a!es #as abducted b$ unidentified !en, sa$ing the$ #ere p lice!en and #ere arresting hi! f r a drugs case and then !ade t ride a #hite van. petiti ners pra$ed f r the issuance f a #rit f a!par and like#ise pra$ed f r (-) an inspecti n rder f r the inspecti n f at least -- !ilitar$ and p lice facilities #hich have been previ usl$ rep rted as detenti n centers f r activists abducted b$ !ilitar$ and p lice perativesP (+) a pr ducti n rder f r all d cu!ents that c ntain evidence relevant t the petiti n, particularl$ the )rder f Battle 2ist and an$ rec rd r d ssier resp ndents have n /a!esP and (6) a #itness pr tecti n rder. the ('" issued the assailed &udg!ent, disp sing as f ll #s: ISSHF a 4rit f 1!par )rdering the resp ndents t (a) discl se #here /a!es is detained r c nfined, (b) t release /a!es c nsidering his unla#ful detenti n since his abducti n and (c) t cease and desist fr ! further inflicting har! up n his pers nP and ;F3T the issuance f I3SPF"'I)3 )(;F(, P();H"'I)3 )(;F( and 4I'3FSS P()'F"'I)3 )(;F( f r failure f herein Petiti ners t c !pl$ #ith the stringent pr visi ns n the (ule n the 4rit f 1!par and substantiate the sa!e ISSUE: 4)3 the t talit$ f evidence satisfies the degree f pr f re5uired b$ the 1!par (ule t establish an enf rced disappearance. HELD: 3)P 'he (ule n the 4rit f 1!par #as pr !ulgated n )ct ber +:, +,,8 a!idst rising incidence f QeItralegal killingsR and Qenf rced disappearances.R It #as f r!ulated in the eIercise f this " urtOs eIpanded rule=!aking p #er f r the pr tecti n and enf rce!ent f c nstituti nal rights enshrined in the -798 " nstituti n, albeit li!ited t these t# situati ns. QFItralegal killingsR refer t killings c !!itted #ith ut due pr cess f la#, i.e., #ith ut legal

safeguards r &udicial pr ceedings. )n the ther hand, Qenf rced disappearancesR are attended b$ the f ll #ing characteristics: an arrest, detenti n, r abducti n f a pers n b$ a g vern!ent fficial r rgani<ed gr ups r private individuals acting #ith the direct r indirect ac5uiescence f the g vern!entP the refusal f the State t discl se the fate r #hereab uts f the pers n c ncerned r a refusal t ackn #ledge the deprivati n f libert$ #hich places such pers n utside the pr tecti n f la#. __ 'he trial c urt gave c nsiderable #eight t the discussi n in the petiti n f briefing papers supp sedl$ btained fr ! the 1FP indicating that the anti=insurgenc$ ca!paign f the !ilitar$ under the ad!inistrati n f President 1rr $ included targeting f identified legal rgani<ati ns under the 3;F, #hich included the "P1, and their !e!bers, as Qene!ies f the state. 4e h ld that such d cu!ented practice f targeting activists in the !ilitar$Os c unter=insurgenc$ pr gra! b$ itself d es n t fulfill the evidentiar$ standard pr vided in the 1!par (ule t establish an enf rced disappearance. In the case f ( Ias v. Macapagal=1rr $ , the " urt n ted that the si!ilarit$ bet#een the circu!stances attending a particular case f abducti n #ith th se surr unding previ us instances f enf rced disappearances d es n t, necessaril$, carr$ sufficient #eight t pr ve that the g vern!ent rchestrated such abducti n. 1cc rdingl$, the trial c urt in this case cann t si!pl$ infer g vern!ent inv lve!ent in the abducti n f /a!es fr ! past si!ilar incidents in #hich the victi!s als # rked r affiliated #ith the "P1 and ther left=leaning gr ups. __ 'he petiti n further pre!ised g vern!ent c !plicit$ in the abducti n f /a!es n the ver$ p siti ns held b$ the resp ndents. 'he " urt in (ubric v. Macapagal=1rr $ had the ccasi n t eIp und n the d ctrine f c !!and resp nsibilit$ and #h$ it has little bearing, if at all, in a!par pr ceedings. It !a$ plausibl$ be c ntended that c !!and resp nsibilit$, as legal basis t h ld !ilitar$%p lice c !!anders liable f r eItra=legal killings, enf rced disappearances, r threats, !a$ be !ade applicable t this &urisdicti n n the the r$ that the c !!and resp nsibilit$ d ctrine n # c nstitutes a principle f internati nal la# r cust !ar$ internati nal la# in acc rdance #ith the inc rp rati n clause f the " nstituti n. Still, it # uld be inappr priate t appl$ t these pr ceedings the d ctrine f c !!and resp nsibilit$, as the "1 see!ed t have d ne, as a f r! f cri!inal c !plicit$ thr ugh !issi n, f r individual resp ndentsO cri!inal liabilit$, if there be an$, is be$ nd the reach f a!par . In ther # rds, the " urt d es n t rule in such pr ceedings n an$ issue f cri!inal culpabilit$, even if incidentall$ a cri!e r an infracti n f an ad!inistrative rule !a$ have been c !!itted. 1s the " urt stressed in Secretar$ f 3ati nal ;efense v. Manal (Manal ), the #rit f a!par #as c nceived t pr vide eIpediti us and effective pr cedural relief against vi lati ns r threats f vi lati n f the basic rights t life, libert$, and securit$ f pers nsP the c rresp nding a!par suit, h #ever, Qis n t an acti n t deter!ine cri!inal guilt re5uiring pr f be$ nd reas nable d ubt I I I r ad!inistrative liabilit$ re5uiring substantial evidence that #ill re5uire full and eIhaustive pr ceedings.R )f the sa!e ten r, and b$ #a$ f eIp unding n the nature and r le f a!par , is #hat the " urt said in (a< n v. 'agitis: It d es n t deter!ine guilt n r pinp int cri!inal culpabilit$ f r the disappearance Kthreats there f r eItra&udicial killingsLP it deter!ines resp nsibilit$, r at least acc untabilit$, f r the enf rced disappearance Kthreats there f r eItra&udicial killingsL f r purp ses f i!p sing the appr priate re!edies t address the disappearance K r eItra&udicial killingsL. IIII 1s the la# n # stands, eItra&udicial killings and enf rced disappearances in this &urisdicti n are n t cri!es penali<ed separatel$ fr ! the c !p nent cri!inal acts undertaken t carr$ ut these killings and enf rced disappearances and are n # penali<ed under the (evised Penal " de and special la#s. 'he si!ple reas n is that the 2egislature has n t sp ken n the !atterP the deter!inati n f #hat acts are cri!inal I I I are !atters f substantive la# that nl$ the 2egislature has the p #er t enact. I I IK

1ssessing the evidence n rec rd, #e find that the participati n in an$ !anner f !ilitar$ and p lice auth rities in the abducti n f /a!es has n t been ade5uatel$ pr ven. 'he identities f the abduct rs have n t been established, !uch less their link t an$ !ilitar$ r p lice unit. 'here is like#ise n c ncrete evidence indicating that /a!es is being held r detained up n rders f r #ith ac5uiescence f g vern!ent agents. " nse5uentl$, the trial c urt erred in granting a!par reliefs. Such pr n unce!ent f resp nsibilit$ n the part f public resp ndents cann t be !ade given the insufficienc$ f evidence. 0 #ever, #e agree #ith the trial c urt in finding that the acti ns taken b$ resp ndent fficials are Qver$ li!ited, superficial and ne=sided.R Its candid and f rthright bservati ns n the eff rts eIerted b$ the resp ndents are b rne b$ the evidence n rec rd. __ 1n inspecti n rder is an interi! relief designed t give supp rt r strengthen the clai! f a petiti ner in an a!par petiti n, in rder t aid the c urt bef re !aking a decisi n. 1 basic re5uire!ent bef re an a!par c urt !a$ grant an inspecti n rder is that the place t be inspected is reas nabl$ deter!inable fr ! the allegati ns f the part$ seeking the rder. In this case, the issuance f inspecti n rder #as pr perl$ denied since the petiti ners specified several !ilitar$ and p lice establish!ents based !erel$ n the allegati n that the testi! nies f victi!s and #itnesses in previ us incidents f si!ilar abducti ns inv lving activists discl sed that th se pre!ises #ere used as detenti n centers. In the sa!e vein, the pra$er f r issuance f a pr ducti n rder #as predicated n petiti nersO bare allegati n that it btained c nfidential inf r!ati n fr ! an unidentified !ilitar$ s urce, that the na!e f /a!es #as included in the s =called )rder f Battle. Indeed, the trial c urt c uld n t have sancti ned an$ Qfishing eIpediti nR b$ precipitate issuance f inspecti n and pr ducti n rders n the basis f insufficient clai!s f ne part$.
About these ads

People v. Rodelio C. E<ala, et al., '.R. No. @5221, April .4, );;4 6ECISION
!1&( 6)v)&)o$"
BELLOSILLO, J.3 I. THE 7ACTS A private 7eep driven b( accused8appellant Bocalan +as stopped at a police chec$point in Cavite Cit( for routine inspection. 3ith Bocalan +ere his co8accused >ernandeA and E<ala. Pfc. 'alan#, a *e*ber of the inspection tea*, +ent near the 7eep and as$ed the occupants if there +ere firear*s inside. !he( ans+ered in the ne#ative. Pfc. 'alan# proceeded to inspect the vehicle b( bea*in# a flashli#ht inside. =e then noticed a blac$ leather ba# *easurin# about ) foot +ide and .

feet lon# +ith its sides bul#in#. 3hen he as$ed +hat it contained, there +as deadenin# silence fro* the 4 accused. Nobod( ans+ered. "nstead, the( suddenl( beca*e fid#et(. Suspicious, Pfc. 'alan# ordered the ba# opened, +hich +as found out to contain *ari7uana. !he 4 accused +ere thereafter prosecuted and convicted of ille#al transportation of *ari7uana. Accused Bocalan appealed and -uestioned the le#alit( of the ad*ission of the *ari7uana as evidence a#ainst hi* since it +as seiAed +ithout a valid search +arrant. II. THE ISSUE 3as the *ari7uana seiAed +ithout +arrant durin# the chec$point ad*issible in evidence a#ainst the accusedK III. THE RULING AThe 1st 0i&ision &oted H,1 to A88"R$ the con&iction of the accused. 5ustices Grio,A!uino and Iuiason concurred with 5ustice BellosilloJs ponencia. 5ustice 1ru2. (" his loneso#e. dissented fro# the #a4orit".B !he Court held that Bocalan is dee*ed to have +aived his ob7ection to the ad*ission of the seiAed *ari7uana because he neither raised this issue before the trial court nor ob7ected to the ad*issibilit( of the *ari7uana +hen it +as offered in evidence. And even assu*in# that there +as no such +aiver, the Court held that still BocalanNs contention deserves scant consideration because there are instances +here search and seiAure can be *ade +ithout necessaril( bein# preceded b( an arrest. An illustration +ould be the Lstop8and8 searchM +ithout a +arrant at *ilitar( or police chec$points, the constitutionalit( of +hich has alread( been upheld b( this Court Ain:al.o'te vs. !e :illaB. Cehicles are #enerall( allo+ed to pass throu#h these chec$points after a routine inspection and ans+erin# a fe+ -uestions. "f vehicles are stopped and e<tensivel( searched it is because of so*e probable cause +hich 7ustifies a reasonable belief of those *annin# the chec$points that either the *otorist is a la+8offender or thecontents of the vehicle are or have been instru*ents in the co**ission of an offense. Accordin# to the Court, lest it be *isunderstood, the fore#oin# doctrine is not intended to do a+a( +ith the #eneral rule that no person shall be sub7ected to search of his person, personal effects and belon#in#s, or his residence e<cept of virtue of a search +arrant or on the occasion of a la+ful arrest. !his case, ho+ever, is an incident to or an offshoot of a la+ful Lstop8and8searchM at a *ilitar( or police chec$point. !he chec$point in the instant case +as established in line +ith LOperational Ba$al,M the *ain ob7ect of +hich +as to search for unlicensed firear*s and other prohibited ite*s in the possession of unauthoriAed persons passin# throu#h it. 3hen the 7eep carr(in# the contraband passed throu#h the chec$point, it +as fla##ed do+n and the occupants +ere as$ed routine -uestions. "n the course thereof, Pfc. 'alan# noticed a blac$ leather ba# the sides of +hich +ere bul#in#. =e as$ed +hat the contents of the ba# +ere. None of the accused ans+ered. At that *o*ent, the de*eanor of the accused chan#ed: the( beca*e suspiciousl( -uiet and nervous as if the( +ere concealin# so*ethin# fro* Pfc. 'alan#.!he accused clearl( appeared to be in ab7ect fear of bein# discovered. Such peculiar apprehensiveness if not restrained reaction of the accused, +hich did not appear nor*al, provided the probable cause 7ustif(in# a *ore e<tensive search that led to the openin# of the ba# and the discover( of the prohibited stuff. AN%T K %ncidentall". one of the co,counsels for accused,appellant Bocalan in his appeal to the Supre#e 1ourt was then,Att". and now Supre#e 1ourt Senior Associate 5ustice 3res(itero 9elasco 5r.B CRU?, J., %)&&e$()$-3 0ustice CruA *aintained the proposition in his %)&&e$( in :al.o'te vs. !e :illathat chec$points and the searches and seiAures incident thereto are unconstitutional. "n 5eople vs. ;ala, he e<pounded on this thesis9
" a* opposed to chec$points as re#ular police *easures ai*ed at reducin# cri*inalit( in #eneral. " do not a#ree that in the interest of peace and order, an( or ever( vehicle *a( be stopped at an( ti*e b( the authorities and searched +ithout +arrant on the chance that it *a( be carr(in# prohibited articles. !hat possibilit( is not the probable cause envisioned in the Bill of Ri#hts.

"n the case of the ordinar( chec$point, there is not even an( suspicion to 7ustif( the search. !he search is *ade as a *atter of course, either of all vehicles or at rando*. !here is no sho+in# that a cri*e is about to be co**itted, is actuall( bein# co**itted, or has 7ust been co**itted and the searchin# officer has personal $no+led#e that the person bein# searched or arrested is the culprit. " +ill concede that chec$points *a( be established at borders of states or at Sconstructive bordersN near the boundar( for the purpose of preventin# violations of i**i#ration and custo*s la+s. But in the interior of the territor(, the re-uire*ents of a valid search and seiAure *ust be strictl( observed. !he onl( per*issible e<e*ption is +here a cri*e li$e a ban$ robber( has 7ust been co**itted or a 7ailbrea$ has 7ust occurred, and the authorities have to seal off all possible avenues of escape in the area. "n all other cases, " sub*it that the chec$point should not be allo+ed. <<<. JEKe /#$$o( re(ro#/()ve,0 v#,)%#(e #$ ),,e-#, &e#r/+ o$ (+e 21&()*)/#()o$ (+#(, #*(er #,,, (+e #r()/,e& &e)Le% #re ),,e-#,. T+#( )& '1(()$- (+e /#r( be*ore (+e +or&e. I Ho1,% r#(+er &ee &ome /r)m)$#,& -o 1$'1$)&+e% $oH #$% (+e$ (+#$ #-ree (o (+e B),, o* R)-+(& be)$- &0&(em#()/#,,0 )-$ore% )$ (+e o''re&&)ve /+e/.'o)$(. Respect for the Constitution is *ore i*portant than securin# a conviction based on a violation of the ri#hts of the accused. %E*phasis supplied.&

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila >"RS! ?"C"S"ON

G.R. No. BD00<. A'r), 23, 1>>3. PEOPLE O> !=E P="L"PP"NES, plaintiff8appellee, vs. RO?EL"O C. ETALA, RES!"! !O B. BOCALAN and 0A"ME P. >ERNAN?EU, accused, RES!"! !O B. BOCALAN, accused8appellant. !he Solicitor 'eneral for plaintiff8appellee. A*ador E. Mosta7o and Presbiterio Celasco, 0r. for accused 8appellant. SILLAB S ). CONS!"! !"ONAL LA3: B"LL O> R"'=!S: ES!OP8AN?8SEARC=E A! A M"L"!ARI OR POL"CE C=ECHPO"N!, !=E CONS!"! !"ONAL"!I O> 3="C= =AS BEEN P=EL?, "S ONE O> !=E "NS!ANCES 3=ERE SEARC= AN? SE"U RE CAN BE E>>EC!E? 3"!=O ! PR"OR ARRES! OR 3ARRAN!. G !here are indeed instances +here search and seiAure can be effected +ithout necessaril( bein# preceded b( an arrest. An illustration +ould be the Estop8and8searchE +ithout a +arrant at *ilitar( or police chec$points, the constitutionalit( of +hich has alread( been upheld b( this Court. Cehicles are #enerall( allo+ed to pass throu#h these chec$points after a routine inspection and ans+erin# a fe+ -uestions. "f vehicles are stopped and e<tensivel( searched it is because of so*e probable cause +hich 7ustifies a reasonable belief of those *annin# the chec$points that either the *otorist is a la+8offender or the contents of the vehicle are or have been instru*ents in the co**ission of an offense. =o+ever, lest it be *isunderstood, this doctrine is not intended to do a+a( +ith the #eneral rule that no person shall be sub7ected to search of his person, personal effects and belon#in#s, or his residence e<cept b( virtue of a search +arrant or on the

occasion of a la+ful arrest. !he case before searchE at a *ilitar( or police chec$point.

s is an incident to or an offshoot of a la+ful Estop8and8

.. "?.: "?.: !=E R"'=! A'A"NS! NREASONABLE SEARC= AN? SE"U RE MAI BE 3A"CE?, AS "N !="S CASE. G !heir sub*issive stance after the discover( of the ba# of *ari7uana, as +ell as the absence of an( protest on their part +hen arrested, not onl( casts serious doubt on their professed innocence but also confir*s their ac-uiescence to the search. Clearl( then, there +as +aiver of the ri#ht a#ainst unreasonable search and seiAure. "n one case 3e held G E. . . 3hen one voluntaril( sub*its to a search or consents to have it *ade of his person or pre*ises, he is precluded fro* later co*plainin# thereof %Coole(, Constitutional Li*itations, Dth Ed., Col. ", p. 45)&. !he ri#ht to be secure fro* unreasonable search and seiAure *a(, li$e ever( ri#ht, be +aived and such +aiver *a( be *ade either e<pressl( or i*pliedl(.E 4. REME?"AL LA3: CR"M"NAL PROCE? RE: ARRES! MA?E PON ?"SCOCERI O> AC! O> ?"SPA!C="N' "N !RANS"! OR !RANSPOR!"N' MAR"0 ANA "N C"OLA!"ON O> SEC. 6, AR!. "", R.A. 56.1, AS AMEN?E?, "S LA3> L AN? REF "RES NO 3ARRAN!: AN "NS!ANCE O> 3ARRAN!LESS ARRES! N?ER SEC. 1, PAR. %A&, R LE ))4, );D1 R LES ON CR"M"NAL PROCE? RE, AS AMEN?E?. G !he arrest of the three %4& accused +as la+ful because it +as *ade upon the discover( of the prohibited dru# in their possession. !here +as no need for a +arrant: the arrest +as *ade +hile a cri*e +as co**itted. !his is one of the situations envisioned b( Sec. 1, par. %a&, of Rule ))4 of the );D1 Rules on Cri*inal Procedure, as a*ended, +hen a +arrantless arrest *a( be *ade. !he accused +ere cau#ht in the act of dispatchin# in transit or transportin# *ari7uana, in violation of Sec. 6, Art. "", of R.A. 56.1, as a*ended. 6. "?.: "?.: 3E"'=! O> >AC! AL CONCL S"ONS BI !R"AL CO R! RELA!"CE !O CRE?"B"L"!I O> 3"!NESSES: CASE A! BAR. G >actual conclusions b( the trial court relative to the credibilit( of +itnesses are entitled to #reat respect and are #enerall( sustained b( the appellate court unless so*e *aterial facts have been overloo$ed or *isconstrued as to affect the result. !here is none in this case on appeal. 1. "?.: EC"?ENCE: OB0EC!"ON ON !=E LE'AL"!I O> SEARC= AN? A?M"SS"B"L"!I O> EC"?ENCE OB!A"NE? "N !=E CO RSE O> SEARC= "S 3A"CE? 3=EN NO! RA"SE? BE>ORE !=E !R"AL CO R!, AN? !=E CO R! "S BO N? !O A?M"! !=E EC"?ENCE. G 3e turn to the le#al -uestion on the ad*issibilit( of the *ari7uana as evidence in the li#ht of Bocalan,s contention that it +as seiAed +ithout a valid search +arrant. Since the search +as conducted prior to the arrest, Bocalan ar#ues that it +as not incident to a la+ful arrest. !his issue +as never raised in the proceedin#s belo+. Bocalan never ob7ected to the ad*issibilit( of the evidence on the #round that the sa*e +as obtained in a +arrantless search. Conse-uentl(, he is dee*ed to have +aived his ob7ection on the le#alit( of the search and the ad*issibilit( of the evidence obtained in the course thereof. "n vie+ of such +aiver, the court is bound to ad*it evidence. 5. CR"M"NAL LA3: MA!ER"AL"!I O> O3NERS="P O> PRO="B"!E? ?R ' "N A PROSEC !"ON >OR C"OLA!"ON O> SEC. 6, AR!. "", R.A. 56.1, AS AMEN?E?. G Proof of o+nership is i**aterial +here the accused is char#ed +ith the unla+ful transportation of *ari7uana. Section 6, Art. "", of R.A. 56.1, as a*ended, does not re-uire that one be the o+ner of the prohibited dru# before he can be prosecuted for dispatchin# in transit or transportin# a prohibited dru#. CR U, 0., dissentin#9 ). CONS!"! !"ONAL LA3: B"LL O> R"'=!S: SEARC= AN? SE"U RE A! AN OR?"NARI C=ECHPO"N! "S "LLE'AL >OR LACH O> PROBABLE CA SE AS ENC"S"ONE? "N !=E B"LL O> R"'=!S. G " do not a#ree that in the interest of peace and order, an( or ever( vehicle *a( be stopped at an( ti*e b( the authorities and searched +ithout +arrant on the chance that it *a( be carr(in# prohibited articles. !hat possibilit( is not the probable cause envisioned in the Bill of Ri#hts. "n the case of the ordinar( chec$point, there is not even an( suspicion to 7ustif( the search. !he search is *ade as a *atter of course, either of all vehicles or at rando*. !here is no sho+in# that a cri*e is about to be co**itted, is actuall( bein# co**itted, or has 7ust been co**itted and the searchin# officer has personal $no+led#e that the person bein# searched or arrested is the culprit . . . " realiAe that this vie+ +ould result in the inad*issibilit( of the seiAed *ari7uana as evidence a#ainst the petitioner and in his inevitable ac-uittal. But as " have al+a(s *aintained, +e cannot retroactivel( validate an ille#al search on the 7ustification that, after all, the articles seiAed are ille#al. ?EC"S"ON

BELLOS"LLO, 0 p9 !he ad*issibilit( of the evidence seiAed fro* the accused at a chec$point after bein# stopped for routine inspection is put to test in this appeal fro* the decision ) of the Re#ional !rial Court of Cavite Cit( findin# inter alia accused8appellant Restituto B. Bocalan #uilt( be(ond reasonable doubt of violatin# Sec. 6, Art. "", of R.A. 56.1, as a*ended, other+ise $no+n as E!he ?an#erous ?ru#s Act of );@..E On . Nove*ber );D., at about D9)1 in the evenin#, a private 7eep driven b( accused8appellant Restituto B. Bocalan +as stopped at a police chec$point in Cavite Cit( for routine inspection re#ardin# unlicensed firear*s and other prohibited ite*s. 3ith Bocalan +ere his co8accused 0ai*e P. >ernandeA and Rodelio C. E<ala. Pfc. Ricardo 'alan#, a *e*ber of the inspection tea*, +ent near the 7eep and as$ed the occupants if there +ere firear*s inside. !he( ans+ered in the ne#ative. Pfc. 'alan# then proceeded to inspect the vehicle b( bea*in# a flashli#ht inside. =e noticed a blac$ leather ba# *easurin# about one %)& foot +ide and t+o %.& feet lon# +ith its sides bul#in#. =e as$ed +hat it contained. !here +as deadenin# silence. Nobod( ans+ered. "nstead, the three %4& accused, Restituto B. Bocalan, 0ai*e P. >ernandeA and Rodelio C. E<ala, suddenl( beca*e fid#et(. Suspicious, Pfc. 'alan# ordered the ba# opened. =e found +hat he e<citedl( described as E*ari7uana, *ari7uana, napa$ara*in# *ari7uanaVE At this 7uncture, the three %4& re*ained *otionless in their seats and appeared petrified +ith fear. !he( +ere brou#ht to the police station that sa*e ni#ht for further investi#ation. . After laborator( e<a*ination, the ba# +as verified to contain *ore than t+o %.& $ilos of "ndian he*p other+ise $no+n as *ari7uana. 4 !hereafter, Rodelio C. E<ala, Restituto B. Bocalan and 0ai*e P. >ernandeA +ere accordin#l( char#ed for violation of Sec. 6, Art. "", of R.A. 56.1, as a*ended. After trial, Bocalan +as held #uilt( as principal and sentenced to life i*prison*ent. A fine of P.1,222.22 +as also i*posed. 6 !he other t+o %.& +ere convicted as acco*plices and received li#hter penalties. >ernandeA appealed to the Court of Appeals. E<ala did not. Bocalan, +hose punish*ent is revie+able onl( b( this Court, is no+ before conviction: hence, 3e deal onl( +ith hi* in this appeal. s assailin# his

Appellant Bocalan see$s e<culpation b( i*putin# o+nership of the ba# to E<ala alone. 1 Bocalan clai*s that +hile on the +a( to Cavite Cit(, he and >ernandeA offered E<ala a ride. E<ala accepted the offer and re-uested Bocalan to *a$e a detour to Salitran, ?as*ariBas, Cavite, +here he +as to pic$ up so*e clothes. !he( a#reed and E<ala #ot the ba# +hich he $ept beside hi* all the ti*e until their apprehension at the chec$point. 5 Bocalan further contends that the trial court erred in ad*ittin# the ba# as evidence a#ainst hi* since it +as obtained throu#h a +arrantless search. @ !he protestations of Bocalan are devoid of *erit. 3e a#ree +ith the trial court that the conduct of Bocalan +as not onl( unusual but also contrar( to nor*al hu*an e<perience. D =e alle#ed that he $ne+ E<ala onl( b( face and had no personal association +ith hi*: ; (et, on that eventful da( of . Nove*ber );D., he a#reed to detour to Salitran +hich +as so*e fifteen %)1& to t+ent( %.2& $ilo*eters out of his +a(. !hus, his contention that it +as E<ala +ho o+ned the ba# containin# the *ari7uana is hardl( credible. On the other hand, E<ala declared that it +as he +ho did not $no+ the contents of the ba# as it +as alread( in the 7eep +hen he boarded it. E<ala asserted that it +as either Bocalan or >ernandeA +ho o+ned the ba#. E<ala s+ore that Bocalan and >ernandeA offered hi* P1,222.22, later raised to P)2,222.22, to ta$e the bla*e alone, but he refused. )2 Proof of o+nership is i**aterial +here the accused is char#ed +ith the unla+ful transportation of *ari7uana. )) Section 6, Art. "", of R.A. 56.1, as a*ended, does not re-uire that one be the o+ner of the prohibited dru# before he can be prosecuted for dispatchin# in transit or transportin# a prohibited dru#. !he la+ si*pl( provides thus G ESec. 6. Sale, Ad*inistration, ?eliver(, ?istribution and !ransportation of Prohibited ?ru#s. G !he penalt( of life i*prison*ent to death and a fine ran#in# fro* t+ent( thousand to thirt( thousand

pesos shall be i*posed upon an( person +ho, unless authoriAed b( la+, shall sell, ad*inister, deliver, #ive a+a( to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport an( prohibited dru#, or shall act as a bro$er in an( of such transactions. "f the victi* of the offense is a *inor, or should a prohibited dru# involved in an( offense under this Section be the pro<i*ate cause of the death of a victi* thereof, the *a<i*u* penalt( herein provided shall be i*posed.E Nonetheless, there is substantial evidence to prove that Bocalan +as directl( involved in the unla+ful dispatch in transit or transport of *ari7uana. !he evidence of the prosecution, particularl( the testi*onies of Pfc. Ricardo 'alan# and Pat. Rosauro de 'uA*an, belies the defense of Bocalan and establishes be(ond cavil that he +as cau#ht in fla#rante delicto of transportin# the prohibited dru#: that he +as the driver of the 7eep o+ned b( his father that carried the stuff: and, that he +as in fact the o+ner of the ba#. !he trial court noted that Bocalan pic$ed up >ernandeA and E<ala one after the other to acco*pan( hi* to the place +here the ba# of *ari7uana +as ta$en and to help hi* brin# the *ari7uana to Cavite Cit(. ). Re#ardless of the de#ree of participation of >ernandeA and E<ala, Bocalan is correctl( punished for his direct involve*ent in the cri*e. Such factual conclusions b( the trial court relative to the credibilit( of +itnesses are entitled to #reat respect and are #enerall( sustained b( the appellate court unless so*e *aterial facts have been overloo$ed or *isconstrued as to affect the result. )4 !here is none in this case on appeal. 3e turn to the le#al -uestion on the ad*issibilit( of the *ari7uana as evidence in the li#ht of Bocalan,s contention that it +as seiAed +ithout a valid search +arrant. Since the search +as conducted prior to the arrest, Bocalan ar#ues that it +as not incident to a la+ful arrest. !his issue +as never raised in the proceedin#s belo+. Bocalan never ob7ected to the ad*issibilit( of the evidence on the #round that the sa*e +as obtained in a +arrantless search. Conse-uentl(, he is dee*ed to have +aived his ob7ection on the le#alit( of the search and the ad*issibilit( of the evidence obtained in the course thereof. )6 "n vie+ of such +aiver, the court is bound to ad*it the evidence. )1 But even assu*in# ar#uendo that there +as no +aiver, still appellant,s contention deserves scant consideration. !here are indeed instances +here search and seiAure can be effected +ithout necessaril( bein# preceded b( an arrest. )5 An illustration +ould be the Estop8and8searchE +ithout a +arrant at *ilitar( or police chec$points, the constitutionalit( of +hich has alread( been upheld b( this Court. )@ Cehicles are #enerall( allo+ed to pass throu#h these chec$points after a routine inspection and ans+erin# a fe+ -uestions. "f vehicles are stopped and e<tensivel( searched it is because of so*e probable cause +hich 7ustifies a reasonable belief of those *annin# the chec$points that either the *otorist is a la+8offender or the contents of the vehicle are or have been instru*ents in the co**ission of an offense. )D =o+ever, lest it be *isunderstood, this doctrine is not intended to do a+a( +ith the #eneral rule that no person shall be sub7ected to search of his person, personal effects and belon#in#s, or his residence e<cept of virtue of a search +arrant or on the occasion of a la+ful arrest. ); !he case before s is an incident to or an offshoot of a la+ful Estop8and8searchE at a *ilitar( or police chec$point. !he chec$point in the instant case +as established in line +ith EOperational Ba$alE the *ain ob7ect of +hich +as to search for unlicensed firear*s and other prohibited ite*s in the possession of unauthoriAed persons passin# throu#h it. .2 3hen the 7eep carr(in# the contraband passed throu#h the chec$point, it +as fla##ed do+n and the occupants +ere as$ed routine -uestions. "n the course thereof, Pfc. 'alan# noticed a blac$ leather ba# the sides of +hich +ere bul#in#. =e as$ed +hat the contents of the ba# +ere. None of the accused ans+ered. At that *o*ent, the de*eanor of the accused chan#ed: the( beca*e suspiciousl( -uiet and nervous as if the( +ere concealin# so*ethin# fro* Pfc. 'alan#. !he accused clearl( appeared to be in ab7ect fear of bein# discovered. Such peculiar apprehensiveness if not restrained reaction of the accused, +hich did not appear nor*al, provided the probable cause 7ustif(in# a *ore e<tensive search that led to the openin# of the ba# and the discover( of the prohibited stuff. Si#nificantl(, there +as no si#n of an( protest or ob7ection to the search. !he accused re*ained silent even after their arrest. !heir sub*issive stance after the discover( of the ba# of *ari7uana, as +ell as the absence of an( protest on their part +hen arrested, not onl( casts serious doubts on their professed innocence .) but also confir*s their ac-uiescence to the search. .. Clearl( then, there +as +aiver of the ri#ht a#ainst unreasonable search and seiAure. .4 "n one case .6 3e held G E. . . 3hen one voluntaril( sub*its to a search or consents to have it *ade of his person or pre*ises, he is precluded fro* later co*plainin# thereof %Coole(, Constitutional Li*itations, Dth Ed.,

Col. ", p. 45)&. !he ri#ht to be secure fro* unreasonable search and seiAure *a(, li$e ever( ri#ht, be +aived and such +aiver *a( be *ade either e<pressl( or i*pliedl(E %e*phasis supplied&. !he arrest of the three %4& accused +as la+ful because it +as *ade upon the discover( of the prohibited dru# in their possession. !here +as no need for a +arrant: the arrest +as *ade +hile a cri*e +as co**itted. !his is one of the situations envisioned b( Sec. 1, par. %a&, of Rule ))4 of the );D1 Rules on Cri*inal Procedure, as a*ended, +hen a +arrantless arrest *a( be *ade. .1 !he accused +ere cau#ht in the act of dispatchin# in transit or transportin# *ari7uana, in violation of Sec. 6, Art. "", of R.A. 56.1, as a*ended. !he alle#ed contradiction bet+een the s+orn state*ents of Pfc. 'alan# and Pat. de 'uA*an +as e<plained in their separate testi*onies and, in an( event, has been resolved b( the trial court as a factual issue. 3e find no reason to reverse its findin#s. Anent the ar#u*ent that the three %4& accused should not have been assi#ned different levels of liabilit(, suffice it to sa( that +hether a principal, co8principal or conspirator, accused8appellant +ould have been *eted out the sa*e penalt( i*posed b( the trial court. 3=ERE>ORE, there bein# no reversible error in the decision appealed fro* findin# accused8 appellant RES!"! !O B. BOCALAN #uilt( be(ond reasonable doubt of the cri*e char#ed, the sa*e is A>>"RME?, +ith costs a#ainst hi*. SO OR?ERE?.