  

Show opinions
Show as cited by other cases (2 times)

DIVISION

[ GR Nos. 89591-96, Aug 13, 1990 ]

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO SANZ

MACEDA +

DECISION
266 Phil. 595

PADILLA, J.:
In the morning of 11 February 1986, the
late ex-Governor of Antique, Evelio
Javier, was gunned down in the plaza of
San Jose, Antique.
Immediately thereafter, the authorities
conducted an investigation, and as a
result thereof, a complaint against John
Paloy and Vicente Vegafria was filed with
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor.
During the preliminary investigation,
private respondent Avelino T. Javellana
appeared as counsel for John Paloy and
Vicente Vegafria, until Federico Carluto
Jr., executed an affidavit,[1] dated 16
June 1986, and Evelyn Magare and Fritz
Xavier their sworn statements,[2] dated
19 February 1986 and 7 March 1986
respectively, implicating private
respondent in the killing of the late
Evelio Javier.
On 29 October 1986, the then Senior
State Prosecutor Tirso D. C. Velasco,
now RTC Judge of Quezon City, filed
with the RTC of Antique, six (6) separate
informations,[3] all dated 13 October
1986, charging private respondent
Avelino T. Javellana, together with John
Paloy, Vicente Vegafria, Eduardo Iran
alias "Boy Muslim", alias "Muklo",
Rudolfo Pacificador alias "Ding", Arturo
F. Pacificador and several John Does,
with the crime of murder, frustrated
murder and for four (4) counts of
attempted murder.[4]
Meanwhile, on 23 September 1986 and
27 October 1986, Romeo Nagales and
Jose Delumen executed their respective
sworn statements,[5] admitting their
participation in the killing of Evelio
Javier, and implicating other persons in
the commission of the crime.
On the basis of their sworn statements,
the prose​cution, through Senior State
Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe, amended
the aforesaid informations by including
therein the following persons as accused,
namely: Ramon Hortillano alias
"Ramie", Henry Salaber alias "Henry",
Eleazar Edemne alias "Toto", Arleen
Limoso alias "Arleen", Romeo Nagales
alias "Reming", Rolando C. Bernardino
alias "Lando", Jose De Lumen alias
"Marlon", Jose Delumen alias
"Winfield", Oscar Tianzon alias "Oca",
alias "Nono", alias "Akong", alias
"Nonoy", alias "Tatang" and alias
"Dolfo."[6]
On motion of Senior State Prosecutor
Aurelio C. Trampe, the said criminal
cases were consolidated in Branch 12 of
the RTC of Antique, presided over by
respondent Judge.
Of the nineteen (19) accused, only six (6)
had been apprehended and/or
surrendered, namely: John Paloy,
Vicente Vegafria, Rolando Bernardino,
Jesus Garcia y Amorsolo alias "Nono
Picoy", Jose Delumen alias "Winfield"
and Romeo Nagales alias "Reming". All
the others were at large, including herein
private respondent Avelino Javellana.[7]
Hence, trial proceeded only as against
the said six (6) accused.
On 9 May 1989, the prosecution moved
to discharge the accused Jose Delumen
and Romeo Nagales, claiming that their
testimonies were absolutely necessary
against accused Rolando Bernardino as
well as the other accused, including
private respondent who was then at-
large.
On 11 May 1989, the court a quo granted
the motion to discharge Romeo Nagales
but denied it as regards Jose Delumen,
the latter having admitted a prior
conviction for the crime of robbery.
However, despite the discharge of
Romeo Nagales, the prosecution rested
its case without presenting him as state
witness and reserved its right to present
him as a witness against the other
accused who were then at-large.
On 12 May 1989, private respondent was
arrested by the Constabulary Security
Group (CSG) in Paranaque, Metro
Manila. On 15 May 1989, the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Iloilo
Chapter, through its President, Atty. J. T.
Barrera, entered its appearance as
counsel for private respondent with a
motion that the IBP, Iloilo Chapter be
allowed to assume custody of the private
respondent as his jailer and/or, in the
alternative, to confine him at the
Military Stockade at Camp Delgado
and/or at the Iloilo Provincial Jail.[8]
When private respondent was brought
before the trial court on 7 June 1989,
Atty. J. T. Barrera manifested and
moved that his motion of 15 May 1989 be
heard. During the hearing, Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor John Turalba
opposed the motion. The issue was
heatedly argued by the prosecution and
the defense. Whereupon, private
respondent pleaded that he be allowed to
approach the bench together with all the
counsel, which respondent Judge
reluctantly granted. Private respondent
informed the court that there exists a
real and grave danger to his life if he
were to be confined in the Antique
Provincial Jail. He then narrated an
incident when he, as the then counsel for
John Paloy and Vicente Vegafria, prior
to his inclusion as one of the
respondents, was refused the right to
visit and confer with his clients by a
drunk jail guard at the Antique
Provincial Jail; that the said guard was
toying with his armalite rifle while
standing at the gate of the provincial jail
and did not allow him to enter; that said
guard aimed and pointed his armalite
rifle twice at him; and that because of his
complaint, the guard was suspended but
has long been back on duty at the
provincial jail. After hearing the
narration, Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor John Turalba withdrew his
objection.[9]
Hence, on the same date, 7 June 1989,
respondent Judge issued an order,[10]
the pertinent part of which reads:

x x x, without objection on the part

of Prosecutor John Turalba,
accused Javellana is hereby ordered
confined at PC, Stockade, Bugante
Point San Jose, Antique in the
custody of the PC/INP Provincial
Commander who is directed to take
charge of the custody of said
accused and to bring him back to
court whenever required."

On 2 August 1989, the Provincial

Commander, Col. Teodulo Abayata,
wrote respondent Judge:

"I am in receipt of instruction from

CPC to turn over Atty. Avelino
Javellana to the Provincial Jail
effective immediately and for me to
give feedback NLT today 2 August
1989.

"Since his custody under the

Provincial Commander was through
the order of that Honorable Court,
request that another order be
issued for me to be able to comply
(sic) the instructions from my
superior officers."[11]

On the same date, 2 August 1989,

respondent Judge issued an order[12]
granting the request of Col. Abayata, and
ordered the private respondent to be
confined as a detention prisoner at the
Binirayan Rehabilitation Center, San
Jose, Antique, subject to the conditions
set forth therein.
Upon receipt of the order on the same
day, private respondent filed an urgent
ex-parte motion for reconsideration,[13]
alleging that the Binirayan
Rehabilitation Center, aside from being a
little bit far and unsafe, has conditions
which may not work well for his health;
that he underwent retrogade operation
less than a year ago and up to the
present he is still taking medication for
maintenance; that he has a history of
heart treatment and very often he takes
maintenance pills and he is confronted
by his unstable blood pressure; that the
location of the rehabilitation center and
the absence of facilities there may cause
adverse effects on his health condition;
and praying that he be confined in the
Provincial Jail of Iloilo where he can be
nearer to better hospital facilities.
When the aforesaid motion of private
respondent was called for hearing in the
afternoon of 2 August 1989, respon​dent
Judge required the presence of Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor John Turalba. The
latter appeared and reiterated the earlier
objection of the Senior State Prosecutor
to the confinement of private respondent
in any place other than the Provincial
Jail of Antique.
After the hearing, respondent Judge
issued an order,[14] reconsidering and
setting aside the earlier order, and
directed that --

"x x x the accused, should in the

meantime, be committed to the
Angel Salazar Memorial Hospital
and subjected to a physical check-
up at the expense of the accused
Javellana. The head of the said
hospital is directed to submit his
report soonest on the physical
condition of accused Javellana.

"Meantime, while the check-up is

being undertaken, the Station
Commander of San Jose, Antique is
directed to take custody and
provide adequate security for
accused Javellana in order to
prevent his escape and to continue
such custody until further orders
from the court. x x x."

On 3 August 1989, the head of the

hospital issued a certification on the
result of the physical check-up
conducted on private respondent, thus:

"As per order of your Honor, dated

August 2, 1989, Atty. Avelino T.
Javellana was examined by Dr.
Felipe Rosendo Muzones and his
ECG exami​nation showed that
everything is within normal limits.
However, Dr. Muzones contends
that the same is not the only
determinant factor as far as the
condition of the heart is concerned.
Hence, he recommends that blood
chemistry examination is necessary.
We are sad to inform your Honor
that we do not have necessary
chemicals for this type of
examination at present."[15]

In view of the aforesaid certification, the

private respondent filed on the same day
an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion,[16] praying
that he be allowed further medical
examination at the Iloilo Mission
Hospital in Iloilo City under at least two
(2) police escorts. When the motion was
called in open court in the afternoon, the
private respondent and the Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor appeared, and
both argued for and against the motion.
Thereafter, the respondent Judge issued
an order,[17] the pertinent part of which
reads, as follows:

"It is the considered view of the

Court that whether the blood
chemistry examination is necessary
or not, the fact still remains that the
examination conducted on the
heart of movant is incomplete and
the court will not leave to chance
the condition of the heart of movant
who stands charged of a serious
crime in these cases. The Court
believes that the best interest of
justice maybe served should the
accused be given time to be
subjected to a more complete and
exhaustive physical examination
particularly his heart condition,
especially considering the
information given in open court by
movant that his brother died at a
tender age of thirty-three (33) of
coronary thrombosis and their
family has a history of heart ailment
and according to specialist doctor,
movant himself is prone to
coronary thrombosis.

xxx
xxx xxx
xxx

"WHEREFORE, in view of all the

foregoing, the Station Commander
of San Jose, Antique is hereby
directed to assign two (2) guards to
whom custody of movant Javellana
is entrusted by the Court to escort
the movant Avelino Javellana to
Iloilo Mission Hospital, Iloilo City
for a complete medical check-up,
particularly on the heart of Mr.
Javellana. x x x."

However, before private respondent and

his two (2) police escorts could leave for
Iloilo City, P/Col. Mag​sinpoc, Station
Commander of San Jose, Antique,
verbally conveyed to respondent Judge
an "unforseen emergency" neces​sitating
the "response of all personnel of his
Command" and requesting authority to
recall the police escorts. In view thereof,
respondent Judge was constrained to
issue on the same day, 3 August 1989,
another order,[18] granting the request
of the Station Commander, and directed
the Provin​cial Probation Officer of
Antique to take custody of private
respondent and to escort him to Iloilo
City for medical check-up and bring him
back to court not later than 8:30 A.M. on
Monday, 7 August 1989. Thus, the
Provincial Proba​tion Officer brought the
private respondent to the Iloilo Mission
Hospital and left him there for a 3-day
medical check-up, and thereafter
brought him back to court at 8:30
o'clock in the morning of 7 August 1989.
When the cases were called in the
morning of 7 August 1989, Attys. Amelia
K. del Rosario, Arturo Alinio and J. T.
Barrera entered their appearance as
counsel for private respondent, and
argued that the custody of private
respondent be entrusted to the IBP,
Iloilo Chapter, headed by Atty. J. T.
Barrera. However, Senior State
Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe moved
that the resolution of the incident be
held in abeyance until the hearing in the
afternoon.
On the other hand, Atty. Jose A. Alegario
entered his appearance as counsel for
the then recently arrested accused Oscar
Tianzon, who manifested that his client
was ready for arraignment. Accordingly,
the said accused was arraigned. He
pleaded "not guilty."
Thereafter, the respondent Judge issued
an order,[19] terminating the custody of
the Provincial Probation Officer, and, in
the meantime, gave the custody of
private respondent to his lawyers, as
officers of the court, ordering the
confinement of accused Oscar Tianzon
with the Antique Provincial Jail Warden
and setting the continuation of the
hearing to 8 August 1989.
After the hearing in the afternoon, the
respondent Judge issued another order,
[20] deputizing private respon​dent's
lawyers as deputies of the court and
ordered the confinement of private
respondent at the San Jose residence of
Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, who
happened to be the Clerk of Court of the
RTC of Antique.
On 8 August 1989, respondent Judge
issued an order,[21] terminating the
deputization of private respondent's
lawyers and ordered them to turn over
the custody of private respondent to the
Clerk of Court and Ex-Oficio Provincial
Sheriff of the RTC of Antique, Atty.
Deogracias del Rosario, directing the
latter to hold and detain private
respondent in his residence at San Jose,
Antique and not to allow him liberty to
roam around but to hold him as a
detention prisoner thereat.
Meanwhile, on 21 June 1989, Atty. J. T.
Barrera filed a motion for admission to
bail on behalf of private respondent.[22]
On 4 July 1989, Senior State Prosecutor
Aurelio Trampe filed his opposition[23]
thereto, alleging that private respondent
was charged with the crime of murder,
frustrated murder and attempted
murders and that the evidence of guilt is
strong; hence, he is not entitled to bail as
a matter of right.
On 26 June 1989, private respondent
was arraigned, and thereafter, private
respondent's petition for bail was set for
hearing on 7, 11 and 28 August 1989 to 1
September 1989, as agreed upon by the
prosecution and the defense.[24]
On 7 August 1989, Senior State
Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe filed a
motion[25] dated 3 August 1989 to
discharge accused Oscar Tianzon to be
utilized as a state witness, alleging that
there is an absolute necessity for his
testimony against all the accused; that
there is no other direct evidence
available for the proper prosecution of
the offenses except the testimony of said
accused, which can be substantially
corroborated in its material points by
other evidence; that the accused Tianzon
does not appear to be the most guilty
among the accused, as he acted merely
as a look-out and did not actually
participate in the assassination of the
deceased Evelio Javier, and that he has
not been previously convicted of any
offense involving moral turpitude. The
hearing of the motion was set on 9
August 1989 at 2:00 o'clock in the
afternoon.
The scheduled hearing on the aforesaid
motion of the prosecution was, however,
cancelled and the hearing thereof was re-
set to 23 August 1989.
At the hearing on 23 August 1989, the
prosecution adduced its evidence in
support of the motion; however,
respondent Judge deferred the
resolution of the motion. Thereupon, the
prosecution moved that the presentation
of its evidence in opposition to private
respondent's petition for bail which was
set for hearing on 28 August 1989 and 1
September 1989, be likewise deferred on
the ground that accused Oscar Tianzon
is a material witness against private
respondent and that his testimony is
necessary for the purpose of determining
private respondent's qualification for
bail, i.e., whether the evidence of guilt is
strong.
On 28 August 1989, petitioner filed the
instant petition for CERTIORARI, to
annul and set aside the orders dated 3, 7
and 8 August 1989, claiming that said
orders were issued with grave abuse of
discretion and PROHIBITION to enjoin
the respondent Judge from hearing
private respondent's petition for bail
until he has resolved the motion to
discharge accused Oscar Tianzon, and
praying that a writ of preliminary
injunction and/or temporary restraining
order be issued.
As prayed for, the Court issued on 31
August 1989 a temporary restraining
order,[26] ordering the respondent
Judge to cease and desist from
continuing the hearing on respondent-
accused Avelino Javellana's petition for
bail until after the respondent Judge has
resolved the motion to discharge Oscar
Tianzon as state witness.
When private respondent's petition for
bail was heard on 28 August 1989,
respondent Judge was apprised of the
filing of the petition before this Court;
hence, the hearing was reset to 1
September 1989.
At the afternoon hearing on 1 September
1989, the prosecution furnished
respondent Judge and the defense,
copies of the restraining order issued by
this Court. The respondent Judge,
however, advised the parties that the
motion to discharge accused Oscar
Tianzon has already been resolved in the
morning and that copies of the
resolution would be available at any time
then.[27] Thereafter, respon​dent Judge
released the resolution,[28] dated 1
September 1989, denying the
prosecution's motion to discharge
accused Oscar Tianzon to be utilized as a
state witness. He ruled, among others, as
follows:

"The court searched the records for

evidence to corroborate the
material points in the aforesaid