Case Digest (G.R. No. 182310)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Jan Michael Tan and Archie Tan, G.R. No. 182310, December 09, 2009, the Supreme Court Second Division, Abad, J., writing for the Court.
The prosecution case arose from the brutal killing on the night of January 8–9, 2006, of businessman Francisco “Bobby” Tan, his wife Cynthia Marie (Cindy) Tan, and their young stepdaughter Katherine at the family residence in Iloilo City. Bobby’s two older illegitimate sons by another woman, respondents Archie and Jan Michael (Jan-Jan) Tan, lived in the household and were treated by Cindy as stepsons. The household also included other relatives, servants, frequent visitors, and several masseurs who came the evening of the killings.
The factual narrative presented at the preliminary investigation described the family’s comings and goings that evening: Bobby and one son went to a cockfight; others returned for dinner and later retired to their rooms. Around midnight security rounds revealed lights on in Archie’s and Jan-Jan’s rooms. Respondents later claimed an alibi of leaving the compound and returning in the early morning hours; on reentering the house Jan-Jan and Archie discovered their sister and parents dead and alerted the guard and police. Investigators noted circumstantial features: the victims’ times of death approximated midnight; Archie reportedly took two pairs of gloves from his car late that night; the accused’s rooms allegedly had been wiped clean of fingerprints; and other behavior (calling a locksmith to open safes, Archie’s subsequent filing for estate settlement, reported bar-hopping) was noted by the prosecution as suspicious.
The CIDG prepared an investigation and a complaint-affidavit was filed with the City Prosecutor on January 18, 2006. On September 29, 2006 the City Prosecutor filed separate informations for two counts of murder and parricide against Archie and Jan-Jan before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City (Criminal Cases 06-63030 to 06-63032). The respondents moved for judicial determination of probable cause and for suspension of arrest warrants; the RTC initially (Judge Narciso Aguilar, acting) found no probable cause on October 27, 2006 and granted suspension of warrants. The respondents sought dismissal and also invoked review before the Department of Justice (DOJ); the DOJ, however, dismissed respondents’ petition for review, effectively sustaining the prosecutor’s filing.
After a change of presiding judge, Judge Globert Justalero granted the prosecution additional time to comply with the earlier RTC directive and on April 23, 2007 issued an order finding probable cause and directing issuance of warrants of arrest. Respondents petitioned for certiorari relief before the Court of Appeals (CA), which, after hea...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in deciding that Judge Justalero gravely abused his discretion when he re-examined and reversed his predecessor’s finding of lack of probable cause despite the absence of new evidence?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in deciding that Judge Justalero gravely abused his discretion when he found that probable cause existed to issue warrants of arrest agains...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)