Title
Allado vs. Diokno
Case
G.R. No. 113630
Decision Date
May 5, 1994
Lawyers accused of kidnapping with murder; warrant issued without evidence review; SC ruled insufficient probable cause, prosecutorial bias, and grave abuse of discretion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 113630)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Relevant events include the alleged abduction of Van Twest on or about 16 June 1992; Umbal’s sworn statement dated 16 September 1993; PACC application for search warrant filed and obtained 15 September 1993 (one day before Umbal’s sworn statement); Sr. Supt. Lacson’s referral/letter to the Department of Justice on 17 September 1993; subpoenas and preliminary investigation activity in late 1993; the panel’s undated resolution and the filing of an information in the trial court in early February 1994; issuance of an arrest warrant by the trial court; petitioners’ filing of a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Supreme Court and issuance first of a temporary restraining order and later of permanent relief.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

The Court applied the 1987 Constitution (Article III, Section 2) governing issuance of warrants based on probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and witnesses. Judicial standards and controlling precedent cited and applied include definitions and explanations of probable cause from Buchanan v. Viuda de Esteban and later jurisprudence (e.g., Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan), and procedural directives on the separate but complementary roles of prosecutors and trial judges in determining probable cause (Soliven v. Makasiar; People v. Inting; Lim v. Felix). The Court reiterates that the probable cause inquiry is objective and that a judge must personally evaluate the supporting reports and documents rather than rely solely on a fiscal’s certification.

Factual Background Alleged by PACC

PACC’s case rested primarily on Umbal’s sworn extrajudicial confession and Bato’s counter-affidavit. Umbal alleged that petitioners met him and others at Silahis Hotel and agreed to pay P2.5 million for the apprehension of Van Twest, who allegedly faced an international warrant. Umbal described an operation on 16 June 1992 where Van Twest was abducted at the Alabang overpass, brought to a “safe house” behind New Bilibid Prisons, subjected to a mock interrogation, and then—according to Umbal and later Bato—killed and allegedly burned to ashes using gasoline and rubber tires. PACC operatives executed search warrants at dwellings linked to Santiago and seized a blue Nissan Pathfinder, firearms and ammunition; several operatives were arrested. PACC Task Force Habagat submitted the matter to the Department of Justice, which formed a panel of prosecutors to conduct preliminary investigation.

Petitioners’ Pre‑trial Responses and Motions

Petitioners denied the accusations and filed counter-affidavits. Mendoza moved for production of documents specifically identified in the complaint (documents transferring property, bank withdrawal evidence, PACC’s investigative records, and other written statements to be used by the prosecution). Petitioners also sought inhibition of the initial prosecutors for partiality; the Secretary of Justice created a new panel of prosecutors. The new panel granted petitioners’ motion for production, but PACC produced only limited materials. SPO2 Bato later filed a counter-affidavit implicating petitioners, then moved to suppress it alleging duress. Petitioners appealed to the Secretary of Justice the panel’s resolution and sought to defer trial court proceedings pending that appeal; despite these acts, the information was filed and the trial judge issued a warrant of arrest.

Procedural Departures and Timing Irregularities Identified

The record shows timing and procedural anomalies that the Court highlighted: the PACC application for search warrant was filed and granted on 15 September 1993, while Umbal’s sworn statement is dated 16 September 1993 and PACC asserted Umbal had been in custody since 10 September 1993 but not interrogated until 16 September — a chronology that cast doubt on the primary basis for the investigation; Bato’s self-incriminating counter-affidavit was filed after the case had been submitted for resolution and was followed by a suppression motion before the panel acted further; petitioners faced difficulty obtaining the full resolution and information; and the panel’s undated resolution bore the PACC letterhead and a recommendation by the PACC Task Force head, suggesting improper PACC influence on a prosecutorial determination.

Standard for Probable Cause and the Judge’s Constitutional Role

The Court restated controlling principles: probable cause exists when facts and circumstances would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed and that the accused probably committed it. Determination of probable cause for issuance of a warrant is the exclusive personal function of the judge; a prosecutor’s certification does not bind the judge. The judge must personally evaluate the prosecutor’s report and supporting documents and, where circumstances demand, call complainant and witnesses to answer the court’s probing questions. The test is objective — not merely subjective good faith on the judge’s part.

Court’s Appraisal of the Evidence Against Petitioners

The Court found the evidence insufficient to establish probable cause against petitioners for multiple reasons: (1) lack of corpus delicti — Van Twest’s death was not established because his remains were not recovered and the alleged method of cremation in an open field with gasoline and tires was deemed highly improbable without further proof; (2) continued representation of Van Twest by counsel in subsequent judicial and administrative proceedings undermined the claim of his death; (3) material inconsistencies in Umbal’s sworn statements regarding his presence at meetings and his knowledge of documents alleged to have been forced from the victim; (4) the timing inconsistency between Umbal’s sworn statement and the PACC search warrant application; (5) Bato’s counter-affidavit was filed after submission and was subject to a suppression motion, impairing its probative value; (6) PACC agents executing search warrants did not implicate petitioners and according to their testimony pointed to Santiago as the mastermind; and (7) failure of PACC to produce critical documents that were specifically requested by petitioners (the allegedly signed

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms