Title
Fenix vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 189878
Decision Date
Jul 11, 2016
A military officer accused individuals of illegal detention over a 2005 election-related audio tape controversy; courts ultimately dismissed the case due to lack of evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 149102)

Factual Background and Complaint

Doble’s affidavit alleged that between June 10 and 13, 2005, he was illegally detained by petitioners and Ong at the San Carlos Seminary in Makati City. The accusation arose from Doble’s involvement with an audio tape purportedly revealing election rigging involving then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. He recounted being brought to the seminary, closely guarded, transferred between rooms, and restricted in his movements. On June 13, 2005, Doble informed priests of his detention against his will and was eventually turned over to ISAFP custody.

Counter-Affidavits and Alternate Narrative

Respondents Cortez, Ong, and Santiago submitted counter-affidavits denying illegal detention. Cortez claimed his presence was for moral support to Ong. Ong and Santiago contended that Doble and others voluntarily sought sanctuary in the seminary out of fear for their safety and that no armed guards or restrictions on freedom were imposed. Reyes and Santos, originally supporting Doble, later recanted, stating their affidavits were signed under duress and confirming voluntary sanctuary without detention. Bishop Teodoro C. Bacani, Jr. provided an affidavit corroborating the voluntary nature of Doble and Santos's stay, indicating no coercion or forced confinement.

Preliminary Investigation and Prosecutor’s Resolution

An Investigating Panel of Prosecutors found probable cause to charge petitioners and Ong with serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. The panel largely disregarded the counter-affidavits due to Ong and Santiago’s failure to personally affirm them before the panel, thus ruling that the offense had been committed against Doble.

Proceedings Before the Regional Trial Court

Upon filing of the Information, petitioners moved to dismiss for lack of probable cause. The RTC conducted an independent evaluation that included evidence not previously considered by the panel, such as the recantation by Santos and Bishop Bacani’s affidavit. The RTC found no probable cause, highlighting the absence of involuntariness in Doble’s stay and the presence of contradictory evidence. It rejected the prosecutor’s refusal to evaluate counter-affidavits and dismissed the criminal case.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the dismissal and filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which admitted the petition despite late filing. The CA found that the RTC gravely abused its discretion by delving extensively into the evaluation of the evidence, which should be reserved for trial on the merits. The CA annulled the dismissal orders and reinstated the Information, emphasizing that the judge’s probable cause determination pertains only to the existence of probable cause, not guilt. The CA also denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

Petition to the Supreme Court and Position of the OSG

The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, which reinstated their petition for review. The OSG abandoned its prior position and supported the RTC’s dismissal, recognizing the court's authority under Rule 112 to evaluate all evidence for probable cause, including the recantation affidavits and Bishop Bacani’s testimony, to prevent unjust prosecution.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Probable Cause Determination

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the CA’s decision, reinstating the RTC’s dismissal of the case. The Court emphasized that the constitutional mandate (Section 2, Article III) requires judges to personally determine probable cause to safeguard individuals from unreasonable arrest. Under Rule 112, Section 6(a), the RTC may dismiss a case if evidence clearly fails to establish probable cause or require additional evidence if doubt exists.

The Court clarified that judges’ evaluation of probable cause is distinct from prosecutors’ and serves to ascertain whether facts demonstrate a reasonable belief that a crime was committed by the accused. Judges are not bound by the prosecutor’s resolution and must personally examine all evidence on record, including counter-affidavits and recantations, unless legally excluded.

On Admissibility of Counter-Affidavits and Clarificatory Hearings

The Court ruled that the failure of Ong and Santiago to appear before the panel to affirm their counter-affidavits did not justify disregarding their submissions. Rule 112 permits affidavits subscribed and sworn before authorized officials, which was complied with. Moreover, the clarificatory hearing is optional, and its absence does not invalidate counter-affidavits or the proceedings. The panel's exclusion of such evidence constituted grave abuse of d

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

    About Privacy Terms