Case Summary (G.R. No. 187094)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioners challenge two RTC orders remanding their murder cases for further preliminary investigation. Respondents are the issuing judge, the panel of provincial prosecutors who initially found probable cause, and the Justice Secretary as nominal party.
Key Dates
• December 14, 2006 – Police referral of murder cases to the provincial prosecutor
• February 2, 2007 – Prosecutor issues subpoenas for petitioners’ testimony
• April 11, 2008 – Panel Resolution finding probable cause and recommending Informations
• July 18, 2008 – RTC Order remanding cases to prosecutors for complete preliminary investigation
• December 2, 2008 – RTC denies petitioners’ motion for outright dismissal
• March 27, 2009 – Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed in the Supreme Court
• February 15, 2017 – Supreme Court Decision
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution; Rule 112, Sec. 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on certiorari and prohibition.
Procedural History of Preliminary Investigation
Police Senior Inspector Arnold M. Palomo referred three murder incidents against petitioners and co-accused. Investigating Prosecutor Lapus issued subpoenas, prompting petitioners’ motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction and due-process irregularities. The prosecutor panel denied relief, petitioners filed counter-affidavits and motions for clarificatory hearing, and the panel again denied their requests. On April 11, 2008, the panel and OIC-Prosecutor Florendo found probable cause for two counts of murder and one count of kidnapping with murder, leading to the filing of three Informations.
Judicial Determination of Probable Cause Motions
Petitioners moved for judicial determination of probable cause in the Guimba and Palayan cases. The Guimba case was dismissed for lack of probable cause. In the Palayan cases, after hearings and memoranda, RTC Branch 40 held that the preliminary investigation was flawed and remanded the cases for a “complete preliminary investigation” rather than issuing warrants or dismissing outright.
RTC Order Remanding Cases (July 18, 2008)
Judge Turla found procedural lapses: key affidavits were unsworn before the panel; no motion for reconsideration was allowed before filing the Informations; and the panel’s resolution fell short of the depth required for non-bailable offenses involving sitting legislators. She set aside the panel’s Resolution and ordered another investigation.
Order for Partial Reconsideration Denied (December 2, 2008)
Petitioners sought outright dismissal instead of remand. RTC Turla denied the motion, maintaining that the cases be returned to the provincial prosecutors for further preliminary proceedings.
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition Before the Supreme Court
Petitioners invoked Rule 65, seeking to annul the RTC orders for lack of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, to dismiss the cases for absence of probable cause, and to enjoin further preliminary investigation.
Petitioners’ Arguments
They contend:
• RTC lacked power to remand once the Information was filed; it must either dismiss or issue arrest warrants under Rule 112, Sec. 5(a).
• In doubt, the court may require additional evidence or hold clarificatory hearings, but not send the case back.
• Setting aside the panel’s Resolution equates to lack of probable cause, mandating dismissal.
• Some prosecution documents are inadmissible under res inter alios acta and fail to show principal participation.
Respondents’ Arguments
They assert:
• The petition violates the hierarchy of courts; relief should have been sought in the Court of Appeals.
• The RTC’s remand recognizes the exclusive prosecutorial authority to determine probable cause.
• The panel properly found probable cause; this does not amount to guilt.
• Admissibility issues are to be raised at trial, not at preliminary investigation.
Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction: Exception to Hierarchy of Courts
The Court identified compelling circumstances—petitioners’ status as sitting Representatives and the urgency of constitutional rights—to permit direct recourse to the Supreme Court despite the usual route through the Court of Appeals.
RTC’s Authority Under Rule 112, Sec. 5(a)
Upon filing an Information, the judge must personally evaluate the prosecutor’s resolution and evidence and may (1) dismiss for no probable cause; (2) issue an arrest warrant or commitment order if probable cause exists; or (3) order additional evidence if in doubt, resolving the issue within 30 days. No provision authorizes remanding the case for a repeat preliminary investigation.
Separation of Functions in Probable Cause Determina
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 187094)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioners Liza L. Maza, Saturnino C. Ocampo, Teodoro A. CasiAo, and Rafael V. Mariano were former party-list representatives (Gabriela, Bayan Muna, and Anakpawis respectively).
- Police Senior Insp. Arnold M. Palomo referred three murder complaints dated December 14, 2006 to the Provincial Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, naming 19 persons (including petitioners) allegedly involved in the killing of three AKBAYAN supporters.
- The victims were Carlito Bayudang and Danilo Felipe (community organizers) and Jimmy Peralta (mistaken identity).
- Inspector Palomo recommended a preliminary investigation and the filing of Informations for each murder count.
Procedural History
- On February 2, 2007, Investigating Prosecutor Antonio Ll. Lapus, Jr. subpoenaed petitioners to testify.
- Petitioners filed a special appearance and moved to quash the complaint and subpoena on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and due-process defects in the preliminary investigation.
- The prosecutorial panel denied the motion and ordered submission of counter-affidavits; petitioners complied and filed additional motions (clarificatory hearing, memorandum, motions to dismiss).
- On April 11, 2008, the panel issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause for murder (two counts) and kidnapping with murder (one count) against 19 suspects (one witness excused).
- Informations were filed the same day in Palayan City (Criminal Cases Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P) and Guimba (Criminal Case No. 2613-G).
- The Guimba case was dismissed for lack of probable cause on August 5, 2008.
- Petitioners moved for judicial determination of probable cause in the Palayan cases; hearings and memoranda ensued.
- On July 18, 2008, RTC Palayan Branch 40 (Judge Turla) set aside the Joint Resolution and remanded the cases to the provincial prosecutors for a “complete preliminary investigation” due to procedural irregularities.
- Petitioners’ motion for outright dismissal was denied on December 2, 2008.
- On March 27, 2009, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the July 18 and December 2 orders and to dismiss the murder cases for lack of probable cause.
Issues Presented
- Whether petitioners violated the hierarchy of courts by directly invoking the Supreme Court’s certiorari jurisdiction.
- Whether Judge Turla gravely abused her discretion in remanding the Palayan cases to the Provincial Prosecutor for further preliminary investigation.
- Whether admissibility of evidence may be ruled upon dur