Title
Supreme Court
Ocampo vs. Abando
Case
G.R. No. 176830
Decision Date
Feb 11, 2014
Mass grave discovered in Leyte (2006) linked to CPP/NPA purge; 67 remains found. Petitioners accused of murder; SC upheld due process, rejected rebellion absorption claim.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 176830)

Petitioners and Reliefs Sought

• Ocampo (G.R. 176830): Certiorari/prohibition to annul the February 16, 2007 resolution of Prosecutor Vivero and March 6, 2007 order of Judge Abando; unconditional release and injunction of proceedings
• Echanis (G.R. 185587) and Baylosis (G.R. 185636): Certiorari/prohibition to annul April 30, 2008 Order of Judge Abando and October 27, 2008 Order of Judge Medina; immediate release or injunction
• Ladlad (G.R. 190005): Certiorari to annul May 6 and August 27, 2009 orders of Judge Medina; annulment of indictment and arrest warrant

Key Dates

• August 26, 2006 – Mass grave discovered in Leyte
• September–October 2006 – Crime scene investigation; forensic reports issued
• February 16, 2007 – Prosecutor Vivero finds probable cause for multiple murder against 54 CPP/NPA/NDFP members, including petitioners
• February 28, 2007 – Information filed at RTC Hilongos, Leyte
• March 6, 2007 – Judge Abando issues arrest warrants
• March–April 2007 to 2012 – Series of certiorari petitions, consolidation of cases, transfer of venue, bail grants, and suspension of trial

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2 (probable cause requirement)
• Rule 112, Sec. 3(d) and Rule 110, Sec. 14 of the Rules of Court (preliminary investigation; amendment of information)
• Political offense doctrine as construed under People v. Hernandez
• Bail and provisional liberty considerations under Rule 65 certiorari practice and court’s inherent powers

Antecedent Facts

  1. Police and military officers forwarded 12 letters with complaint-affidavits accusing 71 CPP/NPA/NDFP members of mass-grave–related murders.
  2. Forensic and DNA analyses by PNP Crime Laboratory were inconclusive, prompting further witness interviews.
  3. Twelve relatives of victims and six former CPP/NPA/NDFP members executed affidavits implicating petitioners as Central Committee members who ordered and implemented Operation VD from 1985 to 1992.
  4. Prosecutor Vivero issued subpoenas; Ocampo filed a counter-affidavit; others failed to file due to asserted non-service or passive non-participation.
  5. Vivero’s February 16 resolution recommended filing of information for 15 counts of multiple murder; filed February 28.
  6. Judge Abando’s March 6 order found probable cause and issued no-bail arrest warrants.

Preliminary Investigation and Due Process

• Standard: Reasonable opportunity to be heard; statutory right under Rule 112 is a component of due process.
• Petitioners’ claims: Echanis and Baylosis alleged non-service of complaint; Ladlad alleged faulty address; Ocampo alleged clandestine insertion of supplemental affidavit and delayed service of resolution.
• Court’s findings: Prosecutor made reasonable efforts to serve subpoenas at last known addresses. Ladlad’s counsel entered appearance and could have secured records. Ocampo was not prejudiced by the supplemental affidavit, which corrected an earlier testimony and was dated and acknowledged. Service delay did not violate the 15-day period to appeal, reckoned from receipt, which Ocampo used to file a certiorari instead.
• Conclusion: No denial of due process during preliminary investigation.

Issuance of Arrest Warrants and Probable Cause

• Constitutional mandate: A warrant issues only upon a judge’s personal determination of probable cause after examination under oath of complainant and witnesses (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2).
• Probable cause defined: Facts and circumstances that would lead a prudent person to believe the accused committed the offense.
• Court’s analysis: A formal hearing is not mandatory; the judge may personally evaluate the prosecutor’s resolution and attached documents.
• Judge Abando’s order demonstrated review of the information, affidavits, forensic reports, photographs, and other evidence.
• Conclusion: No grave abuse of discretion; issuance of warrants was valid.

Political Offense Doctrine Analysis

• Doctrine: Common crimes committed in furtherance of rebellion may be absorbed by rebellion and not prosecuted separately (People v. Hernandez).
• Appl


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.