Case Summary (G.R. No. 162144-54)
Recantations and Initial Dismissal
Before arraignment in RTC Branch 81, key prosecution witnesses recanted prior affidavits, and private complainants desisted. On March 29, 1999, the RTC provisionally dismissed the cases for lack of probable cause.
Revival and Double Jeopardy Litigation
In 2001, PNP Director Mendoza requested a new DOJ preliminary investigation. A DOJ panel found probable cause, and new informations were filed on June 6, 2001. Lacson sought relief in the Court of Appeals, which granted protection on double jeopardy grounds. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that no provisional-dismissal requirements had been met, and ordered trial to proceed. The cases were re-raffled back to Branch 81, now under Judge Yadao.
Raffle to Branch 81 and Family Court Jurisdiction Challenge
After disclosures that two victims were minors, the prosecution sought to reroute the cases to a family court under R.A. 8369 § 5. Executive Judge Dizon and Judge Yadao denied reraffles, finding family-court jurisdiction inapplicable to deceased minors.
Special Civil Action under Rule 65
The People filed a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, bypassing the CA, on grounds that Judge Dizon and Judge Yadao gravely abused discretion in raffle orders, assuming jurisdiction, refusing to inhibit, dismissing cases for lack of probable cause, and adopting certain courtroom policies.
Remedy and Judicial Hierarchy
The Court observed that the proper remedy from an order dismissing an action is an appeal, but declined to dismiss on procedural grounds given the public interest and lengthy history.
Raffle Procedure Found Proper
The en banc Court held that the raffle to Branch 81 complied with Administrative Orders 36-96 and 19-98. Branches 219 and 102 were correctly excluded due to lack of regularly appointed judges, and no timely objection was raised at the raffle itself.
Family Court Jurisdiction Inapplicable to Deceased Minors
Exclusive family-court jurisdiction under R.A. 8369 § 5 protects living minors. Because the alleged minor victims were deceased and represented by their heirs, the cases properly remained assigned to a heinous-crimes court.
No Grounds for Judicial Inhibition
Disqualification rules (Rule 137 and Code of Judicial Conduct) require clear proof of partiality. Judge Yadao’s media interview post-dismissal and remarks regarding a relative’s promotion did not demonstrate bias or a mandatory ground for inhibition. Criticism of the prosecution’s “stubborn insistence” in motions for reconsideration was based on her prior ruling and did not constitute prejudgment.
Dismissal for Lack of Probable Cause Affirmed
Under Section 6, Rule 112, a judge may immediately dismiss a case if evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. Judge Yadao properly examined the affidavits and reports submitted by the prosecution—particularly those of Ramos, Medes, Enad, Seno, and the 1995 After-Op
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 162144-54)
Facts and Procedural Background
- On May 18, 1995, combined PNP units under ABRITG—including Task Force Habagat (Lacson), TMC (Zubia), CIC (Acop), and NCR Command (Canson)—killed 11 suspected Kuratong Baleleng Gang members on Commonwealth Avenue.
- SPO2 Delos Reyes publicly termed the incident a summary execution.
- The Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs initially absolved all police officers; on reconsideration, the Ombudsman charged them with murder (accessory for Zubia, Acop, Lacson) before the Sandiganbayan.
- Respondents moved to transfer to the RTC of Quezon City; RA 8249’s amendment of Sandiganbayan jurisdiction prompted initial retention, later overruled by this Court for lack of official‐function allegations.
- At RTC Branch 81, principal witnesses recanted and private complainants desisted, prompting motions for judicial probable‐cause determination.
- On March 29, 1999, RTC provisionally dismissed for lack of probable cause.
- In March 2001, PNP Director Mendoza requested a renewed DOJ preliminary investigation; a panel found probable cause (June 6, 2001) and filed new informations before RTC Branch 81 (Judge Yadao).
- Lacson sought prohibition in the CA; a TRO halted RTC proceedings; CA granted relief on double jeopardy theory (Aug. 24, 2001) but this Court reversed (G.R. 149453), remanding for trial.
- After re-raffle remained with Branch 81, prosecution amended informations to allege minority of two victims and sought re-raffle to family court—denied by Judge Dizon and Judge Yadao.
- On November 12, 2003, Judge Yadao: (a) denied re-raffle; (b) granted probable‐cause motions; (c) dismissed cases for lack of probable cause; subsequent motions to recuse and for reconsideration were denied.
- Prosecution withdrew appeals and filed Rule 65 certiorari before this Court challenging: jurisdiction, raffle, disqualification, dismissal, and court policies.
Issues Presented
- Whether Executive Judge Dizon gravely abused discretion in the raffle procedure.
- Whether Judge Yadao gravely abused discretion by assuming jurisdiction instead of transferring to family court.
- Whether Judge Yadao should have inhibited or disqualified