Case Summary (G.R. No. 131492)
Petitioners
Roger Posadas, Rosario Torres-Yu, Marichu Lambino, Col. Eduardo Bentain, and Atty. Villamor challenged the Ombudsman’s order directing prosecution for violation of P.D. No. 1829, Sec. 1(c), alleging grave abuse of discretion in finding warrantless arrests valid on mere suspicion and in concluding probable cause existed to charge them with obstructing justice.
Respondents
The Honorable Ombudsman, the Special Prosecutor, and Orlando V. Dizon, Chief of the NBI Special Operations Group.
Key Dates
• December 8, 1994 – Killing of Venturina
• December 11, 1994 – Chancellor Posadas’s letter requesting NBI assistance
• December 12, 1994 – NBI’s attempted warrantless arrest; petitioner intervention
• May 18, 1995 – Filing of information for obstruction of justice under P.D. 1829
• September 8, 1997 – Ombudsman orders prosecution to proceed
• September 29, 2000 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2 (right against unreasonable seizures; arrest only by warrant except in narrowly defined cases)
• Rule 113, Sec. 5, Rules of Criminal Procedure (exceptions to warrant requirement)
• Presidential Decree No. 1829, Sec. 1(c) (penalizing willful obstruction or facilitation of escape of suspect)
Issue 1: Validity of the Warrantless Arrest
Under the 1987 Constitution, no arrest may be made without a warrant except when (a) the offender is caught in flagrante, (b) an offense has just been committed and the officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating guilt, or (c) the person is an escaping prisoner. NBI agents acted four days after the killing, based solely on two eyewitness identifications, and did not witness the crime nor encounter an in-progress offense. They therefore lacked “personal knowledge” and reasonable grounds rising to probable cause as required by Rule 113, Sec. 5(b). Taparan and Narag were participating in a supervised peace talk and were neither fugitives nor in flagrante. The attempted arrests without a warrant were unconstitutional and void.
Issue 2: Probable Cause to Prosecute Petitioners under P.D. No. 1829
P.D. No. 1829, Sec. 1(c), punishes harboring or concealing a person known or reasonably suspected to have committed an offense, to prevent arrest or prosecution. The Ombudsman relied on the eyewitness identifications and reasoned that petitioners obstructed justice by delaying the arrests and facilitating escape. However, petitioners’ only act was to prevent an illegal, warrantless arrest—an exercise of their right and duty under the Constitution and Rule 113. They had no authority to effect arrests, and the validity of the NBI’s warrantless attempt was for the courts, not campus officials, to determine. The Special Prosecutor’s reinvestigation found no basis to believe petitioners knowingly violated P.D. 1829; they acted in good faith to protect students’ rights.
Discretion of the Ombudsman and Prohibition of
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 131492)
Facts
- On December 8, 1994, Dennis Venturina, a Sigma Rho member at UP Diliman, was killed in a fraternity rumble.
- December 11, 1994: Chancellor Roger Posadas requested NBI assistance to identify those responsible.
- December 12, 1994: NBI Special Operations Group, led by Orlando V. Dizon, attempted to arrest Francis Carlo Taparan and Raymundo Narag—suspected Scintilla Juris Fraternity members—based on eyewitness identifications.
- Taparan and Narag were at the UP Police Station for a peace talk; petitioners Posadas, Lambino, Torres-Yu, and counsel Villamor prevented the arrest due to lack of a warrant and promised to bring suspects to the NBI next day.
- Despite intervention, criminal charges were later filed against the two student suspects.
Procedural History
- Dizon filed a complaint with the Office of the Special Prosecutor accusing petitioners and UP security officials of violating P.D. 1829 by obstructing the apprehension and prosecution of Taparan and Narag.
- May 18, 1995: An information was filed in the Sandiganbayan under P.D. 1829, Section 1(c).
- Special Prosecutor’s Office recommended dismissal on petitioners’ motion; the Ombudsman disapproved and, on September 8, 1997, directed prosecution.
- Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the Ombudsman’s resolution ordering their prosecution.
Issues
- Could the NBI validly attempt a warrantless arrest of student suspects?
- Was there probable cause to prosecute petitioners for violation of P.D