Case Summary (A.C. No. 6368)
Key Dates
- November 24, 2000: Abduction and murder of Dacer and Corbito
- May 11, 2001: Original Information filed in RTC, Manila
- May–September 2001: Series of motions (Quash, Reinvestigation, Amended Information)
- April 4, 2002: Court of Appeals Decision granting admission of Amended Information
- October 5, 2005: Supreme Court Decision
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision after 1990)
- Rule 110, Section 14, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (amendment of information)
- Rule 119, Section 17, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (discharge as state witness)
- Republic Act No. 6981 (Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program)
Facts of Abduction and Murder
In November 2000, Dacer and Corbito were abducted in Manila. Their charred remains, later identified through dental and forensic evidence, showed death by strangulation.
Original and Amended Informations
The DOJ charged multiple individuals, including police officers assigned to the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force, with double murder. On May 23, 2001, the prosecution sought admission of an Amended Information expanding, substituting, and excluding certain accused.
Pretrial Motions and Reinvestigation
Several accused moved to quash. P/Supt. Glen Dumlao executed a sworn statement implicating other officers, prompting a prosecution motion for reinvestigation granted by the RTC. P/Insp. Danilo Villanueva was discharged and replaced by SPO3 Allan Villanueva.
Trial Court’s Ruling on Amended Information
On October 1 and 24, 2001, the RTC denied the Motion to Admit Amended Information, reasoning that exclusion of accused for use as state witnesses must comply with Section 17, Rule 119 (hearing, sworn statements, corroboration, etc.).
Court of Appeals’ Decision
The Court of Appeals granted the petition, annulling the RTC orders. It held that Section 14, Rule 110 governs amendment of information before plea, requiring only motion, notice, and leave of court. The prior grant of reinvestigation constituted leave. Section 17, Rule 119 applies only after arraignment and during trial when no amendment is involved.
Issues on Amendment Versus Discharge
Petitioners contended the RTC correctly applied Section 17, Rule 119; the prosecution argued Section 14, Rule 110 alone sufficed pre-plea, and reinvestigation amounted to judicial leave. The dispute focused on whether both rules apply cumulatively or whether amendment procedures preempt the discharge hearing requirements.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Prosecutorial Discretion
The Court reaffirmed that the decision whom to charge is an executive function. A court’s grant of reinvestigation defers to prosecutorial authority, equipping it with discretion to amend the information pre-plea under Section 14, Rule 110, so long as substantial rights and due process are respected. Section 17, Rule 119 is triggered when no amendment is sought and discharge as witness occurs after arraignment.
Rule on Section 14, Rule 110 and Section 17, Rule 119
- Section 14, Rule 110 applies to all pre-plea amendments excluding accused, regardless of purpose.
- Section 17, Rule 119 governs discharge of an accused already in the information, after arraignment, requiring a
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 6368)
Facts of the Case
- In November 2000, public relations practitioner Salvador “Bubby” Dacer and his driver Emmanuel Corbito were abducted along Zobel Roxas Street in Manila.
- The victims’ charred remains—burnt bones, metal dental plates, and a ring—were found in Barangay Buna Lejos, Indang, Cavite, and identified by dentists and UP forensic pathologists.
- The cause of death for both victims was strangulation.
Initial Investigation and Filing of Information
- A DOJ panel of prosecutors conducted a preliminary investigation.
- On May 11, 2001, an Information was filed with the RTC of Manila (Criminal Case No. 01-191969), charging 27 individuals—including police officers assigned to the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF)—with double murder.
- The Information alleged premeditation, treachery, abuse of superior strength, nighttime commission, remoteness of place, concert of action, and deliberate intent to kill.
First Amended Information and Motions to Quash
- On May 23, 2001, the prosecution moved to admit an Amended Information, which was granted the same day.
- The Amended Information added allegations of abduction at the corner of Osmeña Highway and Zobel Roxas Street, and renamed and substituted certain accused.
- On May 24, 2001, seven accused moved to quash the Information for lack of probable cause.
Subsequent Developments in Trial Court
- P/Supt. Glen Dumlao was arrested and executed a sworn statement implicating additional PAOCTF officers.
- On June 18, 2001, P/Insp. Danilo Villanueva successfully moved for reinvestigation of his identification, resulting in substitution by “SPO3 Allan Cadenilla Villanueva.”
- On July 4, 2001, upon Dumlao’s statement, the trial court granted a DOJ motion for reinvestigation and set a 20-day period for findings.
- The judge denied the joint motion to quash on June 28, 2001.
- On August 2, 2001, NBI filed a new complaint against P/Sr. Supt. Teofilo Viña.
- On August 16, 2001, Villanueva was discharged from the Information.
Second Amended Information and Opposition
- On September 17, 2001, the prosecution filed a Manifestation and Motion to Admit Amended Information:
• Discharging Jimmy L. Lopez, William L. Lopez, Alex B. Diloy, and Glen Dumlao as state witnesses
• Substituting SPO3 Allan Villanueva for P/Insp. Danilo Villanueva
• Cha