Case Digest: People vs Dela Torre-Yadao

People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Dela Torre-Yadao, et al.

G.R. No. 162144-54 ; 13 November 2012

PONENTE: Del Abad

FACTS:

In the early morning of May 18, 1995, the combined forces of the Philippine National Police’s Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (PNP ABRITG) composed of Task Force Habagat, then headed by Police Chief Superintendent Panfilo M. Lacson killed 11 suspected members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City. Subsequently, SPO2 Eduardo Delos Reyes of the Criminal Investigation Command told the press that it was a summary execution, not a shoot-out between the police and those who were slain. After investigation, the Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs absolved all the police officers involved. On review, however, the Office of the Ombudsman reversed the finding and filed charges of murder against the police officers involved before the Sandiganbayan. On March 29, 1999 the RTC of Quezon City ordered the provisional dismissal of the cases for lack

of probable cause to hold the accused for trial following the recantation of the principal prosecution witnesses and the desistance of the private complainants.

The case was reopened in March 27, 2001 but the CA rendered a Decision, granting Lacson’s petition on the ground of double jeopardy but on appeal to the SC, the latter directed the RTC to try the case. It was re-raffled to branch 81 presided by Judge Yadao.  Yadao in 2003 junked the murder case against Lacson and other police officials for lack of probable cause.On March 3, 2004 the prosecution filed the present special civil action of certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Yadao gravely abused her discretion when she dismissed the criminal actions on the ground of lack of probable cause

HELD:

            The prosecution claims that Judge Yadao gravely abused her discretion when she set the motions for determination of probable cause for hearing, deferred the issuance of warrants of arrest, and allowed the defense to mark its evidence and argue its case. The general rule of course is that the judge is not required, when determining probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrests, to conduct a de novo hearing. The judge only needs to personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence. But here, the prosecution conceded that their own witnesses tried to explain in their new affidavits the inconsistent statements that they earlier submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman. Consequently, it was not unreasonable for Judge Yadao, for the purpose of determining probable cause based on those affidavits, to hold a hearing and examine the inconsistent statements and related documents that the witnesses themselves brought up and were part of the records. The SC held that the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause against the respondents.

            The prosecution The prosecution points out that, rather than dismiss the criminal action outright, Judge Yadao should have ordered the panel of prosecutors to present additional evidence pursuant to Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court gives the trial court three options upon the filing of the criminal information: (1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable cause; (2) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause; and (3) order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days from notice in case of doubt as to the existence of probable cause. But the option to order the prosecutor to present additional evidence is not mandatory. The court’s first option under the above is for it to “immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause.” That is the situation here: the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause against the respondents.

            In the absence of probable cause to indict respondents for the crime of multiple murder, they should be insulated from the tribulations, expenses and anxiety of a public trial.