View full case

ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ v. HARRIET O. DEMETRIOU

FACTS:

Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez of Calauan, Laguna is accused of the rape with homicide of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez. A preliminary investigation was conducted where Sanchez was represented by his counsel. He was requested to appear for investigation at Camp Vicente Lim and was taken there, where he was positively identified by two individuals implicating him in the crimes. Sanchez was subsequently arrested and taken to the Department of Justice in Manila. The respondent prosecutors filed charges against Sanchez and others, which were later amended to include the killing of Allan Gomez as an aggravating circumstance. Sanchez filed a motion to quash the charges, which was denied. Sanchez then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court.

The case involves Mayor Antonio Sanchez of Calauan, Laguna, who was charged with multiple murder and rape involving seven individuals. During the preliminary investigation, the petitioner initially waived the submission of a counter-affidavit. Later on, a different counsel was present and confirmed the waiver of the counter-affidavit. The petitioner claimed that his previous counsel was not notified of the hearing and not furnished with the affidavits of the witnesses. However, the court noted that the petitioner was present at the hearing and did not disown his new counsel.

The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in the case, with the petitioner arguing that the proceedings conducted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) were null and void. The court clarified that the Ombudsman had the authority to investigate and prosecute public officials, but this authority was not exclusive and shared with other investigatory agencies such as the DOJ.

Lastly, the court addressed the issue of whether the petitioner was arrested. It explained that an arrest can be an actual restraint or by voluntary submission to custody. In this case, the petitioner was taken to Camp Vicente Lim by law enforcement officers, indicating an intent to arrest and a submission on the part of the petitioner.

The petitioner was invited to appear at Camp Vicente Lim for an investigation by PNP Commander Rex Piad. The court acknowledged that generally, an invitation to attend a hearing is not illegal. However, in this case, the invitation came from a high-ranking military official and the investigation was to be held at a military camp. Given the circumstances, the petitioner could not defy the invitation without consequences and thus went to the camp without protest.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner's arrest was lawful.

  2. Whether the trial court lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.

  3. Whether the case has become moot and academic due to the issuance of a new warrant of arrest.

  4. Whether the separate informations charging separate homicides in a case of rape with homicide are absurd.

  5. Whether there is discrimination for not including certain individuals in the informations.

  6. Whether the cases should come under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

  7. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the crime of rape with homicide charged against the petitioner.

  8. Whether or not the alleged offense committed by the petitioner is connected to his office as municipal mayor.

  9. Whether or not the lower court erred in granting the petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

RULING:

  1. The original warrantless arrest of the petitioner was illegal because the arresting officers were not present when the alleged offense was committed, and they did not have personal knowledge of the petitioner's responsibility for the offense. The arrest was based on the sworn statements of other individuals. However, the trial court lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner through a belated but legal warrant of arrest issued against him.

  2. Even if no warrant was issued at all, the trial court still lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The accused had waived the objection to the court's jurisdiction by raising other grounds in the motion to quash the information. Furthermore, the filing of charges and the issuance of the warrant of arrest against a person invalidly detained can cure the defect of the detention or deny the right to be released because of such defect.

  3. The case has become moot and academic as the new warrant of arrest complies with the requirements of the Constitution and the Rules of Court. Releasing the petitioner for the void warrant would be futile as she would be immediately re-arrested pursuant to the new and valid warrant.

  4. The separate informations charging separate homicides in a case of rape with homicide are not absurd. Each of the accused is charged with having himself raped the victim instead of assisting only one rape. The separate rapes were committed in succession, culminating in the slaying of the victim.

  5. There is no discrimination for not including certain individuals in the informations. The prosecuting officer has the discretion to charge only those who, in his opinion, appear to be guilty. The petitioner fails to show a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.

  6. The petitioner withdrew the contention that the cases should come under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

  7. The Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the crime of rape with homicide charged against the petitioner. The offense does not fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as provided in Section 4, paragraph (a) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by P.D. No. 1861. The crime does not qualify as a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, nor is it an offense committed in relation to the office of the petitioner.

  8. The alleged offense committed by the petitioner is not intimately connected to his office as municipal mayor. The offense of rape with homicide can stand independently of his office, and there is no allegation in the information that the commission of the crime was connected to the performance of his official functions. Therefore, the offense does not fall under the exception for offenses "committed in relation to the public office."

  9. The Court denied the petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and affirmed the decision of the lower court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An invitation to attend a hearing and answer questions may not be illegal or constitutionally objectionable, but under certain circumstances, it can easily be taken as an authoritative command.

  • The requisites of a "custodial investigation" are applicable even to a person not formally arrested but merely "invited" for questioning under R.A. No. 7438.

  • The arrest without a warrant is lawful when the offense has been committed in the presence of the arresting officer, or has just been committed, and the officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.

  • The trial court can lawfully acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused through a valid warrant of arrest even if the original warrantless arrest was illegal.

  • By raising other grounds in a motion to quash, the accused is deemed to have waived the objection to the court's jurisdiction, submitting his person to the jurisdiction of the court.

  • The filing of charges and the issuance of a warrant of arrest against a person invalidly detained can cure the defect of the detention or deny the right to be released because of such defect.

  • The writ of habeas corpus shall not be allowed if the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in custody under process issued by a court or judge with jurisdiction, or under a lawful judgment or order.

  • A case becomes moot and academic when there is no longer an actual controversy or when the issues have become academic or irrelevant.

  • The presence of homicide qualifies the crime of rape and raises its penalty to the highest degree. Homicide loses its character as an independent offense and functions as a qualifying circumstance when committed on the occasion or by reason of rape.

  • A complaint or information must charge only one offense, except in cases where existing laws prescribe a simple punishment for various offenses.

  • The prosecuting officer has the discretion to charge only those who, in his opinion, appear to be guilty. The court cannot compel the inclusion of a person against whom the prosecutor believes there is insufficient evidence of guilt.

  • The courts generally have no part in the initial decision to prosecute, but may intervene in cases of grave abuse of discretion through a petition for mandamus.

  • In order for an offense to fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, there must be a direct and non-accidental relation between the offense and the accused's office.

  • Public office is not an essential element of murder or any other offense, and the use or abuse of office only becomes material as an aggravating circumstance depending on the proof and manner of commission of the crime.

  • The connection between the offense and the office must be such that the offense cannot exist without the office being a constituent element of the crime as defined in the statute.

  • In determining whether the offense is intimately connected to the office, the court looks at the allegations in the information to see if there is an intimate connection between the offense and the performance of official functions.

  • The writ of habeas corpus is not a tool to test the correctness of a court-martial conviction. Its purpose is to inquire into whether the confinement or restraint is lawful or not.

  • The reviewing court must give deference to the findings of fact made by the court-martial, unless there is grave abuse of discretion or unless the court-martial acted without or in excess of jurisdiction.

  • The writ of habeas corpus may be denied when the petitioner has another available and more speedy remedy.

  • The power of the courts in the exercise of the writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.

  • The burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish his right to the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus.