View full case

OFFICE OF PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE v. CA

FACTS:

In this case, the provincial prosecutor of Zamboanga del Norte filed an information charging the private respondents and 10 other individuals with murder and multiple frustrated murder. The information was based on a joint affidavit executed by former members of the New People's Army (NPA) who claimed to have been involved in the armed encounter. Private respondents did not appear or submit affidavits during the preliminary investigation. They appealed the decision of the provincial prosecutor to the Secretary of Justice, arguing that the crime committed was actually rebellion and not murder.

The trial court denied private respondents' motion to change the charge, but the Court of Appeals ordered the prosecutor to substitute the information with a charge of rebellion. The provincial prosecutor then filed a petition for review of the Court of Appeals' decision.

Another set of facts involves a petition for certiorari filed by private respondents against the trial court and provincial prosecutor. Private respondents were charged with murder and multiple frustrated murder arising from an alleged encounter with the NPA. They moved for the amendment of the charge to rebellion, citing the ruling in People v. Hernandez. The trial court denied the motion, stating that the investigating prosecutor recommended the filing of murder charges to cover up the political nature of the alleged crime. The Court of Appeals found the provincial prosecutor guilty of grave abuse of discretion and held that the NPA fighters should have been charged with rebellion.

Finally, in a separate case, the defendant, Michael, was charged with murder. The prosecutor then sought to amend the information to include the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Michael filed a motion to quash the amended information, but the trial court denied it. He then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecutor's motion was an admission of a mistake in charging the crime.

In summary, the facts of the case involve disputes regarding the appropriate charges filed against the private respondents. The trial court initially denied the motion to change the charge from murder to rebellion, but the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondents. Additionally, in an unrelated case, the defendant sought to quash an amended information, claiming a mistake in charging the crime.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in considering evidence dehors the record of the trial court in finding the provincial prosecutor guilty of grave abuse of discretion.

  2. Whether the crime committed is rebellion or murder with multiple frustrated murder.

  3. Whether or not the killing and wounding of government troops by members of the CPP/NPA constitutes rebellion.

  4. Whether or not the political motivation for the crime was proven.

  5. Whether the crime charged should be rebellion or murder.

  6. Whether the burden of proving the motivation for the crime is political or private falls on the defense.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that it was improper for the Court of Appeals to consider evidence dehors the record of the trial court in finding the provincial prosecutor guilty of grave abuse of discretion. The record of the preliminary investigation does not form part of the record of the case in the Regional Trial Court. To allow the review of evidence presented during the preliminary investigation for the purpose of compelling the trial court to change the charge to a lesser offense would undermine the authority of the prosecutor and impose an intolerable burden on the trial court.

  2. The Court noted that it is not clear whether the crime as made out by the facts alleged in the Joint Affidavit is rebellion or murder with multiple frustrated murder. The Joint Affidavit did not establish whether the killing and wounding of the government troopers were made in furtherance of rebellion or for some private motive. The Court emphasized that private respondents did not even attend the preliminary investigation, where they could have shown that the crime committed was rebellion.

  3. The killing and wounding of government troops by members of the CPP/NPA does not necessarily constitute rebellion. The political motivation for the crime must be shown in order to justify finding the crime committed to be rebellion.

  4. The political motivation for the crime was not proven in this case. Merely showing that the perpetrators were members of the CPP/NPA who engaged government troops in a firefight does not automatically establish the political nature of the act.

  5. The proceedings are still in the pre-arraignment stage, and both purpose and overt acts are essential components of the crime of rebellion. Without either of these elements, the crime of rebellion legally does not exist. Therefore, it is premature to determine if the crime charged should be rebellion or murder. The petitioner is under no obligation to change the charge against the private respondents at this time.

  6. The burden of proving that the motivation for the crime is political and not private lies with the defense. Motive is a state of mind that the accused knows better than any individual. If the private respondents are able to show proof during the trial that supports their contention, they can avail of the remedy of dismissing the original complaint or information and filing a new one charging the proper offense.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The record of the preliminary investigation does not form part of the record of the case in the Regional Trial Court. (Rule 112, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)

  • Municipal judges do not have the legal authority to determine the character of the crime; such power belongs to the fiscal. (Depamaylo v. Brotarlo)

  • The prosecutor has the authority to determine the appropriate charge based on the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation.

  • The political motivation for a crime must be proven in order to classify it as rebellion. Merely being a member of a rebel group does not automatically make an act committed by the member an act of rebellion.

  • Prosecutors have the discretion to determine which offense to charge an accused based on the evidence at hand. They are not mandated to charge the lesser offense if the evidence warrants the prosecution of a more serious offense.

  • The charge against an accused should reflect the proper offense committed, and if a mistake is made, the court may dismiss the original complaint or information and file a new one charging the proper offense.

  • The burden of proving the motivation for the crime is political and not private lies with the defense, as motive is a state of mind known better by the accused.