View full case

VICENTE P. LADLAD v. SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO

FACTS:

The consolidated petitions involved in this case are for the writs of prohibition and certiorari to enjoin petitioners' prosecution for Rebellion and to set aside the rulings of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Regional Trial Court of Makati City (RTC Makati) on the investigation and prosecution of their cases. The main facts of the case are as follows: Petitioner in G.R. No. 175013, Crispin B. Beltran, and petitioners in G.R. Nos. 172074-76, Liza L. Maza, Joel G. Virador, Saturnino C. Ocampo, Teodoro A. Casiño, and Rafael V. Mariano, are members of the House of Representatives representing various party-list groups. Petitioners all face charges for Rebellion under the Revised Penal Code in two criminal cases pending with the RTC Makati. During the state of national emergency declared by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Beltran was arrested without a warrant and subjected to an inquest for Inciting to Sedition. He was later subjected to a second inquest for Rebellion. The DOJ panel of prosecutors found probable cause to indict Beltran and filed an Information with the RTC Makati. The petitioners in G.R. Nos. 172070-72, who are private individuals, were also subpoenaed to appear at the DOJ Office for the investigation of their involvement in an alleged plot to overthrow the Arroyo government. During the preliminary investigation, a masked man claimed to be an eyewitness against the petitioners and subscribed to his affidavit. The panel of prosecutors gave petitioners 10 days to file their counter-affidavits. Petitioners requested the inhibition of the members of the prosecution panel for lack of impartiality and independence.

The case involves several petitions seeking the nullification of certain Department of Justice (DOJ) orders and the enjoining of the prosecution of a criminal case. In one petition (G.R. No. 175013), the petitioner Beltran questions the validity of the inquest proceeding conducted against him for Rebellion and argues that there is no probable cause to indict him for the said offense. In another petition (G.R. Nos. 172070-72 and 172074-76), the petitioners Maza, et al., challenge the impartiality and independence of the prosecution panel and seek to enjoin the continuation of the prosecution of a criminal case. The petitions argue that the political environment, public statements made by the President and the Secretary of Justice, and the conduct of the preliminary investigation taint the fairness of the proceedings. The Court finds the petitions to be meritorious. The Court rules that the inquest proceeding against Beltran for Rebellion is void because the inquest prosecutor overstepped his authority by subjecting Beltran to a second inquest for Rebellion, which was not the offense for which Beltran was arrested. The Court also declares that there is no probable cause to indict Beltran for Rebellion.

The case pertains to the determination of probable cause for the crime of rebellion. The Supreme Court explains that probable cause is established when there are facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable mind to believe that the person charged is guilty of the crime. Generally, the Court does not interfere with the prosecutor's determination of probable cause. However, there are exceptional cases where the prosecutor abuses his discretion by ignoring clear insufficiency of evidence, depriving the accused of their right to due process. In such cases, the Court exercises its review power to overturn the prosecutor's findings.

Rebellion, as defined under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, is committed by publicly rising and taking arms against the Government with the intent to remove allegiance to the Government or its laws, or to deprive the Chief Executive or the Legislature of their powers or prerogatives. The elements of the offense include a public uprising and taking arms against the Government, and the purpose of the uprising being to remove allegiance to the Government or its laws.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there is probable cause to indict Beltran for the crime of Rebellion.

  2. Whether the prosecutor abused their discretion in finding probable cause against Beltran.

  3. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution establishes probable cause to charge Beltran with Rebellion.

  4. Whether the preliminary investigation of the offenses in the Ladlad and Maza Petitions was tainted with irregularities.

  5. Whether the respondent prosecutors committed procedural irregularities in conducting the preliminary investigation.

  6. Whether the respondent prosecutors displayed impartiality in handling the case.

  7. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Criminal Case Nos. 06-452 and 06-944.

  8. Whether or not the dismissal of Criminal Case Nos. 06-452 and 06-944 is in accordance with the law and jurisprudence.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds that there is no probable cause to indict Beltran for the crime of Rebellion. The evidence presented, consisting of affidavits and other documents, is insufficient to show Beltran's participation in an armed public uprising against the government. The affidavits do not allege specific acts committed by Beltran in promoting, maintaining, or heading a rebellion. Mere presence at a CPP Plenum and alleged funding of the CPP's military equipment do not establish probable cause. Thus, the finding of probable cause against Beltran for Rebellion is overturned.

  2. The Court finds that the prosecutor abused their discretion in finding probable cause against Beltran. The prosecutor ignored the clear insufficiency of evidence to support a finding of probable cause, thus denying Beltran his right to substantive and procedural due process.

  3. The allegations in Fuentes' affidavit only make out a case for Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion, not Rebellion. The attendance in meetings to discuss plans to bring down a government is a preparatory step to commit the acts constituting Rebellion. The Information against Beltran only charges him with Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion, not Rebellion itself. Therefore, Beltran is entitled to bail as a matter of right since there is no allegation that he is a leader or promoter of the Rebellion.

  4. The procedure for preliminary investigation, as outlined in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, was not followed. The investigating officer failed to provide the respondent with access to the evidence submitted by the complainant and did not allow the filing of a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit. As a result, the preliminary investigation in the Ladlad and Maza Petitions was tainted with irregularities.

  5. The Court ruled that the respondent prosecutors failed to follow the proper procedure in conducting the preliminary investigation. They disregarded Section 3(a) of Rule 112 which requires the complaint to be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and witnesses, subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath. They also accepted unsubscribed letters as complaints and affidavits notarized by a notary public without any showing that a prosecutor or government official was unavailable. Furthermore, they peremptorily issued subpoenas to the petitioners without determining if there are grounds to continue with the investigation, and distributed copies of a witness' affidavit to the media before allowing the petitioners to examine the charges against them.

  6. The Court found merit in the petitioners' doubt on the impartiality of the respondent prosecutors. The Secretary of Justice, who exercises supervision and control over the panel of prosecutors, made a statement expressing a determination to file the Information even in the absence of probable cause. The Court considered this as pre-judgment and evidence of lack of impartiality.

  7. The Supreme Court denied the petition to dismiss Criminal Case Nos. 06-452 and 06-944. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. The Court also argued that the dismissal of the cases is not in accordance with the law and jurisprudence established.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet, prudent, and cautious man to believe that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty of it.

  • The determination of probable cause is within the discretion of the prosecutor, and the Court generally does not interfere with this discretion unless there is an abuse thereof.

  • However, when the prosecutor abuses their discretion by ignoring a clear insufficiency of evidence to support a finding of probable cause, the Court may intervene and exercise its review power to overturn the prosecutor's findings.

  • Rebellion, as defined under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, involves a public uprising and the taking up of arms against the government for the purpose of removing allegiance to the government, depriving the Chief Executive or Congress of their powers, or removing territory from the Republic of the Philippines.

  • Rebellion is a crime of the masses or multitudes involving crowd action done in furtherance of a political end. Mere membership in a political organization like the CPP does not automatically constitute rebellion.

  • Attendance in meetings to discuss plans to bring down a government is a preparatory step to commit Rebellion.

  • The absence of allegations that the accused is a leader or promoter of the Rebellion entitles the accused to bail as a matter of right.

  • The procedure for preliminary investigation, as outlined in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, must be followed to ensure a fair and proper investigation.

  • A preliminary investigation is a crucial sieve in the criminal justice system and is considered a substantive right forming part of due process in criminal justice.

  • The filing of an Information with the trial court does not moot the power of the Court to enjoin prosecutions.

  • Prosecutors should avoid giving the impression that their office is being used for political ends or purposes alien to the interest of justice, and should strictly adhere to established procedures to enhance the public's perception of their impartiality.

  • The Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.