View full case

P/INSP. ARIEL S. ARTILLERO v. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO

FACTS:

This case involves a criminal charge filed by Private Inspector Ariel S. Artillero against Barangay Captain Edito Aguillon for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act No. 8249. Artillero, accompanied by Police Inspector Idel Hermoso and Senior Police Officer Arial Lanaque, responded to reports of gunshots in Barangay Lanjagan. Upon arrival, they encountered Panisales who denied hearing any gunshots but appeared to display a firearm while under the influence of alcohol. Panisales was frisked and found to have the necessary licenses for his firearm. While dealing with Panisales, the police officers witnessed Aguillon openly carrying a rifle and behaving drunkenly. They disarmed Aguillon and found that he only presented a Firearm License Card without a Permit to Carry Firearm Outside Residence. Aguillon was then arrested and brought to the police station. However, the case was later dismissed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for insufficiency of evidence, a resolution later approved by the Office of the Ombudsman.

In response, Artillero filed a Petition for Certiorari seeking to nullify the orders and resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. Artillero argued that he was not given a copy of Aguillon's counter-affidavit, the Provincial Prosecutor's resolution, and the Office of the Ombudsman's resolution, thereby denying him due process. He also contended that the dismissal of the case based on insufficiency of evidence is contrary to the law and jurisprudence. The private respondent argued that there was no sufficient evidence to warrant the prosecution and that the petition was frivolous and caused delay.

The provincial prosecutor explained that Artillero was not given a copy of the counter-affidavit and the resolution because the case records were sent to the Office of the Ombudsman for approval. It was also noted that Artillero did not sign to signify receipt of the resolutions. The provincial prosecutor asserted that Artillero was not deprived of due process as he could still file a Motion for Reconsideration. The Deputy Ombudsman argued that the constitutional right to due process belongs to the accused and not the complainant.

In another aspect of the case, the petitioner sought to file a Reply to the counter-affidavit of the accused during the preliminary investigation. The accused disputed the petitioner's right to file a Reply, arguing that it should be granted by law and that there was no specific provision in the Rules of Court allowing the complainant to do so. The Court clarified that a preliminary investigation is not a trial and is only preparatory thereto, done to determine if a crime has been committed and if there is probable cause to believe the accused is guilty. The Court emphasized that the right to a preliminary investigation is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution but a statutory right. Therefore, the rights of parties in a preliminary investigation depend on those granted by law and cannot be based on perceived entitlement or derived from the phrase "due process of law."

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the complainant in a preliminary investigation has the right to file a Reply to the accused's counter-affidavit.

  2. Whether the complainant is entitled to receive a copy of the counter-affidavit filed by the accused.

  3. Whether the failure to send a copy of the resolution to the complainant was a violation of due process.

  4. Whether the dismissal of the complaint was correct based on Memorandum Circular No. 2000-016.

  5. Whether or not a barangay captain is authorized to carry firearms outside their residence under the IRR of P.D. 1866

  6. Whether or not a barangay captain is authorized to carry firearms outside their residence under the Local Government Code (LGC)

  7. Whether Barangay Captain Aguillon has the authority to carry a firearm within his territorial jurisdiction.

  8. Whether there was probable cause to hold Barangay Captain Aguillon for trial for illegal possession of firearm.

  9. Whether the Court affirms the Resolutions of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Order of the Office of the Ombudsman.

RULING:

  1. The complainant in a preliminary investigation does not have a vested right to file a Reply. The right to file a Reply should be granted by law. It is discretionary on the part of the prosecutor to require or allow the filing of a Reply.

  2. The complainant is entitled to receive a copy of the counter-affidavit filed by the accused. Section 3(c) of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure grants the complainant this right, and it is the duty of the Provincial Prosecutor to observe the requirements of due process.

  3. The failure to send a copy of the resolution to the complainant was not a violation of due process. The rules do not require the prosecutor to send a copy of the resolution to the complainant. As long as the complainant has been given an opportunity to be heard, there is sufficient compliance with due process.

  4. The dismissal of the complaint was not a violation of due process. The complainant's argument that Memorandum Circular No. 2000-016 should have been considered was not persuasive. The original IRR of P.D. 1866 was already issued and the complainant failed to show that Memorandum Circular No. 2000-016 was the IRR issued by the PNP for P.D. 1866.

  5. No, a barangay captain is not authorized to carry firearms outside their residence under the IRR of P.D. 1866. The IRR expressly states that lawful holders of firearms are prohibited from carrying them outside their residences, unless specifically authorized by the Chief of Constabulary. The IRR only enumerates specific persons who are authorized to carry firearms outside their residences, and a barangay captain is not included in that list.

  6. Yes, a barangay captain is authorized to possess and carry firearms outside their residence under the Local Government Code (LGC). Section 88(3) of B.P. 337, which was repealed by the LGC of 1991, entitles a punong barangay (barangay captain) to possess and carry necessary firearms within their territorial jurisdiction, subject to existing rules and regulations on the possession and carrying of firearms. This provision was retained in Section 389(b) of the LGC of 1991.

  7. Yes, Barangay Captain Aguillon has the authority to carry a firearm within his territorial jurisdiction. Section 389 (b) of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 grants punong barangays the authority to possess and carry necessary firearms within their territorial jurisdiction, subject to appropriate rules and regulations.

  8. No, there was no probable cause to hold Barangay Captain Aguillon for trial for illegal possession of firearm. The Deputy Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint against Aguillon. Despite not having a Permit to Carry Firearm Outside of Residence (PTCFOR), Aguillon had the legal authority to carry his firearm outside his residence as granted by Section 389 (b) of the LGC of 1991.

  9. The Court affirms the Resolution of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, the Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Order of the Office of the Ombudsman.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Preliminary investigation is not a trial but is merely preparatory thereto. Its purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe the accused guilty thereof.

  • The right to participate in a preliminary investigation depends on the rights granted by law, not on the phrase "due process of law."

  • The filing of a Reply in a preliminary investigation is discretionary on the part of the prosecutor.

  • The complainant is entitled to receive a copy of the counter-affidavit filed by the accused.

  • The failure to send a copy of the resolution to the complainant is not a violation of due process as long as the complainant has been given an opportunity to be heard.

  • The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard.

  • The compliance with the requirements of due process can be satisfied by giving the party a chance to be heard through a motion for reconsideration.

  • The requirements of due process should be observed by the Provincial Prosecutor in the cases presented before it.

  • The IRR of P.D. 1866 prohibits lawful holders of firearms from carrying them outside their residences, unless specifically authorized by the Chief of Constabulary.

  • The Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 entitles a punong barangay (barangay captain) to possess and carry necessary firearms within their territorial jurisdiction, subject to existing rules and regulations on the possession and carrying of firearms.

  • The Court gives credence to the finding and determination of probable cause by prosecutors in a preliminary investigation, unless there is a clear showing of arbitrariness.

  • The Court adopts a policy of non-interference in the exercise of the Ombudsman's investigatory powers and it is incumbent upon the petitioner to prove grave abuse of discretion to warrant reversal.

  • Punong barangays, as peace officers, have the authority and duty to possess and carry firearms necessary for the enforcement of peace and order within their barangays.

  • Section 389 (b) of the LGC of 1991 grants punong barangays the authority to carry firearms within their territorial jurisdiction, subject to appropriate rules and regulations.

  • The phrase "subject to appropriate rules and regulations" in the LGC refers to those found in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the LGC or a later IRR of the law being amended, not those that have already been amended.

  • There is no law that penalizes a local chief executive for imbibing liquor while carrying a firearm, nor any law that restricts the kind of firearms punong barangays may carry in the performance of their peace and order functions.

  • The adequacy of laws governing the carrying of firearms by local chief executives may warrant appropriate action from the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.