View full case

SATURNINO C. OCAMPO v. EPHREM S. ABANDO

FACTS:

A mass grave containing skeletal remains believed to be victims of "Operation Venereal Disease" (Operation VD) launched by members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP was discovered in Inopacan, Leyte. Petitioners in this case are seeking the annulment of orders and resolutions related to their indictment and the issuance of warrants of arrest for multiple murder charges. The Provincial Prosecutor of Leyte received letters from the PNP and the Philippine Army requesting legal action on complaint-affidavits accusing the CPP/NPA/NDFP members of murder. After the preliminary investigation, a prosecutor recommended the filing of an Information for multiple murder charges against 54 named members, including the petitioners.

The case involves multiple murder charges filed against 54 members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP, including the petitioners. The prosecutor recommended dropping some respondents and utilizing them as state witnesses. The information was filed before the RTC Hilongos, Leyte and a motion for a clarificatory hearing was filed. The court found probable cause and issued warrants of arrest against the accused. Petitioner Ocampo filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking the annulment of the order and resolution. The petitioner argued that a case for rebellion was already pending before the RTC Makati and that the murder charges should already be included in the rebellion charge.

The case involves the consolidation of several petitions filed by different petitioners. Petitioner Baylosis filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition seeking the annulment of certain orders. Petitioner Echanis sought immediate release for his participation in peace negotiations. Petitioner Ladlad filed a motion to quash and later a special civil action for certiorari seeking the annulment of certain orders. The trial court denied the motion to quash and the motion for reconsideration. Petitioners Ladlad and Baylosis filed motions for bail, which were granted with the condition that their temporary release be limited to their actual participation in peace negotiations. Petitioner Ladlad filed a reply to the comment of the Office of the Solicitor General.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioners were denied due process during preliminary investigation and in the issuance of the warrants of arrest.

  2. Whether the murder charges against the petitioners should be dismissed under the political offense doctrine.

RULING:

  1. Petitioners were accorded due process during the preliminary investigation and in the issuance of the warrants of arrest.

    • Preliminary Investigation: The Court held that the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity to be heard during the preliminary investigation. Despite some petitioners claiming they did not receive subpoenas, the prosecutor made efforts to serve them. The failure of some petitioners to submit counter-affidavits was not due to a lack of opportunity but because they were no longer found at their last known addresses or chose to remain passive.

    • Issuance of the Warrants of Arrest: The Court found that the trial judge sufficiently reviewed the prosecutor’s report and supporting documents before issuing the warrants of arrest. Thus, there was no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the warrants.

  2. The political offense doctrine is not a ground to dismiss the charges against petitioners prior to a determination by the trial court that the murders were committed in furtherance of rebellion.

    • The Court held that while the political offense doctrine could be a valid defense, it is crucial for the trial court to determine whether the acts of murder were committed in furtherance of rebellion. The burden of proving the political motivation behind the killings is on the defense, to be demonstrated during trial.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Due Process in Preliminary Investigations The essence of due process during preliminary investigation is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit evidence in one’s defense.

  2. Probable Cause for Issuance of Warrants Probable cause for arrest warrants necessitates a judge's evaluation of the prosecutor’s report and supporting documents, though a hearing is not obligatory.

  3. Political Offense Doctrine Common crimes committed in furtherance of a political offense assume the political nature of the main crime and cannot be separately punished. However, the political motive must be clearly demonstrated during trial.

  4. Discretion of Public Prosecutors The decision of whom and what to charge in criminal cases is within the sound discretion of public prosecutors.

  5. Burden of Proving Political Motivation The burden of demonstrating the political motivation behind an act rests with the defense, which is a factual matter to be resolved at trial.

  6. Double Jeopardy Double jeopardy applies when a first jeopardy has attached, been validly terminated, and a second jeopardy is for the same offense. A first jeopardy attaches only after a plea has been entered upon a valid indictment.