Ocampo Vs Abando

Ocampo vs.
Abando 715 SCRA 673 , February 11, 2014
Facts of the case:
1. Police Chief Inspector George L. Almaden of (PNP) Regional Office 8 and Staff
Judge Advocate Captain Allan Tiu of the 8th Infantry Division of the Philippine
Army sent 12 undated letters to the Provincial Prosecutor of Leyte through
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Rosulo U. Vivero.
2. The letters requested appropriate legal action on 12 complaint-affidavits

attached therewith accusing 71 named members of the Communist Party of the
Philippines/New People�s Army/National Democratic Front of the Philippines
(CPP/NPA/NDFP) of murder.
3. The letters narrated that on 26 August 2006, elements of the 43rd Infantry
Brigade of the Philippine Army discovered a mass grave site of the CPP/NPA/NDFP at
Sitio Sapang Daco, Barangay Kaulisihan, Inopacan, Leyte.4 Recovered from the grave
site were 67 severely deteriorated skeletal remains believed to be victims of
Operation VD.
4. from 11-17 September 2006, an investigation team composed of intelligence

officers, and medico-legal and DNA experts, conducted forensic crime analysis and
collected from alleged relatives of the victims DNA samples for matching.
5. The Initial Specialist Report dated 18 September 2006 issued by the PNP Crime
Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City, was inconclusive with regard to the
identities of the skeletal remains and even the length of time that they had been
buried.
6. in a Special Report dated 2 October 2006, the Case Secretariat of the Regional
and National Inter-Agency Legal Action Group (IALAG) came up with the names of ten
(10) possible victims after comparison and examination based on testimonies of
relatives and witnesses.
7. The 12 complaint-affidavits were from relatives of the alleged victims of

Operation VD. All of them swore that their relatives had been abducted or last seen
with members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP and were never seen again. They also expressed
belief that their relatives� remains were among those discovered at the mass grave
site.
8. attached to the letters were the affidavits of Piedad,12 Leonardo C. Tanaid,

Floro M. Tanaid, Beringuel, Roluna and Tabara. They narrated that they were former
members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP. According to them, Operation VD was ordered in 1985 by
the CPP/NPA/NDFP Central Committee.
9. According to these former members, four sub-groups were formed to implement

Operation VD, namely, (1) the Intel Group responsible for gathering information on
suspected military spies and civilians who would not support the movement; (2) the
Arresting Group charged with their arrests; (3) the Investigation Group which would
subject those arrested to questioning; and (4) the Execution Group or the
�cleaners� of those confirmed to be military spies and civilians who would not
support the movement.
10. From 1985 to 1992, at least 100 people had been abducted, hog-tied, tortured
and executed by members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP20 pursuant to Operation VD.
11. Prosecutor Vivero issued a subpoena requiring, among others, petitioners to

submit their counter-affidavits and those of their witnesses. Petitioner Ocampo
submitted his counter-affidavit. Petitioners Echanis and Baylosis did not file
counter-affidavits because they were allegedly not served the copy of the complaint
and the attached documents or evidence. petitioner Ladlad did not file a counter-
affidavit because he was allegedly not served a subpoena.
12. In a Resolution dated 16 February 2007, Prosecutor Vivero recommended the

filing of an Information for 15 counts of multiple murder against 54 named members
of the CPP/NPA/NDFP, including petitioners herein, for the death of the following:
1) Juanita Aviola, 2) Concepcion Aragon, 3) Gregorio Eras, 4) Teodoro Recones, Jr.,
5) Restituto Ejoc, 6) Rolando Vasquez, 7) Junior Milyapis, 8) Crispin Dalmacio, 9)
Zacarias Casil, 10) Pablo Daniel, 11) Romeo Tayabas, 12) Domingo Napoles, 13)
Ciriaco Daniel, 14) Crispin Prado, and 15) Ereberto Prado.
13. Prosecutor Vivero recommended that Zacarias Piedad, Leonardo Tanaid, Numeriano
Beringuel and Glecerio Roluna be dropped as respondents and utilized as state
witnesses, as their testimonies were vital to the success of the prosecution.
14. The Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Hilongos,
Leyte, Branch 18 (RTC Hilongos, Leyte) presided by Judge Ephrem S. Abando (Judge
Abando) on 28 February 2007
Ruling of the RTC
1. On 6 March 2007, Judge Abando issued an Order finding probable cause �in the
commission by all mentioned accused of the crime charged.� He ordered the issuance
of warrants of arrest against them with no recommended bail for their temporary
liberty.
2. On 16 March 2007, petitioner Ocampo filed before us this special civil action -
seeking the annulment of the 6 March 2007 Order of Judge Abando and the 16 February
2007 Resolution of Prosecutor Vivero. The petition prayed for the unconditional
release of petitioner Ocampo from PNP custody, as well as the issuance of a
temporary restraining order/ writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the conduct
of further proceedings during the pendency of the petition.
3. Petitioner Ocampo argued that a case for rebellion against him and 44 others
(including petitioners Echanis and Baylosis and Ladlad) was then pending before the
RTC Makati. Putting forward the political offense doctrine, petitioner Ocampo
argues that common crimes, such as murder, are already absorbed by the crime of
rebellion.
4. Acting on the observation of the Court during the oral arguments that the single
Information filed before the RTC Hilongos, Leyte was defective for charging 15
counts of murder, the prosecution filed a Motion to Admit Amended Information and
New Informations on 11 April 2007. In an Order dated 27 July 2007, Judge Abando
held in abeyance the resolution thereof and effectively suspended the proceedings
during the pendency of G.R. No. 176830 before this Court.
6. While the proceedings were suspended, petitioner Echanis was arrested on 28

January 2008 by virtue of the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Abando on 6 March
2007.
7. The case was re-raffled to RTC Manila presided by Judge Thelma Bunyi-Medina
(Judge Medina).
8. In an Order dated 27 October 2008, Judge Medina suspended the proceedings of the
case pending the resolution of G.R. No. 176830 by this Court.
9. On 18 December 2008, petitioner Ladlad filed with the RTC Manila a Motion to
Quash and/or Dismiss.
10. On 23 December 2008, petitioner Echanis filed before us a special civil action
for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking the
annulment of the 30 April 2008 Order of Judge Abando and the 27 October 2008 Order
of Judge Medina. The petition prayed for the unconditional and immediate release of
petitioner Echanis, as well as the issuance of a temporary restraining order/ writ
of preliminary injunction to restrain his further incarceration.
11. On 5 January 2009, petitioner Baylosis filed before us a special civil action
for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court also seeking the
annulment of the 30 April 2008 Order of Judge Abando and the 27 October 2008 Order
of Judge Medina. The petition prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order/ writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the implementation of the warrant
of arrest against petitioner Baylosis.
12. We required the OSG to comment on the prayer for petitioner Echanis�s immediate
release, to which the OSG did not interpose any objection on these conditions: that
the temporary release shall only be for the purpose of his attendance and
participation in the formal peace negotiations between the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the CPP/NPA/NDFP, set to begin in August
2009; and that his temporary release shall not exceed six (6) months. The latter
condition was later modified, such that his temporary liberty shall continue for
the duration of his actual participation in the peace negotiations.
Legal Issue: WON
Ruling of the Supreme Court
1. A preliminary investigation is �not a casual affair.� It is conducted to protect

the innocent from the embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a public trial. While
the right to have a preliminary investigation before trial is statutory rather than
constitutional, it is a substantive right and a component of due process in the
administration of criminal justice.
In the context of a preliminary investigation, the right to due process of law

entails the opportunity to be heard. It serves to accord an opportunity for the
presentation of the respondent�s side with regard to the accusation. Afterwards,
the investigating officer shall decide whether the allegations and defenses lead to
a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, and that it was the respondent
who committed it. Otherwise, the investigating officer is bound to dismiss the
complaint.
2. In this case, the Resolution stated that efforts were undertaken to serve
subpoenas on the named respondents at their last known addresses. This is
sufficient for due process. It was only because a majority of them could no longer
be found at their last known addresses that they were not served copies of the
complaint and the attached documents or evidence.
3. �The essence of due process is reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit

evidence in support of one�s defense.� What is proscribed is lack of opportunity to
be heard. Thus, one who has been afforded a chance to present one�s own side of the
story cannot claim denial of due process.
4. Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been defined as �such
facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.�
Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall be determined by the
judge after an examination under oath or an affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses, we have ruled that a hearing is not necessary for the determination
thereof. In fact, the judge�s personal examination of the complainant and the
witnesses is not mandatory and indispensable for determining the aptness of issuing
a warrant of arrest.
5. It is enough that the judge personally evaluates the prosecutor�s report and
support
ing documents showing the existence of probable cause for the indictment and, on
the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or if, on the basis of his
evaluation, he finds no probable cause, to disregard the prosecutor�s resolution
and require the submission of additional affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
determining its existence. Petitioners Echanis and Baylosis claim that, had Judge
Abando painstakingly examined the records submitted by Prosecutor Vivero, the judge
would have inevitably dismissed the charge against them. Additionally, petitioner
Ocampo alleges that Judge Abando did not point out facts and evidence in the record
that were used as bases for his finding of probable cause to issue a warrant of
arrest. The determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest
against petitioners is addressed to the sound discretion of Judge Abando as the
trial judge. Further elucidating on the wide latitude given to trial judges in the
issuance of warrants of arrest, this Court stated in Sarigumba v. Sandiganbayan,
451 SCRA 533 (2005).

Ocampo Vs Abando

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ocampo Vs Abando

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ocampo Vs Abando

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ocampo vs.

Abando 715 SCRA 673 , February 11, 2014

Facts of the case:

2. The letters requested appropriate legal action on 12 complaint-affidavits

4. from 11-17 September 2006, an investigation team composed of intelligence

7. The 12 complaint-affidavits were from relatives of the alleged victims of

8. attached to the letters were the affidavits of Piedad,12 Leonardo C. Tanaid,

9. According to these former members, four sub-groups were formed to implement

11. Prosecutor Vivero issued a subpoena requiring, among others, petitioners to

12. In a Resolution dated 16 February 2007, Prosecutor Vivero recommended the

Ruling of the RTC

6. While the proceedings were suspended, petitioner Echanis was arrested on 28

Legal Issue: WON

Ruling of the Supreme Court

1. A preliminary investigation is �not a casual affair.� It is conducted to protect

In the context of a preliminary investigation, the right to due process of law

3. �The essence of due process is reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit

You might also like