Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Allado vs. Diokno

    Uploaded by

    Lloyd David P. Vicedo
    1) Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza were implicated as the masterminds behind the kidnapping and murder of Eugen Alexander Van Twist based on a sworn statement by Escolastico Umbal, who admitted to committing the crime under the petitioners' orders. 2) The petitioners questioned their arrests, contending there was no probable cause. 3) The court ruled there was no probable cause to merit the order of arrest against the petitioners, as Umbal's credibility was badly damaged and the evidence did not prove the petitioners' complicity in the crime.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Allado vs. Diokno

    Uploaded by

    Lloyd David P. Vicedo
    16 views1 page
    1) Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza were implicated as the masterminds behind the kidnapping and murder of Eugen Alexander Van Twist based on a sworn statement by Escolastico Umbal, who admitted to committing the crime under the petitioners' orders. 2) The petitioners questioned their arrests, contending there was no probable cause. 3) The court ruled there was no probable cause to merit the order of arrest against the petitioners, as Umbal's credibility was badly damaged and the evidence did not prove the petitioners' complicity in the crime.

    Original Description:

    Consti Digest

    Original Title

    467. Allado vs. Diokno

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza were implicated as the masterminds behind the kidnapping and murder of Eugen Alexander Van Twist based on a sworn statement by Escolastico Umbal, who admitted to committing the crime under the petitioners' orders. 2) The petitioners questioned their arrests, contending there was no probable cause. 3) The court ruled there was no probable cause to merit the order of arrest against the petitioners, as Umbal's credibility was badly damaged and the evidence did not prove the petitioners' complicity in the crime.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    16 views1 page

    Allado vs. Diokno

    Uploaded by

    Lloyd David P. Vicedo
    1) Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza were implicated as the masterminds behind the kidnapping and murder of Eugen Alexander Van Twist based on a sworn statement by Escolastico Umbal, who admitted to committing the crime under the petitioners' orders. 2) The petitioners questioned their arrests, contending there was no probable cause. 3) The court ruled there was no probable cause to merit the order of arrest against the petitioners, as Umbal's credibility was badly damaged and the evidence did not prove the petitioners' complicity in the crime.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Allado vs.

    Diokno
    232 SCRA 192 (1994)

    FACTS:
    Petitioners, Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza, were both implicated as the masterminds of
    the kidnapping and murder of Eugen Alexander Van Twist.
    An information for the said crime was filed against the petitioners primarily on the strength of a sworn
    statement by Escolastico Umbal, who admitted that he was among those who kidnapped and killed the
    victim upon the orders of the petitioners. Thereafter, respondent judge, Roberto C. Diokno, ordered the
    arrest of the petitioners and no bail was recommended.
    Petitioners, contending that their arrests was effected whimsically as there is no probable cause,
    questioned their arrests.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not probable cause is present to warrant the order of arrest against the petitioners.
    RULING:
    No, probable cause does not exist to merit the order of arrest against the petitioners.

    For sure, the credibility of Umbal is badly battered. Certainly, his bare allegations, even if the State
    invokes its inherent right to prosecute, are insufficient to justify sending two lawyers to jail, or anybody
    for that matter. More importantly, the PACC operatives who applied for a warrant to search the
    dwellings of Santiago never implicated petitioners. In fact they claimed that according to Umbal, it was
    Santiago, and not petitioners, who masterminded the whole affair. While there may be bits of evidence
    against petitioners' co-accused, i.e., referring to those seized from the dwellings of Santiago, these do not
    in the least prove petitioners' complicity in the crime charged.

    Based on the evidence thus far submitted there is nothing indeed, much less is there probable cause, to
    incriminate petitioners. For them to stand trial and be deprived in the meantime of their liberty, however
    brief, the law appropriately exacts much more to sustain a warrant for their arrest — facts and
    circumstances strong enough in themselves to support the belief that they are guilty of a crime that in
    fact happened. Quite obviously, this has not been met.

    You might also like