WHEN ACCUSED LAWFULLY ARRESTED WITHOUT WARRANT

LADLAD v. VELASCO PROBABLE CAUSE TO INDICT BELTRAN AND

GR NOS. 172070-72 | JUN 1, 2007 | CARPIO, J. SAN JUAN AS LEADERS AND PROMOTERS OF
Petitioners charged for Rebellion and Inciting to Sedition REBELLION
On 27 February 2006, the DOJ panel of prosecutors
FACTS issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict
THE PETITIONERS IN THIS CONSOLIDATED CASE Beltran and San Juan as "leaders/promoters" of
FACE CHARGED FOR REBELLION Rebellion. The panel then filed an Information with
In this case, Party-List Representatives Crispin Beltran the RTC Makati containing such allegation.
(Beltran), Liza Maza (Maza), Joel Virador (Virador),
Saturnino Ocampo (Ocampo), Teodoro Casiño INFORMATION AGAINST BELTRAN RE-
(Casiño), and Rafael Mariano (Mariano), and private RAFFLED FOR MULTIPLE TIMES, BELTRAN’S
individuals, all face charges for Rebellion under Article PETITION FOR A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION
134 in relation to Article 135 of the Revised Penal OF PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST HIM WAS
Code in two criminal cases pending with the RTC ULTIMATELY DENIED
Makati. The Information was raffled to Branch 137 to which
Beltran petitioned make a judicial determination of
G.R. No. 175013 (The Beltran Petition)- this is the probable cause against him. Before the motion could be
more relevant set of fact since it involves the warrantless resolved, the judge recused herself from the case which
arrest of Beltran was re-raffled to Branch 146. Branch 146 sustained the
finding of probable cause against Beltran who sought
BELTRAN ARRESTED BY THE POLICE reconsideration but the judge also inhibited herself from
WITHOUT WARRANT AND WAS NOT the case without resolving Beltran’s motion. Branch 150,
INFORMED OF THE CRIME FOR WHICH HE to whom the case was re-raffled, issued an Order denying
WAS ARRESTED Beltran’s motion.
Following President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s
declaration on 24 February 2006 of a "State of National Hence, the petition in G.R. No. 175013 is to set aside
Emergency," police officers arrested Beltran on 25 the Orders and to enjoin Beltran’s prosecution. In his
February 2006, while he was en route to Marilao, Comment to the petition, the Solicitor General claims
Bulacan, and detained him in Camp Crame, Quezon City. that Beltran’s inquest for Rebellion was valid and that the
Beltran was arrested without a warrant and the RTC Makati correctly found probable cause to try
arresting officers did not inform Beltran of the crime Beltran for such felony.
for which he was arrested.
G.R. Nos. 172070-72 and 172074-76 (The Maza and
BELTRANS WAS SUBJECTED TO AN INQUEST Ladlad Petitions)
FOR INCITING TO SEDITION BASED ON A
SPEECH RALLY HE GAVE DURING THE 20 TH THE DOJ SUBPOENAED THE PETITIONERS
EDSA ANNIV. Based on Tanigue and Mendoza’s letters, the DOJ sent
Beltran was subjected to an inquest at the Quezon City subpoenas to petitioners on 6 March 2006 requiring them
Hall of Justice for INCITING TO SEDITION under to appear at the DOJ Office "to get copies of the
Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code based on a complaint and its attachment."
speech Beltran allegedly gave during a rally in Quezon
City on 24 February 2006, on the occasion of the CIDG PRESENTED A MASKED EYEWITNESS
20th anniversary of the EDSA Revolution. The inquest DURING THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
was based on the joint affidavit of Beltran’s arresting During the preliminary investigation on 13 March 2006,
officers who claimed to have been present at the rally. the counsel for the CIDG presented a masked man,
The inquest prosecutor indicted Beltran and filed the Jaime Fuentes who claimed to be an eyewitness against
corresponding Information with the Metropolitan Trial petitioners. Fuentes subscribed to his affidavit before
Court of Quezon City (MeTC). respondent prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco who then gave
copies of the affidavit to media members present during
BELTRAN WAS THEN SUBJECTED TO A the proceedings. The panel of prosecutors gave
SECOND INQUEST FOR REBELLION petitioners 10 days within which to file their counter-
The authorities brought back Beltran to Camp Crame affidavits.
where, he was subjected to a second inquest, this time for
REBELLION. The inquest was based on two letters, PETITIONERS MOVED FOR INHIBITION OF
both dated 27 February 2006, of Acting Executive THE MEMBERS OF PROSECUTION PANEL BUT
Officer of the Criminal Investigation and Detection THE DOJ DENIED THE MOTION
Group Tanigue and of Acting Deputy Director of the Petitioners moved for the inhibition of the members
CIDG Rodolfo Mendoza. The letters referred to the of the prosecution panel for lack of impartiality and
DOJ for appropriate action the results of the CIDG’s independence, considering the political milieu under
investigation implicating Beltran, and other which petitioners were investigated, the statements that
petitioners as "leaders and promoters" of an alleged the President and the Secretary of Justice made to the
foiled plot to overthrow the Arroyo government. media regarding petitioners’ case, and the manner in
which the prosecution panel conducted the preliminary
DOJ PANEL OF PROSECUTORS FOUND investigation. The DOJ panel of prosecutors denied

CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE

WHEN ACCUSED LAWFULLY ARRESTED WITHOUT WARRANT
petitioners’ motion. have conducted – as he did conduct – an inquest for
Inciting to Sedition and no other. Consequently, when
PETITIONERS SEEK NULLIFICATION OF DOJ another group of prosecutors subjected Beltran to a
ORDERS; COURT ISSUED STATUS QUO ORDER second inquest proceeding for Rebellion, they
Petitioners now seek the nullification of the DOJ Orders. overstepped their authority rendering the second
The Court issued a status quo order. Prior to this, inquest void.
however, the panel of prosecutors, issued a Resolution
finding probable cause to charge petitioners and 46 NONE OF BELTRAN’S ARRESTING OFFICERS
others with Rebellion. The Information was filed with SAW BELTRAN COMMIT, IN THEIR PRESENCE,
Branch 57 of the RTC Makati, charging petitioners and THE CRIME OF REBELLION
their co-accused as "principals, masterminds, [or] heads" None of Beltran’s arresting officers saw Beltran commit,
of a Rebellion.  in their presence, the crime of Rebellion. Nor did they
have personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that
ISSUES Beltran had just committed Rebellion, sufficient to form
(ISSUES IN MAIN DIGEST- 1(a) MAIN ISSUE) probable cause to believe that he had committed
1. In G.R. No. 175013, Rebellion. What these arresting officers alleged in their
(a) whether or not the inquest proceeding against affidavit is that they saw and heard Beltran make an
Beltran for Rebellion was valid (NO) allegedly seditious speech on 24 February 2006.
(b) whether or not there is probable cause to indict
Beltran for Rebellion. (NO) PROCEDURE FOR INQUEST OFFICER IF
ARREST OF THE ACCUSED WAS NOT
(ANNEXED) PROPERLY EFFECTED
2. In G.R. Nos. 172070-72 and 172074-76, Indeed, under DOJ Circular No. 61, the initial duty of
(a) Whether or not the preliminary investigation is tainted the inquest officer is to determine if the arrest of the
with irregularities (YES) detained person was made "in accordance with the
(b) whether or not the prosecutors lack impartiality provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5, Rule
(YES) 113." If the arrest was not properly effected, the
inquest officer should proceed under Section 9 of
HELD Circular No. 61 which provides:
1(a) The Inquest Proceeding against Beltran for Where Arrest Not Properly Effected.— Should the
REBELLION is Void. Inquest Officer find that the arrest was not made in
accordance with the Rules, he shall:
WHEN INQUEST PROCEEDINGS ARE a) recommend the release of the person arrested or
AVAILING detained;
Inquest proceedings are proper only when the accused b) note down the disposition on the referral document;
has been lawfully arrested without warrant. Section 5, c) prepare a brief memorandum indicating the reasons
Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure for the action taken; and
provides the instances when such warrantless arrest may d) forward the same, together with the record of the case,
be effected, thus: to the City or Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate
action.
Arrest without warrant; when lawful.— A peace officer
or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a Where the recommendation for the release of the
person: detained person is approved by the City or Provincial
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has Prosecutor but the evidence on hand warrant the conduct
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to of a regular preliminary investigation, the order of
commit an offense; release shall be served on the officer having custody of
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has said detainee and shall direct the said officer to serve
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge upon the detainee the subpoena or notice of preliminary
of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested investigation, together with the copies of the charge
has committed it; and sheet or complaint, affidavit or sworn statements of the
xxxx complainant and his witnesses and other supporting
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the evidence.
person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be FAILURE OF PANEL OF INQUEST
proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule PROSECUTORS TO COMPLY WITH RULES
112. VOIDED THE INQUEST FOR REBELLION
For the failure of Beltran’s panel of inquest
INQUEST PROSECUTOR COULD HAVE ONLY prosecutors to comply with Section 7, Rule 112 in
CONDUCTED AN INQUEST FOR INCITING TO relation to Section 5, Rule 113 and DOJ Circular No.
SEDITION AND NOT FOR REBELLION 61, Beltran’s inquest void. Beltran would have been
The joint affidavit of Beltran’s arresting entitled to a preliminary investigation had he not asked
officers states that the officers arrested Beltran, the trial court to make a judicial determination of
without a warrant, for Inciting to Sedition, and not probable cause, which effectively took the place of such
for Rebellion. Thus, the inquest prosecutor could only proceeding.

CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE

WHEN ACCUSED LAWFULLY ARRESTED WITHOUT WARRANT
********** Assuming that Beltran is a member of the CPP, which
1(b) There is No Probable Cause to Indict Beltran for Beltran does not acknowledge, mere membership in
Rebellion. the CPP does not constitute rebellion. As for the
alleged funding of the CPP’s military equipment from
Rebellion under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code is Beltran’s congressional funds, Cachuela’s affidavit
committed – merely contained a general conclusion without any
[B]y rising publicly and taking arms against the specific act showing such funding. Such a general
Government for the purpose of removing from the conclusion does not establish probable cause.
allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory
of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, or SOL GEN: FUENTES AFFIDAVIT WAS BASIS
any body of land, naval, or other armed forces or FOR PROBABLE CAUSE
depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly In his Comment to Beltran’s petition, the Solicitor
or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. General points to Fuentes’ affidavit, dated 25 February
2006, as basis for the finding of probable cause against
The elements of the offense are: Beltran as Fuentes provided details in his statement
1. That there be a (a) public uprising and (b) taking arms regarding meetings Beltran and the other petitioners
against the Government; and attended in 2005 and 2006 in which plans to
2. That the purpose of the uprising or movement is either overthrow violently the Arroyo government were
– allegedly discussed.
(a) to remove from the allegiance to said Government or
its laws: (1) the territory of the Philippines or any part SOL GEN’S CALIM IS UNTENABLE; FUENTES’
thereof; or (2) any body of land, naval, or other armed AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT PART OF THE
forces; or ATTACHMENTS THE CIDG REFERRED TO THE
(b) to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or DOJ ON FEB 27
partially, of any of their powers and prerogatives. Thus, the panel of inquest prosecutors did not have
Thus, by its nature, rebellion is a crime of the masses or Fuentes’ affidavit in their possession when they
multitudes involving crowd action done in furtherance of conducted the Rebellion inquest against Beltran on
a political end. that day. Indeed, although this affidavit is dated 25
February 2006, the CIDG first presented it only during
EXCEPT FOR TWO AFFIDAVITS, NONE OF THE the preliminary investigation of the other petitioners
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO THE CIDG on 13 March 2006 during which Fuentes subscribed
LETTERS MENTION BELTRAN to his statement before respondent prosecutor
The evidence before the panel of prosecutors who Velasco.
conducted the inquest of Beltran for Rebellion consisted
of the affidavits and other documents attached to the BELATED SUBMISSION OF THE FUENTES’
CIDG letters. The Court has gone over these documents AFFIDAVIT DOES NOT HELP IN THE
and find merit in Beltran’s contention that the same are PROSECUTION
insufficient to show probable cause to indict him for Respondent prosecutors later tried to remedy this fatal
Rebellion. The bulk of the documents consists of defect submitting to Branch 137 of the RTC Makati the
affidavits, some of which were sworn before a notary Fuentes’ affidavit as part of their Comment to Beltran’s
public, executed by members of the military and some motion for judicial determination of probable cause.
civilians. Except for two affidavits, none of the Such belated submission, a tacit admission of the
affidavits mentions Beltran.  dearth of evidence against Beltran during the inquest,
does not improve the prosecution’s case.
AFFIDAVITS OF ESCALA AND CACHUELA
MENTION BELTRAN Assuming them to be true, what the allegations in
In one affidavit by a certain Escala , it was recounted Fuentes’ affidavit make out is a case for Conspiracy
that Beltran, Ocampo, Casiño, Maza, Mariano, Virador, to Commit Rebellion, punishable under Article 136 of
and other individuals were seen on board a vehicle the Revised Penal Code, not Rebellion under Article
which entered a chicken farm in Bucal, Padre Garcia, 134. Attendance in meetings to discuss, among others,
Batangas and that after the passengers alighted, they plans to bring down a government is a mere preparatory
were met by another individual who looked like San step to commit the acts constituting Rebellion under
Juan. In another affidavit by a certain Cachuela, it was Article 134. Thus, the RTC Makati erred when it
stated that Beltran was seen at the CPP’s nevertheless found probable cause to try Beltran for
"10th Plenum" in 1992 and that the arms of CPP Rebellion based on the evidence before it.
members were purchased partly from contributions
by Congressional members, like Beltran, who ANNEX
represent party-list groups affiliated with the CPP.
2(a) The Preliminary Investigation was Tainted With
ALLEGATIONS IN THESE TWO AFFIDAVITS Irregularities In the Ladlad & Maza Petitions
ARE FAR FROM THE PROOF NEEDED TO
INDICT BELTRAN FOR TAKING PART IN AN The procedure for preliminary investigation of offenses
ARMED UPRISING AGAINST THE punishable by at least four years, two months and one
GOVERNMENT day is outlined in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised

CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE

WHEN ACCUSED LAWFULLY ARRESTED WITHOUT WARRANT
Rules of Criminal Procedure. 2(b) There is merit in petitioners’ doubt on
respondent prosecutors’ impartiality.
RESPONDENT PROSECUTORS FAILED TO Respondent Secretary of Justice, who exercises
COMPLY WITH SECTION 3(a) OF RULE 112 supervision and control over the panel of prosecutors,
Instead of following this procedure scrupulously, as what stated in an interview on 13 March 2006, the day of the
this Court had mandated in an earlier ruling, respondent preliminary investigation, that, "We [the DOJ] will
prosecutors nonchalantly disregarded it. Respondent just declare probable cause, then it’s up to the [C]ourt to
prosecutors failed to comply with Section 3(a) of Rule decide x x x." Petitioners raised this issue in their
112 which provides that the complaint (which, with its petition, but respondents never disputed the veracity of
attachment, must be of such number as there are this statement. This clearly shows pre-judgment, a
respondents) be accompanied by the affidavits of the determination to file the Information even in the
complainant and his witnesses, subscribed and sworn to absence of probable cause.
before any prosecutor or government official authorized
to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, The obvious involvement of political considerations in
before a notary public. the actuations of respondent Secretary of Justice and
respondent prosecutors brings to mind an observation
Respondent prosecutors treated the unsubscribed we made in another equally politically charged case.
letters of Tanigue and Mendoza of the CIDG, PNP as We reiterate what we stated then, if only to emphasize
complaints and accepted the affidavits attached to the the importance of maintaining the integrity of criminal
letters even though some of them were notarized by a prosecutions in general and preliminary investigations in
notary public without any showing that a prosecutor particular, thus:
or qualified government official was unavailable as [W]e cannot emphasize too strongly that prosecutors
required by Section 3(a) of Rule 112. should not allow, and should avoid, giving the
impression that their noble office is being used or
SECTION 3(b) OF RULE 112 WAS LIKEWISE prostituted, wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends,
NOT FOLLOWED or other purposes alien to, or subversive of, the basic
Further, Section 3(b) of Rule 112 mandates that the and fundamental objective of observing the interest of
prosecutor, after receiving the complaint, must determine justice evenhandedly, without fear or favor to any and
if there are grounds to continue with the investigation. If all litigants alike, whether rich or poor, weak or strong,
there is none, he shall dismiss the case, otherwise he powerless or mighty. Only by strict adherence to the
shall "issue a subpoena to the respondents." Here, after established procedure may be public’s perception of the
receiving the CIDG letters, respondent prosecutors impartiality of the prosecutor be enhanced. 
peremptorily issued subpoenas to petitioners JC
requiring them to appear at the DOJ office on 13
March 2006 "to secure copies of the complaints and
its attachments."

During the investigation, respondent prosecutors allowed

the CIDG to present a masked Fuentes who subscribed to
an affidavit before respondent prosecutor Velasco.
Velasco proceeded to distribute copies of Fuentes’
affidavit not to petitioners or their counsels but to
members of the media who covered the proceedings.
Respondent prosecutors then required petitioners to
submit their counter-affidavits in 10 days. It was only
four days later, on 17 March 2006, that petitioners
received the complete copy of the attachments to the
CIDG letters.

These uncontroverted facts belie respondent prosecutors’

statement in the Order of 22 March 2006 that the
preliminary investigation "was done in accordance with
the Revised Rules o[f] Criminal Procedure." Indeed, by
peremptorily issuing the subpoenas to petitioners,
tolerating the complainant’s antics during the
investigation, and distributing copies of a witness’
affidavit to members of the media knowing that
petitioners have not had the opportunity to examine
the charges against them, respondent prosecutors not
only trivialized the investigation but also lent
credence to petitioners’ claim that the entire
proceeding was a sham.

**********

CHAN GOMASCO OF SITO BERDE