ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 123191 & 123442. February 15, 1999]

OSCAR L. GOZOS, et al. vs. HON. PATERNO V. TAC-AN, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 15, 1999.

G.R. No. 123191 (Oscar L. Gozos, et al. v. Hon. Paterno V. Tac-an, et al.) and G.R. No. 123442 (People of the Philippines v. Hon. Paterno V. Tac-an, et al.)

This concerns (a) private respondents' motion for reconsideration of the decision of the court in this case, and (b) the motion for clarification filed by respondent judge concerning the same decision.

The Court after considering private respondents' motion for reconsideration, finds nothing therein that in any way compels a modification of the decision in this case and, therefore, resolved to deny the same.

With respect to the motion for clarification, respondent judge poses the following question:

It is respectfully requested of the highest tribunal to clarify the dispositive portion of said resolution expressly with respect to the co-accused Ciriaco Sulit, Aniano Atienza, and Ildefonso Castillo, in relation to the Orders of the Court below dated October 18, 1995 and November 22, 1995.

As pointed out in the decision of this Court, the determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest is vested in the courts, but the conduct of preliminary investigations is entrusted to the executive branch, with the exception of inferior court judges. Therefore, respondent judge exceeded his authority when he conducted an inquiry, not solely for the purpose of determining whether there was a probable cause to order the arrest of private respondents SPO2 Jaime Blanco, SPO3 Pedro Castillo, SPO3 Ciriaco Sulit, SPO2 Aniano Atienza, and SPO1 Ildefonso Castillo, but likewise for the purpose of determining whether there was sufficient evidence to prosecute them.

The original information for murder against private respondents Jaime Blanco, Pedro Castillo, Ciriaco Sulit, Aniano Atienza, and Ildefonso Castillo, as filed by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, should be maintained, and respondent judge should issue warrants for the arrest of private respondents Jaime Blanco and Pedro Castillo, as to whom he found probable cause. His opinion that the offense committed is not murder but homicide is immaterial, since he found probable cause against these two. 1[See De Asis v. Romero, 41 SCRA 235, 240-241 (1971).]

With respect to private respondents Ciriaco Sulit, Aniano Atienza, and Ildefonso Castillo, respondent judge should review the evidence. If after such review he still finds no probable cause to order the arrest of private respondents, he should require the prosecution to submit, within a reasonable time, additional evidence, to establish the existence of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against them in accordance with the ruling in Amarga v. Abbas2 [98 Phil. 739, 742-743 (1956)] in which it was stated:

The preliminary investigation conducted by the petitioner under Republic Act No. 732 which formed the basis for the filing in the Court of First Instance of Sulu to criminal case No. 1131 does not, as correctly contended by the respondent judge, dispense with the latter's duty to exercise his judicial power of determining, before issuing the corresponding warrant of arrest, whether or not probable cause exists therefor..

While the respondent Judge was within his right in requiring the petitioner to submit further evidence so as to show probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, he exceeded his jurisdiction in dismissing the case which was filed with the Court of First Instance of Sulu not merely for purposes of preliminary investigation..

Wherefore, the petition is granted and the respondent Judge ordered to proceed with criminal case No. 1131 in accordance with law, it being understood that, if within ten days after notice by the respondent Judge, the petitioner still fails or refuses to present other necessary evidence, the dismissal will stand for lack of prosecution.

As held in People v. Villanueva:3[110 SCRA 465, 470 (1981).]

But that power [to determine whether there is probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest] does not include the authority to dismiss outright the information if the judge believes that there is no probable cause. The judge should require the fiscal to present additional evidence to show probable cause. If the fiscal refuses to do so, then the case may be dismissed for "lack of prosecution."

Only when the prosecution fails to present additional evidence or in case respondent judge, after the prosecution has submitted additional evidence, still finds no probable cause for ordering the arrest of private respondents Ciriaco Sulit, Aniano Atienza, and Ildefonso Castillo, can he not issue warrants of arrest. There is no doubt that he does not have to issue such warrants if said private respondents voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the court.4 [Valdepe�as v. People, 16 SCRA 871, 875 (1966).] The prosecution can later bring the matter on certiorari to the Court of Appeals or this Court if it believes that respondent judge's order refusing the request for the issuance of warrants of arrest was issued with grave abuse of discretion.5 [See People v. Ocaya, 83 SCRA 218, 222-224 (1978) and Viduya v. Berdiago, 73 SCRA 553, 558 (1976).]

Accordingly, the Court RESOLVED (1) to DENY with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by private respondents; and (2) to amend the dispositive portion of its decision so as to make it read as follows:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted and the orders, dated October 18, 1995, November 22, 1995, and January 3, 1996, of respondent Judge Paterno Tac-an are ANNULED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Judge Paterno V. Tac-an is hereby ordered to allow the filing of the original information prepared by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, issue warrants of arrest against private respondents Jaime Blanco and Pedro Castillo for murder, and afford the prosecution an opportunity to submit within a reasonable time additional evidence to establish the existence of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest for murder against private respondents Ciriaco Sulit, Aniano Atienza, and Ildefonso Castillo.

The Chief of the Judicial Records Office of this Court is directed to transmit to the trial court the records of this case, which were transmitted to this Court on the erroneous assumption that the present action is an appeal and not a special civil action for certiorari.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE