OCAMPO V. ABANDO G.R. No. 176830 February 11, 2014
FACTS:
A mass graveyard was found at Sitio Sapang Daco, Barangay Kaulisihan, Inopacan, Leyte by the43rd Infantry Brigade containing 67 skeletal remains of those believed to be victims of “Operation Venereal Disease (VD)” by the Communist Party of the Philippines/ New People’s Army/National Democratic Front (CPP/NPA/NPDF) of the Philippines. This was done to purge their ranks of suspected military informers.
Members of the Scene of the Crime Operation team conducted forensic crime analysis to identify the bodies by way of DNA sample. The initial report of the PNP Crime Laboratory on their identities remained inconclusive, but, in a Special Report, the Case Secretariat of the Regional and National Inter-Agency Legal Action Group came up with ten names of possible victims after comparing the testimonies of relatives and witnesses.
Police Chief Inspector George L. Almaden and Staff Judge Advocate Captain Allan Tiu sent undated letters to Pros. Vivero, requesting for legal action on the twelve attached complaint affidavits. These were from relatives of the alleged victims of Operation VD who all swore that their relatives had been abducted or last seen with members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP.
Charging them with murder, the affidavits were directed to 71 named members of the group, including the petitioners. Namely, the petitioners were Ocampo, Echanis, Baylosis and Ladlad who were all pointed out to be members of the Central Committee that ordered the campaign to be carried out in 1985.
On this basis, Pros. Vivero issued a subpoena requiring them to submit their counter-affidavits and Ocampo complied. However, Echanis and Baylosis did not do so because allegedly they were not served the copy of a subpoena. As for Ladlad, though his counsel made formal appearance during the preliminary investigation, he also did not submit for the same reason as the two.
Pros. Vivero, in a resolution, directed the filing of information for 15 counts of multiple murder against the 54 named members, including the petitioners. He also caused some respondents to be used as state witnesses for their testimony is vital to the prosecution. Said information was filed before RTC Hilongos, Leyte branch 18 presided by Judge Abando.
Prior to receiving the resolution, Ocampo filed an Ex Parte Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory Hearing. Judge Obando found probable cause and ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest against them with no recommended bail.
Ocampo went to the Supreme Court by way of special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 and asked for the abovementioned order and the prosecutor’s resolution to be annulled. He said that a case for rebellion against him and 44 others was then already pending before RTC Makati and so, the crime of murder was absorbed by the rebellion in line with the political offense doctrine.
The Court ordered the Solicitor General to comment on the issue and also ordered the parties to submit their memoranda. From the oral arguments, the Court found that the single Information charging them all of 15 counts of murder was defective. The prosecution moved to admit amended and new information, but Judge Abando suspended the proceedings during the pendency of the case before the Court.
Meanwhile, Echanis was arrested and he, along with Baylosis, filed a Motion for Judicial Reinvestigation/ Determination of Probable Cause with Prayer to Dismiss the Case Outright and Alternative Prayer to Recall/ Suspend Service of Warrant, but it was dismissed by Judge Abando. Around this time, Ladlad filed a Motion to Quash/Dismiss with the RTC Manila.
Echanis and Baylosis moved to reconsider but it was not acted because, as per request of the DOJ Secretary to change the venue of the trial, the records were transmitted to RTC Manila. Echanis and Baylosis continued to seek relief from the Supreme Court in response to Judge Abando’s orders. Echanis also prayed for his release.
Both Ocampo and Echanis were granted provisional release by the Supreme Court under cash bonds.
As to Ladlad’s Motion to Quash, it was denied by respondent judge and the same happened to his Motion for Reconsideration. Ladlad sought to annul the latter’s orders by way of special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
As to their bail, Ladlad filed an Urgent Motion to Fix Bail whereas Baylosis filed a Motion to Allow Petitioner to Post Bail which were granted, with no opposition from the OSG (bec. they’re consultants of the NDFP negotiating team, then having talks with the GRP peace panel).
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners’ right to due process was violated.
HELD:
NO. Petitioners were accorded due process during preliminary investigation and in the issuance of the warrants of arrest.
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.
"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.
As to the claim of petitioners Echanis and Baylosis that they were denied due process, we quote the pertinent portion of Prosecutor Vivero’s Resolution, which states:
In connection with the foregoing and pursuant to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure[,] the respondents were issued and served with Subpoena at their last known address for them to submit their counter-affidavits and that of their witnesses.
Majority of the respondents did not submit their counter-affidavits because they could no longer be found in their last known address, per return of the subpoenas. On the other hand, Saturnino Ocampo Satur, Fides Lim, Maureen Palejaro and Ruben Manatad submitted their Counter-Affidavits. However, Vicente Ladlad and Jasmin Jerusalem failed to submit the required Counter Affidavits in spite entry of appearance by their respective counsels.
Section 3(d), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, allows Prosecutor Vivero to resolve the complaint based on the evidence before him if a respondent could not be subpoenaed. As long as efforts to reach a respondent were made, and he was given an opportunity to present countervailing evidence, the preliminary investigation remains valid. The rule was put in place in order to foil underhanded attempts of a respondent to delay the prosecution of offenses.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.
Moreover, Petitioner Ladlad, through his counsel, had every opportunity to secure copies of the complaint after his counsel’s formal entry of appearance and, thereafter, to participate fully in the preliminary investigation. Instead, he refused to participate.
We have previously cautioned that "litigants represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case."106 Having opted to remain passive during the preliminary investigation, petitioner Ladlad and his counsel cannot now claim a denial of due process, since their failure to file a counter-affidavit was of their own doing.
As to Ocampo’s claim that he was denied the right to file a motion for reconsideration or to appeal the Resolution of Prosecutor Vivero due to the 19-day delay in the service of the Resolution, it must be pointed out that the period for filing a motion for reconsideration or an appeal to the Secretary of Justice is reckoned from the date of receipt of the resolution of the prosecutor, not from the date of the resolution. This is clear from Section 3 of the 2000 National Prosecution Service Rule on Appeal:
Sec. 3. Period to appeal. – The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution, or of the denial of the motion for reconsideration/ reinvestigation if one has been filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed resolution. Only one motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, when petitioner Ocampo received the Resolution of Prosecutor Vivero on 12 March 2007,108 the former had until 27 March 2007 within which to file either a motion for reconsideration before the latter or an appeal before the Secretary of Justice. Instead, petitioner Ocampo chose to file the instant petition for certiorari directly before this Court on 16 March 2007.