 |
x
THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2011
Supreme Court Resolution (July 5, 2011)
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
EN BANC
EDITA T. BURGOS,
Petitioner,
- versus -
PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., LT. GEN.
ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, MAJ. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, LT.
COL. NOEL CLEMENT, LT. COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO, DIRECTOR GENERAL OSCAR
CALDERON,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------x
EDITA T. BURGOS,
Petitioner,
- versus -
PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., LT. GEN.
ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, LT. COL. MELQUIADES
FELICIANO, LT. COL. NOEL CLEMENT,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------x
EDITA T. BURGOS,
Petitioner,
- versus -
CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, GEN. HERMOGENES
ESPERON, JR., Commanding General of the Philippine Army, LT. GEN.
ALEXANDER YANO; Chief of the Philippine National Police, DIRECTOR GENERAL
AVELINO RAZON, JR.,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 183711
G.R. No. 183712
G.R. No. 183713
Present:
CORONA, C.J.,
CARPIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,*
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA, and
SERENO, JJ.
Promulgated:
July 5, 2011
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
BRION, J.:
We review,[1] in light of the latest developments in this case, the
decision[2] dated July 17, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in the
consolidated petitions for Habeas Corpus,[3] Contempt[4] and Writ of
Amparo[5] filed by Edita T. Burgos (petitioner). The assailed CA decision
dismissed the petition for the issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus;
denied the petitioner’s motion to declare the respondents in Contempt; and
partially granted the privilege of the Writ of Amparo.[6]
On June 22, 2010, we issued a Resolution[7] referring the present case to
the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), as the Court’s directly commissioned
agency tasked with the continuation of the investigation of Jonas Joseph
T. Burgos’ abduction and the gathering of evidence, with the obligation to
report its factual findings and recommendations to this Court. We found
the referral necessary as the investigation by the PNP-CIDG, by the AFP
Provost Marshal, and even by the CHR had been less than complete; for one,
there were very significant lapses in the handling of the investigation.
In particular, we highlighted the PNP-CIDG’s failure to identify the
cartographic sketches of two (one male and one female) of the five
abductors of Jonas, based on their interview of eyewitnesses to the
abduction.[8] We held:
Considering the findings of the CA and our review of the records of the
present case, we conclude that the PNP and the AFP have so far failed to
conduct an exhaustive and meaningful investigation into the disappearance
of Jonas Burgos, and to exercise the extraordinary diligence (in the
performance of their duties) that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo requires.
Because of these investigative shortcomings, we cannot rule on the case
until a more meaningful investigation, using extraordinary diligence, is
undertaken.
From the records, we note that there are very significant lapses in the
handling of the investigation - among them the PNP-CIDG’s failure to
identify the cartographic sketches of two (one male and one female) of the
five abductors of Jonas based on their interview of eyewitnesses to the
abduction. This lapse is based on the information provided to the
petitioner by no less than State Prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco of the DOJ
who identified the persons who were possibly involved in the abduction,
namely: T/Sgt. Jason Roxas (Philippine Army), Cpl. Maria Joana Francisco
(Philippine Air Force), M/Sgt. Aron Arroyo (Philippine Air Force), and an
alias T.L., all reportedly assigned with Military Intelligence Group 15 of
Intelligence Service of the AFP. No search and certification were ever
made on whether these persons were AFP personnel or in other branches of
the service, such as the Philippine Air Force. As testified to by the
petitioner, no significant follow through was also made by the PNP-CIDG in
ascertaining the identities of the cartographic sketches of two of the
abductors despite the evidentiary leads provided by State Prosecutor
Velasco of the DOJ. Notably, the PNP-CIDG, as the lead investigating
agency in the present case, did not appear to have lifted a finger to
pursue these aspects of the case.
We note, too, that no independent investigation appeared to have been made
by the PNP-CIDG to inquire into the veracity of Lipio’s and Manuel’s
claims that Jonas was abducted by a certain @KA DANTE and a certain @KA
ENSO of the CPP/NPA guerilla unit RYG. The records do not indicate whether
the PNP-CIDG conducted a follow-up investigation to determine the
identities and whereabouts of @KA Dante and @KA ENSO. These omissions were
aggravated by the CA finding that the PNP has yet to refer any case for
preliminary investigation to the DOJ despite its representation before the
CA that it had forwarded all pertinent and relevant documents to the DOJ
for the filing of appropriate charges against @KA DANTE and @KA ENSO.
…While significant leads have been provided to investigators, the
investigations by the PNP-CIDG, the AFP Provost Marshal, and even the
Commission on Human Rights (CHR) have been less than complete. The PNP-CIDG’s
investigation particularly leaves much to be desired in terms of the
extraordinary diligence that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo requires.
Following the CHR’s legal mandate, we gave the Commission the following
specific directives:[9]
(a) ascertaining the identities of the persons appearing in the
cartographic sketches of the two alleged abductors as well as their
whereabouts;
(b) determining based on records, past and present, the identities and
locations of the persons identified by State Prosecutor Velasco alleged to
be involved in the abduction of Jonas, namely: T/Sgt. Jason Roxas
(Philippine Army); Cpl. Maria Joana Francisco (Philippine Air Force),
M/Sgt. Aron Arroyo (Philippine Air Force), and an alias T.L., all
reportedly assigned with Military Intelligence Group 15 of Intelligence
Service of the AFP; further proceedings and investigations, as may be
necessary, should be made to pursue the lead allegedly provided by State
Prosecutor Velasco on the identities of the possible abductors;
(c) inquiring into the veracity of Lipio’s and Manuel’s claims that Jonas
was abducted by a certain @KA DANTE and @KA ENSO of the CPP/NPA guerilla
unit RYG;
(d) determining based on records, past and present, as well as further
investigation, the identities and whereabouts of @KA DANTE and @KA ENSO;
and
(e) undertaking all measures, in the investigation of the Burgos
abduction, that may be necessary to live up to the extraordinary measures
we require in addressing an enforced disappearance under the Rule on the
Writ of Amparo.
In this same Resolution, we also affirmed the CA’s dismissal of the
petitions for Contempt and for the issuance of a Writ of Amparo with
respect to President Macapagal-Arroyo, as she is entitled as President to
immunity from suit.[10]
On March 15, 2011, the CHR submitted to the Court its Investigation Report
on the Enforced Disappearance of Jonas Burgos (CHR Report), in compliance
with our June 22, 2010 Resolution.[11] In this Report, the CHR recounted
the investigations undertaken, whose pertinent details we quote below:
On June 26, 2010, the CHR issued Resolution CHR IV No. A2010-100 to
intensify the investigation of the case of the Burgos enforced
disappearance; and for this purpose, created a Special Investigation
Team…headed by Commissioner Jose Manuel S. Mamauag.
xxx
In compliance with the directive mentioned in the above-quoted En Banc
Resolution of the Supreme Court, the Team conducted field investigations
by: (1) interviewing a) civilian authorities involved in the first
investigation of the instant case; b) military men under detention for
alleged violations of Articles of War; c) Security Officers of Ever
Gotesco Mall, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City; d) two (2) of the three
(3) CIDG witnesses; e) two (2) eyewitnesses who described to the police
sketch artist two (2) faces of a male and female abductors of Jonas
Burgos; f) Rebel-Returnees (RRs); g) officers and men in the military and
police service; h) local officials and other government functionaries; and
i) ordinary citizens; (2) inquiring into the veracity of CIDG witnesses
Lipio’s and Manuel’s claims that Jonas was abducted by a certain @KA DANTE
and @KA ENSO of the CPP/NPA guerilla unit RYG; (3) securing case records
from the prosecution service and courts of law; (4) visiting military and
police units. Offices, camps, detention centers, and jails and requesting
copies of documents and records in their possession that are relevant to
the instant case; (5) searching for and interviewing witnesses and
informants; and (6) pursuing leads provided by them.
S. Email’s “Star-Struck”
38. Pursuing the lead mentioned in the anonymous e-mail, which was
attached to the Burgos petition as Exhibit “J”, “that the team leader (T.L.)
in the Jonas Burgos abduction was a certain Army Captain, (promotable to
Major), a good looking guy (tisoy), and a potential showbiz personality
known otherwise as Captain Star-struck,” the Team requested the CHR
Clearance Section, Legal Division for any information leading to T.L. or
to all Philippine Army applicants for CHR clearance whose ranks are
Captains or Majors promoted during the years 2007 to 2009.
39. Sometime in November 2010, the Team was able to track down one CHR
clearance-applicant who most likely possesses and/or matches the
information provided in the said lead. But when his photo/picture was
presented to the eyewitnesses, they failed to identify him.
40. Undaunted with the negative identification, the Team suspected that
the “team leader” might not have participated in the actual abduction
inside Hapag Kainan Restaurant, the scene of the crime, but most probably
was in one of the “three cars” allegedly used during the operation while
giving orders or commanding the actual abductors.
41. In relation to the above suspicion, the Team has theorized that
officers below the rank of Captain might have perpetrated the actual
abduction.
42. The Team explored this possibility and focused its attention on the
officers of the 7th ID, PA, namely: Lt. Vicente O. Dagdag, Jr., the S-4 of
65 IB who executed an affidavit relative to the alleged stolen Plate No.
TAB-194; 2Lt. Rey B. Dequito of 56th IB, the witness against Edmond
Dag-Uamn for the alleged crime of murder; and 1Lt. Usmalik Tayaban, the
Team Leader with the 56th IB who issued a Custody Receipt in connection
with the Petition for Habeas Corpusfiled in Angeles City relative to the
2006 Emerito Lipio abduction case against the police and military
personnel.
T. Face-book account
43. Google search of the names of the above mentioned individuals yielded
negative result except for 1Lt. Usmalik Tayaban, whose name was connected
to a social networking site, the Face-book account of PMA BATCH SANGHAYA
2000.
44. In the Facebook account Sanghaya, the contents of which is categorized
as “PUBLIC” or open to public viewing, it appears that “Malik” Tayaban is
a graduate of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) Batch Sanghaya of
2000. Other leads were also discovered, such as the following: vernacular
description of “tisoy” which was mentioned by one of the users in the
“comment portion” of the account which incidentally was also mentioned in
the anonymous e-mail as the “team leader” (T.L.); the picture of a man
sporting a “back-pack”, which was also mentioned by witness Elsa. Per
Elsa’s account, the person in the cartographic sketch was wearing a
“back-pack.”
45. Aware of the intricacies of the above-mentioned leads, the Team caused
the reproduction of all pictures in the Facebook account for future
reference; and requested the NBI (Burgos) Team for a copy of the PMA
Sanghaya Batch 2000 Year Book, also for future reference.
U. The PMA Year Book
46. Through the efforts of the NBI (Burgos) Team, the Team was able to get
the PMA Year Book of Sanghaya Batch 2000 and the location of one important
eyewitness in the abduction.
V. JEFFREY CABINTOY
47. On December 1, 2010, the Team together with the NBI Team were able to
locate Jeffrey Cabintoy (Jeffrey), one of the two (2) eyewitnesses who
provided the police cartographic artist with the description of two (2)
principal abductors of Jonas Burgos. Jeffrey narrated in details (sic) the
circumstances that happened before and during the abduction.
48. On December 7, 2010, the Team and Jeffrey went to the place of
incident at Ever Gotesco Mall, Quezon City to refresh his memory and
re-enact what transpired. In the afternoon of the same date, the Team
invited Jeffrey to the CHR Central Office in Quezon City, where he was
shown for identification twenty (20) copies of colored
photographs/pictures of men and the almost two hundred forty-four (244)
photographs/pictures stored in the computer and lifted from the profiles
of the Philippine Military Academy Year Book of Batch Sanghaya 2000.
49. Jeffrey pointed to a man in the two (2) colored group
pictures/photographs, that he identified as among the 8-man group who
abducted Jonas Burgos. For record and identification purposes, the Team
encircled the face that Jeffrey identified in the two pictures; then he
affixed his signature on each picture. Also, while leafing through the
pictures of the PMA graduates in the Year Book of Sanghaya 2000 Batch, the
witness identified a picture, with a bold and all-capitalized name HARRY
AGAGEN BALIAGA JR and the words Agawa, Besao, Mt. Province printed there
under the capitalized words PHILIPPINE ARMY written on the upper portion,
as the same person he pointed out in the two group pictures just mentioned
above. Immediately thereafter, the Team caused the production of the photo
identified by Jeffrey and asked him to affix his signature, which he also
did.
50. After examining each of these pictures, Jeffrey declared that it
dawned on him that based on his recollection of faces involved in the
abduction of Jonas Burgos, he now remembers the face of a man, other than
the two (2) faces whose description he already provided before to a police
sketch artist, who was part of the 8-man group of abductors. And he also
confirms it now that the person he is referring to was indeed seen by him
as one of those who abducted Jonas Burgos at Hapag Kainan Restaurant of
Ever Gotesco Mall, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City.
51. When asked how certain he was of the person he identified, considering
that the printed copy of the photo lifted from the Face-book Sanghaya
Account was taken sometime in the year 2010; while the picture appearing
in the computer was lifted from the PMA Sanghaya 2000 Batch Year Book,
Jeffrey replied “Ang taong ito ay aking natatandaan sa kadahilanan na
nuong una siya ay nakaupo na katabi sa bandang kaliwa nang taong dumukot
at natapos silang mag usap lumapit sa akin at pilit akong pinipigilan na
wag daw makialam at ang sabi nya sa akin ay “WAG KA DITONG MAKIALAM KASI
ANG TAONG ITO AY MATAGAL NA NAMING SINUSUBAYBAYAN DAHIL SA DROGA” kahit pa
halos nagmamakaawa na nang tulong ang taong dinukot; at matapos nuon ay
sapilitan na nilang binitbit sa labas ang biktima.” ( I remember this man
for the reason that at first he was seated at the left side of the person
abducted; and after they talked, he approached me and was preventing me
forcefully saying not to interfere and he said to me: “DON’T YOU INTERFERE
HERE SINCE WE HAVE BEEN DOING SOME SURVEILLANCE ON THIS MAN FOR SOME TIME
ALREADY BECAUSE OF DRUGS” despite that the man was already pleading for
help, and after that, they forcibly dragged the victim outside.)
52. When asked if he could identify the picture of Jonas Burgos, Jeffrey
affirmed that the person in the picture is the person referred to by him
as the victim of abduction and his name is Jonas Burgos. He further stated
that he learned of the victim’s name when he saw his picture flashed on TV
and hear his name. When asked if he is willing to execute an affidavit on
the facts that he has just provided, he answered yes and at that juncture
the Team assisted him in the preparation of his “Sinumpaang Salaysay”
based on his personal knowledge and in a language known to him. After
which, the Team asked Jeffrey to read, examine and determine whether all
the information he just provided are reflected in his “Sinumpaang Salaysay”
and Jeffrey answered yes. Thereafter, Jeffrey affixed his signature after
being sworn to before a lady CHR lawyer and a duly commissioned Notary
Public for and in Quezon City.
W. Daguman confirmed Tayaban’s and Baliaga’s actual affiliation with the
military and their assignment at the 56th Infantry Battalion, 7th ID
53. On December 10, 2010, the Team went to the Bulacan Provincial Jail to
visit Edmond Dag-Uman and asked him to identify his former Company
Commander at the 56th IB, 71 ID, Lt. Usmalik Tayaban and to identify the
pictures.
54. Edmond Dag-uman identified the encircled in the picture as LT. HARRY
A. BALIAGA, JR., and the man with a receding hair as LT. USMALIK TAYABAN,
his former Company Commander.
55. When asked if he was willing to reduce in writing his precious
statements and those that just mentioned, he replied “BAKA MAPAHAMAK AKO
NYAN! (That might endanger me!). Following a lengthy discussion on the
pros and cons of executing a sworn statement and the assurance of the Team
to exclude his statements that are critical to the military establishment,
it dawned on Dag-uman that his statement would be of help to the
Commission in bringing his case to the proper authorities for review and
appropriate action, that he eventually expressed his willingness to do so.
56. After which the Team immediately went to a “Computer Café” nearby to
encode the “Salaysay”, then the printed copy was presented to him for his
determination whether he is in full accord with the contents therein.
Edmond spent about thirty (30) minutes reading it and changed the word
“Charlie” to “Bravo” and then affixed his initial on it. He also signed
the “Sinumpaang Salaysay” after being sworn to before a team member
authorized to administer oath.
X. Second visit to ELSA AGASANG and her Supplemental Sworn Statement
57. On January 26, 2011, the Team along with witness Jeffrey went to Bicol
to meet witness Elsa. The aim was to help Elsa recall the faces of those
she saw in the abduction by showing to her recently-acquired pictures of
suspects.
58. For the first time they would re-unite, after almost four years since
that fateful day of April 28, 2007, when both of them had the experience
of witnessing an abduction incident, which rendered them jobless and
unsafe.
59. The Team told Jeffrey to sit in front of Elsa without introducing him
to her. After about half an hour into the conversation, she expressed
disbelief when she realized that she was facing in person he co-worker
that she knew very well.
60. On January 29, 2011, Elsa executed her Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay
affirming her Salaysay given before PCI Lino DL Banaag at the CIDU, Quezon
City Police District Office, Camp Karingal, Quezon City; and corroborating
the material allegations contained in the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Jeffrey.
On the basis of the evidence it had gathered, the CHR submitted the
following findings:[12]
Based on the facts developed by evidence obtaining in this case, the CHR
finds that the enforced disappearance of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos had
transpired; and that his constitutional rights to life liberty and
security were violated by the Government have been fully determined.
Jeffrey Cabintoy and Elsa Agasang have witnessed on that fateful day of
April 28, 2007 the forcible abduction of Jonas Burgos by a group of about
seven (7) men and a woman from the extension portion of Hapag Kainan
Restaurant, located at the ground floor of Ever Gotesco Mall, Commonwealth
Avenue, Quezon City.
xxxx
The eyewitnesses mentioned above were Jeffrey Cabintoy (Jeffrey) and Elsa
Agasang (Elsa), who at the time of the abduction were working as busboyand
Trainee-Supervisor, respectively, at Hapag Kainan Restaurant.
In his Sinumpaang Salaysay, Jeffrey had a clear recollection of the face
of HARRY AGAGEN BALIAGA, JR. as one of the principal abductors, apart from
the faces of the two abductors in the cartographic sketches that he
described to the police, after he was shown by the Team the pictures in
the PMA Year Book of Batch Sanghaya 2000 and group pictures of men taken
some years thereafter.
The same group of pictures were shown to detained former 56th IB Army
trooper Edmond M. Dag-uman (Dag-uman), who also positively identified Lt.
Harry Baliaga, Jr. Daguman’s Sinumpaang Salaysay states that he came to
know Lt. Baliaga as a Company Commander in the 56thIB while he was still
in the military service (with Serial No. 800693, from 1997 to 2002) also
with the 56th IB but under 1Lt. Usmalik Tayaban, the Commander of Bravo
Company. When he was arrested and brought to the 56th IB Camp in April
2005, he did not see Lt. Baliaga anymore at the said camp. The similar
reaction that the pictures elicited from both Jeffrey and Daguman did not
pass unnoticed by the Team. Both men always look pensive, probably because
of the pathetic plight they are in right now. It came as a surprise
therefore to the Team when they could hardly hide their smile upon seeing
the face of Baliaga, as if they know the man very well.
Moreover, when the Team asked how Jeffrey how certain was he that it was
indeed Baliaga that he saw as among those who actually participated in
Jonas’ abduction, Jeffrey was able to give a graphic description and
spontaneously, to boot, the blow by blow account of the incident,
including the initial positioning of the actors, specially Baliaga, who
even approached, talked to, and prevented him from interfering in their
criminal act.
A Rebel-returnee (RR) named Maria Vita Lozada y Villegas @KA MY, has
identified the face of the female in the cartographic sketch as a certain
Lt. Fernando. While Lozada refuses to include her identification of Lt.
Fernando in her Sinumpaang Salaysay for fear of a backlash, she told the
Team that she was certain it was Lt. Fernando in the cartographic sketch
since both of them were involved in counter-insurgency operations at the
56th IB, while she was under the care of the battalion from March 2006
until she left the 56th IB Headquarters in October 2007. Lozada’s
involvement in counter-insurgency operations together with Lt. Fernando
was among the facts gathered by the CHR Regional Office 3 Investigators,
whose investigation into the enforced disappearance of Jonas Joseph Burgos
was documented by way of an After Mission Report dated August 13, 2008.
Most if not all the actual abductors would have been identified had it not
been for what is otherwise called as evidentiary difficultiesshamelessly
put up by some police and military elites. The deliberate refusal of TJAG
Roa to provide the CHR with the requested documents does not only defy the
Supreme Court directive to the AFP but ipso facto created a disputable
presumption that AFP personnel were responsible for the abduction and that
their superiors would be found accountable, if not responsible, for the
crime committed. This observation finds support in the disputable
presumption “That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
produced.” (Paragraph (e), Section 3, Rule 131 on Burden of Proof and
Presumptions, Revised Rules on Evidence of the Rules of Court of the
Philippines).
In saying that the requested document is irrelevant, the Team has deemed
that the requested documents and profiles would help ascertain the true
identities of the cartographic sketches of two abductors because a certain
Virgilio Eustaquio has claimed that one of the intelligence operatives
involved in the 2007 ERAP 5 case fits the description of his abductor.
As regards the PNP CIDG, the positive identification of former 56th IB
officer Lt. HARRY A. BALIAGA, JR. as one of the principal abductors has
effectively crushed the theory of the CIDG witnesses that the NPAs
abducted Jonas. Baliaga’s true identity and affiliation with the military
have been established by overwhelming evidence corroborated by detained
former Army trooper Dag-uman.
For lack of material time, the Commission will continue to investigate the
enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos as an independent body and pursuant
to its mandate under the 1987 Constitution. Of particular importance are
the identities and locations of the persons appearing in the cartographic
sketches; the allegations that CIDG Witnesses Emerito G. Lipio and Meliza
Concepcion-Reyes are AFP enlisted personnel and the alleged participation
of Delfin De Guzman @ Ka Baste in the abduction of Jonas Burgos whose case
for Murder and Attempted Murder was dismissed by the court for failure of
the lone witness, an army man of the 56th IB to testify against him.
Interview with Virgilio Eustaquio, Chairman of the Union Masses for
Democracy and Justice (UMDJ), revealed that the male abductor of Jonas
Burgos appearing in the cartographic sketch was among the raiders who
abducted him and four others, identified as Jim Cabauatan, Jose Curament,
Ruben Dionisio and Dennis Ibona otherwise known as ERAP FIVE.
Unfortunately, and as already pointed out above, The Judge Advocate
General (TJAG) turned down the request of the Team for a profile of the
operatives in the so-called “Erap 5” abduction on the ground of relevancy
and branded the request as a fishing expedition per its Disposition Form
dated September 21, 2010.
Efforts to contact Virgilio Eustaquio to secure his affidavit proved
futile, as his present whereabouts cannot be determined. And due to lack
of material time, the Commission decided to pursue the same and determine
the whereabouts of the other members of the “Erap 5” on its own time and
authority as an independent body.
Based on the above-cited findings, the CHR submitted the following
recommendations for the Court’s consideration, viz:[13]
i. To DIRECT the Department of Justice (DOJ), subject to certain
requirements, to immediately admit witnesses Jeffrey T. Cabintoy and Elsa
B. Agasang to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program under
Republic Act No. 6981;
ii. To DIRECT the Department of Justice (DOJ) to commence the filing of
Criminal Charges for Kidnapping/Enforced Disappearance and/or Arbitrary
Detention against 1LT. HARRY AGAGEN BALIAGA, JR. of the Philippine Army,
as Principal by Direct Participation in the abduction of Jonas Joseph T.
Burgos on April 28, 2007 from Ever Gotesco Mall, Commonwealth Avenue,
Quezon City;
iii. To DIRECT the Department of Justice to cause the filing of
Obstruction of Justice against Emerito Lipio y Gonzales; Marlon Manuel y
de Leon; and Meliza Concepcion-Reyes for giving false or fabricated
information to the CIDG and for their willful refusal to cooperate with
the CHR Team in the investigation of the herein enforced disappearance;
iv. To DIRECT Cavite Provincial Prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco to appear
before the Supreme Court and to divulge his source/informant as the same
does not fall under the privilege communication rule;
v. To DIRECT the PNP-CIDG RC, NCRCIDU, Atty. Joel Napoleon M. Coronel, to
explain his Memorandum to the CIDG-CIDD stating that “the witnesses were
reportedly turned over by the Bulacan PPO and Philippine Army to the CIDG
for investigation…,” considering that said witnesses were not under police
or military custody at the time of the supposed turn-over in the evening
of August 22, 2007 and to identify the PNP officer who directed the CIDG
operatives to fetch Emerito G. Lipio in Bulacan and the two other CIDG
witnesses for tactical interrogation;
vi. To REQUIRE General Roa of the Judge Advocate General Office, AFP, and
the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, JI, AFP, to explain their failure
and/or refusal to provide the CHR with copies of documents relevant to the
case of Jonas T. Burgos, particularly the following: (a) Profile and
Summary of Information and pictures of T/Sgt. Jason Roxas (Philippine
Army) and three (3) other enlisted personnel mentioned in paragraph (1) of
the dispositive portion of the Supreme Court En Banc Resolution issued on
22 June 2010 in the instant consolidated cases, including a certain 2Lt.
Fernando, a lady officer involved in the counter-insurgency operations of
the 56th IB in 2006 to 2007; (b) copies of the records of the 2007 ERAP 5
incident in Kamuning, Quezon City and the complete list of the
intelligence operatives involved in that said covert military operation,
including their respective Summary of Information and individual pictures;
and (c)complete list of the officers, women and men assigned at the 56th
and 69th Infantry Battalion and the 7th Infantry Division from January 1,
2004 to June 30, 2007 with their respective profiles, Summary of
Information and pictures; including the list of captured rebels and rebels
who surrendered to the said camps and their corresponding pictures and
copies of their Tactical Interrogation Reports and the cases filed against
them, if any;
vii. To DIRECT the PNP-CIDG to comply with its mandate under paragraph (3)
of the dispositive portion of the Supreme Court En Banc Resolution
promulgated on 22 June 2010 in the instant consolidated cases;
viii. To DIRECT Harry A. Baliaga, Jr., the Philippine Army’s 56th Infantry
Battalion in Bulacan and 7th Infantry Division at Fort Magsaysay in Laur,
Nueva Ecija to produce the living body of the victim Jonas Joseph T.
Burgos before this Court;
ix. To DIRECT the Department of Justice to review and determine the
probable liability/accountability of the officers and enlisted personnel
concerned of the Philippine Army’s 56th IB and the 7th ID, relative to the
torture and/or other forms of ill-treatment of Edmond M. Dag-uman, while
he was in detention at Fort Magsaysay sometime in October 2005, as part of
the collateral discoveries in the conduct of this investigation;
x. To DIRECT the Department of Justice to review the case filed against
Edmond Dag-uman alias DELFIN DE GUZMAN with the Regional Trial Court
Branch 10 in Malolos City docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 1844-M-2005 and
186-M-2006; and the legal basis, if any, for his continued detention at
the Bulacan Provincial Jail in Malolos City; and
xi. To DIRECT the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to
study the probable liability of Adelio A. Asuncion, former Jail Warden of
Bulacan Provincial Jail for his failure to account the records of the
inmates more specifically the records of turn-over Edmond Dag-uman from
the 7th ID.
Pursuant to our June 22, 2010, the CHR furnished the petitioner with the
copy of its report, which the petitioner apparently relied upon in filing
a criminal complaint against Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr. and other members
of the military.[14]
OUR RULING
A. Amparo
After reviewing the evidence in the present case, the CA findings and our
findings in our June 22, 2010 Resolution heretofore mentioned, including
the recent CHR findings that Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr., (Lt. Baliaga) of
the 56th Infantry Battalion, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army is one
of the abductors of Jonas, we resolve to hold in abeyance our ruling on
the merits in the Amparo aspect of the present case and refer this case
back to the CA in order to allow Lt. Baliaga and the present Amparo
respondents to file their respective Comments on the CHR Report within a
non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of this
Resolution. The CA shall continue with the hearing of the Amparo petition
in light of the evidence previously submitted, the proceedings it already
conducted and the subsequent developments in this case, particularly the
CHR Report. Thereafter, the CA shall rule on the merits of the Amparo
petition. For this purpose, we order that Lt. Baliaga be impleaded as a
party to the Amparopetition (CA-G.R. SP No. 00008-WA). This directive to
implead Lt. Baliaga is without prejudice to similar directives we may
issue with respect to others whose identities and participation may be
disclosed in future investigations.
We also note that Office of the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) failed
and/or refused to provide the CHR with copies of documents relevant to the
case of Jonas, and thereby disobeyed our June 22, 2010 Resolution. To
recall, we issued a Resolution declaring the CHR as the Court’s directly
commissioned agency tasked with the continuation of the investigation of
Jonas’ abduction and the gathering of evidence, with the obligation to
report its factual findings and recommendations to this Court. In this
same Resolution, we required the then incumbent Chiefs of the AFP and the
PNP to make available and to provide copies to the CHR, of all documents
and records in their possession and as the CHR may require, relevant to
the case of Jonas, subject to reasonable regulations consistent with the
Constitution and existing laws.
In its March 15, 2011 Report, the CHR recommended, for the Court’s
consideration:[15]
vi. To REQUIRE General Roa of the Judge Advocate General Office, AFP, and
the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, JI, AFP, to explain their failure
and/or refusal to provide the CHR with copies of documents relevant to the
case of Jonas T. Burgos, particularly the following: (a) Profile and
Summary of Information and pictures of T/Sgt. Jason Roxas (Philippine
Army) and three (3) other enlisted personnel mentioned in paragraph (1) of
the dispositive portion of the Supreme Court En Banc Resolution issued on
22 June 2010 in the instant consolidated cases, including a certain 2Lt.
Fernando, a lady officer involved in the counter-insurgency operations of
the 56th IB in 2006 to 2007; (b) copies of the records of the 2007 ERAP 5
incident in Kamuning, Quezon City and the complete list of the
intelligence operatives involved in that said covert military operation,
including their respective Summary of Information and individual pictures;
and (c) complete list of the officers, women and men assigned at the 56th
and 69th Infantry Battalion and the 7th Infantry Division from January 1,
2004 to June 30, 2007 with their respective profiles, Summary of
Information and pictures; including the list of captured rebels and rebels
who surrendered to the said camps and their corresponding pictures and
copies of their Tactical Interrogation Reports and the cases filed against
them, if any.
Section 16 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides that any person who
otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of the court may
be punished for contempt, viz:
SEC. 16. Contempt. – The court, justice or judge may order the respondent
who refuses to make a return, or who makes a false return, or any person
who otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of the court
to be punished for contempt. The contemnor may be imprisoned or imposed a
fine
Acting on the CHR’s recommendation and based on the above considerations,
we resolve to require General Roa of TJAG, AFP, and the Deputy Chief of
Staff for Personnel, JI, AFP, at the time of our June 22, 2010 Resolution,
and then incumbent Chief of Staff, AFP,[16] to show cause and explain,
within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of this
Resolution, why they should not be held in contempt of this Court for
defying our June 22, 2010 Resolution.
B. Habeas Corpus
In light of the new evidence obtained by the CHR, particularly the
Cabintoy evidence that positively identified Lt. Baliaga as one of the
direct perpetrators in the abduction of Jonas and in the interest of
justice, we resolve to set aside the CA’s dismissal of the habeas corpus
petition and issue anew the writ of habeas corpus returnable to the
Presiding Justice of the CA who shall immediately refer the writ to the
same CA division that decided the habeas corpus petition (CA-GR SP No.
99839).
For this purpose, we also order that Lt. Baliaga be impleaded as a party
to the habeas corpus petition and require him – together with the
incumbent Chief of Staff, AFP; the incumbent Commanding General,
Philippine Army; and the Commanding Officer of the 56th IB at the time of
the disappearance of Jonas, Lt. Col. Feliciano – to produce the person of
Jonas and to show cause why he should not be released from detention.
The CA shall rule on the merits of the habeas corpus petition in light of
the evidence previously submitted to it, the proceedings already
conducted, and the subsequent developments in this case (particularly the
CHR report) as proven by evidence properly adduced before it. The Court of
Appeals and the parties may require Prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco, Jeffrey
Cabintoy, Edmund Dag-uman, Melissa Concepcion Reyes, Emerito Lipio and
Marlon Manuel to testify in this case.
C. Petition for Contempt
In dismissing the petition, the CA held:[17]
Undoubtedly, the accusation against respondents is criminal in nature. In
view thereof, the rules in criminal prosecution and corollary recognition
of respondents’ constitutional rights inevitably come into play. As held
in People v. Godoy:
In proceedings for criminal contempt, the defendant is presumed innocent
and the burden is on the prosecution to prove the charges beyond
reasonable doubt.
Hence, assuming that there is circumstantial evidence to support
petitioner’s allegations, said circumstantial evidence falls short of the
quantum of evidence that is required to establish the guilt of an accused
in a criminal proceeding, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The pertinent provision of the Rules of Court on contempt, in relation to
a Habeas Corpus proceeding, is Section 16, Rule 102, which provides:
Sec. 16. Penalty for refusing to issue writ, or for disobeying the same. -
A clerk of a court who refuses to issue the writ after allowance thereof
and demand therefor, or a person to whom a writ is directed, who neglects
or refuses to obey or make return of the same according to the command
thereof, or makes false return thereof, or who, upon demand made by or on
behalf of the prisoner, refuses to deliver to the person demanding, within
six (6) hours after the demand therefor, a true copy of the warrant or
order of commitment, shall forfeit to the party aggrieved the sum of one
thousand pesos, to be recovered in a proper action, and may also be
punished by the court or judge as for contempt. [emphasis supplied]
In Montenegro v. Montenegro,[18] we explained the types and nature of
contempt, as follows:
Contempt of court involves the doing of an act, or the failure to do an
act, in such a manner as to create an affront to the court and the
sovereign dignity with which it is clothed. It is defined as "disobedience
to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and
dignity."7 The power to punish contempt is inherent in all courts, because
it is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and
to the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of the courts; and,
consequently, to the due administration of justice.
x x x
Contempt, whether direct or indirect, may be civil or criminal depending
on the nature and effect of the contemptuous act. Criminal contempt is
"conduct directed against the authority and dignity of the court or a
judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of
justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect." On
the other hand, civil contempt is the failure to do something ordered to
be done by a court or a judge for the benefit of the opposing party
therein and is therefore, an offense against the party in whose behalf the
violated order was made. If the purpose is to punish, then it is criminal
in nature; but if to compensate, then it is civil. [emphasis supplied]
We agree with the CA that indirect contempt is the appropriate
characterization of the charge filed by the petitioner against the
respondents and that the charge is criminal in nature. Evidently, the
charge of filing a false return constitutes improper conduct that serves
no other purpose but to mislead, impede and obstruct the administration of
justice by the Court. In People v. Godoy,[19] which the CA cited, we
specifically held that under paragraph (d) of Section 3, Rule 71 of the
Rules of Court, any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice constitutes
criminal contempt.
A criminal contempt proceeding has been characterized as sui generis as it
partakes some of the elements of both a civil and criminal proceeding,
without completely falling under either proceeding. Its identification
with a criminal proceeding is in the use of the principles and rules
applicable to criminal cases, to the extent that criminal procedure is
consistent with the summary nature of a contempt proceeding. We have
consistently held and established that the strict rules that govern
criminal prosecutions apply to a prosecution for criminal contempt; that
the accused is afforded many of the protections provided in regular
criminal cases; and that proceedings under statutes governing them are to
be strictly construed.[20]
Contempt, too, is not presumed. In proceedings for criminal contempt, the
defendant is presumed innocent and the burden is on the prosecution to
prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.[21] The presumption of
innocence can be overcome only by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
which means proof to the satisfaction of the court and keeping in mind the
presumption of innocence that precludes every reasonable hypothesis except
that for which it is given. It is not sufficient for the proof to
establish a probability, even though strong, that the fact charged is more
likely true than the contrary. It must establish the truth of the fact to
a reasonable certainty and moral certainty – a certainty that convinces
and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon
it.[22]
For the petitioner to succeed in her petition to declare the respondents
in contempt for filing false returns in the habeas corpus proceedings
before the CA, she has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that
the respondents had custody of Jonas. As the CA did, we find that the
pieces of evidence on record as of the time of the CA proceedings were
merely circumstantial and did not provide a direct link between the
respondents and the abduction of Jonas; the evidence did not prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the respondents had a hand in the abduction of
Jonas, and consequently, had custody of him at the time they filed their
returns to the Writ of habeas corpus denying custody of Jonas.
However, the subsequent developments in this case, specifically, the
investigative findings presented to us by the CHR pointing to Lt. Baliaga
as one of the abductors of Jonas, have given a twist to our otherwise
clear conclusion. Investigations will continue, consistent with the nature
of Amparoproceedings to be alive until a definitive result is achieved,
and these investigations may yet yield additional evidence affecting the
conclusion the CA made. For this reason, we can only conclude that the
CA’s dismissal of the contempt charge should be provisional, i.e., without
prejudice to the re-filing of the charge in the future should the
petitioner find this step warranted by the evidence in the proceedings
related to Jonas’s disappearance, including the criminal prosecutions that
may transpire.
To adjust to the extraordinary nature of Amparo and habeas corpus
proceedings and to directly identify the parties bound by these
proceedings who have the continuing obligation to comply with our
directives, the AFP Chief of Staff, the Commanding General of the
Philippine Army, the Director General of the PNP, the Chief of the PNP-CIDG
and the TJAG shall be named as parties to this case without need of naming
their current incumbents, separately from the then incumbent officials
that the petitioner named in her original Amparo and habeas corpus
petitions, for possible responsibility and accountability.
In light of the dismissal of the petitions against President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo who is no the longer the President of the Republic of
thePhilippines, she should now be dropped as a party-respondent in these
petitions.
WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice and for the foregoing reasons, we
RESOLVE to:
I. IN G.R. NO. 183711 (HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, CA-G.R. SP No. 99839)
a. ISSUE a Writ of Habeas Corpus anew, returnable to the Presiding Justice
of the Court of Appeals who shall immediately refer the writ to the same
Division that decided the habeas corpus petition;
b. ORDER Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr. impleaded in CA-G.R. SP No. 99839 and
G.R. No. 183711, and REQUIRE him, together with the incumbent Chief of
Staff, Armed Forces of the
Philippines; the incumbent Commanding General, Philippine Army; and the
Commanding Officer of the 56th IB, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army
at the time of the disappearance of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos, Lt. Col.
Melquiades Feliciano, to produce the person of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos
under the terms the Court of Appeals shall prescribe, and to show cause
why Jonas Joseph T. Burgos should not be released from detention;
c. REFER back the petition for habeas corpus to the same Division of the
Court of Appeals which shall continue to hear this case after the required
Returns shall have been filed and render a new decision within thirty (30)
days after the case is submitted for decision; and
d. ORDER the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Commanding General of the Philippine Army to be impleaded as parties,
separate from the original respondents impleaded in the petition, and the
dropping or deletion of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as
party-respondent.
II. IN G.R. NO. 183712 (CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGE, CA-G.R. SP No. 100230)
e. AFFIRM the dismissal of the petitioner’s petition for Contempt in CA-G.R.
SP No. 100230, without prejudice to the re-filing of the contempt charge
as may be warranted by the results of the subsequent CHR investigation
this Court has ordered; and
f. ORDER the dropping or deletion of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
as party-respondent, in light of the unconditional dismissal of the
contempt charge against her.
III. IN G.R. NO. 183713 (WRIT OF AMPARO PETITION, CA-G.R. SP No. 00008-WA)
g. ORDER Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr., impleaded in CA-G.R. SP No. 00008-WA
and G.R. No. 183713, without prejudice to similar directives we may issue
with respect to others whose identities and participation may be disclosed
in future investigations and proceedings;
h. DIRECT Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr., and the present Amparo respondents to
file their Comments on the CHR report with the Court of Appeals, within a
non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of this
Resolution.
i. REQUIRE General Roa of the Office of the Judge Advocate General, AFP;
the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, JI, AFP, at the time of our June
22, 2010 Resolution; and then Chief of Staff, AFP, Gen. Ricardo David, (a)
to show cause and explain to this Court, within a non-extendible period of
fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Resolution, why they should not be
held in contempt of this Court for their defiance of our June 22, 2010
Resolution; and (b) to submit to this Court, within a non-extendible
period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Resolution, a copy of the
documents requested by the CHR, particularly:
1) The profile and Summary of Information and pictures of T/Sgt. Jason
Roxas (Philippine Army); Cpl. Maria Joana Francisco (Philippine Air
Force); M/Sgt. Aron Arroyo (Philippine Air Force); an alias T.L. - all
reportedly assigned with Military Intelligence Group 15 of Intelligence
Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines - and 2Lt. Fernando, a lady
officer involved in the counter-insurgency operations of the 56th IB in
2006 to 2007;
2) Copies of the records of the 2007 ERAP 5 incident in Kamuning, Quezon
City and the complete list of the intelligence operatives involved in that
said covert military operation, including their respective Summary of
Information and individual pictures; and
3) Complete list of the officers, women and men assigned at the 56th and
69th Infantry Battalion and the 7th Infantry Division from January 1, 2004
to June 30, 2007 with their respective profiles, Summary of Information
and pictures; including the list of captured rebels and rebels who
surrendered to the said camps and their corresponding pictures and copies
of their Tactical Interrogation Reports and the cases filed against them,
if any.
These documents shall be released exclusively to this Court for our
examination to determine their relevance to the present case and the
advisability of their public disclosure.
j. ORDER the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Commanding General of the Philippine Army to be impleaded as parties, in
representation of their respective organizations, separately from the
original respondents impleaded in the petition; and the dropping of
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as party-respondent;
k. REFER witnesses Jeffrey T. Cabintoy and Elsa B. Agasang to the
Department of Justice for admission to the Witness Protection Security and
Benefit Program, subject to the requirements of Republic Act No. 6981; and
l. NOTE the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner with the DOJ which
the latter may investigate and act upon on its own pursuant to Section 21
of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
(ON WELLNESS LEAVE)
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* On Wellness Leave
[1] Pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and with
Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal,
concurring; rollo, pp. 72-119.
[3] CA-G.R. SP No. 99839.
[4] CA-G.R. SP No. 100230.
[5] CA-G.R. SP No. 00008-WA.
[6] The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, based on all of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby
rendered as follows:
1. The Petition for Habeas Corpus in CA-G.R. SP No. 99839 and the Petition
for Contempt in CA-G.R. SP No. 100230 are both DISMISSED.
2. The Petition for Amparo in CA-G.R. SP No. 00008-WA is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. The privilege of the writ of amparo is granted as hereunder
specified, viz:
1. Respondents Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano and Dir. Gen. Avelino Razon, Jr.,
are hereby ORDERED to make available, and provide copies to petitioner,
all documents and records in their possession relevant to the case of
Jonas Joseph Burgos, subject to reasonable regulations consistent with the
Constitution and existing laws;
2. Respondent Commission on Human Rights, through its Chairperson, is
DIRECTED to furnish petitioner documents not yet on file with this Court,
pursuant to its undertaking before this Court during the hearing held on
January 21, 2008;
3. Respondent Dir. Gen. Avelino Razon, Jr. is hereby DIRECTED to continue
with, and conduct, a full and thorough investigation of the case of Jonas
Joseph Burgos and to cause the immediate filing of the appropriate charges
against all those who may be found responsible therefor with the
Department of Justice;
4. Respondent Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano is likewise hereby DIRECTED conduct
a thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding the loss of
license plate no. TAB 194 and the possible involvement of any AFP
personnel in the alleged abduction of Jonas Joseph Burgos;
5. Respondents Lt. Gen. Yano and Dir. Gen. Razon are hereby REQUIRED to
submit a compliance report to this Court, copy furnished the petitioner,
within ten (10) days after completion of their respective organization.
Petitioner’s Motion to Declare Respondents in Contempt is DENIED admission
and ordered expunged from the records of this case.
Respondents’ Manifestation and Motion dated July 1, 2008 is NOTED.
SO ORDERED.
[7] Supra note 14.
[8] Id. at 493-495.
[9] Id. at 496-498.
[10] Id. at 498.
[11]Rollo, pp. 769-897.
[12] Id. at 808-812.
[13] Id. at 812-815.
[14] On June 9, 2011, Edita Burgos filed a criminal complaint before the
Department of Justice against Major Harry Baliaga Jr., Lieutenant Colonel
Melquaides Feliciano, Col. Eduardo Ano and several unidentified soldiers
(http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/13553/burgos%E2%80%99-mom-supporters-file-criminal-raps-vs-military-officers).
[15] Rollo, pp. 813-814.
[16] Gen. Hermogenes Esperon retired on February 9, 2008; Gen. Ricardo
David was the incumbent Chief of Staff, AFP at the time we issued our June
22, 2010 Resolution.
[17] Rollo, pp. 104-106.
[18] G.R. No. 156829, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 415, 423-425.
[19] G.R. Nos. 115908-09, March 29, 1995, 243 SCRA 64, 80.
[20] Id. at 78-79.
[21] Id. at 80.
[22] People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 132895, March 10, 2004, 425 SCRA 136,
166, citing United States v. Reyes, 3 Phil. 6 (1903).
POSTED BY PINOYXPRESS AT 9:29 AM 0 COMMENTS
|
