Petition to SC, filed April 17, 2006pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/SC_Certiorari_Ladlad_et_al.pdf · CPP/NPA to “raise the level of the people’s war and make all-around ... 1 Duterte vs

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSUPREME COURT

Manila

VICENTE P. LADLAD,NATHANAEL S. SANTIAGO, RANDALL B. ECHANIS and REY CLARO C. CASAMBRE, Petitioners,

G.R. No. 172070-72FOR: CERTIORARI and

- versus - PROHIBITION with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction

SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO, SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR JOSELITA C. MENDOZA, SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR AILEEN MARIE S.GUTIERREZ, STATE PROSECUTOR IRWIN A. MARAYA and STATE PROSECUTOR MERBA A. WAGA, in their capacity as Members of the Department of Justice Panel of Prosecutors Investigating I.S. Nos. 2006-225, 2006-226 and 2006-234, JUSTICE SECRETARY RAUL M. GONZALEZ, DIRECTOR GENERAL ARTURO C. LOMIBAO, in his capacity as Chief, Philippine National Police, P/CSUPT. RODOLFO B. MENDOZA, JR. and P/SSUPT. YOLANDA G. TANIGUE,

Respondents.x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

P E T I T I O N

Petitioners VICENTE P. LADLAD, NATHANAEL S. SANTIAGO,

RANDALL B. ECHANIS and REY CLARO C. CASAMBRE, by counsel,

respectfully state:

Prefatory Statement

Proclamation 1017 has given birth to a “prosecutorial Frankenstein.”

Emboldened and enabled by the Presidential proclamation of a State of National

Ladlad et al., vs. Velasco, et al.Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition with

Prayer for TRO &/or WPIPage 2

Emergency, the government has encouraged the PNP’s stalking of the political

opposition and the overzealousness of the Department of Justice, at the price of

fairness and process. The overreaching of the pillars of the criminal justice system is

a problem that is growing – the police resort to trumped-up charges using fabricated

evidence, while the prosecutors aggressively flex prosecutorial muscle and abuse

prosecutorial discretion even as they adopt newly minted procedure for vague and

loose indictments.

There are problems when the government oversteps its prosecutorial authority.

The first is their targets. One would have thought that having decided to undercut and

gut the constitutional processes, the government would have at least reserved their

prosecutorial zeal and vigor for the worst offenders. Instead, charges are being filed

against, if the PNP claim proves accurate, individuals whom their own witness could

not directly allege personal participation in any specific crime.

Then there is the problem with the charges. The PNP has had to put together

amorphous, baseless, and conjured stories using dishonest witnesses who are not only

intellectually disreputable, but barely comprehensible in their tall tales which require

a tremendous stretch of credulity.

Then, of course, there is the problem with the process. To play its role in the

persecution process, the DOJ becomes duty-bound to make a finding of probable

cause on the basis of the flimsiest, most absurd and inane lot of evidence, a mix and

match of discredited and contrived witnesses and accused, by no means other than a

runaway process which cannot produce the closest approximation of even the bare

standards of fairness.

Indeed, times of crisis call for special responses, and of course, fairness and

process can give way in an emergency or when the matter concerns terrorists of the

Jamal Islamia or the Al-Qaida. But persons who are merely known to be, or even just



perceived to be, political dissenters, as in the case of the herein Petitioners, just don’t

come close.

In reckless, malevolent and vindictive abandon of the established rules of fair

play and with capricious, wanton and unrestrained disregard for the constitutional

rights of individuals belonging to the political opposition, this case smacks of the very

situation Justice Santiago Kapunan warned against in 1998,1 wherein the Department

of Justice allowed its noble office to be exploited, used and prostituted for political

ends, subversive of the basic and fundamental objective of guaranteeing that the

interest of justice be made to operate evenhandedly, without fear or favor to any and

all litigants alike, whether rich or poor, weak or strong, powerless or mighty.

We ask the Court to witness the litany of prosecutorial misdeeds -- a sham

preliminary investigation being hastily undertaken by the Respondents with manifest

bad faith and in glaring violation of their constitutional and procedural rights -- which

may yet be the dramatic steps in the slide down a dangerous anti-constitutional spiral.

(1) Based on mere letters-referral signed by Respondent Police Officers, not

sworn before a person authorized to administer oaths as required by the Rules

and existing jurisprudence, the herein Petitioners have been compelled by a

specially-created DOJ Panel of Prosecutors to respond to the baseless charges

and file a Counter-Affidavit in their defense;

(2) The letters-referral are for two (2) different Rebellion cases: first, “PNP-

DIDM vs. Jose Ma. Sison (and 48 others),” referring to alleged plans by the

CPP/NPA to “raise the level of the people’s war and make all-around

advances in the revolution” docketed as I.S. No. 2006-225; and second,

“PNP-DIDM vs. 1Lt Lawrence San Juan (and 16 others),” referring to a

1 Duterte vs. Sandiganbayan, 289 SCRA 721.



“tactical alliance or linking up of the Partidong Komunista ng Pilipinas and

the Makabayang Kawal ng Pilipinas,” docketed as I.S. No. 2006-226;

(3) Despite the marked difference in the acts complained of, the period covered

by the said acts, the varying identities of the Respondents being charged in the

cases, and the list of witnesses named in the two (2) letters-referral, I.S. Nos.

2006-225 and 2006-226 are undergoing a consolidated preliminary

investigation by the DOJ Panel of Prosecutors; together with a third charge of

Rebellion, entitled “PNP-CIDG vs. Hon. Satur Ocampo, (and 4 other Party-

List Representatives),” which is docketed as I.S. No. 2006-234;

(4) Petitioners herein are charged only in I.S. No. 2006-225; however, due to the

baseless and unprocedural consolidation of the preliminary investigations of

the three (3) cases referred to the DOJ, they are in peril of being made to

answer not only for the charge leveled against them by the PNP, but also for

those which refer to the other cases;

(5) The confusion of the three (3) cases is deliberate and intentional on the part of

the Panel of Prosecutors, inasmuch as during the consolidated preliminary

investigation, upon instruction by the Respondent Prosecutors, the herein

Petitioners were handed voluminous documents by the PNP without any

indication whatsoever what these piles of documents represent or what case/s

they pertain to - the copious papers were literally dumped in their laps in total

disregard for the herein Petitioners’ constitutional right to be informed of the

charges against them;

(6) Worse, the curious turn-over of the numerous affidavits forming part of the

voluminous “evidences” (sic) by the PNP to the herein Petitioners was staged

by the Panel of Prosecutors at the DOJ Multi-Purpose Hall, not so much to

give space to the Respondents’ lawyers, but more to accommodate the media,



who were allowed to cover the proceedings live on national radio and

television – an obvious ploy to make a spectacle of the situation and create a

public perception that the PNP has an overflow of evidence against the herein

Petitioners. Clearly, this media play was in violation of the herein Petitioner’s

right to a fair trial;

(7) On the other hand, the PNP’s palpable disparagement of the Constitutional

rights of the herein Petitioners to confront the witnesses against them is

demonstrated by the fact that of all the 96 witnesses named by the PNP in the

letter-referral for I.S. No. 2006-225, not one appeared before the Investigating

Panel of Prosecutors to subscribe to their affidavit. That the Panel of

Prosecutors allowed it is an atrocious disrespect for the herein Petitioners’

rights, to say the least;

(8) The lone witness that appeared before the Investigating Panel of Prosecutors

during the preliminary investigation was a masked man claiming to be one

“Jaime Beltran Fuentes,” who was displayed and paraded before the media by

the PNP; and was allowed by the Investigating Panel of Prosecutors to

subscribe to his affidavit without first requiring him to remove his mask so

that the Respondent Prosecutors could see his face and ascertain his true

identity;

(9) The fact that this masked man’s Salaysay was actually transmitted to the DOJ

by the PNP “for inclusion to I.S. No. 2006-234” did not stop the Respondent

Prosecutors from distributing copies thereof to the press and to those who

were not charged under the said case, including the herein Petitioners. Indeed,

this calculated muddling of cases and evidence is a barefaced and shameless

violation of the Petitioners’ right to be informed of the nature and cause of the

charges against them and to confront the witnesses for the purpose;



(10) By not dismissing the charges below despite the fact they are fatally wanting

of the required affidavit of complainant, and by not requiring the appearance

of witnesses before them to enable them to ascertain their existence and

identities and for said witnesses to subscribe and swear to their respective

affidavits, the Investigating Panel of Prosecutors imprudently ignored the

rules of procedure on preliminary investigation;

(11) Appalling is the fact that of the 96 witnesses named by the PNP in its letter-

referral for I.S. No. 2006-225, the name of herein Petitioners LADLAD and

SANTIAGO were only mentioned in one affidavit, that of a certain Raul

Cachuela; while the names of Petitioners ECHANIS and CASAMBRE were

not even mentioned in any! Worse, Cachuela confesses in the Affidavit only

knowing of the names of the said Petitioners but admits not having seen them

personally during the Plenum he was describing. This only underscores the

serious blunder of requiring the herein Petitioners to present controverting

evidence by means of a Counter-Affidavit;

(12) By all indications, the Investigating Panel of Prosecutors are hurriedly

proceeding with the sham preliminary investigating below despite knowing

very well that they could not possibly comply with the rule that when the “the

investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold the respondent for trial,” he is

required to “certify under oath that he, or as shown by the record, an

authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his

witnesses;”

(13) It has become apparent that the Prosecutors are hell-bent on charging the

Respondents in Court at whatever cost, after the sham preliminary

investigation of the Petitioners herein, as shown in their deliberate effort to

correct the fatal defects of the instant charges by specifying in the questioned



4 April 2004 Order that the Counter-Affidavits of the Respondents may be

“(s)ubscribed before any government official authorized to administer oath or

before a notary public.” This is clearly a clever ploy to place the Counter-

Affidavits of the Respondents in the same footing as the Affidavits of the so-

called witnesses presented by the PNP. However, this is clearly violative of

the rule that the Affidavits of the Complainant and his witnesses, as well as

the Counter-Affidavits of the Respondent and his witnesses, “shall be sworn

to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath”

and it is only “in their absence or unavailability” that said affidavits may be

sworn to “before a notary public;”

(14) Consistent with the methodical confusion being perpetuated by the DOJ, the

Panel of Prosecutors and the Secretary of Justice have refused to show and

disclose the order designating the prosecutors tasked with conducting the

consolidated preliminary investigation below. And yet, the records of the

sham preliminary investigation will show that there are actually several panels

conducting preliminary investigation, in addition to the Investigating Panel of

Prosecutors composed of public respondents VELASCO, MENDOZA,

GUTIERREZ, MARAYA and WAGA, who issued the questioned 4 April

2006 Order, to wit: (a) a panel composed of Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito

R. Zuño, Senior State Prosecutor Edwin Dayog and State Prosecutors Melvin

Abad and Respondent Maraya, who issued the subpoena in I.S. No. 2006-234;

(b) another panel composed of Respondents Velasco, Gutierrez and Maraya,

and Senior State Prosecutor Rosalina P. Aquino and State Prosecutor Ma.

Cristina P. Rilloraza, who issued the subpoena in I.S. No. 2006-226; and, (c)

yet another panel composed of Senior State Prosecutors Deanna P. Perez and

Edwin S. Dayog, State Prosecutor Melvin J. Abad and Public Respondent

WAGA, who issued the subpoena in I.S. No. 2006-225;



(15) Despite what appears to be the three (3) Panels of Investigating Prosecutors

handling the cases, however, Respondent VELASCO issued the questioned 22

March 2006 Order all by his lonesome self, and not as a member of any of

the above investigating panels of prosecutors but as “Chairman, Task Force on

Rebellion”; and,

(16) More deplorable is the fact that this Respondent VELASCO refused to inhibit

himself from the sham proceedings below despite the fact that he is already

prosecuting 1Lt Lawrence San Juan and Anakpawis Representative Crispin

Beltran in Criminal Case No. 06-452 for Rebellion before the RTC-Makati

City, which stemmed from I.S. No. 2006-226. Public Respondents

VELASCO, GUTIERREZ and MARAYA were also part of the Inquest Panel

of Prosecutors which earlier found probable cause against Lt. San Juan and

Representative Beltran for the crime of Rebellion in I.S. No. 2006-226, and

should have recused from any involvement in the preliminary investigation of

the other respondents therein.

Unless restrained by the Honorable Court, the Public Respondents will

continue using the strong arm of the law, and abusing the criminal process, to deprive

Petitioners of their constitutional and procedural rights. The perversion of the State of

National Emergency as constituting an unbridled right for the Police to methodically

fabricate evidence against political activists and for Prosecutors to mock their due

process rights must be stopped, before this “prosecutorial Frankenstein” devours the

entire gamut of our citizens’ fundamental liberties into oblivion.

I. NATURE OF THE PETITION

1. This is a petition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure for:

(A) Certiorari , to nullify the following –



a. Order dated 22 March 2006 issued by public respondent

Senior State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco as

“Chairman, Task Force on Rebellion” in “I.S. Nos. 2006-

225, 226 and 234,” and

b. Order dated 4 April 2006 issued by the Investigating

Panel of Prosecutors composed of public respondents

Senior State Prosecutors Emmanuel Y. Velasco, Joselita C.

Mendoza and Aileen Marie S. Gutierrez, and State

Prosecutors Irwin A. Maraya and Merba A. Waga, in the

sham preliminary investigation in “Consolidated I.S. Nos.

2006-225, 2006-226 and 2006-234,”

for being violative of the constitutional right of the Petitioners to due process

of law and having been issued without authority of law and/or with grave

abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction;

(B) Prohibition , to stop further actions and proceedings made and are

being made in the sham preliminary investigation in “Consolidated

I.S. Nos. 2006-225, 2006-226 and 2006-234,” likewise for being

violative of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly

Rule 112 on Preliminary Investigation, and the constitutional right

of petitioners to due process of law and for having been

issued/carried out without authority of law and/or with grave abuse

of discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction; and

(C) Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction,

to immediately enjoin the further continuance of the sham

preliminary investigation/court prosecution of the herein

Petitioners, pending the resolution of the main issues presented.

2. There being a very urgent need to resolve the issues presented herein and considering

that Public Respondents are hell–bent on proceeding with a sham preliminary

investigation and charging petitioners with the crime of Rebellion, which is a non-

bailable offense, and having no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the

ordinary course of the law, Petitioners have come to the Honorable Court for relief.

3. Certiorari and prohibition are applicable to the instant case pursuant to Article VIII,

Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.



Timeliness

4. Petitioners received a copy of the questioned 22 March Order on 23 March 2006. A

certified true copy of the same is hereto attached as Annex A.

5. Petitioners immediately moved for the reconsideration thereof, however, Public

Respondent Prosecutors, in the questioned 4 April 2006 Order, denied the said

Motion for Reconsideration, as well as Petitioners’ Omnibus Motion (to dismiss for

lack of affidavits of the complainant, etc., to exclude witness/strike out affidavits and

inadmissible evidence, etc.).

6. For unknown reasons, the Panel of Prosecutors attempted to have the said 4 April

2006 Order served on Petitioners LADLAD and SANTIAGO at an office other than

that given by their respective lawyers during the 23 March 2006 preliminary

investigation hearing. The herein Petitioners thus took it upon themselves to secure a

copy of the said Order on their own, on 5 April 2006. A certified true copy of the

same is hereto attached as Annex B.

7. Petitioners did not deem it fit to file a Motion For Reconsideration of the questioned 4

April 2006 Order because, in the said Order, they were given until 10 April 2006

within which to file their Counter-Affidavits, which deadline was expressly stated as

non-extendible, to wit: “(t)his five-day period is non-extendible, with the word “non-

extendible” both in bold letters and underscored. Thus, any Motion For

Reconsideration will be an exercise in futility because it will surely be rendered moot

and academic by the resolution of the sham preliminary investigation right after the

non-extendible deadline for the submission of Petitioners’ Counter-Affidavits.

8. Besides, as will be shown below, the questioned Orders are patently illegal.

II. PARTIES

9. Petitioners may be served with summons, notices, court papers and the like through

undersigned counsel.

9.1. Petitioner Vicente P. Ladlad (hereinafter, LADLAD) is of

legal age, Filipino, and with postal address c/o FLAG Office,



Room 116, UP Alumni Center, Magsaysay Avenue, UP

Campus Diliman, QC;

9.2. Petitioner Nathanael S. Santiago (hereinafter, SANTIAGO) is

likewise of legal age, Filipino, and with postal address c/o

PILC Office, KAIJA Bldg., 7836 Makati Avenue corner

Valdez Street, Makati;

9.3. Petitioner Randall B. Echanis (hereinafter, ECHANIS) is

likewise of legal age, Filipino, and with postal address c/o

Sanidad Law Office, 2/F Eastside Building, 77 Malakas Street,

Barangay Pinyahan QC; and

9.4. Petitioner Rey Claro C. Casambre (hereinafter,

CASAMBRE) is likewise of legal age, Filipino and with postal

address c/o PILC Office, KAIJA Bldg., 7836 Makati Avenue

corner Valdez Street, Makati.

10. Public Respondent Senior State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco (hereinafter,

VELASCO) is of legal age, Filipino, and with office address at the Department of

Justice, Padre Faura, Manila, where he may be served with the orders and other

processes of the Honorable Court. He presides over the sham preliminary

investigation hearings and issued the questioned 22 March 2006 Order on the claim

of being Chairman, Task Force on Rebellion.

11. Public Respondents Senior State Prosecutor Joselita C. Mendoza (hereinafter,

MENDOZA), Senior State Prosecutor Aileen Marie S. Gutierrez (hereinafter,

GUTIERREZ), State Prosecutor Irwin A. Maraya (hereinafter, MARAYA) and

State Prosecutor Merba A. Waga (hereinafter, WAGA) are all of legal age,

Filipinos, and with office address at the Department of Justice, Padre Faura, Manila,

where they may be served with the orders and other processes of the Honorable

Court. They are members of the INVESTIGATING PANEL OF PROSECUTORS

which is conducting the sham preliminary investigation hearings and issued the

questioned 4 April 2006 Order herein.



12. Respondent Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez (hereinafter, GONZALEZ) is

likewise of legal age, Filipino, and with office address also at the Department of

Justice, Padre Faura, Manila, where he may be served with the orders and other

processes of the Honorable Court. He is impleaded herein in his personal capacity and

as the incumbent Secretary of Justice.

13. Respondent Police Director General Arturo C. Lomibao (hereinafter, LOMIBAO)

is likewise of legal age, Filipino, and with office address also at the PNP

Headquarters, Camp Crame, Quezon City, where he may be served with the orders

and other processes of the Honorable Court. He is impleaded herein in his personal

capacity and as Chief of the Philippine National Police, complainant in the questioned

proceedings.

14. Respondents P/CSupt. Rodolfo B. Mendoza, Jr. (hereinafter, MENDOZA) and

P/SSupt. Yolanda G. Tanigue (hereinafter, TANIGUE) are likewise of legal age,

Filipinos, and with office address at the PNP Directorate for Investigation and

Detective Management, Camp Crame, Quezon City, where they may be served with

the orders and other processes of the Honorable Court. They are impleaded herein in

their personal capacity and as Acting Deputy Director and Acting Executive Officer,

respectively, of the PNP-DIDM, in which capacities they signed the letters-referral

dated 27 February 2006.

III.STATEMENT OF FACTS

15. On 8 March 2006, Petitioners learned of a "Subpoena to Respondents" in the case

entitled "Phil. National Police Directorate for Investigation and Detective

Management, Complainant, versus Jose Maria Sison, et al.," docketed as I.S. No.

2006-225. The subpoena listed twenty-nine (29) Respondents by name, including

herein Petitioners, and eight (8) John and Jane Does. It indicated the offense charged

as, "(v)iolation of Art. 134 in relation to Art. 135 of the Revised Penal Code."

A copy of the subpoena is attached to this Petition as Annex "C."

16. The subpoena came without the complaint and supporting documents required by the

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Instead, it directed the Petitioners to appear at



the DOJ on 13 March 2006 at 2:00 p.m., "…to secure copies of the complaint and its

attachments."

17. On 13 March 2006, Petitioners appeared at the preliminary investigation through their

respective counsels. Instead of the usual simple and brief proceedings in the quiet of

the investigating prosecutor’s room, Respondent VELASCO chose to conduct the

preliminary investigation at the large hall on the third floor of the Department of

Justice (DOJ) Multi-Purpose Building. At the time Petitioners’ counsels arrived at the

hall, the same was already full of members of the press.

18. It was only at that 13 March 2006 preliminary investigation hearing that the herein

Petitioners came to know that the preliminary investigation of their case has been

consolidated with that of two other cases, specifically, I.S. No. 2006-226 (PNP-

DIDM vs. 1st Lt Lawrence San Juan and 15 others) and I.S. No. 2006-234 (PNP-

CIDG vs. Hon. Satur Ocampo, and 4 other Party-List Representatives), in which

none of the herein Petitioners were impleaded or charged.

19. To the surprise of counsels present then, instead of being furnished with a copy of the

complaint and its attachments, the following proceedings took place:

19.1. Amidst much fanfare, Respondent VELASCO called upon the

PNP to bring out a masked man who, while claiming to be a

certain Jaime Beltran Fuentes, and without being required to

remove his mask, was allowed by VELASCO to affirm his

affidavit "under oath" before Respondent GUTIERREZ.

A copy of the masked-man’s Affidavit is attached to this Petition as Annex

"D."

19.2. Throughout the proceedings, the man refused to show his face

and kept it hidden behind a shirt wrapped around his head.

None of the Respondents were allowed to see the face of the

masked man, and hence had no way of verifying his identity or

confirming if he was, in fact, really Jaime Beltran Fuentes.

Respondent VELASCO allowed it.



19.3. Respondent VELASCO then caused the distribution of copies

of the masked-man's Affidavit, not only to the counsels for the

herein Petitioners, but also to the media. Worth mentioning is

the fact that the Fuentes Affidavit was presented by the PNP

“for incorporation into the records of I.S. No. 2006-234,” i.e.,

(PNP-CIDG vs. Hon. Satur Ocampo and 4 other Party-List

Representatives), in which case none of the herein Petitioners

were impleaded as Respondents.

19.4. Thereafter, a 4-inch thick bundle of documents containing a

PNP-DIDM letter-referral to the DOJ dated 27 February 2006

and its voluminous attachments, but without any indication as

to which I.S. case the documents were for, were then given to

all the counsels present. Respondents were instructed by

Respondent VELASCO to submit their counter-affidavits on

the next scheduled preliminary investigation on 23 March

2006.

20. The PNP-DIDM letter-referral to the DOJ dated 27 February 2006 which charges 41

individuals, 8 more named by mere aliases, and several other John and Jane Does,

was signed by Respondent MENDOZA but was not subscribed or sworn to before

any person authorized to administer oaths. It alleges that:

Investigation disclosed that in its national plenum, JOSE MARIA SISON aka ARMANDO LIWANAG, the recognized Chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA) in conspiracy with the above-named individuals, drew up a '3-year plan for 2003-2005' to raise the level of the people's war and make all-round advances in the revolution. Foremost in their plan was the ousting of PGMA from the presidency by launching the three (3) stages of the people's war, to include setting up or (sic) armed city partisans and broadening its legal fronts.

x x x

This 3-year program for expanding and consolidating the NPA which was earlier decided, has been extended by its political bureau by one year to 2006 in order to provide ample time to the NPA and other revolutionary forces to fulfill the targets of their program.

A copy of the letter-referral is attached to this Petition as Annex "E."



21. The enclosures to the letter-referral comprised of 161 “evidences” (sic), including 96

affidavits. Of the mass of documents, however, only one (1) -- that of a certain Raul

Cachuela -- mentioned the names of Petitioners LADLAD and SANTIAGO. This

Cachuela never appeared before the Investigating Panel to subscribe to his Affidavit.

A closer look at the Affidavit, however, reveals that Cachuela only knows of the

names of LADLAD and SANTIAGO, but admits not having actually seen them, or

the other Petitioners herein, in the Plenum he was describing.

A copy of the alleged Raul Cachuela Affidavit is attached to this Petition as

Annex "F.”

22. Despite the fact that the 10-day period to file Counter-Affidavits was already running,

Respondent TANIGUE sent the herein Petitioners’ counsels on 20 March 2006,

copies of a 14 March 2006 letter-request to the DOJ for the incorporation of nine (9)

new Affidavits into the records of I.S. No. 2006-226 (PNP-DIDM vs. 1st Lt. Lawrence

San Juan and 15 others). Again, while herein Petitioners are not charged in the said

case, they were furnished copies of the said documents.

23. On 20 March 2006, the Respondents in the three (3) criminal cases undergoing

preliminary investigation before the DOJ, including the herein Petitioners, filed a

Motion for the Inhibition of Justice Secretary Gonzalez, Chief State Prosecutor Zuño,

and the Panel of Prosecutors conducting the consolidated preliminary investigation of

the three cases. The said Motion was anchored on the lack of impartiality and

independence displayed by the Prosecutors in the conduct of the preliminary

investigation and the pronouncements made by their Secretary of Justice confessing a

prejudgment of the cases.

24. The second preliminary investigation hearing on 23 March 2006 again took place at

the DOJ Multi-Purpose Hall, with as much fanfare and with even more media in

attendance. A panel of five Prosecutors headed by Respondent VELASCO was there.

VELASCO called the hearing to order after which the following took place:

24.1. Undersigned counsel (Atty. Diokno), after pointing out the

flaws in the entire proceedings of the preliminary investigation,

beginning with the absence of a valid and sufficient complaint,

filed Petitioner LADLAD's Counter-Affidavit;



A copy of Petitioner LADLAD’s Counter-Affidavit is attached to this Petition

as Annex "G."

24.2. Petitioner LADLAD’s Counter-Affidavit incorporated an

Omnibus Motion to: (1) dismiss the case, (2) expunge the

affidavit of Jaime Beltran Fuentes, (3) exclude the

unsubscribed Affidavits of witnesses, and (4) exclude

incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial and hearsay evidence. The

Omnibus Motion was based on the following grounds:

24.2.1. Lack of a proper complaint, subscribed and sworn to

under oath, as required by Section 2, Rule 110 of the

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure;

24.2.2. Failure to follow proper procedure as required by

Section 3(a), Rule 112;

24.2.3. Violation of Petitioners’ right to be informed of the

nature and cause of the accusation against them;

24.2.4. Violation of Petitioner’s right to confront the witnesses

against him (i.e., the masked man claiming to be Jaime

Beltran Fuentes);

24.2.5. Since Petitioners were not afforded the right to confront

Fuentes if only to verify his identity, Fuentes' affidavit

should be excluded;

24.2.6. The complaint is misleading because it makes reference

to ninety-six (96) attached affidavits when only some of

the 96 affidavits were actually attached to the letter-

referral and not one of them specifically charged the

herein Petitioners with rebellion; and



24.2.7. The supporting evidence are inadmissible being

incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, hearsay, self-

serving, and mere opinions.

25. This Motion to Dismiss was adopted by the other Respondents in the cases, including

the herein Petitioners ECHANIS, SANTIAGO and CASAMBRE, thru their

respective counsels, by verbal manifestation during the preliminary investigation

hearing.

26. Whereas Atty. Diokno urged the Investigating Panel to act on the Motion to Dismiss,

Respondent VELASCO instead ordered the PNP-CIDG to produce the masked

witness from the prior hearing. At first, the CIDG refused, at which point counsel for

LADLAD reiterated the Motion to Dismiss; but later the PNP-CIDG relented and

produced a man who showed his face, identified himself as Jaime Beltran Fuentes,

and reaffirmed his affidavit before the media, and the investigating panel of

prosecutors.

27. On that 23 March 2006 preliminary investigation hearing, Respondent VELASCO

also announced that he had already resolved the 20 March 2006 Motion for Inhibition

filed by the Respondents, without the benefit of any comment/opposition from the

PNP. The Panel secretariat then released copies of the questioned 22 March 2006

Order, denying the Motion for Inhibition. The Respondents manifested their

intention to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the 22 March 2006 Order, and they

were given three (3) days by Respondent VELASCO within which to file the same.

28. For its part, the PNP was given three (3) days within which to file its

Comment/Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss that was filed by LADLAD and

adopted by the other herein Petitioners.

29. Meantime, Atty. Virgilio Pablico acting as counsel for the PNP announced that the

police are poised to arrest the Respondents in I.S. No. 2006-226 in the event that the

said Congressmen decide to leave the premises of the House of Representatives.

According to Atty. Pablico, it is a crime for said Congressmen to leave the House

protective custody because they executed a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of

the Revised Penal Code. Realizing the idiocy of his position, Atty. Pablico

backtracked and said that the Congressmen cannot leave the House because they were

under arrest in I.S. No. 2006-226.



30. When queried as to who had arrested the said Congressmen, Atty. Pablico merely

insisted that there is an Affidavit attesting to their arrest. True to form, a Joint

Affidavit of Arrest allegedly executed by PCI Rodel Pastor and PCI Cholijin P.

Caduyac and subscribed before Respondent MARAYA miraculously appeared among

the “evidences” (sic) for I.S. No. 2006-234 which were furnished Representative Liza

Maza after the 23 March 2006 hearing. Except for this updated compilation of

“evidences” given to Representative Maza, none of the Respondents in the

consolidated preliminary investigation were ever given a copy of this Joint Affidavit

of Arrest, much less the Certification by Sergeant at Arms Bayani N. Fabic attached

thereto.

A copy of the miraculous Joint Affidavit of Arrest is attached to this Petition

as Annex "H."

31. On 28 March 2006, the PNP filed its Opposition to the Omnibus Motion to dismiss

the case, to expunge the Fuentes Affidavit, to exclude unsubscribed Affidavits, to

exclude irrelevant documents, etc. Herein Petitioner LADLAD filed his Reply thereto

on 3 April 2006.

32. On 5 April 2006, the Respondents in I.S. No. 2006-234 were served with a copy of

the questioned 4 April 2006 Order, which was signed by Respondents VELASCO,

MENDOZA, GUTIERREZ, MARAYA and WAGA. In that Order, the Investigating

Panel of Prosecutors denied the pending Motions to Dismiss and the various Motions

for Reconsideration filed by the other Respondents on the issue of inhibition.

Likewise, the Panel gave the Respondents in the three (3) cases a non-extendible

period of five (5) days to submit their Counter-Affidavits. Accordingly, the case

would thereafter be deemed submitted for resolution.

IV.ISSUES

33. Whether or not certiorari lies to set aside and annul the questioned 22 March 2006

Order of Respondent VELASCO, and the 4 April 2006 Order issued by the

Respondent Panel of Prosecutors;



34. Whether or not prohibition lies to prevent Respondent Prosecutors and Respondent

Police Officers from continuing with the preliminary investigation/court prosecution

of the herein Petitioners; and

35. Whether or not Petitioners are entitled to a Temporary Restraining Order and/or

Preliminary Injunction to enjoin Respondent Prosecutors and Respondent Police

Officers from continuing with the preliminary investigation/court prosecution of the

herein Petitioners.

V. GROUNDS RELIED UPON

A. For Certiorari and Prohibition

36. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the innocent against hasty,

malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an open and public

accusation of crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial.2 It is also

intended to protect the state from useless and expensive trials.3

37. At all times, a preliminary investigation must observe the dictates of fair play and due

process of law.4 The prosecuting officer is the representative not of an ordinary party

but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its

obligation to govern all; and whose interest in a criminal prosecution is not that it will

win, but that justice shall prevail. It is therefore as much the prosecutor's duty to

refrain from improper methods as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about

the just resolution of a case.5

38. To satisfy the due process clause it is not enough that the preliminary investigation is

conducted in the sense of making sure that a transgressor shall not escape with

impunity because a preliminary investigation must not only serve the purposes of the

State. More importantly, it is a part of the guarantees of freedom and fair play which

are birthrights of all who live in our country.6

2 Ibid.3 Trodo vs. Manta, 118 SCRA 241, citing Hashim vs. Boncan, 71 Phil. 216.4 Salonga vs. Paño, 134 SCRA 438 (1985).5 Allado vs. Diokno, G.R. No. 113630, 5 May 19946 Conjuangco vs. PCGG, 2 October 1990, citing Salonga vs. Paño, supra.



39. While criminal prosecutions, as a general rule, cannot be restrained or stayed by

injunction, there are recognized exceptions to the rule,7 and they clearly apply here:

39.1. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the

accused and/or to prevent the threatened arrest of Petitioners;

39.2. When necessary to avoid oppression;

39.3. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of

authority;

39.4. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;

39.5. Where the charges are manifestly false; and

39.6. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused

and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied.

40. It is well settled that this Court will intervene to prevent the oppressive exercise of

legal authority, or the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive or vindictive

manner:

The statutory rule, therefore, in this jurisdiction, is that the writ of prohibition is not confined exclusively to courts or tribunals to keep them within the limits of their own jurisdiction…but will issue, in appropriate cases, to an officer or person whose acts are without or in excess of his authority. Not infrequently, the writ is granted where it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice, or to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive or vindictive manner, or a multiplicity of actions.8

41. As the Court held in Brocka v. Enrile,9 when the filing of criminal charges is

accompanied by manifest bad faith, and where a sham preliminary investigation was

hastily conducted, the charges that are filed as a result should lawfully be enjoined.

7 Brocka vs. Enrile, 192 SCRA 183 (1990), citing Salonga vs. Paño, supra. and other cases.

8 Dimayuga vs. Fernandez, 43 Phil. 304 (1923); Planas vs. Gil, 67 Phil. 75.9 Ibid.



42. Petitioners now come before this Highest Tribunal to ask for its intervention to nullify

the Orders rendered by the Respondents in grave abuse of discretion, and to enjoin

them from further proceeding with their illegal acts.

(i) The questioned Orders were issued with grave abuse

of discretion amounting to lack or excess of

jurisdiction and there is no plain, speedy and

adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law

to afford Petitioner the relief and protection he

needs; certiorari lies, therefore, to set aside and

annul the two questioned orders.

43. Respondent Prosecutors acted with grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack of

jurisdiction when he denied Petitioners’ Omnibus Motion to dismiss, to expunge the

Fuentes affidavit, and to exclude the complainant's evidence.

44. The 4 April 2006 Order denying such Motion clearly establishes that the

proceedings are a sham, a charade with the end of persecuting the Petitioners. It was

clearly issued by Respondent Prosecutors without or in excess of their jurisdiction.

45. The blatant and inexcusable defects in the referral and its supporting documents, as

well as the irregularities in the procedures followed by Respondent VELASCO and

the Investigating Panel, are obvious from the record.

46. There was no complaint. The PNP-DIDM letter-referral10 does not qualify as a

“complaint” pursuant to the requirements of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

–

46.1. The letter-referral was not even subscribed and sworn to before

any person authorized to administer oaths;

46.2. While there were affidavits attached to the letter-referral, a

simple reading thereof will show that these were meant to be

the supporting affidavits of the so-called witnesses, not the

complainants; and

10 See Annex E.



46.3. Likewise, the so-called supporting evidence, hearsay as they

are for not having been subscribed before the Investigating

Panel, did not even incriminate the herein Petitioners. As

shown earlier, of the 161 documents attached as “evidences”

(sic) to the 27 February 2006 letter-referral for I.S. No. 2006-

225, the names of Petitioners LADLAD and SANTIAGO were

only mentioned in passing in the Cachuela Affidavit,11 and the

affiant admittedly did not see any of the herein Petitioners in

the supposed Plenum he was describing.

47. In Olivas vs. Office of the Ombudsman,12 this Court, speaking through Justice Vicente

V. Mendoza, emphasized that it is a mandatory requirement for the Complainant to

submit his affidavit and those of his witnesses before the Respondent can be

compelled to submit his Counter-Affidavit and other supporting documents. In blatant

disregard for this rule, the Respondent Prosecutors required the herein Petitioners to

file their respective Counter-Affidavits “on or before 10 April 2006.”

48. Worse, the documents which are supposedly the basis for the conduct of a

preliminary investigation were obviously defective and patently insufficient, and

therefore herein Petitioners should not even have been called for such preliminary

investigation.13 The Respondent Prosecutors should have junked the documents

outright instead of allowing the PNP to play up to the media with their Makapili

tactics and manufacturing additional evidence to “cure” the defects in their referral.

Indeed, since a preliminary investigation is designed to screen cases for trial, only

evidence may be considered. While reports and even raw information may justify the

initiation of an investigation, the stage of preliminary investigation can be held only

after sufficient evidence has been gathered and evaluated warranting the eventual

prosecution of the case in court.14

49. If only the Respondent Prosecutors studied the voluminous enclosures transmitted by

Respondent MENDOZA, they would have immediately discovered that there was

absolutely no basis to require the Respondents to answer the complaint in I.S. No.

2006-225. However, instead of taking their task seriously, Respondent VELASCO

and State Prosecutors PEREZ, DAYOG, ABAD and WAGA perfunctorily and in

11 See Annex F.12 239 SCRA 283 (1994).13 Rule 112 Section 3 (b) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.14 Duterte vs. Sadiganbayan, supra.



blatant disregard for the rights of the herein Petitioners and unmindful of the

doctrines laid down by this Court, issued a subpoena to them barely seven (7) days

from the date the case was referred to the DOJ.

50. It cannot be overemphasized that the only other document which mentions the names

of herein Petitioners LADLAD and ECHANIS is the affidavit of Fuentes belatedly

submitted in PNP-DIDM vs. 1Lt Lawrence San Juan, et al. (I.S. No. 2006-226), a

case where the said Petitioners are not Respondents. There is, therefore, even no basis

to use the Fuentes affidavit against the herein Petitioners since it pertains to a

different case for which they have not been charged. Indeed, Fuentes is not named as

a witness in the letter-referral made by Respondent MENDOZA for PNP-DIDM vs.

Jose Ma. Sison, et al. (I.S. No. 2006-225).

51. The Panel of Prosecutors, headed by Respondent VELASCO, conducted the

consolidated preliminary investigation hurriedly, with obvious and inordinate interest

in the prosecution of the cases and a very obvious fondness for the press; without

regard whatsoever for the rights of the Respondents therein to due process of law, a

fair trial, and other constitutional protections.

52. While the right to a preliminary investigation is statutory rather than constitutional in

its fundament, it is a component part of due process in criminal justice. The right to

have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound over to trial for a

criminal offense and hence formally at risk of incarceration or some other penalty, is

not a mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive right. To deny the Petitioner’s

claim to a valid and proper preliminary investigation would be to deprive him of the

full measure of his right to due process.15

53. It was only during the scheduled preliminary investigation hearing of I.S. No. 2006-

225 on 13 March 2006, that herein Petitioners were told that the said preliminary

investigation has been consolidated with those of PNP-DIDM vs. 1Lt Lawrence San

Juan, et al. (I.S. No. 2006-226) and PNP-DIDM vs. Hon. Satur Ocampo, et al. (I.S.

No. 2006-234). No legal basis for the consolidation was given by Respondent

VELASCO whatsoever; it was just imposed on the parties as a matter of fact.

15 Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan, 177 SCRA 354 (1980); Go vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138 (1992).



54. It was also at this 13 March 2006 preliminary investigation hearing when, in the

presence of numerous members of the media including live simultaneous coverages

over nationwide radio and television stations, Respondent VELASCO allowed the

theatric appearance of the PNP’s masked witness. For her part, Respondent

GUTIERREZ attested having “personally examined” the masked witness and

“determined that he/she/they voluntarily executed and understood his/her/their

affidavit.”16 As a testament to this gross error, Respondents VELASCO and

GUTIERREZ landed on the headline of news coverages that night, and in the front

page of the major dailies the next morning.

55. In a quest to sort out the confusion created by the unprecedented changes in the usual

preliminary investigation procedure, herein Petitioner LADLAD requested for a copy

of the Department Order creating the Investigating Panel. Respondent Velasco,

however, has failed to act on such request to date.

Copies of the letter-request to the Department of Justice dated 22 March 2006,

and the follow-up letter thereto, are attached to this Petition as Annexes "I" and “J,”

respectively.

56. The propriety of the consolidation of the preliminary investigations for the three cases

remains a question to the herein Petitioners, especially in the light of the fact that the

acts alleged in the various letters-referral are very different from each other, the

witnesses and “evidences” (sic) are varied from one complaint to the other; there is

even no unanimity in the Respondents named in the referrals!

57. The continued unjustified refusal of Respondent VELASCO, however, to provide the

herein Petitioner LADLAD with a copy of the Department Order creating the Panel

and authorizing the consolidation of the cases is only consistent with his brazen

disregard for the due process rights of the said Petitioner.

58. Further, Respondent VELASCO acted with grave abuse of discretion when he denied

the Petitioners’ Motion for Inhibition and the Motion for Reconsideration of such

denial. Respondents VELASCO, GUTIERREZ and MARAYA should have in fact,

even sans the Motions having been filed, voluntarily inhibited themselves as

investigating prosecutors in the consolidated preliminary investigation, on the ground

of pre-judgment.

16 See Annex D.



58.1. Respondent VELASCO is also the official prosecuting

Criminal Case No. 06-452 before the Regional Trial Court of

Makati Branch 137, which is the rebellion case filed against

Rep. Crispin Beltran and 1Lt. Lawrence San Juan upon inquest

in I.S. No. 2006-234. This is the same PNP referral which is

one of the cases subject of the consolidated preliminary

investigation in question. Respondent VELASCO cannot play

both roles at the same time, and should have inhibited himself

immediately from the preliminary investigation of the

consolidated cases, which includes the case filed against the

herein Petitioners.

A copy of the Court Order evidencing that Respondent VELASCO is the

prosecutor handling the case before the RTC of Makati is attached to this Petition as

Annex K.

58.2. On their part, Respondents VELASCO, GUTIERREZ and

MARAYA were part of the DOJ Panel that issued the 27

February 2006 Resolution recommending the filing of an

Information for violation of Article 134 in relation to Article

135 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, as against San

Juan and Beltran. They were in fact among those who signed

the 27 February 2006 Information against the said accused.

Copies of the 27 February 2006 DOJ Resolution finding probable cause

against San Juan and Beltran, and the Information filed pursuant thereto, are attached

to this Petition as Annexes L and M, respectively.

58.3. After finding probable cause to charge Beltran and San Juan

before the Regional Trial Court for the very acts under

preliminary investigation in I.S. No. 2006-226, it is difficult to

imagine how, in the conduct of this consolidated preliminary

investigation, the Respondent Prosecutors can make a

turnabout and take a position contradictory to their earlier

findings of a prima facie case and conduct the preliminary

investigation of the herein Petitioners’ case with the “cold

neutrality of an impartial judge.”



59. A judge must not only be impartial but must also appear impartial as an assurance to

the parties that his decision will be just.17 His actuation must inspire that belief, and

his appearance is as important as reality.18 The same rule of thumb should apply to an

investigating officer conducting a preliminary investigation.19

(ii) Prohibition lies to prevent the continuation of a

sham preliminary investigation and persecution in

the guise of prosecution; and to protect the

Petitioners’ constitutional rights from the strong

arm of the law.

60. The preliminary investigation in the case at bar, like those in the Allado and Salonga

cases,20 was a sham from the very start, and will continue to its foregone conclusion

unless restrained by the Honorable Court.

61. As discussed above, the preliminary investigation was attended by the following

defects and irregularities:

61.1. Failure to comply with Section 3, Rule 110 of the Revised

Rules of Criminal Procedure. Section 3, Rule 110 defines a

complaint as "a sworn written statement charging a person with

an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer

or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law

violated." This requirement that the complaint and its

accompanying affidavits and supporting documents be “sworn

to before any fiscal, state prosecutor or government official

authorized to administer oath, or in their absence or

unavailability, a notary public, who must certify that he

personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that

they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits, is

mandatory.21 The PNP-DIDM letter-referral dated 27 February

200622 is not a sworn written statement and was not subscribed

by the officer who signed it.

17 Javier vs. Comelec, 144 SCRA 194.18 Palang vs. Zosa, 58 SCRA 776 (1974).19 Cojuangco vs. PCGG, supra.20 Supra.21 Oporto vs. Monserate, 16 April 2001.22 See Annex E.



61.2. Failure to comply with Section 3(b), Rule 112 of the Revised

Rules on Criminal Procedure. Section 3(b), Rule 112 states that

the investigating prosecutor should dismiss the complaint if he

finds no ground to continue with the investigation. There is

here no Complaint-Affidavit, why then did the Respondent

Prosecutors even issue a subpoena to the Respondents?

61.3. Failure to comply with Sections 3(a) and 3(c), Rule 112 of the

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Sections 3(a) and 3(c),

Rule 112 require that the subpoena sent to the Respondent must

be accompanied by the Complaint as well as other supporting

documents to establish probable cause. The subpoenas sent to

Petitioners were not accompanied by any Complaint, as in fact

there was none filed by the PNP. Neither did any supporting

documents accompany the subpoena.

61.4. Attempts to mislead or confuse the Petitioners resulting in the

violation of their right to be informed of the nature and cause

of accusation against them. The ongoing preliminary

investigation consolidated three separate cases — PNP-DIDM

vs. Jose Ma Sison, et al. (I.S. No. 2006-225), PNP-DIDM vs.

1Lt Lawrence San Juan, et al. (I.S. No. 2006-226) and PNP-

DIDM vs. Hon. Satur Ocampo, et al. (I.S. No. 2006-234).

Petitioners herein are named Respondents only in the first case,

I.S. No. 2006-225. And yet — they have not been informed by

the DOJ panel as to why the said case had been consolidated

with two other cases; the PNP-DIDM and the PNP-CIDG

furnished them with affidavits and supporting documents that

pertain to I.S. No. 2006-226 and/or I.S. No. 2006-234 when

herein Petitioners are not Respondents in either case; and

neither the PNP-DIDM, the PNP-CIDG, nor Respondent

VELASCO has done anything to clarify the situation, much

less satisfy the requirements of the Respondents’ constitutional

right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation

against them. As evidenced by the questioned 4 April 2006

Order, the Respondent Prosecutors did not care about the



constitutional rights of the Respondents, as they accepted mere

“substantial compliance” by the PNP.

61.5. Violation of right to confront the witness against them . The

proceedings involving the masked man and his affidavit made

a mockery of the proceedings and violated Petitioner

LADLAD's and ECHANIS’ right to confront the witness

against them. Without seeing his face, Petitioners LADLAD

and ECHANIS had no way of ascertaining whether that man

was really Jaime Beltran Fuentes, and had no way of

ascertaining whether his affidavit was coerced by the police or

voluntarily given on his part. And yet, despite this glaring flaw

in the proceedings, Respondent VELASCO directed the herein

Petitioners to submit their Counter-Affidavits by the next

scheduled hearing. The fact that an attempt was made, during

the hearing held on 23 March 2006, to correct the deficiency

when the masked man appeared escorted by more than 20

fully-armed police men, sans his mask and showed his face,

does not and cannot cure the violation that had already

occurred.

61.6. Extreme leniency afforded to complainant PNP, in stark

contrast to Respondents. The panel also exhibited extreme

leniency to the PNP, by allowing them, on three occasions after

the Respondents were already required to file their Counter

Affidavits, to submit additional evidence consisting of the

purported affidavit of Fuentes, nine additional (9) affidavits,

and the alleged Joint Affidavit of Arrest for the five party-list

representatives with the attached Certification from the House

Sergeant At Arms. In contrast, the panel has been very strict

with the Respondents and, despite the voluminous and

cluttered records, has only given them a non-extendible period

of “until 10 April 2006” within which to file their counter-

affidavits.

61.7. Trial by publicity . The Respondent Prosecutors also violated

Petitioners’ right to a fair trial by giving undue publicity to the



proceedings. While the hearings could have been held briefly

and without fanfare, in the ordinary prosecutors' rooms, the

VELASCO panel chose to make a sideshow out of it by

holding extended hearings at the DOJ Multi-Purpose Building,

and with live coverage by national radio and television

networks. Undeniably, the undue publicity has adversely

affected herein Petitioners’ right to a fair trial.

61.8. Complainant’s evidence is too flimsy to even require that a

Counter-Affidavit be filed by Petitioners. The PNP-DIDM’s

evidence against Petitioners LADLAD and ECHANIS consists

exclusively of the Affidavit of Fuentes, which is not even part

of the evidence in I.S. No. 2006-225, in which the said

Petitioners are Respondents. Nonetheless, an examination of

the Fuentes affidavit reveals that it has little, if any, probative

value and is not worthy of belief.

61.8.1. Fuentes is a polluted source . The affidavit of the

masked man, Jaime Beltran Fuentes, comes from a

tainted and polluted source. Only someone who has

something to hide would hide behind a mask and refuse

to show his face. Fuentes admitted in his affidavit that

he committed criminal acts including the killing of a

major and a suspected NISF agent.23 He likewise

admitted having criminal knowledge of an alleged

conspiracy to overthrow the government. As such, he

should be prosecuted as a Respondent rather than

treated as a witness for the PNP. Coming from a self-

confessed criminal, Fuentes’ words should be treated

with caution, if not outright suspicion.

61.8.2. Fuentes’ story is inherently incredible . Fuentes claimed

that he was the security aide of Petitioner LADLAD

from 1987 up to February of this year, 2006. And yet,

in spite of all their alleged years together, Fuentes was

not able to present a single shred of evidence to

23 See par. 4, Salaysay, J. B. Fuentes, attached hereto as Annex D.



corroborate or authenticate his story. Even the story in

his affidavit jumps from 1987 to 2005, as if the

intervening years had never happened.

62. Insofar as the Petitioner SANTIAGO is concerned, his name was only mentioned in

passing in one (1) document, i.e., the Cachuela Affidavit.24 In this unsubscribed

Affidavit, however, Cachuela confesses that he did not personally see the said

Petitioner in the Plenum described. On the other hand, there was absolutely no

mention whatsoever in any of the 161 documents referred to as the PNP-DIDM’s

“evidences” (sic) in I.S. No. 2006-225, of herein Petitioner CASAMBRE.

63. And yet, despite the utter lack of evidence presented by the Respondent Police

Officers, Respondent Prosecutors are bent on using the strong arm of the law to

charge and detain Petitioners without bail in violation of their constitutional rights.

64. By failing to comply with basic procedures in conducting the preliminary

investigation; by exhibiting partiality in favor of the complainant PNP; by feigning

ignorance of, and disregarding Petitioners’ right to be informed of the nature and

cause of the accusation against them and to confront the witnesses against them; by

subjecting Petitioners to trial by publicity; by deliberately confusing Petitioners with

voluminous but worthless and inadmissible supporting documents; and by

persecuting Petitioners LADLAD and ECHANIS based on a tainted and highly

questionable affidavit from a masked man, the Respondent Prosecutors have acted

with manifest bad faith; they have violated Petitioners’ constitutional rights; and have

acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion.

65. As found by this Court in the Duterte case,25 such blatant departure from the

established procedure is a dubious but revealing attempt to involve an office directly

under the President in the prosecutorial process, lending credence to the suspicion

that the prosecution was politically motivated. In the words of Justice Santiago

Kapunan, “(w)e cannot emphasize too strongly that prosecutors should not allow, and

should avoid, giving the impression that their noble office is being used or

prostituted, wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends, or other purposes alien to, or

subversive of, the basic and fundamental objective observing the interest of justice

evenhandedly, without fear or favor to any and all litigants alike whether rich or poor,

24 See Annex F.25 Supra, citing Tatad vs. Sandigaybayan, 159 SCRA 70 (1988).



weak or strong, powerless or mighty. Only by strict adherence to the established

procedure may the public's perception of the impartiality of the prosecutor be

enhanced.”

66. Considering the manifest bad faith, undue haste and grim determination of the

Respondent Prosecutors to persecute, instead of prosecute, the herein Petitioners,

nothing short of the intervention of this Court will stop the Respondents from

pursuing their illegal acts. Verily, there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in

the ordinary course of law for the herein Petitioners to obtain the needed relief.

67. Under the circumstances, therefore, herein Petitioners are entitled to invoke this

Court’s extraordinary writ of certiorari to annul the sham preliminary investigation

proceedings before the DOJ and perpetually enjoin the continuance thereof and other

further attempts to that end.26 Further considering that the proceedings in which the

error committed by the Respondent Prosecutors is a patent nullity, the issuances

rendered therein illegal, the circumstances warrant immediate and direct action by

this Court and therefore a motion for reconsideration of the questioned Orders is not a

condition sine qua non for the filing of the instant action.27

B. Allegations in Support of the Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

68. On all fours is the case of Commission on Internal Revenue vs. CA,28 where the

Supreme Court issued an injunction to enjoin a preliminary investigation on the

ground that, among others, the complaint of the Commissioner is not supported by

any evidence to serve as adequate basis for the issuance of the subpoena to them and

put them to their defense. Affirming the ruling of the Court of Appeals, the High

Court found that there was obvious haste by which the subpoena was issued to private

Respondents, just the day after the complaint was filed, hence, without the

investigating prosecutors being afforded material time to examine and study the

voluminous documents appended to the complaint for them to determine if

preliminary investigation should be conducted. As found therein, the precipitate haste

in the issuance of the subpoena justified private Respondents' misgivings regarding

26 Rule 65, Section 1, Revised Rules of Court.27 Corro vs. Lising, GR No. L-69899, 15 July 1985.28 4 June 1996, citing Hernandez vs. Albano, 19 SCRA 95 (1967) and Fortun vs. Labang,

104 SCRA 607 (1981).



the objectivity and neutrality of the prosecutors in the conduct of the preliminary

investigation.

69. For lesser grounds, the Supreme Court has disqualified a fiscal or judge from

handling a case.29 Where the circumstances do not inspire confidence in the

objectivity and impartiality of the judge, such judge should inhibit voluntarily or if he

refuses, he should he prohibited from handling the case.

70. The continuation of the sham preliminary investigation against herein Petitioners,

without due regard to their constitutional rights, constitutes a gross violation of the

law that merits the Court's protective action.

71. Petitioners are entitled to the relief sought, and part of such relief consists in

restraining the commission or continuance of the acts complained of perpetually. This

is because the continuance of the acts complained of will definitely work injustice to

Petitioners.

72. Unless restrained, Respondent Prosecutors and Respondent Police Officers will do, or

are procuring or suffering to be done, the acts complained of which are in violation of

Petitioners’ rights and tending to render the judgment of this Honorable Court

ineffectual.

73. Petitioners are willing and able to post a bond fixed by the Court to pay for the

damages that may be suffered by Respondents as a consequence of the injunction

should this Court decide that Petitioners are not entitled to the same.

74. In view of the nature of this action, however, Petitioners request that the bond be

waived or that a nominal bond be fixed.

VI.Prayer

29 Cojuangco vs. PCGG, supra, citing Andaya vs. Provincial Fiscal of Surigao del Sur, 73 SCRA 131 (1976); Javier vs. Comelec, supra; Tuzon vs. Cruz, 66 SCRA 235 (1975); Mateo vs. Villaluz, 50 SCRA 18 (1973); Castillo vs. Juan, 62 SCRA 124 (1975); Paderanga vs. Azura, 136 SCRA 266 (1985); Dimacuha vs. Concepcion, 117 SCRA 630 (1982); Ignacio vs. Villaluz, 90 SCRA 16 (1979); Luque vs. Kayanan, 29 SCRA 165 (1969); Borromeo-Herrera vs. Borromeo, 152 SCRA 171 (1987); Floro Enterprises vs. Court of Appeals, 116 SCRA 479 (1982); Castro vs. Reyes, 104 SCRA 650 (1981); Bautista vs. Rebueno, 81 SCRA 535 (1978); People vs. Ocaya, 83 SCRA 218 (1977); Martinez vs. Gironella, 65 SCRA 245 (1975); Pimentel vs. Salanga, 21 SCRA 160 (1967); Paredes vs. Abad, 56 SCRA 522 (1974); Umale vs. Villaluz, 51 SCRA 94 (1903); Villapando vs. Quitain, 75 SCRA 25 (l977); and Gutierrez vs. Santos, 2 SCRA 249 (1961).



WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that the Honorable Court:

A. Give due course to this Petition;

B. Immediately restrain Respondent Prosecutors and Respondent Police

Officers from proceeding with the preliminary investigation on the charge of

rebellion of I.S. Nos. 2006-225, 2006-226, and 2006-234; or, in the event

that an information for rebellion is filed before this Petition is acted upon, to

restrain the prosecution of the cases;

C. After hearing, to issue writs of:

a) Certiorari , setting aside and annulling the 22 March 2006 Order

of Respondent VELASCO and the 4 April 2006 Order of

Respondent Panel of Prosecutors; and

b) Prohibition , prohibiting and preventing Respondent Prosecutors

and Respondent Police Officers from proceeding from continuing

with the preliminary investigation against Petitioners; or in the

event an information has been filed in court before this Court can

take action on this Petition, to prohibit and prevent Respondent

Prosecutors and Respondent Police Officers from prosecuting the

said criminal action.

Petitioners pray for such other relief as may be just and equitable under the

premises.

Quezon City, Makati and Pasig for Manila, 11 April 2006.

FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP (FLAG)Lead Counsel for Vicente P. LadladRoom 116, Alumni CenterMagsaysay Avenue, UP CampusDiliman, Quezon City 1101By:

JOSE MANUEL I. DIOKNORoll No. 35394IBP Life No. 00236 / PasigPTR No. A-7209442 / Quezon City / 1-10-06



FRANCISCO LAW OFFICECollaborating Counsel for Vicente P. LadladUnit 201, Liberty Building835 A. Arnaiz Avenue (Pasay Road)Legaspi Village, Makati CityBy:

ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR.Roll No. 36540PTR No. 4314538 / Imus, Cavite / 01-05-06IBP No. 663327 / Cavite / 01-05-2006

YORAC* ARROYO CHUA+

CAEDO & CORONELCollaborating Counsel for Vicente P. LadladUnit 3103-A West TowerPhilippine Stock Exchange CentrePasig City 1605By:

MA. PILAR MARTINEZ-CAEDORoll No. 35220PTR No. 2953084 / Pasig / 01-06-06IBP No. 08134185 / Rizal / 01-09-06

SANDRA MARIE OLASO-CORONELRoll No. 40316PTR No. 2953083 / Pasig / 01-06-06IBP No. 669021 / Rizal / 01-09-06

___________________________* Haydee B. Yorac (1941-2005)+William T. Chua (1955-2004)

FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP (FLAG)Lead Counsel for Randall B. EchanisRoom 116, Alumni CenterMagsaysay Avenue, UP CampusDiliman, Quezon City 1101By:

EDGARDO R. ABAYARoll No. 28355PTR No. 7162707 / Quezon City / 1-04-06IBP No. 666607 / Rizal / 01-05-06

MILAGROS C. AMARRoll No. 35559PTR No. 7277087 / Quezon City / 1-18-06IBP Life Roll No. 00219 / Quezon City / 1-10-06



PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTERCounsel for Rey Claro C. Casambre and Nathanael S. Santiago4th Floor, KAIJA Building7836 Makati Avenue cor. Valdez St.Makati CityBy:

RACHEL F. PASTORESRoll No. 39818PTR No. 9405802 / Makati / 1-05-06IBP No. 667559 / Makati / 1-05-06

Copy furnished:

Senior State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. VelascoDepartment of Justice, Padre Faura, Manila

Senior State Prosecutor Joselita C, MendozaSenior State Prosecutor Aileen Marie S. GutierrezState Prosecutor Irwin A. Maraya State Prosecutor Merba A. WagaDepartment of Justice, Padre Faura, Manila

Justice Secretary Rail M. GonzalezDepartment of Justice, Padre Faura, Manila

Police Director General Arturo C. LomibaoPNP HeadquartersCamp Crame, Quezon City

P/CSupt. Rodolfo B. Mendoza Jr.P/SSupt. Yolanda G. TaniguePNP DIDMCamp Crame, Quezon City

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )QUEZON CITY ) S.S.

VERIFICATIONAND

CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, VICENTE P. LADLAD, of legal age, Filipino, and with postal address at FLAG Office, Room 116, Alumni Center, Magsaysay Avenue, UP Campus, Diliman, Q.C., after being duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:

1. I am one of the Petitioners in the above-captioned case;

2. I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Injunction;

3. I have read and understood the contents hereof and the facts herein alleged, are true, correct to my own knowledge and belief;

4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues raised in the above-captioned case, in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof; or any other court, tribunal or agency;



5. Should it come to my knowledge that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof; or any other court, tribunal or agency, I hereby undertake to notify the court or tribunal taking cognizance of the above-captioned case of such fact within five (5) days from receipt of such knowledge.

I am executing this sworn statement in compliance with Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

VICENTE P. LADLAD Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me in Quezon City this April 10, 2006, affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate No. 24356277 issued on March 31, 2006 at Makati City.

Doc. No.Page No.Book No.Series of 2006.




VERIFICATIONAND


I, NATHANAEL S. SANTIAGO, of legal age, Filipino, and with postal address at FLAG Office, Room 116, Alumni Center, Magsaysay Avenue, UP Campus, Diliman, Q.C., after being duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:







NATHANAEL S. SANTIAGO Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me in Quezon City this April 10, 2006, affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate No. 12825548 issued on Feb. 23, 2006 at Quezon City.





VERIFICATIONAND


I, RANDALL B. ECHANIS, of legal age, Filipino, and with postal address c/o FLAG Office, Room 116, Alumni Center, Magsaysay Avenue, UP Campus, Diliman, Q.C., after being duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:







RANDALL B. ECHANIS Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me in Quezon City this April 10, 2006, affiant exhibiting to me the following:

Name CTC No. Date Issued

RANDALL ECHANIS Movie & Television Issued on Sept. 30, 2005 Review & Classification Expires on Sept. 30, 2006 Board ID # 0231

Doc. No.Page No.Book No.Series of 2006.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )QUEZON CITY ) S.S.

VERIFICATIONAND




I, REY CLARO CASAMBRE, of legal age, Filipino, and with postal address at FLAG Office, Room 116, Alumni Center, Magsaysay Avenue, UP Campus, Diliman, Q.C., after being duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:







REY CLARO CASAMBRE Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me in Makati City this April 10, 2006, affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate No. 21620038 issued on April 10, 2006 at Quezon City.


Documents

Petition to SC, filed April 17, 2006pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/SC_Certiorari_Ladlad_et_al.pdf · CPP/NPA to “raise the level of the people’s war and make all-around ... 1 Duterte vs