Facts: Petitioners
Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza are partners of the Law Firm of
Salonga, Hernandez and Allado. In the practice of their profession, and on the
basis of an alleged extrajudicial confession of a security guard, they have
been accused of the heinous crime of kidnapping with murder by the Presidential
Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) and ordered arrested without bail by respondent
judge.
The
focal source of the information against petitioners is the sworn statement of
Security Guard Escolastico Umbal in 1993, implicating them as the brains behind
the alleged kidnapping and slaying of one Eugen Alexander Van Twest, a German
national. In that extrajudicial
confession, he claimed that he and his companions were met by petitioners in
exchange for P2.5M, the former undertook to apprehend Van Twest who allegedly
had an international warrant of arrest against him. Umbal and his companions
blocked the foreigner’s vehicle and forced him into their car. They brought him
to a "safe house" and after 4 days, Umbal with the petitioners
interrogated Van Twest, pretending it was official, and then made him sign
certain documents. The following day, Van Twest was shot in the chest, stabbed
repeatedly, cut off his private part, and later burned his cadaver.
Petitioners
now contend that Judge Diokno acted with grave abuse of discretion and in
excess of jurisdiction in holding that there is probable cause against them
without determining the admissibility of the evidence and without even stating
the basis of his findings, and in relying on the Resolution of the Panel and
their certification that probable cause exists even though the certification is
flawed. They maintain that the records of the preliminary investigation which
Judge Diokno solely relied upon failed to establish probable cause in order to
justify the issuance of the warrant of arrest. They also assail the
prosecutors' clear sign of bias and partiality.
Issue: Is
there grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Diokno in holding probable
cause against them?
Held: Yes.
In Judge Diokno’s order, it is stated that the court believes and rules that
probable cause exists and therefore, a warrant of arrest should be issued. However, the court failed to see how the
judge came up with such ruling. Furthermore, the court also gave a number of
reasons why it considered the evidence submitted to be insufficient for a finding
of probable cause against the accused.
The
PACC relied heavily on the sworn statement of Security Guard Umbal. There is
serious doubt on Van Twest's reported death since the corpus delicti has not
been established, nor have his remains been recovered. Umbal claims that Van
Twest was completely burned. This is highly improbable. A human body cannot be
pulverized into ashes by simply burning it with the use of gasoline and rubber
tires in an open field.
And
even after Van Twest's reported abduction, his counsel continued to represent
him before judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, giving the notion that even
Asst. Solicitor General Estoesta believes that counsel of Van Twest doubted the
latter's death.
It
appears that Judge Diokno merely relied on the certification of the prosecutors
that probable cause existed. For, otherwise, he would have found out that the
evidence thus far presented was utterly insufficient to warrant the arrest of
petitioners.
In
the present case, it appears that the prosecutors misappropriated, if not
abused, their discretion. If they really believed that petitioners were guilty,
they should have armed themselves with facts and circumstances in support of
that belief and presented sufficient and credible evidence to demonstrate the
existence of probable cause.
No comments:
Post a Comment