8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

1/48

DRILON VS CA

FACTS:

Private respondents were charged with dou!e "urder e#ore $i!itar% Co""ission and the "i!itar% pro"u!gated a decisionac&uitting Rau! Paredes ut sentencing Rodo!#o 'an(on to !i#e i"prison"ent with hard !aor) Paredes was thereuponre!eased #ro" custod% whi!e 'an(on was "ade to serve sentence unti! he was re!eased and p!aced under house arrestunder guard) 'an(on *oined the +i!usang ,agong Lipunan -+,L./ the part% in power/ where he was designated asca"paign "anager)

Ad"inistration has changed and a pre!i"inar% investigation against the private respondents #or the aove "urders wasordered) The private respondents "oved #or dis"issa!/ in 'an(on0s case/ on the ground that he had een e1tended anaso!ute pardon % the President Ferdinand $arcos/ and he/ having een previous!% convicted/ can no !onger e triedanew/ and in Paredes0 case/ on the ground that he had een ac&uitted) Tra"pe the prosecutor assigned in the case/however/ denied oth re&uests and reconsideration thus the private respondents went to the Court o# Appea!s on prohiitionwhich was a##ir"ed)

ISS23S:

45N the disposition o# the "urder cases % the "i!itar% does not prec!ude the #i!ing o# new in#or"ation % the civi!ian

govern"ent)

R2LIN':

As per Tan ru!ing/ wh% shou!d one who has accepted the *ustness o# the verdict o# a "i!itar% court who is satis#ied that hehad a #air hearing/ and who is wi!!ing to serve his sentence in #u!!/ e dragged through the harrow o# another hearing in acivi! court to ris6 eing convicted a second ti"e perchance to serve a heavier pena!t% 7 the court ru!ed that he privaterespondents0 case #a!!s s&uare!% within Tan0s ru!ing/ and as we to!erated no reinvestigation there/ we cannot to!erate onehere)

,ut ased on Cru( ru!ing/ petitioners in said proceedings 8who have een serving -ut not %et co"p!eted. their sentencei"prison"ent8 sha!! have 8the option either to co"p!ete the service their sentence/ or e tried anew % the civi! courts) 2ponconviction the% shou!d e credited in the service o# their sentence #or the period o# their previous i"prison"ent) 2pon

ac&uitta!/ the% shou!d set #ree/ the &uestion 45N with respect to 'an(on/ he has co"p!eted the service o# his sentence is"ateria! since i# he served his sentence/ the &uestion o# pardon is "oot and acade"ic)

The Court is o# the considered opinion that twin deve!op"ents 9 si1%ear service o# sentence and suse&uent re!easeunder house arrest9 are signi#icant in 'an(on case) Since i# then President $arcos ordered 'an(on0s re!ease a#ter si1%ears o# i"prison"ent/ he then President $arcos/ unavoida!% co""uted 'an(on0s i"prison"ent to si1 %ears -give or ta6ea #ew da%s./ a!though as a condition/ 'an(on sha!! re"ain under 8house arrest)8 Court is o# the opinion that i# 'an(on0ssentence had een co""uted/ he has there#ore served his sentence and i# he has served his sentence #u!!%/ he can no!onger e reinvestigated/ or/ as the Cruz cases decreed/ e "ade to 8co"p!ete the service o# ;his< sentence)8

The Court does not e!ieve/ in 'an(on0s case/ that co""utation o# sentence need e in a speci#ic #or") It is su##icient/ to"ind/ that 'an(on was vo!untari!% re!eased in =>?@ with ter"s or conditions/ e1cept that he shou!d re"ain under housearrest) ence/ the view o# the Court is that irrespective o# the 8pardon/8 'an(on has served his sentence and to reiterate/ he

can no !onger e reinvestigated #or the sa"e o##ense/ "uch "ore undergo #urther i"prison"ent to co"p!ete his service)

The Decision o# the Court o# Appea!s is AFFIR$3D) No pronounce"ent as to costs)

G.R. No. 143591 May 5, 2010

TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, JR., CORAZON M. BEJASA, ARTURO E. MANUEL, JR., ERIC L. LEE, P. SIERO!. DIZON, BENJAMIN DE LEON, DEL"IN C. GONZALES, JR., a#$ BEN %U LIM, JR.,Petitioners/vs)MAGDALENO M. PE&A a#$ !ON. MANUEL '. LIMSIACO, JR., a( J)$*+ D+(*#a-+ o -/+ M)#a Ta Co)-

# C-+(, Ba*o C-y,Respondents)

D 3 C I S I O N

PEREZ, J.:

The pivota! issue in this case is whether or not the Court o# Appea!s/ in its Decision=dated B une B in CA')R)SP No) E>/ is correct when it dis"issed the petition #or certiorari#i!ed % petitioners Teodoro C) ,or!ongan/ r)/Cora(on $) ,e*asa/ Arturo 3) $anue!/ r)/ ,en*a"in de Leon/ P) Siervo ) Di(on/ De!#in C) 'on(a!es/ r)/ 3ric L) Leeand ,en Gu Li"/ r)/ and ru!ed that the $unicipa! Tria! Court in Cities -$TCC./ ,ago Cit%/ did not grave!% ause itsdiscretion in den%ing the "otion #or reinvestigation and reca!! o# the warrants o# arrest in Cri"ina! Case Nos) @H/@E/ @/ and @)

The #actua! antecedents o# the case are as #o!!ows:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt1

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

2/48

Respondent Att%) $agda!eno $) PeJa -Att%) PeJa. instituted a civi! case #or recover% o# agentKs co"pensation ande1penses/ da"ages/ and attorne%Ks #eesBagainst 2ran ,an6 and herein petitioners/ e#ore the Regiona! Tria! Court-RTC. o# Negros Occidenta!/ ,ago Cit%) The case was ra##!ed to ,ranch B and was doc6eted as Civi! Case No) ?E)Att%) PeJa anchored his c!ai" #or co"pensation on the Contract o# Agenc%Ha!!eged!% entered into with the petitioners/wherein the #or"er undertoo6 to per#or" such acts necessar% to prevent an% intruder and s&uatter #ro" un!aw#u!!%occup%ing 2ran ,an6Ks propert% !ocated a!ong Ro1as ,ou!evard/ Pasa% Cit%) Petitioners #i!ed a $otion to

Dis"issE

arguing that the% never appointed the respondent as agent or counse!) Attached to the "otion were the#o!!owing docu"ents: =. a Letterdated => Dece"er =>>E signed % er"an Ponce and u!ie Aad on eha!# o#Isae!a Sugar Co"pan%/ Inc) -ISCI./ the origina! owner o# the su*ect propert% B. an unsigned Letterdated ?Dece"er =>>E addressed to Cora(on ,e*asa #ro" $ari!%n ') Ong H. a Letter?dated > Dece"er =>>E addressedto Teodoro ,or!ongan/ r) and signed % $ari!%n ') Ong and E. a $e"orandu"@dated B Nove"er =>>E #ro"3nri&ue $onti!!a III) Said docu"ents were presented in an atte"pt to show that the respondent was appointed asagent % ISCI and not % 2ran ,an6 or % the petitioners)

In view o# the introduction o# the aove"entioned docu"ents/ Att%) PeJa #i!ed his Co"p!aintA##idavit>with the O##iceo# the Cit% Prosecutor/ ,ago Cit%)=e c!ai"ed that said docu"ents were #a!si#ied ecause the a!!eged signatories didnot actua!!% a##i1 their signatures/ and the signatories were neither stoc6ho!ders nor o##icers and e"p!o%ees o#ISCI)==4orse/ petitioners introduced said docu"ents as evidence e#ore the RTC 6nowing that the% were #a!si#ied)

In a Reso!ution=Bdated BE Septe"er =>>@/ the Cit% Prosecutor #ound proa!e cause #or the indict"ent o# petitioners#or #our -E. counts o# the cri"e o# Introducing Fa!si#ied Docu"ents/ pena!i(ed % the second paragraph o# Artic!e =?Bo# the Revised Pena! Code) The Cit% Prosecutor conc!uded that the docu"ents were #a!si#ied ecause the a!!egedsignatories untruth#u!!% stated that ISCI was the principa! o# the respondent that petitioners 6new that the docu"entswere #a!si#ied considering that the signatories were "ere du""ies and that the docu"ents #or"ed part o# the recordo# Civi! Case No) ?E where the% were used % petitioners as evidence in support o# their "otion to dis"iss/ and thenadopted in their answer and in their PreTria! ,rie#)=HSuse&uent!%/ the corresponding In#or"ations=Ewere #i!ed withthe $TCC/ ,ago Cit%) The cases were doc6eted as Cri"ina! Case Nos) @H/ @E/ @/ and @) Therea#ter/udge Pri"itivo ,!anca issued the warrants=#or the arrest o# the petitioners)

On = Octoer =>>@/ petitioners #i!ed an O"nius $otion to Muash/ Reca!! 4arrants o# Arrest and5or ForReinvestigation)=Petitioners insisted that the% were denied due process ecause o# the nonoservance o# the proper

procedure on pre!i"inar% investigation prescried in the Ru!es o# Court) Speci#ica!!%/ the% c!ai"ed that the% were nota##orded the right to su"it their countera##idavit) Then the% argued that since no such countera##idavit andsupporting docu"ents were su"itted % the petitioners/ the tria! *udge "ere!% re!ied on the co"p!ainta##idavit andattach"ents o# the respondent in issuing the warrants o# arrest/ a!so in contravention with the Ru!es o# Court)Petitioners #urther pra%ed that the in#or"ation e &uashed #or !ac6 o# proa!e cause) $oreover/ one o# the accused/i)e)/ ,en Li"/ r)/ is not even a director o# 2ran ,an6/ contrar% to what co"p!ainant stated) Last!%/ petitioners positedthat the cri"ina! cases shou!d have een suspended on the ground that the issue eing threshed out in the civi! caseis a pre*udicia! &uestion)

In an Order=?dated =H Nove"er =>>@/ the $TCC denied the o"nius "otion pri"ari!% on the ground that pre!i"inar%investigation was not avai!a!e in the instant case 7 which #e!! within the *urisdiction o# the #irst!eve! court) The court/!i6ewise/ uphe!d the va!idit% o# the warrant o# arrest/ sa%ing that it was issued in accordance with the Ru!es o# Court)

,esides/ the court added/ petitioners cou!d no !onger &uestion the va!idit% o# the warrant since the% a!read% postedai!) The court a!so e!ieved that the issue invo!ved in the civi! case was not a pre*udicia! &uestion/ and/ thus/ deniedthe pra%er #or suspension o# the cri"ina! proceedings) Last!%/ the court was convinced that the In#or"ations containeda!! the #acts necessar% to constitute an o##ense)

Petitioners i""ediate!% instituted a specia! civi! action #or Certiorari and Prohiition with Pra%er #or 4rit o# Pre!i"inar%In*unction and Te"porar% Restraining Order -TRO. e#ore the Court o# Appea!s/ ascriing grave ause o# discretiona"ounting to !ac6 or e1cess o# *urisdiction on the part o# the $TCC in issuing and not reca!!ing the warrants o# arrest/reiterating the argu"ents in their o"nius "otion)=@The%/ !i6ewise/ &uestioned the courtKs conc!usion that % postingai!/ petitioners a!read% waived their right to assai! the va!idit% o# the warrants o# arrest)

On B une B/ the Court o# Appea!s dis"issed the petition)=>Thus/ petitioners #i!ed the instant petition #or review oncertiorari under Ru!e E o# the Ru!es o# Court/ raising the #o!!owing issues:

A)

4here the o##ense charged in a cri"ina! co"p!aint is not cogni(a!e % the Regiona! Tria! Court and not covered %the Ru!e on Su""ar% Procedure/ is the #inding o# proa!e cause re&uired #or the #i!ing o# an In#or"ation in court

I# the a!!egations in the co"p!ainta##idavit do not esta!ish proa!e cause/ shou!d not the investigating prosecutordis"iss the co"p!aint/ or at the ver% !east/ re&uire the respondent to su"it his countera##idavit

,)

Can a co"p!ainta##idavit containing "atters which are not within the persona! 6now!edge o# the co"p!ainant esu##icient asis #or the #inding o# proa!e cause

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt19

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

3/48

C)

4here there is o##ense charged in a cri"ina! co"p!aint is not cogni(a!e % the Regiona! Tria! Court and not covered% the Ru!e on Su""ar% Procedure/ and the record o# the pre!i"inar% investigation does not show the e1istence o#proa!e cause/ shou!d not the *udge re#use to issue a warrant o# arrest and dis"iss the cri"ina! case/ or at the ver%!east/ re&uire the accused to su"it his countera##idavit in order to aid the *udge in deter"ining the e1istence o#

proa!e cause

D)

Can a cri"ina! prosecution e restrained

3)

Can this onora!e Court itse!# deter"ine the e1istence o# proa!e causeB

On the other hand/ respondent contends that the issues raised % the petitioners had a!read% eco"e "oot andacade"ic when the !atter posted ai! and were a!read% arraigned)

On B August B/ this Court issued a TROB=en*oining the *udge o# the $TCC #ro" proceeding in an% "anner withCri"ina! Case Nos) @H to @/ e##ective during the entire period that the case is pending e#ore/ or unti! #urtherorders o#/ this Court)

4e wi!! #irst discuss the issue o# "ootness)

The issues raised % the petitioners have not een "ooted % the #act that the% had posted ai! and were a!read%arraigned)

It appears #ro" the records that upon the issuance o# the warrant o# arrest/ petitioners i""ediate!% posted ai! as the%wanted to avoid e"arrass"ent/ eing then the o##icers o# 2ran ,an6) On the schedu!ed date #or the arraign"ent/

despite the petitionersK re#usa! to enter a p!ea/ the court a &uo entered a p!ea o# 8Not 'ui!t%8 #or the")

The erstwhi!e ru!ing o# this Court was that posting o# ai! constitutes a waiver o# an% irregu!arit% in the issuance o# awarrant o# arrest/ that has a!read% een superseded % Section B/ Ru!e ==E o# the Revised Ru!e o# Cri"ina!Procedure) The princip!e that the accused is prec!uded #ro" &uestioning the !ega!it% o# the arrest a#ter arraign"ent istrue on!% i# he vo!untari!% enters his p!ea and participates during tria!/ without previous!% invo6ing his o*ectionsthereto)BB

As he!d in O6ae v) on) 'utierre(:BH

It ears stressing that Section B/ Ru!e ==E o# the Revised Ru!es on Cri"ina! Procedure is a new one/ intended to"odi#% previous ru!ings o# this Court that an app!ication #or ai! or the ad"ission to ai! % the accused sha!! e

considered as a waiver o# his right to assai! the warrant issued #or his arrest on the !ega!ities or irregu!arities thereon)The new ru!e has reverted to the ru!ing o# this Court in People v. Red) The new ru!e is curative in nature ecauseprecise!%/ it was designed to supp!% de#ects and cur evi!s in procedura! ru!es) ence/ the ru!es governing curativestatutes are app!ica!e) Curative statutes are % their essence retroactive in app!ication) ,esides/ procedura! ru!es asa genera! ru!e operate retroactive!%/ even without e1press provisions to that e##ect/ to cases pending at the ti"e o#their e##ectivit%/ in other words to actions %et undeter"ined at the ti"e o# their e##ectivit%) ,e#ore the appe!!ate courtrendered its decision on anuar% H=/ B=/ the Revised Ru!es on Cri"ina! Procedure was a!read% in e##ect) It ehovedthe appe!!ate court to have app!ied the sa"e in reso!ving the petitionerKs petition #or certiorari and her "otion #orpartia! reconsideration)1avvphi1

$oreover/ considering the conduct o# the petitioner a#ter posting her persona! ai! ond/ it cannot e argued that shewaived her right to &uestion the #inding o# proa!e cause and to assai! the warrant o# arrest issued against her % the

respondent *udge) There "ust e c!ear and convincing proo# that the petitioner had an actua! intention to re!in&uishher right to &uestion the e1istence o# proa!e cause) 4hen the on!% proo# o# intention rests on what a part% does/ hisact shou!d e so "ani#est!% consistent with/ and indicative o#/ an intent to vo!untari!% and une&uivoca!!% re!in&uish theparticu!ar right that no other e1p!anation o# his conduct is possi!e) 1 1 1)

erein petitioners #i!ed the O"nius $otion to Muash/ Reca!! 4arrants o# Arrest and5or For Reinvestigation on thesa"e da% that the% posted ai!) Their ai! onds !i6ewise e1press!% contained a stipu!ation that the% were not waivingtheir right to &uestion the va!idit% o# their arrest)BEOn the date o# their arraign"ent/ petitioners re#used to enter theirp!ea due to the #act that the issue on the !ega!it% o# their arrest is sti!! pending with the Court) Thus/ when the court a&uo entered a p!ea o# not gui!t% #or the"/ there was no va!id waiver o# their right to prec!ude the" #ro" raising thesa"e with the Court o# Appea!s or this Court) The posting o# ai! ond was a "atter o# i"perative necessit% to averttheir incarceration it shou!d not e dee"ed as a waiver o# their right to assai! their arrest) The ru!ing to which we havereturned in People v. RedBstated:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt25

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

4/48

1 1 1 The present de#endants were arrested towards the end o# anuar%/ =>B>/ on the Is!and and Province o#$arindu&ue % order o# the *udge o# the Court o# First Instance o# Lucena/ Ta%aas/ at a ti"e when there were nocourt sessions eing he!d in $arindu&ue) In view o# these circu"stances and the nu"er o# the accused/ it "a%proper!% e he!d that the #urnishing o# the ond was pro"pted % the sheer necessit% o# not re"aining in detention/and in no wa% i"p!ied their waiver o# an% right/ such as the su""ar% e1a"ination o# the case e#ore their detention)That the% had no intention o# waiving this right is c!ear #ro" their "otion o# anuar% BH/ =>B>/ the sa"e da% on which

the% #urnished a ond/ and the #act that the% renewed this petition on Feruar% BH/ =>B>/ pra%ing #or the sta% o# theirarrest #or !ac6 o# the su""ar% e1a"ination the #irst "otion eing denied % the court on anuar% BE/ =>B> -')R) No)HH?@/ page @./ and the second re"aining undecided/ ut with an order to have it presented in ,oac/ $arindu&ue)

There#ore/ the de#endants herein cannot e said to have waived the right granted to the" % section =H/ 'enera!Order No) @/ as a"ended % Act No) HEB)

The rest o# the issues raised % the petitioners "a% e grouped into two/ which are: -=. the procedura! aspect/ i)e)/whether the prosecution and the court a &uo proper!% oserved the re&uired procedure in the instant case/ and/ -B. thesustantive aspect/ which is whether there was proa!e cause to pursue the cri"ina! cases to tria!)

The procedura! aspect:

Petitioners contend that the% were denied due process as the% were una!e to su"it their countera##idavits and werenot accorded the right to a pre!i"inar% investigation) Considering that the co"p!aint o# Att%) PeJa was #i!ed inSepte"er =>>@/ the ru!e then app!ica!e was the =>@ Ru!es o# Cri"ina! Procedure)

The provisions o# the =>@ Ru!es o# Cri"ina! Procedure re!evant to the issue are Sections =/ H-a. and >-a. o# Ru!e==B/ to wit:

Section =) De#inition) Pre!i"inar% investigation is an in&uir% or proceeding #or the purpose o# deter"ining whetherthere is su##icient ground to engender a we!! #ounded e!ie# that a cri"e cogni(a!e % the Regiona! Tria! Court haseen co""itted and that the respondent is proa!% gui!t% thereo#/ and shou!d e he!d #or tria!)

Sec) H) Procedure) 31cept as provided #or in Section ? hereo#/ no co"p!aint or in#or"ation #or an o##ense cogni(a!e% the Regiona! Tria! Court sha!! e #i!ed without a pre!i"inar% investigation having een #irst conducted in the#o!!owing "anner:

-a. The co"p!aint sha!! state the 6nown address o# the respondent and e acco"panied % a##idavits o# theco"p!ainant and his witnesses as we!! as other supporting docu"ents/ in such nu"er o# copies as there arerespondents/ p!us two -B. copies #or the o##icia! #i!e) The said a##idavits sha!! e sworn to e#ore an% #isca!/state prosecutor or govern"ent o##icia! authori(ed to ad"inister oath/ or/ in their asence or unavai!ai!it%/ anotar% pu!ic/ who "ust certi#% that he persona!!% e1a"ined the a##iants and that he is satis#ied that the%vo!untari!% e1ecuted and understood their a##idavits)

Sec) >) Cases not #a!!ing under the origina! *urisdiction o# the Regiona! Tria! Courts nor covered % the Ru!e onSu""ar% Procedure)

-a. 4here #i!ed with the #isca!)9 I# the co"p!aint is #i!ed direct!% with the #isca! or state prosecutor/ theprocedure out!ined in Section H-a. o# this Ru!e sha!! e oserved

) The #isca! sha!! ta6e appropriate actionased on the a##idavits and other supporting docu"ents su"itted % the co"p!ainant) -underscoringsupp!ied.

The cri"e to which petitioners were charged was de#ined and pena!i(ed under second paragraph o# Artic!e =?B inre!ation to Artic!e =?= o# the Revised Pena! Code)

Art) =?B) Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents.9 The pena!t% o# prision correcciona! in its

"ediu" and "a1i"u" periods

and a #ine o# not "ore than P

/ pesos sha!! e i"posed upon:

=) An% private individua! who sha!! co""it an% o# the #a!si#ications enu"erated in the ne1t preceding artic!e inan% pu!ic or o##icia! docu"ent or !etter o# e1change or an% other 6ind o# co""ercia! docu"ent and

B) An% person who/ to the da"age o# a third part%/ or with the intent to cause such da"age/ sha!! in an%

private docu"ent co""it an% o# the acts o# #a!si#ication enu"erated in the ne1t preceding artic!e)

An% person who sha!! 6nowing!% introduce in evidence in an% *udicia! proceeding or to the da"age o# another or who/with the intent to cause such da"age/ sha!! use an% o# the #a!se docu"ents e"raced in the ne1t preceding artic!e orin an% o# the #oregoing sudivisions o# this artic!e/ sha!! e punished % the pena!t% ne1t !ower in degree)

Prision correcciona! in its "ediu" and "a1i"u" periods trans!ates to i"prison"ent o# B %ears/ E "onths and =da%)BThe ne1t !ower in degree to prision correcciona! is arresto "a%or in its "a1i"u" period to prision correcciona! in

its "ini"u" period which trans!ates to E "onths and = da% to B %ears and E "onthsB?o# i"prison"ent) Since the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt27

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

5/48

cri"e co""itted is not covered % the Ru!es o# Su""ar% Procedure/B@the case #a!!s within the e1c!usive *urisdiction o#the #irst !eve! courts ut app!%ing the ordinar% ru!es) In such instance/ pre!i"inar% investigation as de#ined in Section =/Ru!e ==B o# the =>@ Ru!es o# Cri"ina! Procedure is not app!ica!e since such section covers on!% cri"es cogni(a!e% the RTC) That which is stated in Section >-a. is the app!ica!e ru!e)

2nder this Ru!e/ whi!e proa!e cause shou!d #irst e deter"ined e#ore an in#or"ation "a% e #i!ed in court/ the

prosecutor is not "andated to re&uire the respondent to su"it his countera##idavits to oppose the co"p!aint) In thedeter"ination o# proa!e cause/ the prosecutor "a% so!e!% re!% on the co"p!aint/ a##idavits and other supportingdocu"ents su"itted % the co"p!ainant) I# he does not #ind proa!e cause/ the prosecutor "a% dis"iss outright theco"p!aint or i# he #inds proa!e cause or su##icient reason to proceed with the case/ he sha!! issue a reso!ution and#i!e the corresponding in#or"ation)

The co"p!aint o# respondent/ verati"/ is as #o!!ows:

CO$PLAINT 7 AFFIDAVIT

I/ $A'DAL3NO $) P3A/ Fi!ipino/ o# !ega! age/ with address at ,rg%) 2a%/ Pu!upandan/ Negros Occidenta!/ a#terhaving een sworn in accordance with !aw here% depose and state:

=) I a" the P!ainti## in Civi! Case No) ?E pending with the Regiona! Tria! Court o# ,ago Cit% entit!ed 8Att%) $agda!eno$) PeJa v) 2ran ,an6/ et a!8 I"p!eaded therein as de#endants o# the oard o# the an6/ na"e!%/ Teodoro ,or!ongan/

De!#in 'on(a!es/ r)/ ,en*a"in De Leon/ P) Siervo Di(on/ 3ric Lee/ ,en Li" r)/ Cora(on ,e*asa and Arturo $anue!)

-under!ining ours.

B) I #i!ed the said case to co!!ect "% #ees as agent o# 2ran ,an6/ Inc)-hereina#ter re#erred to as the 8an68. in riddinga certain parce! o# !and in Pasa% Cit% o# s&uatters and intruders) A certi#ied true cop% o# the Co"p!aint in the said caseis hereto attached as Anne1 8A8)

H) In the $otion to Dis"iss dated =B $arch =>> -a certi#ied true cop% o# which is attached as Anne1 8,8./ Answerdated B@ Octoer =>> -Anne1 8C8./ and PreTria! ,rie# dated B@ anuar% =>>? -Anne1 8D8. #i!ed % the an6 and the

respondent "e"ers o# the oard/ the said respondents used as evidence the #o!!owing docu"ents:

a) Letter dated => Dece"er =>>E supposed!% signed % a certain er"an Ponce and u!ie Aad #or Isae!a SugarCo"pan% -ISC. -a cop% o# which is attached as Anne1 838./ which states:

Dece"er =>/ =>>E2ran ,an62ran Avenue/ $a6ati$etro $ani!a

'ent!e"en:

This has re#erence to %our propert% !ocated a"ong Ro1as ,ou!evard/ Pasa% Cit% which %ou purchased #ro" Isae!aSugar Co"pan% under a Deed o# Aso!ute Sa!e e1ecuted on Dece"er =/ =>>E)

In !ine with our warranties as the Se!!er o# the said propert% and our underta6ing to de!iver to %ou the #u!! and actua!possession and contro! o# said propert%/ #ree #ro" tenants/ occupants or s&uatters and #ro" an% ostruction ori"pedi"ent to the #ree use and occupanc% o# the propert% and to prevent the #or"er tenants or occupants #ro"entering or returning to the pre"ises) In view o# the trans#er o# ownership o# the propert% to 2ran ,an6/ it "a% enecessar% #or 2ran ,an6 to appoint Att%) PeJa !i6ewise as its authori(ed representative #or purposes o#ho!ding5"aintaining continued possession o# the said propert% and to represent 2ran ,an6 in an% court action that"a% e instituted #or the aove"entioned purposes)

It is understood that an% attorne%Ks #ees/ cost o# !itigation and an% other charges or e1penses that "a% e incurredre!ative to the e1ercise % Att%) PeJa o# his aove"entioned duties sha!! e #or the account o# Isae!a Sugar Co"pan%and an% !oss or da"age that "a% e incurred to third parties sha!! e answera!e % Isae!a Sugar Co"pan%)

Ver% tru!% %ours/

Isae!a Sugar Co"pan%

,%:

3R$AN PONC32LI3 A,AD

) $e"orandu" dated ? Dece"er =>>E supposed!% e1ecuted % a certain $ari!%n Ong on eha!# o# ISC/ a cop% o#which is hereto attached as anne1 8F8/ which states:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt28

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

6/48

Dece"er ?/ =>>E

To: ATTG) CORA ,3ASA

Fro": $ARILGN ') ON'

R3: ISA,3LA S2'AR CO)/ INC)

Att%) $agda!eno $) PeJa/ who has een assigned % Isae!a Sugar Co"pan% inc) to ta6e charge o# inspecting thetenants wou!d !i6e to re&uest an authorit% si"i!ar to this #ro" the ,an6 to new owners) Can %ou p!ease issueso"ething !i6e this toda% as he -unreada!e. this)

) Letter dated > Dece"er =>>E supposed!% e1ecuted % the sa"e $ari!%n Ong/ a cop% o# which is hereto attachedas Anne1 8'8/ which states:

Dece"er >/ =>>E

Att%) Ted ,or!ongan2R,AN ,AN+ OF T3 PILIPPIN3S$A+ATI/ $3TRO $ANILA

Attention: $r) Ted ,or!ongan

Dear $r) ,or!ongan

I wou!d !i6e to re&uest #or an authorit% #ro" 2ran ,an6 per attached i""ediate!% 7 as the tenants are &uestioningauthorit% o# the peop!e who are he!ping us to ta6e possession o# the propert%)

$ari!%n Ong

c) $e"orandu" dated B Nove"er =>>E/ cop% o# which is attached as anne1 88/ which states:

$3$ORAND2$

To: Att%) $agada!eno $) PeJaDirector

Fro": 3nri&ue C) $onti!!a IIIPresident

Date: B Nove"er =>>E

Gou are here% directed to recover and ta6e possession o# the propert% o# the corporation situated at Ro1as,ou!evard covered % TCT No) H@B o# the Registr% o# Deeds #or Pasa% Cit%/ i""ediate!% upon the e1piration o# thecontract o# !ease over the said propert% on B> Nove"er =>>E) For this purpose/ %ou are authori(ed to engage theservices o# securit% guards to protect the propert% against intruders) Gou "a% a!so engage the services o# a !aw%er incase there is a need to go to court to protect the said propert% o# the corporation) In addition/ %ou "a% ta6e whateversteps or "easures are necessar% to ensure our continued possession o# the propert%)

3NRIM23 C) $ONTILLA IIIPresident

E) The respondent "e"er o# the oard o# the an6 used and introduced the a#orestated docu"ents as evidence inthe civi! case 6nowing that the sa"e are #a!si#ied) The% used thae said docu"ents to *usti#% their re#usa! to pa% "%agentKs #ees/ to "% da"age and pre*udice)

) The => Dece"er =>>E !etter -Anne1 38. is a #a!si#ied docu"ent/ in that the person who supposed!% e1ecuted the!etter on eha!# o# ISC/ a certain er"an Ponce and u!ie Aad did not actua!!% a##i1 their signatures on the docu"ent)The e1ecution o# the !etter was "ere!% si"u!ated % "a6ing it appear that Ponce and Aad e1ecuted the !etter oneha!# o# ISC when the% did not in #act do so)

) No persons % the na"e o# er"an Ponce and u!ie Aad were ever stoc6ho!ders/ o##icers/ e"p!o%ees orrepresentatives o# ISC) In the !etter/ er"an Ponce was represented to e the President o# ISC and u!ie Aad/ theCorporate Secretar%) owever/ as o# => Dece"er =>>E/ the rea! President o# p!ainti## was 3nri&ue $onti!!a/ III andCristina $onti!!a was the Corporate Secretar%) A cop% o# the $inutes o# the Regu!ar $eeting o# ISC #or the %ear =>>E/during which $onti!!a/ et a!) 4ere e!ected is hereto attached as Anne1 8I8) On the otherhand/ a !ist o# the stoc6ho!ders

o# ISC on or aout the ti"e o# the transaction is attached as Anne1 88)

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

7/48

?) The sa"e ho!ds true with respect to the $e"orandu" dated ? Dece"er =>>E and athe !etter dated > Dece"er=>>E a!!eged!% written % a ceratin $ari!%n Ong) Nood% % the said na"e was ever a stoc6ho!der o# ISC)

@) Last!%/ with respect to the supposed $e"orandu" issued % 3nri&ue $onti!!a/ III his signature thereon was "ere!%#orged % respondents) 3nri&ue $onti!!a III/ did not a##i1 his signature on an% such docu"ent)

>) I a" e1ecuting this a##idavit #or the purpose o# charging Teodoro C) ,or!ongan/ Cora(on $) ,e*asa and Arturo 3)

$anue!/ De!#in C) 'on(a!es r)/ ,en*a"in L) De Leon/ P) Siervo ) Di(on and 3ric Lee

/ with the cri"e o# use o##a!si#ied docu"ents under Arti!ce =?B/ paragraph B/ o# the Revised Pena! Code)-under!ining ours.

=) I a" !i6ewise e1ecuting this a##idavit #or whatever !ega! purpose it "a% serve)

F2RT3R AFFIANT SAG3T NA2'T)

Sgd) $A'DAL3NO $) P3A

It is evident that in the a##idavitco"p!aint/ speci#ica!!% in paragraph =/ respondent "ere!% introduced and identi#ied 8theoard o# the an6/ na"e!%/ Teodoro ,or!ongan/ r)/ De!#in 'on(a!es/ r)/ ,en*a"in De Leon/ P) Siervo Di(on/ 3ric

Lee/ ,en Li"/ r)/ Cora(on ,e*asa and Arturo $anue!/ Sr)8 owever/ in the accusator% portion o# the co"p!aint whichis paragraph nu"er >/ $r) ,en Li"/ r) was not inc!uded a"ong those charged with the cri"e o# use o# #a!si#ieddocu"ents under Artic!e =?B/ paragraph B/ o# the Revised Pena! Code) The o"ission indicates that respondent didnot intend to cri"ina!!% i"p!icate $r) ,en Li"/ r)/ even as he was ac6now!edged to e a "e"er o# the oard) Andthere was no e1p!anation in the Reso!ution and In#or"ation % the Cit% Prosecutor wh% $r) ,en Li"/ r) was inc!uded)$oreover/ as can e g!eaned #ro" the od% o# the co"p!aint and the speci#ic aver"ents therein/ $r) ,en Li"/ r) wasnever "entioned)

The Cit% Prosecutor shou!d have cautious!% reviewed the co"p!aint to deter"ine whether there were inconsistencieswhich ought to have een rought to the attention o# the respondent or/ on his own/ considered #or due eva!uation) Itis a ig "ista6e to ring a "an to tria! #or a cri"e he did not co""it)

Prosecutors are endowed with a"p!e powers in order that the% "a% proper!% #u!#i!! their assigned ro!e in thead"inistration o# *ustice) It shou!d e rea!i(ed/ however/ that when a "an is hai!ed to court on a cri"ina! charge/ itrings in its wa6e pro!e"s not on!% #or the accused ut #or his #a"i!% as we!!) There#ore/ it behooves a prosecutor toweigh the evidence carefully and to deliberate thereon to determine the existence of a prima facie case before filingthe information in court. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty)B>

Att%) PeJa/ in his Second $ani#estationHdated = une =>>>/ averred that petitioners/ inc!uding $r) ,en Li"/ r)/were a!read% estopped #ro" raising the #act that $r) ,en Li"/ r) was not a "e"er o# the oard o# directors o# 2ran,an6/ as the !atter participated and appeared through counse! in Civi! Case No) ?E without raising an% opposition)owever/ this does not detract #ro" the #act that the Cit% Prosecutor/ as previous!% discussed/ did not care#u!!%scrutini(e the co"p!aint o# Att%) PeJa/ which did not charge $r) ,en Li"/ r) o# an% cri"e)

4hat tainted the procedure #urther was that the udge issued a warrant #or the arrest o# the petitioners/ inc!uding/ $r),en Li"/ r) despite the #i!ing o# the O"nius $otion to Muash/ Reca!! 4arrants o# Arrest and5or For Reinvestigationraising a"ong others the issue that $r) ,en Li"/ r)/ was not even a "e"er o# the oard o# directors) 4ith the #i!ingo# the "otion/ the *udge is put on a!ert that an innocent person "a% have een inc!uded in the co"p!aint) In theOrderH=dated =H Nove"er =>>@/ in den%ing the "otion to &uash/ udge Pri"itivo ,!anca ru!ed that:

Courts in reso!ving a "otion to &uash cannot consider #acts contrar% to those a!!eged in the in#or"ation or which donot appear on the #ace o# the in#or"ation ecause said "otion is h%pothethica! ad"ission o# the #acts a!!eged in thein#or"ation 1 1 1) -citations o"itted).

4e cannot accept as "ere oversight the "ista6e o# respondent *udge since it was at the e1pense o# !iert%) Thiscannot e condoned)

In the issuance o# a warrant o# arrest/ the "andate o# the Constitution is #or the *udge to persona!!% deter"ine thee1istence o# proa!e cause:

Section B/ Artic!e III o# the Constitution provides:

Section B) The right o# the peop!e to e secure in their persons/ houses/ papers and e##ects against unreasona!esearches and sei(ures o# whatever nature and #or an% purpose sha!! e invio!a!e/ and no search warrant or warranto# arrest sha!! issue e1cept upon proa!e cause to e deter"ined persona!!% % the *udge a#ter e1a"ination underoath or a##ir"ation o# the co"p!ainant and the witnesses he "a% produce/ and particu!ar!% descriing the p!ace to esearched and the persons or things to e sei(ed)

Coro!!ar% thereto/ Section >-. o# the =>@ Ru!es o# Cri"ina! Procedure provides:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt31

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

8/48

Sec) >) Cases not #a!!ing under the origina! *urisdiction o# the Regiona! Tria! Courts nor covered % the Ru!e onSu""ar% Procedure)

-a. 1 1 1)

-. 4here #i!ed direct!% with the $unicipa! Tria! Court) 9 I# the co"p!aint or in#or"ation is #i!ed direct!% with the

$unicipa! Tria! Court/ the procedure provided #or in Section H-a. o# this Ru!e sha!! !i6ewise e oserved) I# the *udge#inds no su##icient ground to ho!d the respondent #or tria!/ he sha!! dis"iss the co"p!aint or in#or"ation) Otherwise/ hesha!! issue a warrant o# arrest a#ter persona!!% e1a"ining in writing and under oath the co"p!ainant and his witnessesin the #or" o# searching &uestions and answers)

3nshrined in our Constitution is the ru!e that 8;n

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

9/48

B) That the #a!se docu"ent is e"raced in Artic!e =?= or in an% sudivisions Nos) = or B o# Artic!e =?B)

H) That he introduced said docu"ent in evidence in an% *udicia! proceeding)E>

The #a!sit% o# the docu"ent and the de#endantsK 6now!edge o# its #a!sit% are essentia! e!e"ents o# the o##ense) TheO##ice o# the Cit% Prosecutor #i!ed the In#or"ations against the petitioners on the asis o# the Co"p!aintA##idavit o#

respondent Att%) PeJa/ attached to which were the docu"ents contained in the $otion to Dis"iss #i!ed % thepetitioners in Civi! Case No) ?E) A!so inc!uded as attach"ents to the co"p!aint were the Answers/ PreTria! ,rie#/ thea!!eged #a!si#ied docu"ents/ cop% o# the regu!ar "eetings o# ISCI during the e!ection o# the ,oard o# Directors and the!ist o# ISCI Stoc6ho!ders),ased on these docu"ents and the co"p!ainta##idavit o# Att%) PeJa/ the Cit% Prosecutorconc!uded that proa!e cause #or the prosecution o# the charges e1isted) On the strength o# the sa"e docu"ents/the tria! court issued the warrants o# arrest)

This Court/ however/ cannot #ind these docu"ents su##icient to support the e1istence o# proa!e cause)

Proa!e cause is such set o# #acts and circu"stances as wou!d !ead a reasona!% discreet and prudent "an toe!ieve that the o##ense charged in the In#or"ation or an% o##ense inc!uded therein has een co""itted % the personsought to e arrested) In deter"ining proa!e cause/ the average "an weighs the #acts and circu"stances without

restoring to the ca!irations o# the ru!es o# evidence o# which he has no technica! 6now!edge) e re!ies on co""onsense) A #inding o# proa!e cause needs on!% to rest on evidence showing that/ "ore !i6e!% than not/ a cri"e haseen co""itted and that it was co""itted % the accused) Proa!e cause de"ands "ore than suspicion it re&uires!ess than evidence that wou!d *usti#% conviction)=

As enunciated in ,a!ta(ar v) Peop!e/Bthe tas6 o# the presiding *udge when the In#or"ation is #i!ed with the court is #irstand #ore"ost to deter"ine the e1istence or none1istence o# proa!e cause #or the arrest o# the accused)

The purpose o# the "andate o# the *udge to #irst deter"ine proa!e cause #or the arrest o# the accused is to insu!ate#ro" the ver% start those #a!se!% charged with cri"es #ro" the triu!ations/ e1penses and an1iet% o# a pu!ic tria!)H

4e do not see how it can e conc!uded that the docu"ents "entioned % respondent in his co"p!ainta##idavit were

#a!si#ied) In his co"p!aint/ Att%) PeJa stated that er"an Ponce/ u!ie Aad and $ari!%n Ong/ the a!!eged signatorieso# the &uestioned !etters/ did not actua!!% a##i1 their signatures therein and that the% were not actua!!% o##icers orstoc6ho!ders o# ISCI)Ee #urther c!ai"ed that 3nri&ue $onti!!aKs signature appearing in another "e"orandu"addressed to respondent was #orged)These aver"ents are "ere assertions which are insu##icient to warrant the#i!ing o# the co"p!aint or worse the issuance o# warrants o# arrest) These aver"ents cannot e considered asproceeding #ro" the persona! 6now!edge o# herein respondent who #ai!ed to/ asica!!%/ a!!ege that he was present atthe ti"e o# the e1ecution o# the docu"ents) Neither was there an% "ention in the co"p!ainta##idavit that hereinrespondent was #a"i!iar with the signatures o# the "entioned signatories to e a!e to conc!ude that the% were #orged)4hat Att%) PeJa actua!!% stated were ut sweeping assertions that the signatories are "ere du""ies o# ISCI and thatthe% are not in #act o##icers/ stoc6ho!ders or representatives o# the corporation) Again/ there is no indication that theassertion was ased on the persona! 6now!edge o# the a##iant)

The reason #or the re&uire"ent that a##idavits "ust e ased on persona! 6now!edge is to guard against hearsa%

evidence) A witness/ there#ore/ "a% not testi#% as what he "ere!% !earned #ro" others either ecause he was to!d orread or heard the sa"e) Such testi"on% is considered hearsa% and "a% not e received as proo# o# the truth o# whathe has !earned)earsa% is not !i"ited to ora! testi"on% or state"ents the genera! ru!e that e1c!udes hearsa% asevidence app!ies to written/ as we!! as ora! state"ents)?

The re&uire"ent o# persona! 6now!edge shou!d have een strict!% app!ied considering that herein petitioners were notgiven the opportunit% to reut the co"p!ainantKs a!!egation through countera##idavits)

Muite noticea!e is the #act that in the !etter dated => Dece"er =>>E o# er"an Ponce and u!ie Aad/ neither o# thetwo "ade the representation that the% were the president or secretar% o# ISCI) It was on!% Att%) PeJa who assertedthat the two "ade such representation) e a!!eged that $ari!%n Ong was never a stoc6ho!der o# ISCI ut he did notpresent the stoc6 and trans#er oo6 o# ISCI) And/ there was neither a!!egation nor proo# that $ari!%n Ong was not

connected to ISCI in an% other wa%)lawphil

$oreover/ even i# $ari!%n Ong was not a stoc6ho!der o# ISCI/ such wou!d notprove that the docu"ents she signed were #a!si#ied)

The Court "a% not e co"pe!!ed to pass upon the correctness o# the e1ercise o# the pu!ic prosecutorKs #unctionwithout an% showing o# grave ause o# discretion or "ani#est error in his #indings)@Considering/ however/ that theprosecution and the court a &uo co""itted "ani#est errors in their #indings o# proa!e cause/ this Court there#oreannu!s their #indings)

Our pronounce"ent in i"ene( v) i"ene(>as reiterated in ,a!ta(ar v) Peop!e is apropos:

It is 1 1 1 i"perative upon the #isca! or the *udge as the case "a% e/ to re!ieve the accused #ro" the pain o# goingthrough a tria! once it is ascertained that the evidence is insu##icient to sustain a pri"a #acie case or that no proa!e

cause e1ists to #or" a su##icient e!ie# as to the gui!t o# the accused) A!though there is no genera! #or"u!a or #i1ed ru!e#or the deter"ination o# proa!e cause since the sa"e "uste decided in the !ight o# the conditions otaining in

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/may2010/gr_143591_2010.html#fnt59

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

10/48

given situations and its e1istence depends to a !arge degree upon the #inding or opinion o# the *udge conducting thee1a"ination/ such a #inding shou!d not disregard the #acts e#ore the *udge nor run counter to the c!ear dictates o#reasons) The *udge or #isca!/ there#ore/ shou!d not go on with the prosecution in the hope that so"e credi!e evidence"ight !ater turn up during tria! #or this wou!d e a #!agrant vio!ation o# a asic right which the courts are created toupho!d) It ears repeating that the *udiciar% !ives up to its "ission % visua!i(ing and not denigrating constitutiona!rights) So it has een e#ore) It shou!d continue to e so)

On the #oregoing discussion/ we #ind that the Court o# Appea!s erred in a##ir"ing the #indings o# the prosecutor as we!!as the court a &uo as to the e1istence o# proa!e cause) The cri"ina! co"p!aint against the petitioners shou!d edis"issed)

7!ERE"ORE/ the petition is here%GRANTED. The Decision o# the Court o# Appea!s dated B une B/ in CA')R) SP No) E>/ isREERSED andSET ASIDE) The Te"porar% Restraining Order dated B August B ishere% "ade per"anent) According!%/ the $unicipa! Tria! Court in Cities/ Negros Occidenta!/ ,ago Cit%/ ishere%DIRECTED toDISMISS Cri"ina! Case Nos) @H/ @E/ @ and @)

SO ORD3R3D)

G.R. No. 180823 Ma/ 3, 200

GLORIA PILAR S. AGUIRRE, petitioner/vs)SECRETAR% O" T!E DEPARTMENT O" JUSTICE, MIC!ELINA S. AGUIRRE:OLONDRIZ, PEDRO B. AGUIRRE,DR. JUIDO AGATEP a#$ DR. MARISSA B. PASCUAL,respondents)

D 3 C I S I O N

C!ICO:NAZARIO, J.6

In this petition #or review on certiorari=under Ru!e E o# the Ru!es o# Court/ as a"ended/ petitioner '!oria Pi!ar S)Aguirre -'!oria Aguirre. see6s the reversa! o# the B= u!% B DecisionBand Dece"er B Reso!ution/Hoth o#the Court o# Appea!s in CA')R) SP No) @@H?/ entit!ed 8$loria Pilar %. Aguirre v. %ecretary of the &epartment of'ustice( )ichelina %. Aguirre*+londriz( &r. 'uvido Agatep( &ra. )arissa . Pascual( Pedro . Aguirre and 'ohn and'ane &oes.8

The Court o# Appea!s #ound no grave ause o# discretion on the part o# the Secretar% o# the Depart"ent o# ustice-DO. when the !atter issued the twin reso!utions dated == Feruar% BEEand =B Nove"er BE/respective!%/which in turn a##ir"ed the @ anuar% BH Reso!utiono# the O##ice o# the Cit% Prosecutor -OCP. o# Mue(on Cit%)

The Assistant Cit% Prosecutor #or the OCP o# Mue(on Cit% reco""ended the dis"issa! o# the cri"ina! co"p!aint/

doc6eted as I)S) No) B=BE/ #or vio!ation o# Artic!es =?B -Fa!si#ication % Private Individua!s and 2se o# Fa!si#iedDocu"ents. and BB -$uti!ation./ oth o# the Revised Pena! Code/ in re!ation to Repu!ic Act No) ?=/ otherwise6nown as 8Child Abuse( "xploitation and &iscrimination Act/8 #or insu##icienc% o# evidence)

The case ste""ed #ro" a co"p!aint #i!ed % petitioner '!oria Aguirre against respondents Pedro ,) Aguirre -PedroAguirre./ $iche!ina S) AguirreO!ondri( -O!ondri(./ Dr) uvido Agatep -Dr) Agatep./ Dr) $arissa ,) Pascua! -Dr)Pascua!. and severa! ohn5ane Does #or #a!si#ication/ "uti!ation and chi!d ause)

The antecedents o# the present petition are:

Laureano 8Larr%8 Aguirre?used to e a charge o# the eart o# $ar% Vi!!a/ a chi!d caring agenc% run % the 'oodShepherd Sisters and !icensed % the Depart"ent o# Socia! 4or6 and Deve!op"ent -DS4D.) So"eti"e in =>?@/

respondent Pedro Aguirre the !atter0s spouse/ Lourdes S) Aguirre -Lourdes Aguirre. and their #our daughters/ whoinc!uded petitioner '!oria Aguirre and respondent O!ondri(/ ca"e to 6now Larr%/ who was then *ust over a %ear o!d)The Aguirres wou!d have Larr% spend a #ew da%s at their ho"e and then return hi" to the orphanage therea#ter) Inune =>@/ Larr%/ then two %ears and nine "onths o# age/ #or"a!!% eca"e the ward o# respondent Pedro Aguirre andhis spouse Lourdes Aguirre % virtue o# anAffidavit of Consent to ,egal $uardianshipe1ecuted in their #avor % Sister$ar% Concepta ,e!!osi!!o/ Superior o# the eart o# $ar% Vi!!a) On => une =>@/ the Aguirre spouses0 guardianship o#Larr% was !ega!i(ed when the Regiona! Tria! Court -RTC./ ,ranch H o# ,a!anga/ ,ataan/ du!% appointed the" as *ointcoguardians over the person and propert% o# Larr%)

As Larr% was growing up/ the Aguirre spouses and their chi!dren noticed that his deve!op"enta! "i!estones werere"ar6a!% de!a%ed) is cognitive and ph%sica! growth did not appear nor"a! in that 8at age H to E %ears/ Larr% cou!don!% craw! on his tu""% !i6e a #rog 1 1 18@he did not utter his #irst word unti! he was three %ears o# age did not spea6in sentences unti! his si1th %ear and on!% !earned to stand up and wa!6 a#ter he turned #ive %ears o!d) At age si1/ the

Aguirre spouses #irst enro!!ed Larr% at the Co!egio de San Agustin/ Das"ariJas Vi!!age/ ut the chi!d e1perienced

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt8

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

11/48

signi#icant !earning di##icu!ties there) In =>@>/ at age e!even/ Larr% was ta6en to specia!ists #or neuro!ogica! andps%cho!ogica! eva!uations) The ps%cho!ogica! eva!uation>done on Larr% revea!ed the !atter to e su##ering #ro" a "i!d"enta! de#icienc%)=Conse&uent thereto/ the Aguirre spouses trans#erred Larr% to St) ohn $a) Vianne%/ aneducationa! institution #or specia! chi!dren)

In Nove"er o# B=/ respondent Dr) Agatep/ a uro!ogist5surgeon/ was approached concerning the intention to have

Larr%/ then BE %ears o# age/ vasecto"i(ed) Prior to per#or"ing the procedure on the intended patient/ respondent Dr)Agatep re&uired that Larr% e eva!uated % a ps%chiatrist in order to con#ir" and va!idate whether or not the #or"ercou!d va!id!% give his consent to the "edica! procedure on account o# his "enta! de#icienc%)

In view o# the re&uired ps%chiatric c!earance/ Larr% was rought to respondent Dr) Pascua!/ a ps%chiatrist/ #oreva!uation) In a ps%chiatric report dated B= anuar% BB/ respondent Dr) Pascua! "ade the #o!!owingreco""endation:

;T

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

12/48

PSGCOLO'ICAL T3STS

Ps%cho!ogica! tests done on $arch / =>> -Dr) Lourdes Ledes"a. and on August E/ B -Dr) $a) Teresa'usti!oVi!!aosor. consistent!% revea!ed "i!d to "oderate "enta! de#icienc%)

SI'NIFICANT LA,ORATORG 3QA$S R3S2LTS

CT scan done > anuar% B= showed nonspeci#ic right deep parieta! sucortica! "a!acia) No !oca!i(ed "ass!esion in the rain)

$RI done on = anuar% B= showed i!atera! parieta! 1 1 1 vo!u"e !oss/ encepha!o"a!acia/ g!iosis andu!eg%ria consistent with se&ue!a o# postnata! or neonata! in#arcts) 31vacuo di!atation o# the atria o# !atera!ventric!es associated thinned posterior ha!# o# the corpus ca!!osu")

ASS3SS$3NT AND R3CO$$3NDATION

A1is I None

A1is II $enta! Retardation/ "i!d to "oderate t%pe

A1is III None

A1is IV None at present

A1is V Current 'AF

Larr%0s "enta! de#icienc% cou!d e associated with possi!e perinata! insu!ts/ which is consistent with theneuroi"aging #indings) $enta! retardation associated with neuro!ogica! pro!e"s usua!!% has poorerprognosis) Larr% is ver% "uch dependent on his #a"i!% #or his needs/ adaptive #unctioning/ direction and in"a6ing "a*or !i#e decisions) At his capacit%/ he "a% never understand the nature/ the #oreseea!e ris6s andene#its/ and conse&uences o# the procedure -vasecto"%. that his #a"i!% wants #or his protection) Thus/ theresponsii!it% o# decision "a6ing "a% e given to his parent or guardian)

$arissa ,) Pascua!/ $)D)Ps%chiatrist=B

Considering the aove reco""endation/ respondent Pedro Aguirre0s written consent was dee"ed su##icient in orderto proceed with the conduct o# the vasecto"%) ence/ on H= anuar% BB/ respondent Dr) Agatep per#or"ed ai!atera! vasecto"% on Larr%)

On == une BB/ petitioner '!oria Aguirre/ respondent Pedro Aguirre0s e!dest chi!d/ instituted a cri"ina! co"p!aint #or

the vio!ation o# the Revised Pena! Code/ particu!ar!% Artic!es =?B and BB/ oth in re!ation to Repu!ic Act No) ?=against respondents Pedro Aguirre/ O!ondri(/ Dr) Agatep/ Dr) Pascua! and severa! ohn5ane Does e#ore the O##iceo# the Cit% Prosecutor o# Mue(on Cit%)

The Co"p!aint A##idavit/=Hdoc6eted as I)S) No) B=BE/ contained the #o!!owing a!!egations:

B) 1 1 1 Dr) Agatep and Dra) Pascua! were -sic. "edica! practitioners specia!i(ing in uro!og% and ps%chiatr%respective!% whi!e respondent Pedro ,) Aguirre is "% #ather $iche!ina S) AguirreO!ondri( is "% sister/ andthe victi" Laureano 8Larr%8 Aguirre 111 is "% co""on !aw rother) ON and AN3 DO3S were the personswho/ acting upon the apparent instructions o# respondents $iche!ina AguirreO!ondri( and5or Pedro ,) Aguirre/actua!!% scouted/ prospected/ #aci!itated/ so!icited and5or procured the "edica! services o# respondents Dra)Pascua! and Dr) Agatep visvis the intended "uti!ation via i!atera! vasecto"% o# "% co""on !aw rother

Larr% Aguirre su*ect hereo#)

1 1 1 1

E) So"eti"e in $arch BB/ however/ the eart o# $ar% Vi!!a o# the 'ood Shepherd Sisters was #urnished acop% o# respondent Dra) Pascua!0s Ps%chiatr% Report dated B= anuar% BE % the 8DS4D/8 in which "%co""on !aw rother 8Larr%8 was #a!se!% and "a!icious!% dec!ared inco"petent and incapa!e o# purported!%giving his own consent to the $2TILATION VIA ,ILAT3RAL VAS3CTO$G intended to e per#or"ed on hi"% a!! the respondents)

1 1 1 1

) ,ased on the #oregoing charade and #a!se pretenses invaria!% co""itted % a!! o# the respondents inconspirac% with each other/ on H= anuar% BB/ "% co""on !aw rother Larr% Aguirre/ a!though o# !ega! age

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt13

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

13/48

ut conspiratoria!!% caused to e dec!ared % respondents to e 8"enta!!% de#icient8 and inco"petent to giveconsent to his ,ILAT3RAL VAS3CTO$G/ was then intentiona!!%/ un!aw#u!!%/ "a!icious!%/ #e!onious!% and5orcri"ina!!% p!aced therea#ter under surger% #or $2TILATION VIA 8,ILAT3RAL VAS3CTO$G8 1 1 1/ 3V3N4ITO2T ANG A2TORIATION ORD3R #ro" the '2ARDIANSIP CO2RT/ nor persona! consent o# Larr%Aguirre hi"se!#)

In addition to the aove/ the co"p!aint inc!uded therein an a!!egation that 7

v) 1 1 1 without a PRIOR "edica! e1a"ination/ pro#essiona! interview o# nor veri#ication and consu!tation with"% "other/ Lourdes SainoAguirre/ respondent Dra) Pascua! ase!ess!%/ #raudu!ent!% and with ovious intentto de#a"e and "a!ign her reputation and honor/ and worse/ that o# our Saido #a"i!%/ #a!se!% conc!uded anddiagnosed/ via her #a!si#ied Ps%chiatr% Report/ that "% "other Lourdes SaidoAguirre purported!% su##ers#ro" 8,IPOLAR $OOD DISORD3R8 1 1 1)

To answer petitioner '!oria Aguirre0s accusations against the"/ respondents Pedro Aguirre/ O!ondri(/ Dr) Agatep andDr) Pascua! su"itted their respective CounterA##idavits)

In her de#ense/=Erespondent O!ondri( denied that she 8prospected/ scouted/ #aci!itated/ so!icited and5or procured an%

#a!se state"ent/ "uti!ated or aused8 her co""on!aw rother/ Larr% Aguirre) Further/ she countered that:

H) 1 1 1 4hi!e I a" aware and ad"it that Larr% went through

a vasecto"% procedure/ there is nothing in theCo"p!aint which e1p!ains how the vasecto"% a"ounts to a "uti!ation)

1 1 1 1

) In an% case/ as I did not per#or" the vasecto"%/ I can state with co"p!ete con#idence that I did notparticipate in an% wa% in the a!!eged "uti!ation)

) Neither did I procure or so!icit the services o# the ph%sician who per#or"ed the vasecto"%/ Dr) uvidoAgatep 1 1 1) It was "% #ather/ Pedro Aguirre/ Larr%0s guardian/ who otained his services) I "ere!% acted

upon his instructions and acco"panied "% rother to the ph%sician/ respondents Dra) $arissa ,) Pascua! 1 11)

1 1 1 1

=) Neither does the Co"p!aint e1p!ain in what "anner the Co"p!ainant is authori(ed or has an% standing todec!are that Larr%0s consent was not otained) Co"p!ainant is not the guardian or re!ative o# Larr%) 4hi!e sheargues that Larr%0s consent shou!d have een otained the Co"p!aint does not dispute the ps%chiatrist0s#indings aout Larr%0s inai!it% to give consent)

1 1 1 1

=H) 1 1 1 the Co"p!aint does not even state what a!!eged participation was #a!si#ied or the portion o# theps%chiatric report that a!!eged!% states that so"eone participated when in #act that person did not soparticipate)

1 1 1 1

=) Again/ I had no participation in the preparation o# the report o# Dr) Pascua! 1 1 1)

1 1 1 1

=?) 1 1 1 the Co"p!aint does not dispute that he -Larr%. is "enta!!% de#icient or inco"petent to give consent)

1 1 1 1

=>) 1 1 1 I veri#ied that the e##ect o# a vasecto"% operation was e1p!ained to hi" -Larr%. % oth respondentdoctors)

B) 1 1 1 I acco"panied Larr% and oe%ed "% #ather on the e!ie# that "% #ather continues to e the !ega!guardian o# Larr%) I 6now o# no one e!se who asserts to e his !ega! guardian 1 1 1)=

A!!eging the sa"e state"ent o# #acts and de#enses/ respondent Pedro Aguirre argues against his co"p!icit% in thecri"e o# "uti!ation as charged and asserts that:

) In an% case/ as I did not per#or" the vasecto"%/ I can state with co"p!ete con#idence that I did not

participate in an% wa% in the a!!eged "uti!ation)=

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt16

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

14/48

Neverthe!ess/ he "aintains that the vasecto"% per#or"ed on Larr% does not in an% wa% a"ount to "uti!ation/ as the!atter0s reproductive organ is sti!! co"p!ete!% intact)=?In an% case/ respondent Pedro Aguirre e1p!ains that theprocedure per#or"ed is reversi!e through another procedure ca!!ed Vasovasosto"%/ to wit:

@) I understand that vasecto"% is reversiblethrough a procedure ca!!ed Vasovasosto"%) I can a!so state withcon#idence that the procedure ena!es "en who have undergone a vasecto"% to sire a chi!d) ence/

nopermanentda"age was caused % the procedure)

Respondent Pedro Aguirre cha!!enges the charge o# #a!si#ication in the co"p!aint/ to wit:

=E) 1 1 1 I did not "a6e it appear that an% person participated in an% act or proceeding when that person didnot in #act participate 1 1 1)

1 1 1 1

=) 1 1 1 I had no participation in the preparation o# the report o# Dra) Pascua!) She arrived at her reportindependent!%/ using her own pro#essiona! *udg"ent 1 1 1)

1 1 1 1

H=) 4hat I cannot understand aout Petita0s Co"p!aint is how Larr% is argued to e !ega!!% a chi!d under thede#inition o# one !aw ut nonethe!ess and si"u!taneous!% argued to e capacitated to give his consent as #u!!%as an adu!t)=@

Respondent Pedro Aguirre #urther c!ari#ies that coguardianship over Larr% had een granted to hi"se!# and his wi#e/Lourdes Aguirre/ wa% ac6 on => une =>@ % the Regiona! Tria! Court/ ,ranch H o# ,a!anga/ ,ataan) RespondentPedro Aguirre contends that eing one o# the !ega! guardians/ conse&uent!%/ parenta! authorit% over Larr% is vested inhi") ,ut assu"ing #or the sa6e o# argu"ent that Larr% does have the capacit% to "a6e the decision concerning hisvasecto"%/ respondent Pedro Aguirre argues that petitioner '!oria Aguirre has no !ega! persona!it% to institute thesu*ect cri"ina! co"p!aint/ #or on!% Larr% wou!d have the right to do so)

ust as the two preceding respondents did/ respondent Dr) Agatep a!so disputed the a!!egations o# #acts stated in theCo"p!aint) Adopting the a!!egations o# his corespondents inso#ar as the% were "ateria! to the charges against hi"/he vehe"ent!% denied #ai!ing to in#or" Larr% o# the intended procedure) In his counterstate"ent o# #acts he averredthat:

-. 1 1 1 I schedu!ed Larr% #or consu!tative interview 1 1 1 wherein I painsta6ing!% e1p!ained what vasecto"% isand the conse&uences thereo# ut #inding signs o# "enta! de#icienc%/ 1 1 1 I advised his re!atives and hisnurse who acco"panied hi" to have Larr% e1a"ined % a ps%chiatrist who cou!d proper!% deter"ine whetheror not Larr% 1 1 1 can rea!!% give his consent/ thus I re&uired the" to secure #irst a ps%chiatric eva!uation andc!earance prior to the conte"p!ated procedure)

-c. On anuar% B=/ BB/ I was #urnished a cop% o# a ps%chiatric report prepared % Dr) $arissa Pascua! 1 1 1)In her said report/ Dr) Pascua! #ound Larr% to su##er #ro" 8"enta! retardation/ "i!d to "oderate t%pe8 and#urther stated that 8at his capacit%/ he "a% never understand the nature/ the #oreseea!e ris6s and ene#itsand conse&uences o# the procedure -vasecto"%. 1 1 1/ thus the responsii!it% o# decision "a6ing "a% egiven to his parent or guardian 1 1 1)8

-d. 1 1 1 I was !i6ewise #urnished a cop% o# an a##idavit e1ecuted % Pedro Aguirre stating that he was the !ega!guardian o# Larr% 1 1 1 Pedro Aguirre gave his consent to vasecto"i(e Larr% 1 1 1)

-e. On!% then/ speci#ica!!% anuar% H=/ BB/ vasecto"% was per#or"ed with ut"ost care and di!igence)=>

In de#ense against the charge o# #a!si#ication and "uti!ation/ respondent Dr) Agatep argued that su*ect co"p!aint

shou!d e dis"issed #or the #o!!owing reasons:

=) The co"p!ainant has no !ega! persona!it% to #i!e this case) As "entioned aove/ she is on!% a co""on !awsister o# Larr% who has a !ega! guardian in the person o# Pedro Aguirre/ one o# the herein respondents 1 1 1)

B) 1 1 1 ;t

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

15/48

I uti!i(ed -sic. the sa"e in an% proceedings to the da"age to another) 1 1 1 I a!so den% using a #a!si#ieddocu"ent 1 1 1)

-c. $uti!ation) 1 1 1 Vasecto"% does not in an%wa% e&uate to castration and what is touched in vasecto"% isnot considered an organ in the conte1t o# !aw and "edicine/ it is &uite re"ote #ro" the penis 1 1 1)

-d. Chi!d Ause) 1 1 1 the co"p!ainta##idavit is ver% vague in speci#%ing the app!icai!it% o# said !aw) It "ere!%avers that Laureano 8Larr%8 Aguirre is a chi!d/ and a!!eges his #ather/ Pedro Aguirre/ has parenta! authorit%over hi" 1 1 1)B

Si"i!ar!%/ respondent Dr) Pascua! denied the cri"ina! charges o# #a!si#ication and "uti!ation i"puted to her) Shestands % the contents o# the assai!ed Ps%chiatric Report/ *usti#%ing it thus:

1 1 1 $% opinion o# Larr% Aguirre0s "enta! status was ased on "% own persona! oservations/ his responsesduring "% interview o# hi"/ the resu!ts o# the two -B. ps%cho!ogica! tests conducted % c!inica! ps%cho!ogists/the resu!ts o# !aorator% tests/ inc!uding a CT Scan and $RI/ and his persona! and #a"i!% histor% which Iotained #ro" his sister/ $iche!ina AguirreO!ondri( 1 1 1)

) 1 1 1 the re#erence in "% report concerning $rs) Lourdes Aguirre is not a state"ent o# "% opinion o# $rs)Aguirre0s "enta! status/ 1 1 1) Rather/ it is part o# the patient0s persona! and #a"i!% histor% as conve%ed to "e% $rs) AguirreO!ondri()

) 1 1 1 An e1pression o# "% opinion/ especia!!% o# an e1pert opinion/ cannot give rise to a charge #or#a!si#ication) A contrar% opinion % another e1pert on!% "eans that the e1perts di##er/ and does not necessari!%re#!ect on the truth or #a!sit% o# either opinion 1 1 1)

?) 1 1 1 I never stated that I e1a"ined $rs) Aguirre/ ecause I never did 1 1 1)

@) I had no participation in the surger% per#or"ed on Larr% Aguirre e1cept to render an opinion on his capacit%to give in#or"ed consent to the vasecto"% 1 1 1)

>) 4ithout ad"itting the "erits o# the co"p!aint/ I su"it that co"p!ainants are not the proper persons tosuscrie to the sa"e as the% are not the o##ended part%/ peace o##icer or other pu!ic o##icer charged with theen#orce"ent o# the !aw vio!ated 1 1 1)B=

The Assistant Cit% Prosecutor he!d that the circu"stances attendant to the case did not a"ount to the cri"e o##a!si#ication) e he!d that 7

;T

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

16/48

4hi!e the operation renders hi" the inai!it% -sic. to procreate/ the operation is reversi!e and there#ore/cannot e the per"anent da"age conte"p!ated under Artic!e BB o# the Revised Pena! Code)BE

The Assistant Cit% Prosecutor/Bin a Reso!utionBdated @ anuar% BH/ #ound no proa!e cause to ho!d respondentsPedro Aguirre/ O!ondri(/ Dr) Agatep and Dr) Pascua! !ia!e #or the co"p!aint o# #a!si#ication and "uti!ation/ "orespeci#ica!!%/ the vio!ation o# Artic!es =?B and BB o# the Revised Pena! Code/ in re!ation to Repu!ic Act No) ?=)

According!%/ the Assistant Cit% Prosecutor reco""ended the dis"issa! o# petitioner '!oria Aguirre0s co"p!aint #orinsu##icienc% o# evidence) The dispositive portion o# the reso!ution reads:

43R3FOR3/ it is reco""ended that the aoveentit!ed case e dis"issed #or insu##icienc% o# evidence)B?

On =@ Feruar% BH/ petitioner '!oria Aguirre appea!ed the #oregoing reso!ution to the Secretar% o# the DO %"eans o# a Petition #or Review)B@

In a Reso!ution dated == Feruar% BE/ Chie# State Prosecutor ovencito R) uJo/ #or the Secretar% o# the DO/dis"issed the petition) In reso!ving said appea!/ the Chie# State Prosecutor he!d that:

2nder Section =B/ in re!ation to Section ?/ o# Depart"ent Circu!ar No) ? dated u!% H/ B/ the Secretar% o#

ustice "a%/ motu proprio/ dis"iss outright the petition i# there is no showing o# an% reversi!e error in the&uestioned reso!ution or #inds the sa"e to e patent!% without "erit)

4e care#u!!% e1a"ined the petition and its attach"ents and #ound no error that wou!d *usti#% a reversa! o# theassai!ed reso!ution which is in accord with the !aw and evidenced -sic. on the "atter)B>

Petitioner '!oria Aguirre0s $otion #or Reconsideration was !i6ewise denied with #ina!it% % the DO in anotherReso!ution dated =B Nove"er BE)

Reso!ute in her e!ie#/ petitioner '!oria Aguirre went to the Court o# Appea!s % "eans o# a Petition #orCertiorari/Prohiition and )andamusunder Ru!e o# the Ru!es o# Court/ as a"ended)

On B= u!% B/ the Court o# Appea!s pro"u!gated its Decision dis"issing petitioner '!oria Aguirre0s recourse #or!ac6 o# "erit)

The falloo# the assai!ed decision reads:

43R3FOR3/ pre"ises considered/ the present petition is here% D3NI3D D23 CO2RS3 and according!%DIS$ISS3D #or !ac6 o# "erit) Conse&uent!%/ the assai!ed Reso!utions dated Feruar% ==/ BE and Nove"er=B/ BE o# the Secretar% o# ustice in I)S) No) B=BE are here% AFFIR$3D)H

Petitioner '!oria Aguirre0s "otion #or reconsideration proved #uti!e as it was denied % the appe!!ate court in aReso!ution dated Dece"er B)

ence/ the present petition #i!ed under Ru!e E o# the Ru!es o# Court/ as a"ended/ pre"ised on the #o!!owingargu"ents:

I)

T3 CO2RT OF APP3ALS CO$$ITT3D S3RIO2S/ 'RAV3 AND R3V3RSI,L3 3RRORS OF LA4 43NIT CONCL2D3D/ ,AS3D P2RPORT3DLG ON T3 INT3RN3T 4IC R2NS A$2C+ 4IT O2RSGST3$ OF T3 R2L3 OF LA4 AND T3 3VID3NC3 ON R3CORD/ TAT ,ILAT3RAL VAS3CTO$G ISP2RPORT3DLG =U R3V3RSI,L3 ,G A F2T2R3 $3DICAL PROC3D2R3 3NC3 NOT A$O2NTIN'TO $2TILATION/ Q Q Q AND

1 1 1 1

II)

4ORS3/ T3 CO2RT OF APP3ALS CO$$ITT3D 'RAV3/ S3RIO2S AND R3V3RSI,L3 3RRORS OFLA4 43N IT R3F2S3D TO DIR3CT T3 INDICT$3NT OF T3 PRIVAT3 R3SPOND3NTS FOR$2TILATION AND FALSIFICATION D3SPIT3 T3 3QIST3NC3 OF S2FFICI3NT PRO,A,L3 CA2S3T3R3FOR Q Q Q)H=

The #oregoing issues notwithstanding/ the "ore proper issue #or this Court0s consideration is/ given the #acts o# thecase/ whether or not the Court o# Appea!s erred in ru!ing that the DO did not co""it grave ause o# discretiona"ounting to !ac6 or e1cess o# *urisdiction when the !atter a##ir"ed the pu!ic prosecutor0s #inding o# !ac6 o# proa!ecause #or respondents Pedro Aguirre/ O!ondri(/ Dr) Agatep and Dr) Pascua! to stand tria! #or the cri"ina! co"p!aints o#

#a!si#ication and "uti!ation in re!ation to Repu!ic Act No) ?=)

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt31

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

17/48

In ru!ing that the DO did not co""it grave ause o# discretion a"ounting to !ac6 or e1cess o# *urisdiction/ the Court o#Appea!s e1p!ained that:

3vident!%/ the controvers% !ies in the per"anenc% o# steri!i(ation as a resu!t o# a vasecto"% operation/ and thechances o# restoring #erti!it% with a reversa! surger% 1 1 1)

4e sustain the DO in ru!ing that the i!atera! vasecto"% per#or"ed on Larr% does not constitute "uti!ationeven i# intentiona!!% and purpose!% done to prevent hi" #ro" siring a chi!d)

1 1 1 1

Steri!i(ation is to e distinguished #ro" castration: in the !atter act the reproductive capacit% is per"anent!%re"oved or da"aged)HB

It then conc!uded that:

The "atter o# !ega! !iai!it%/ other than cri"ina!/ which private respondents "a% have incurred #or the a!!egedasence o# a va!id consent to the vasecto"% per#or"ed on Larr%/ is certain!% e%ond the province o# this

certiorari petition) Out tas6 is con#ined to the issue o# whether or not the Secretar% o# ustice and the O##ice o#the Cit% Prosecutor o# Mue(on Cit% co""itted grave ause o# discretion in their deter"ining the e1istence orasence o# proa!e cause #or #i!ing cri"ina! cases #or falsificationand mutilationunder Artic!es =?B -B. andBB o# the Revised Pena! Code)HH

Petitioner '!oria Aguirre/ however/ contends that the Court o# Appea!s and the DO #ai!ed to appreciate severa!i"portant #acts: =. that i!atera! vasecto"% conducted on petitioner0s rother/ Larr% Aguirre/ was ad"ittedHEB. that theprocedure caused the perpetua! destruction o# Larr%0s reproductive organs o# generation or conceptionHH. that thei!atera! vasecto"% was intentiona! and de!ierate to deprive Larr% #orever o# his reproductive organ and his capacit%to procreate and E. that respondents/ 8in conspirac% with one another/ "ade not on!% one ut two -B. untruth#u!state"ents/ and not "ere inaccuracies when the% "ade it appear in the ps%chiatr% report8Hthat a. Larr%0s consentwas otained or at the ver% !east that the !atter was in#or"ed o# the intended vasecto"% and . that Lourdes Aguirre

was !i6ewise interviewed and eva!uated) Parado1ica!!%/ however/ petitioner '!oria Aguirre does not in an% wa% statethat she/ instead o# respondent Pedro Aguirre/ has guardianship over the person o# Larr%) She on!% insists thatrespondents shou!d have otained Larr%0s consent prior to the conduct o# the i!atera! vasecto"%)

In contrast/ the O##ice o# the So!icitor 'enera! -OS'./ #or pu!ic respondent DO/ argues that 8the conduct o#pre!i"inar% investigation to deter"ine the e1istence o# proa!e cause #or the purpose o# #i!ing -an. in#or"ation is the#unction o# the pu!ic prosecutor)8H?$ore i"portant!%/ 8the e!e"ent;s< o# castration or "uti!ation o# an organ necessar%#or generation is co"p!ete!% asent as he was not deprived o# an% organ necessar% #or reproduction/ "uch !ess thedestruction o# such organ)8H@

Li6ewise/ in support o# the decision o# the Court o# Appea!s/ respondents Pedro Aguirre and O!ondri( assert that/#unda"enta!!%/ petitioner '!oria Aguirre has no standing to #i!e the co"p!aint/ as she has not shown an% in*ur% to herperson or asserted an% re!ationship with Larr% other than eing his 8co""on !aw sister8 #urther/ that she cannotprosecute the present case/ as she has not een authori(ed % !aw to #i!e said co"p!aint/ not eing the o##endedpart%/ a peace o##icer or a pu!ic o##icer charged with the en#orce"ent o# the !aw) According!%/ respondents PedroAguirre and O!ondri( posit that the%/ together with the other respondents Dr) Agatep and Dr) Pascua!/ "a% not echarged with/ prosecuted #or and u!ti"ate!% convicted o#: =. 8"uti!ation 1 1 1 since the i!atera! vasecto"% conductedon Larr% does not invo!ve castration or a"putation o# an organ necessar% #or reproduction as the twin e!e"ents o# thecri"e o# "uti!ation 1 1 1 are asent8H>and B. 8#a!si#ication 1 1 1 since the acts a!!eged!% constituting #a!si#ication invo!ve"atters o# "edica! opinion and not "atters o# #act/8Eand that petitioner '!oria Aguirre #ai!ed to prove da"age toherse!# or to an% other person)

Respondent Dr) Agatep/ in the sa"e vein/ stresses that vasecto"% is not "uti!ation) e e!ucidates that vasecto"% is"ere!% the 8e1cision o# the vas de#erens/ the duct in testis which transport se"en8E=that it is the penis and the testisthat "a6e up the "a!e reproductive organ and not the vas de#erens and additiona!!% argues that #or the cri"e o#

"uti!ation to e acco"p!ished/ Artic!e BB o# the Revised Pena! Code necessitates that there e intentiona! tota! orpartia! deprivation o# so"e essentia! organ #or reproduction) Tues/ se"ina! ducts/ vas de#erens or prostatic urethranot eing organs/ respondent Dr) Agatep conc!udes/ there#ore/ that vasecto"% does not correspond to "uti!ation)

Anent the charge o# #a!si#ication o# a private docu"ent/ respondent Dr) Agatep asseverates that he never too6 part indisc!osing an% in#or"ation/ data or #acts as contained in the contentious Ps%chiatric Report)

For her part/ respondent Dr) Pascua! insists that the assai!ed Ps%chiatr% Report was the resu!t o# her independente1ercise o# pro#essiona! *udg"ent) 8Right!% or wrong!%/ -she. diagnosed Larr% Aguirre to e incapa!e o# givingconsent/ ased on interviews "ade % the ps%chiatrist on Larr% Aguirre and persons who interacted with hi")8EBAndsupposing that said report is #!awed/ it is/ at "ost/ an erroneous "edica! diagnosis)

The petition has no "erit)

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt42

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

18/48

Proa!e cause has een de#ined as the e1istence o# such #acts and circu"stances as wou!d e1cite e!ie# in areasona!e "ind/ acting on the #acts within the 6now!edge o# the prosecutor/ that the person charged was gui!t% o# thecri"e #or which he was prosecuted)EHThe ter" does not "ean 8actua! and positive cause8 nor does it i"port aso!utecertaint%)EEIt is "ere!% ased on opinion and reasona!e e!ie#Ethat is/ the e!ie# that the act or o"ission co"p!ainedo# constitutes the o##ense charged) A #inding o# proa!e cause "ere!% inds over the suspect to stand tria!) It is not apronounce"ent o# gui!t)E

The e1ecutive depart"ent o# the govern"ent is accounta!e #or the prosecution o# cri"es/ its principa! o!igationeing the #aith#u! e1ecution o# the !aws o# the !and) A necessar% co"ponent o# the power to e1ecute the !aws is theright to prosecute their vio!ators/E?the responsii!it% o# which is thrust upon the DO) ence/ the deter"ination o#whether or not proa!e cause e1ists to warrant the prosecution in court o# an accused is consigned and entrusted tothe DO) And % the nature o# his o##ice/ a pu!ic prosecutor is under no co"pu!sion to #i!e a particu!ar cri"ina!in#or"ation where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the aver"ents thereo#/ or that the evidence athand points to a di##erent conc!usion)

Put si"p!%/ pu!ic prosecutors under the DO have a wide range o# discretion/ the discretion o# whether/ what andwho" to charge/ the e1ercise o# which depends on a s"orgasord o# #actors which are est appreciated % -pu!ic.prosecutors)E@And this Court has consistent!% adhered to the po!ic% o# noninter#erence in the conduct o# pre!i"inar%

investigations/ and to !eave to the investigating prosecutor su##icient !atitude o# discretion in the deter"ination o# whatconstitutes su##icient evidence as wi!! esta!ish proa!e cause #or the #i!ing o# an in#or"ation against the supposedo##ender)E>

,ut this is not to discount the possii!it% o# the co""ission o# auses on the part o# the prosecutor) It is entire!%possi!e that the investigating prosecutor "a% erroneous!% e1ercise the discretion !odged in hi" % !aw) This/however/ does not render his act a"ena!e to correction and annu!"ent % the e1traordinar% re"ed% o#certiorari/asent an% showing o# grave ause o# discretion a"ounting to e1cess o# *urisdiction)

Prescinding #ro" the aove/ the court0s dut% in an appropriate case/ there#ore/ is con#ined to a deter"ination o#whether the assai!ed e1ecutive deter"ination o# proa!e cause was done without or in e1cess o# *urisdiction resu!ting#ro" a grave ause o# discretion) For courts o# !aw to grant the e1traordinar% writ o#certiorari/ so as to *usti#% thereversa! o# the #inding o# whether or not there e1ists proa!e cause to #i!e an in#or"ation/ the one see6ing the writ

"ust e a!e to esta!ish that the investigating prosecutor e1ercised his power in an aritrar% and despotic "anner %reason o# passion or persona! hosti!it%/ and it "ust e patent and gross as wou!d a"ount to an evasion or to auni!atera! re#usa! to per#or" the dut% en*oined or to act in conte"p!ation o# !aw) 'rave ause o# discretion is notenough)=31cess o# *urisdiction signi#ies that he had *urisdiction over the case ut has transcended the sa"e or actedwithout authorit%)B

App!%ing the #oregoing dis&uisition to the present petition/ the reasons o# the Assistant Cit% Prosecutor in dis"issingthe cri"ina! co"p!aints #or #a!si#ication and "uti!ation/ as a##ir"ed % the DO/ is deter"inative o# whether or not heco""itted grave ause o# discretion a"ounting to !ac6 or e1cess o# *urisdiction)

In ru!ing the wa% he did 7 that no proa!e cause #or #a!si#ication and "uti!ation e1ists the Assistant Cit% Prosecutorde!ierated on the #actua! and !ega! "i!ieu o# the case) e #ound that there was no su##icient evidence to esta!ish

aprima faciecase #or the cri"es co"p!ained o# as de#ined and punished under Artic!es =?B/ paragraph B/ and BB o#the Revised Pena! Code in re!ation to Repu!ic Act No) ?=/ respective!%) Concerning the cri"e o# #a!si#ication o# aprivate docu"ent/ the Assistant Cit% Prosecutor reasoned that the circu"stances attendant to the case did nota"ount to the cri"e co"p!ained o#/ that is/ the !ac6 o# consent % Larr% Aguirre e#ore he was vasecto"i(ed or the#act that the !atter was not consu!ted) The !ac6 o# the two preceding attendant #acts do not in an% wa% a"ount to#a!si#ication/ asent the contention that it was "ade to appear in the assai!ed report that said consent was otained)That wou!d have een an untruth#u! state"ent) Neither does the #act that the Ps%chiatric Report state that LourdesAguirre has ,ipo!ar $ood Disorder % the sa"e to6en a"ount to #a!si#ication ecause said report does not put #orwardthat such #inding arose a#ter an e1a"ination o# the concerned patient)Aproposthe charge o# "uti!ation/ he reasonedthat though the vasecto"% rendered Larr% una!e to procreate/ it was not the per"anent da"age conte"p!ated underthe pertinent provision o# the pena! code)

4e agree) 'rave ause o# discretion a"ounting to !ac6 or e1cess o# *urisdiction on the part o# the DO and theAssistant Cit% Prosecutor was not shown in the present case)

In the present petition/ respondents Pedro Aguirre/ O!ondri(/ Dr) Agatep and Dr) Pascua! are charged with vio!atingArtic!es =?B and BB o# the Revised Pena! Code/ in re!ation to Repu!ic Act No) ?=) Artic!e =?B/ paragraph B o# theRevised Pena! Code/ de#ines the cri"e o# #a!si#ication o# a private docu"ent/ vi( 7

Art) =?B) Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents) 7 The pena!t% o# prisioncorrecciona! in its "ediu" and "a1i"u" periods and a #ine o# not "ore than / pesos sha!! e i"posedupon:

1 1 1 1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_170723_2008.html#fnt52

8/14/2019 43054102-DRILON-VS-CA

19/48

B) An% person who/ to the da"age o# a third part%/ or with the intent to cause such da"age/ sha!! in an%private docu"ent co""it an% o# the acts o# #a!si#ication enu"erated in the ne1t preceding artic!e)

Petitioner '!oria Aguirre charges respondents with #a!si#ication o# a private docu"ent #or conspiring with one anotherin 6eeping Larr% 8in the dar6 aout the #oregoing -vasecto"%. as the sa"e was concea!ed #ro" hi" % therespondents 1 1 1/8Has we!! as #or #a!se!% conc!uding and diagnosing Lourdes Aguirre to e su##ering #ro" ,ipo!ar

$ood Disorder)