Filoteo Jr. v.

Sandiganbayan
G.R. 79543
Ponente: Panganiban, J.
Petition for certiorari or review on certiorari of Sandiganbayan decision
Facts:
Petitioner Jose Filoteo Jr., a police investigator of the Western Police
District, was accused of being the mastermind of the armed hijacking of a
postal delivery van.
o 3 May 1982 in Meycauayan, Bulacan, the Postal Delivery Truck of
the Bureau of Postal (driven by Miranda, Bautista and Tagudar) was
stopped, and the suspects (later identified as Frias, Liwanag,
Mendoza and Saguindel) took with them the truck, SSS Medicare
checks and vouchers, SSS Pension checks and vouchers, treasury
warrants, and several mail matters from abroad.
o The van was recovered at La Loma, Quezon City the following day,
although some checks and warrants were missing.
The Special Operations Group (SOG) of the Philippine Constabulary
received a tip from a civilian that two persons were looking for buyers of
stolen checks. The SOG, led by Capt. Ferrer and Lt. Pagdilao arranged a
meeting with the persons and confronted them regarding the
investigation, assuring Frias that his penalty will be mitigated if he
cooperated. He then led Ferrer to Perez and Mendoza, who also pointed to
Liwanag and Mateo. Liwanag, Mateo, Perez and Mendoza all pointed to the
petitioner as mastermind.
Filoteo admitted involvement in the crime and pointed to three other
soldiers as confederates (Saguindel, Relator and Miravalles). The petitioner
executed 2 documents on May 30, 1982, (1) that he was apprised of his
constitutional rights under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution,
and his waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code
(including his right to counsel) and (2) that he voluntarily surrendered the
checks and vouchers to the SOG. In a sworn statement in Tagalog (without
any counsel), he admitted to full knowledge and participation in the crime.
However, in his own defense, he stated that he only knew Mateo (and not
the others) because Mateo was an informer who was paid from time to
time by the police intelligence. He said he was in Lakan Beer House for a
friends birthday on May 3, 1982 from 3:30-5 and then 6-8 (the friend and
beer house owner also testified seeing him there). He also said that the
SOG refused to give any reason when they arrested him on May 29, and
that nobody apprised him of his constitutional rights. He claimed that he
was repeatedly coaxed to admit his participation in the hijacking and was
made to sign the sworn statement under duress (he was allegedly
electrocuted and water cured).
The Respondent Court found Filoteo guilty for brigandage (PD 532) and
sentenced to twelve years and one day to thirteen years, one month and
eleven days of reclusion temporal. He filed a motion for reconsideration
but was denied. He made an instant alternative petition for certiorari
charging the Sandiganbayan with having abused its discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction and with reversible error.
Issues:
Whether the SC is appropriate for this matter, which is technically over a
QUESTION OF FACT rather than a QUESTION OF LAW (since what is being

contested is Sandiganbayans misapprehension of facts in arriving at its

decision).
Whether the written statements, particularly the extrajudicial confession
executed by the accused without the presence of his lawyer, admissible in
evidence against him because it was done without counsel.
o The 1973 Constitution, Art. IV Section 20 allows for rights to be
waived whereas the 1987 Constitution, Art. III Section 12 does not
allow any right to be waived except in the presence of counsel
Whether the petitioners arrest was illegal.
Whether Art III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution can be applied
retroactively.

Held:
Yes. Although under Rule 45 in Rules of Court, the SC will only review
Sandiganbayan decisions that raise pure questions of law, under
exceptional circumstances the Court will also recognize questions of fact in
order to resolve legal issues if it seems like grave errors were committed
by the lower court. And in all criminal cases, a persons life and liberty are
at stake
Yes. It is admissible in evidence because his sworn statement and waiver
was made on May 20, 1982 when the 1973 Constitution was still in effect.
Also, the petitioners claim of being tortured to sign the statement was
invalid because it was negated by the medical reports and that his
consistency in handwriting showed that his signatures were written
voluntarily or not under torture. His alibi (birthday in Lakan Beer House)
did not prove anything as Lakan Beer House was a 30 minute drive to the
scene of the crime and he could easily have moved from one place to the
other.
No. The claim was belatedly made. He should have questioned the validity
of his arrest before he entered his plea in the trial court, otherwise his
objection is deemed waived.
No. Article 4 of the Civil Code (laws shall have no retroactive effect unless
the contrary is provided) and Article 22 of the RPC (penal laws shall have
a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony who
is not a habitual criminal) cannot be applied in this case because Article
III, Section 12 is not a penal statute.
Final Ruling of SC
Petitioner is found guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, he is found
guilty not of brigandage but of robbery (an isolated case of theft rather
than an organized banding for several indiscriminate thefts along
highways), reducing his punishment to four years and two months of of
prison correccional to ten years of prison mayor. (The other accused found
guilty are still guilty of brigandage, as they did not appeal the
Sandiganbayan decision.)